One major reason is that I spend too much time in front of a computer already (15 or so hours so far today).
Aside from that, film is what I know, besides, it's not worth it to me to dump my collection of film gear for pennies on the dollar then spend hundreds or probably thousands more for digital gear that would be equivalent.
'Cause that's how I started. And it's always worked. I do the electronic thing too but it's just not the same.
Film cameras are much nicer to use, and I find the process of achieving results more satisfying.
Huge amount more for your money too, price up a 4x5 film camera and what is required in the digital world to achieve similar results.
But in the end, it's a hobby I prefer, like I prefer whisky to wine.
Try pricing a good 4x5 Digital back around $30,000.00
Now the number of photo pay for the back even at high price $10 each you will need to take 3,000 photo or more to pay for the back
Also film just looks better than digital photos
There's just something different about the results from Ilford HP5 400 (or Kodak Tmax 400) used with an Olympus OM1 and 50mm F1.8 with no batteries :) Let's not forget Portra 400 and Fuji Pro 400H's awesome look for portraiture!
I've tried recreating the look digitally (black and white and color) and it just LOOKS different no matter how I try. It's subtle but when you put it all together... there's just something about film.
I'm tempted to say that I use film because sheets of toilet paper
or "Kleenex" will neither fill the available 'room' in my film
holders.... or stand up to the constant agitation in my BTZS tubes....
..... but I shall refrain from so doing.
For many of the reasons already listed, and partly because of a place like APUG, where you deal with knowledgeable, courteous people who don't just sit around and snipe at each other.
Memory cards don't fit in my enlarger