Originally Posted by David Hall
Color negative film will be a cheaper way to obtain a good quality print, optically produced, to hang on the wall.
Scans can be done from transparencies or color negs, though the scanners say you will get better results from transparencies.
Color neg will hold a greater exposure range, but, as you say, at the expense of some vibrancy. It will also depend on how prolific you intend to be, prices for scans/prints add up quickly.
If I were going on vacation, I would want to make sure I got good results, with color neg film, rather than hope for ideal conditions to fully exploit color slide film. The weather would have to be right and you'd better practice with your graduated neutral density filters, to handle the dynamic range.
So now it comes down to a question of format. If you're shooting sheet film, better to use Fuji color neg(NPS) - the greens will be more vibrant. Kodak color negative tends to be very accurate and the greens, in particular, are rather subdued.
If you're shooting medium format or 35mm, though, have I got a film for you! I've been shooting a lot of Kodak's new Porta 400 UC (for ultra color) in 35mm. This stuff is fantastic. Fine grain, vibrant color, with realistic skin tones. In the smaller formats, this is the only color film I use, anymore.