Personally I would develop the negative film at home.
It really is a simple process, even I managed back in the mid 80s with Slide, colour negative and B@W negative all in the comfort of my parents bathroom
For 35mm negatives a Patterson developing tank along with an accurate thermometer
If I was able to manage this in the mid eighties, then it should be a doodle today with all the youtube videos.
The resulting negatives will beat most commercial labs as you learn the technique.
Now scanning that negative later is a different story but you will have an excellently developed negative to start with because of the control you have with high quality developer chemicals, stoppers and rinses. The key

Happy Christmas DavidWoz, especially for those Photographs, from vintage to ancient lenses, all throughout the few years that I'm on here. An education it Woz, sincerely
A very happy Christmas to everyone that keeps all this going and thats everyone on here

Yes also to that third Photograph.
Super light and set

Heres a frame of my Niece over thirty years ago Kodak colour 200 converted to B@W in edit
DFA 100 mm macro using a simple light box

There is the option of the Valoi easy scan 35, they also have options for 120 film.
Pricey but depending on the amounts you want configure to digital.
A Pentax 100mm DFA macro is what I am using and learning currently with a cheap Lidl wardrobe light box 5000K
Its working for my needs but that is possibly of no help to your good self.
A 100mm macro seems to be the recommendation from most who have tried photographing slides or negatives via a light box and then editing later.Tripod of coarse and exact positioning in live view and zoned in for the best possible clear focus.
The 100mm will frame pretty much bang on for 35mm film negatives or slide film, if one has level plane of view in both fields correct and the film negative is correctly laid flat for the backlight.
The easy scan Valoi makes this a doddle apparently but I don't have one.
Best of Luck

Thanks everyone for you're responses and opinions.
Too Rick, I am delighted that the "Gallery" received a boost in submissions, so I cannot argue with that.
It is probably just me that is social media shy as in the likes department.
Yes as pointed out by others , long may this forum survive

Yes David , is my answer. I from a personal point, do not like the "Likes" being identified.
The Likes , should not display an attached identity, or users name to be specific.
If a user wants to make a comment on the other hand , then they will and have that option, at their disposal for better or worse.

A like should be just what it is (or used be on here) and nothing more

I should probably rephrase my thoughts but" The Likes" do not have to be named.
Comments on the other hand in the original recent Gallery, were always appreciated by everyone.

I think

I know that this Pentax site is a quiet one, but I personally preferred it when the "Gallery Photographs" were just likes and not signatures attached.

Echo chambers occur when one feels that they owe some sort of allegiance to others. as they're name appears in the "Like", because they feel compelled from other "Likes" from other members.

Preferred the anonymity of the contributor in the the original "Likes" in the Gallery, as they felt more sincere.

Regards, Flan