If digital works for you and you have money then it is perfectly logical to go that route.
How much would you like to bet right here that I (or anybody else) can post a better image from our $1,000-500 dSLRs than *ANY* film scan you can post? Realizing every digital forum has to have a couple film trolls looking for attention, am I the only one who finds this annoying? The more annoying thing is you don't know anything about classic chemical photography either.
hence we are more incline to stick with traditional film and Cibachrome prints.
Cibachrome printing was phased out over a decade ago, and as of present I don't know of any professional lab in the U.S. using the process. The material, which is actually known as 'Ilfochrome' if you knew what you were talking about went obsolete when labs figured out they could scan trannnies and out-put to LightJets on C-type media from the more controlled RA-4 process. No more need for contrast masks and funky R-type printing. I used to print Ciba's commercially, until we got our first Howtek drum, and then the process died.
No self respecting professional photographer I knew of messed with Cibas post film scanner. Next to Tiger Wood's career I don't know of a product that died so fast. Epson Ultrchrome Inks actually have a better gamut (aside from magenta) and better archival characteristics. If you liked raunchy, inaccurate color and blown highlights it's the process for you. The best Cibachrome you'll ever see would get rocks thrown at it if you put in a a gallery compared to a metal transfer print made from a T3i.
Also, I'm capable of printing my own color MF and LF negs to fine art standards in a darkroom, and calibrate all the enlargers and chemistry lines. Good bet if you actually have your film printed you have a mini-lab do it for you.
Or, they most likely just throw it on a cheap scanner and digitally print it.
9600 x 9600 (Optical) dpi1 for $174.99
If you read the instructions on the scanner, it's actually 2400dpi NATIVE resolution. It's not 9600, which is interpolated. Also, reviews of the Canon along with the Epson show them to be around 1800 fuzzy DPI. If I have to scan I'll at least use an Imacon, or Tango Drum, which at 4000-5000 dpi NATIVE dpi shows the molecules on the edges of film grain they are so sharp. Even so, my 60D out-put keeps up marvelously and is only edged out by my 6x7 scans.
Last, a film scanner *is* a digital camera, and nobody with common sense can justify taking a digital sample of industrial film dye over a digital sample of the original scene. It's moronic basically, which is why the only legitimate film shooters I know of stick to 4x5, and that's mostly because of perspective controls (they don't like doing it in software).
As I instructed the OP, film requires a scanner costing in excess of $10,000 to truly compete with the newer FF and MF digital cameras. Or, you can send your film out to be scanned, which means you're stuck to shooting transparency because no commercial drum lab is going to screw with print film profiles.
Please adjust your panties.
At least I can (1) afford underwear and (2) don't hang out in digital forums talking about chemical based processing and film with no clue as to how it works.