Film is not central to photography, light sensitive materials are. I use gelatin-silver paper for photographs either directly from the camera, via a paper negative intermediary, or a film negative intermediary.
Do you still use Film?
Development of the latent image is a creative part of the photograph-making process. If I didn't do the development the results would not be fully my "own".
Do you Develope your own?
Photographic processes (including film) use physical samples of subject matter to chemically alter sensitive surfaces and make pictures. Everything is real; nothing is virtual. Digital picture-making fashions only appearances. People wishing to encounter pictures which offer a dimension beyond appearance may find images touched by digital technology not worth looking at. A glib quote for you: If photography is pizza then digital is ordering pizza by telephone and having it delivered by television!
What are the advantages/disadvantages of Digital and Film?
Only photography. Digital is of no interest whatsoever.
Can you, do you use both?
I neither scan nor print to make photographs. I expose, develop, fix, wash , etc light sensitive materials to make pictures. The pictures proceed through the full cycle one at a time, in full, start to finish, by my own hand.
Do you use Film then scan the negs before printing?
I would not grant the premise that art emerges from mistake or accident. Presenting bloopers as art is too easily an exercise in self-indulgence, posturing, or pretention.
Do you think that film offers more chance of producing art by mistake / happy accident?
Making pictures by photography is a uniquely singular process. Photographs incorporate a special relationship to subject matter and therefore offer a special relationship to the alert viewer. Everything else is traditional picture-making, either by hand, or mechanised in the case of digital.
Have you any other thoughts as to why film feels different/worse/better/more precise / clumsier?