<*yawn*>
I am amused by the assumption that film is all the go for such events. Where did this idea come from, by taking trends in the USA into account? Please, for accuracy, analyse on a global scale and don't rabbit about how popular film is to one person when the reality, on a global scale, is quite the opposite to millions of others. We'd all like to use film on a continuing basis, but how long for is a matter of conjecture, with now chinese whispers suggesting that Fuji will cease two more emulsions in the new year. After Kodak, then what? Ilford? And...?

It is true that scan few professionals shoot film for weddings; I've known two for more than 25 years and they can get the IR effect, if and so desired, using digital. No big deal at all. Being paid five figures is all well and good, but I suspect they're just splashing cash rather than thoroughly checking portfolio work, especially since you have not shot a wedding in 20 years. So you think it is easy to jump back in and jump right out and snap!, it's delivered? The truth is that professional work is a grind (film or digital) and does not always pay well, as you seem to be bragging about. The industry is littered with failures due to competition, not lack of skill. There is nothing particularly spectacular about film as opposed to the variety available in digital: the world discovered this 10+ years ago. People should not be deluding themselves that just because there is some film about means there is a demand for shooting anything from weddings to corporate to billycart derbies based on one market alone, eg. USA-centric. If we jump to Australia, you won't see film being used in corporate and wedding events because of the much higher quality obtained and the speed of delivery, and the cashed up brigade don't pay based on egotistic overtures of punch and pizazz. Even the fastest darkroom worker is no match for the established digital hoi-poi