To get the best image quality in a given size of film, you simply buy the right film.
To get the same image quality of a Fuji GFX 100S, you basically need 4x5 film, which is roughly $225 per pack (100 sheets). 8x10? That's roughly $200 per 10 sheets.
No, you don't need 4x5 at all, drum scanned film medium format can be printed to any size you'd ever need for print.
If you wan to dip a toe in the past and drum scan, ok, let's go there - So you're saying a drum scanned print from the 6x7 is going to give me the same large detail as a drum scanned print from a 4x5 or 8x10?
That being said, the reason for using medium format is for bigger prints AND tonality etc. The bigger the surface area the more light you're capturing and in turn, the better quality you get.
Most people don't print to huge sizes, so it's the tonality and other qualities that they shoot medium format for, and medium format film is more than good enough to satisfy that demand.
I shoot medium format mainly - I'm aware of the practical advantages however that's not what the thread is about. The thread is about Practical AND financially viable reasons to shoot film.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/24748-REG/Ilford_1629181_HP5_Plus_4x5_100.html
So for every 500 photos, you've paid a pre-tax of $1,125, before scanning or dealing with your local service bureau... and that's 4x5.... try shooting at least 20 sheets of 8x10 monthly.. that's over $400 monthly - in just film alone you've purchased a Fuji GFX 100s after shooting (very lightly) for 18 months.
The most obvious factor that keeps most people from shooting the better, and larger films is cost.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...MIhsyInOyc9gIVfAytBh3nUgJCEAQYBCABEgJB2PD_BwE
This is a most fallacious argument, you do not need 4x5 or 8x10, that's just a personal choice, as per my comments above, and you certainly don't shoot hundreds of sheets a month.
By definition there isn't anything fallacious about my true and reasonable statement. There isn't an argument to be made of the simple math. It's not unreasonable for a hobbyist to shoot 500 shots per annum; 42 shots per month. It's definitely not unreasonable for a hobbyist to shoot 20 sheets monthly of 8x10. Some shoot more/less, but there's nothing unreasonable about my statement or inaccurate about my math.
Teila: "The most obvious factor that keeps most people from shooting the better, and larger films is cost." Do you really want to refute that statement?
You can shoot medium format film cheaply once you have the camera and lenses, which can also be very cheap. If you home develop you can save time and cost as well.
Ok, now we're getting ridiculous. The OP isn't talking about a sliver of the film using demographic that is (1) willing to allot space, and buy chemicals or scanner to process their own film (2) who actually want to process their own film. The OP is talking
overall whether or not film is practical (most probably don't find it practical AND financially viable) to process film in their house (which they probably rent) or an apartment.
The main reason people avoid film is the time, inconvenience, and extra effort required, it's very easy to make it a cost effective endeavour if you want to, over time, you just don't shoot the volume you would on digital.
.... My point exactly. I can walk to all of my location shoots to safe fuel (especially in California) but it would cost me more time, inconvenience, and extra effort.... (here it comes) ... which makes it -- not practical --. The OP specifically asks about Practical AND Financially viable reasons to shoot film.
For pros? Maybe not. For hobbyists? Absolutely.
Aaron
Most people shooting film as much as a person would typically shoot a
comparable digital body, can't usually make a compelling case for the cost of film being more "practical" and "financially viable".. most of us know that.
People who shoot film these days accept the rigour it requires, and many will even cite that as a reason for doing it, it's more challenging, that's part of the fun, shooting digital can be a soulless experience in comparison. I shoot both, depending on conditions and how the mood takes me.
Which isn't relevant to the OP's question.
Digital can be equally expensive when you factor in software, computing requirements etc etc, but can also be done very cheaply with some effort.
Hmmm... So you're saying that someone shooting 120 film, the same frequency of someone shooting medium format digital, will come out cheaper than someone shooting a Fuji GFX 50s or Pentax 645Z? I'd like to see your math on that assertion and how it fits into the Practical/Financially viable bucket.
It goes without saying that I can save money shooting large format by shooting 2-5 frames a month, but I don't think
most shooting medium/large format as a hobby would consider that fun or even hobby-like.
Ultimately convenience wins for most people, who are inherently lazy. They'd rather be sat in front of a TV being brainwashed, than learning a craft such as Darkroom printing.
I agree that people are mostly lazy, but not in this case.. I think people are mostly keen on not doing the ridiculous. The average Joe isn't going to learn archaic dark room printing, when to most people, it does not seem to offer an aesthetic advantage over far quicker modern methods and or does not offer an aesthetic advantage worth paying for when compared to pigment ink prints.
Shooting film doesn't have to be prohibitively expensive, and for some, in the long term it can be cheaper, but it requires discipline and effort, that's the bit most people don't like.
Yes, kind of like walking or riding a bike to work daily. It
can be done, cheaply, and with more effort... but, you know.. that flies in the face of what most reasonable adults consider
practical... which nullifies the condition that the OP made clear in the title of the thread, which he tethered practicality and financially viable, at the hip.
). The same formal steps (technical check and approval) are still there, but because it’s so easy all the words are “polished” until they shine (or so people like to think 
