Haven't quite figured out if the original poster is just being obstinate, retarded, or is trying to play a joke. However, I'll play along and set the facts straight on pretty much everything Sinwen claimed.
Even if we assume some mythical resurgence of film, where are you going to get it printed? You see, virtually all modern minilabs are now entirely digital and use mediocre scanners to aquire neg film because they print digitally. Optical based minilabs now occupy landfills and scrap yards because they are no longer as cost effective nor as flexible as modern mini-labs such as the Fuji Frontier. In fact, 80% of lab owners I've talked to are dumping their film processing services because they aren't making money on it.
Because of the above, sending native digital files to a digital printer, especially a closed loop one at a mini-lab, will result in far superior prints than screwing around with 35mm film because the lab has to convert the film to digital anyways, and that costs quality. Time and again I've listened to lab owners claim that cheap point and shoot digital cameras were producing betting prints from their digital labs than low speed color neg film taken with top notch gear because of the extra problems when it comes scanning print film.
The only way to get around the above is to buy your own film scanner and fart around dust spotting, profiles, de-grain filters, and Fuji and Kodak's constant emulsion changes. I've yet to encounter anybody in this forum besides myself that has any experience with conventional optical color printing, so lets throw that out. Frankly I have trouble calling anybody who takes color film to a lab to have it printed a 'photographer' anyways and would prefer to call them a consumer with a camera they don't know how to use.
Contrary to this, most experienced digital shooters have complete control of their image form start to finish while 'film worshippers' still can't make a color print without the technical services of a minimum wage teenager making decisions from them. This fact alone should end any debate on the subject and shows that 'film worshippers' are really just looking to blame for their lack of real skill.
So, to go 'back to film' from the photofinishing industry perspective has about as much chance as manufacturing moving from China to the U.S. You will always have weirdos conventionally printing B&W in their basement and fussing with B&W chems just to call themselvs 'fine art'. Mainly because they lack the brain cells to produce a color print anybody would want.
The archival debate is crude joke for the technically challenged. First, Fuji, and especially Kodak have only recently began to use archival dyes in their color materials. Kodak as late as the mid 90's was producing E-6, RA-4 and C-41 processed emulsions that were lucky to make it into the next decade without 15% dye failure. I have tons of colr negs and E-6 slides from the 80's and 90's, and much of the Kodak film (and prints) has already shown signs of degrading. Have a 16x20 on your wall printed on Kodak Supra paper Circa 1995'? Is that red or brown in the print because the magenta layer has degraded so badly I can no longer tell the difference. At least Fuji figured out how to get their FA-5 paper dyes stable beyond 25years.
Which pretty much leaves slide shooters as the only film hold outs, but you are back again to either scanning the film with a digital camera (scanner) to get a print from it, or doing nothing with it other than bragging about how good it looks while squinting at it with a loupe on al ight table.
. Mostly for people who sucked at film based photography and looking for some type of excuse to blame digital photographers for taking better pictures than them.
