Laura - It took me a long time to type this and your post slid in between... but please read onLaura - I will now play a bit the Devil's Advocate in order to maybe help in making your decision...
Now I will emphasize something: I am a film lover at heart... but I also graduated from the Business School...
The way I see it, photography is divided into 2 categories: the artsy stuff I like and the commercial work we all see.
Wedding photography is basically commercial photography in 99% of the cases (though the late Monte Zucker did produce some very nice wedding shots). Now, if we consider wedding photography the same as commercial photography, we can say it isn't about art but about business (and money).
Business is about making the most buck from the smallest investment. This is where Digital has a big plus. If you consider that a good roll of pro film (36 exp.) costs 5.49 US$ at B+H plus processing, a roll gets close to 10$. Multiply this a few times every wedding and you start getting into fairly big bucks. The expenses keep on comming every wedding you shoot. Now if you think business wise, a Digital camera costs an arm at first. But it doesn't cost a penny once you start using it. And a wedding photographer doesn't need a top of the line SLR, just a small Nikon D40x would be plenty (2.5 frames per second). Here, the basic kit which includes a small zoom costs around 980can$. Add one or two cards and you're in business. I don't know how much a photographer charges for the shoot but I doubt it would be less than 200$. If you get your prints done at the cheapest place in town (my grocery store prints 8x10's on Fuji paper for about 2.50$), the customer won't know the difference. Now, if, lets say, you have 150$ left for your work, that means the camera gets paid within the first 10 weddings you shoot. From there on, everything is "in the pocket". I also did notice most average people don't have the slightest idea of what a good print looks like. It's a weakness a good businessman will exploit. Just to give an idea, I know a guy who had on his wall a 20x24 print made from an APS camera! And he thought it was the best print ever produced (I know it sounds scary but it's the reality of 99% of the population).
If you want, you can offer both services: Digital=cheaper. Film=expensive.
But I see no business sense in doing so. If I were a wedding photographer, I would shoot digital, period.
Weddings, at least to me, are often an agglomeration of "crappiness". How often have we seen packed in the same place and time a collection of bad suits, bad food (egg sandwich anyone?), bad singers... you obviously don't have to holdup to the high standards you always follow
People just won't notice. I'm sure you would produce pictures that are better than 99% of those that I've seen! (even with digital!)
Now, I do agree that it is still expensive. Well, I've found 2 articles which might help make it a lot less expensive. They do go back quite a few years but might still be partly valid (I got them back at the archive so if it doesn't click in the first time, try again).
First, it is the pros and cons of turning
Semi-Pro, It will help you a lot with your decision.
Second, it is an article that could be titled "how to get stuff for free"... and it is about
gray market gear. Once you read this, you will see things a bit differently.
And for the picture storage issue, the June issue of Shutterbug has an excellent article on the subject.
And there's nothing saying you can't shoot film on your own time
