The reasons you mentioned are certainly valid. And given the time and effort I put into trying to make x-ray film work for me, rest assured that I know from first-hand experience how they work and what the appeal of the material is - I recognize everything you said (well, almost)!
But...I see many people who are experimenting with this kind of film in the apparent expectation that it's a substitute for regular photographic film. But it really isn't. In its tonal reproduction, it is fundamentally *impossible* to make x-ray film do the same thing as even a low-cost, archaic-technology film like Fomapan 100. Anyone on that path may find themselves spending a lot of time, and ultimately also quite a bit of money, on something that just will never do what they hope it will do.
And yes, they may end up with something they like nonetheless and be content with that. On the other hand, I'm sure that several people who posted in this thread and even more who've read (parts of) it ultimately turned away from x-ray film in mild disappointment and either moved on to regular film, or just abandoned the format they intended to shoot on altogether.
So while I respect and agree with your view, I do feel that whenever someone who is new to the trade expresses interest in x-ray film, someone should give them a fair warning of what they should NOT expect from it. Speaking from my own experience, even though I'm plenty stubborn enough to have tried it anyway (I would!), I sure would have appreciated it if the many blogs and posts that waxed lyrical about this nearly-free alternative to real film would have been a bit more nuanced.
Bookmarks