John, as usual your work speaks for itself. It's the photographer getting out there and doing it that matters, and you've certainly done that and done it well.
As for your scanner not being cutting edge, you might be surprised how close it is. Unlike digital cameras, desktop film scanners haven't really changed much over the last several years. Newer models have some features and tweaks and perhaps a touch more real-world Dmax, and most scanning software's seen some improvements, but the underlying technology's pretty stable. Flatbeds have certainly seen some impressive quality improvements, however.
Your comments about photographer vs gear reminds me of the old comment that's been heard at one time or another by most who're fairly serious about their photography. "Wow, great picture! You must have a really good camera." Grrrr!
Like any good tool, good photo gear can help a good photographer be better (or at least work more efficiently/easily), but that's about it. While some of us gear-heads might lust after the lastest new photo-toy, as you imply most of us don't use the full potential of the gear we have.
I moved to Canon gear when I bought my first digital SLR a few years back, but my 35mm film body is still a trusty Nikon 8008s, just like yours. It's battle-scarred, but still works as well as the day I bought it, and despite digital sharing the camera bag (and having to carry two sets of lenses), it still sees moderately heavy use. There're some nice advantages to shooting digitally, but...
One of the big reasons I still shoot film brings me around to your earlier comment about slide shows and an eventual conversion to digital presentations. If it were me, I'd hang on to your old-tech slide presentations as long as possible. I'm a big proponent of the digital darkroom and good quality scanners and so forth, because I believe they allow me to make the best prints I've ever been able to make - especially from color transparencies which've always been difficult to coax good prints out of.
But there's nothing like looking at a new batch of transparencies on the light table, just as nothing can compare to a slide projected in a good dark room with a quality projector. Even the most carefully digitized slide (or a digital capture from even the best digital camera) still can't compare to the vibrant colors and tonal subtleties of a good 'chrome no matter how good the technology used to create it.
Yeah, you can do some really nice presentations given good software and all, and the digital images can look really good on a decent video projector, but nothing can beat the look of a first generation color transparency. At least not yet.
A while back, National Geographic did an extensive writeup on their first all-digital photo shoot. I recall that one of the biggest issues they faced in the transition was the editors having to adjust to the fact that the out-of-the-camera projected digital images they were reviewing just didn't have the initial snap they were used to seeing from transparencies on first review. Sure, the digitals looked every bit as good once prepped and in publication, but...
Don't lose that slide projector just yet.
Scott
