-> I'd settle for a daylight tank or a changing bag.
-> Once you've got the negative, you can scan it and handle the rest of 
-> the process digitally.

I've never had luck scanning 35mm negatives.  I don't have a film scanner
designed specifically for that job, instead using an older Epson 1200 with
a light lid.  It does OK, I think I've posted a few comparison pictures
here on FONix back when we had an earlier discussion on the difference. The
negative had greater detail in the shadows than I could get from scanning
the drug store made print from it.  A film scanner would allow one to get
very nice results from slides or negatives, however the cost is to great
for a toy that would have limited use in my humble abode.

-> I'm not saying we should all switch to silver halide, just that an old 
-> camera can still do things.

Sure can.  I have several of them, even have color film in some of them, a
couple of polaroids even.  Agree a nice 16x20 well ferrotyped Kodabromide  
print is indeed an awe inspiring sight.  One can appreciate the talent of
the dark room mechanic who produced it only when seen up close and
personal.

Now if I had an old 4x5 view back, then maybe for fun, expose a few sheets
of film now and then. The files would be horrendous size if scanned to
digitally capture all the detail present. The detail could never be seen
over the web because the limitations of download time would make it a very
rare occurrence when anyone, even with a high speed connections, would want
to handle the 300 meg downloads. I don't know of a free web site house
where one could even store that size picture for download. And if they did,
monitor resolution would negate viewing the detail present in a whole.  To
appreciate the quality of the image would require one with a very good
printer and lots of skill to put it all together in the printing.

On high quality, I really enjoy taking my digital, sitting it on a tripod,
then shooting 15 or so images while moving the camera just enough to
capture a wide angle scene with a normal lens, then reassembling all those
digitals back together in the computer to create a highly detailed image
file of 80 to 100 megpixels when jpeg'ed. 

-> BG>  asking yourself along the way, what is it that I like about this
-> BG>  picture.  How did the photographer grab me this way.
-> 
-> That's good advice for the younger set, but some of us grew up 
-> seeing nothing BUT monochrome prints - some of them outstanding.

Chuckle.. I've seen and made a lot of them, I'm still learning though.

-> I think a return to the absolute basics of composition (for a while) 
-> could benefit many modern snappers...

Many don't understand what they are.  It easier to learn composition in an
art class than with a camera. In an art class you can allow your self to
create well composed things just for fun, with a camera, you can only
create good composition through selectivity.  Harder to achieve when the
subject is fleeting and the trigger finger is itchy.  

-> BG>  Just my opinions on the subject.  But then I look at old cars as
-> BG>  difficult to steer, stop and keep running contraptions.  If your
-> BG>  in it for the nostalgia, get the juice and trays, then have a blast.
-> 
-> LIS, it's way to refresh ones understanding of the artform 
-> of previous centuries...
-> And a cheap way to use an old film camera.

Agree with the first part, but have you priced B&W film lately.  Silver is
more expensive than dye. 

Take Care 

Bobfer
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5