Film is only a small part of the grander principle of photography: making pictures out of light sensitive substances by having those substances physically interact with subject matter.
The authority of a photograph to describe subject matter comes not from resemblance but from direct causation. Nothing else works like this, not paintings, not drawings, not digital.
That's why I make photographs instead of doing the other things.
Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.
I've been shooting film for a long time and just recently shoot digital. I want my pictures to look realistic not to look like it was shot with film nor digital. The film look is a defect of the media which is fine but not something I am long for. Digital has its own look and I am not seeking that look either.
Horses for courses.
I took my 7D and 70-300L to the Jurong Bird Park in Singapore and filled my 8+16gb cards with over 1000 images. Not really possible with film without doubling the size of my backpack and halving my bank balance.
(although, I did just burn through a few rolls of TX at the cricket with my EOS3, only for fun and because the rolls were cheap).
For anything else (which is pretty much everything else but birds these days) I mostly shoot film. When I can get a 4x5" digital sensor to fit on my Toyo for under $1000 then I might consider going (back to) digital. But 4x5" Velvia still has the best quality/price ratio for landscapes for me.
For macros with weird lighting setups I also chimp on digital even if the final shot is made on film (I'm gradually learning manual lighting, but still don't have a proper flashmeter)
Meanwhile, I still can't figure out what the OP website is, or what it has to do with anything.
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
There are many media to choose from; so why restrict oneself to two mediums that have so little in common. There is very little actual cross-training skills between the two. Most of the apparent similarities are superficial and due to marketing, eg Adobe. If you want to learn another media, might as well be something like pen & ink sketching. Far more useful than learning digital.
van Huyck Photo
"Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"
I shoot film because I enjoy the entire process, from developing the negatives to making the prints. The darkroom is a place of refuge. There's a tactile component to making a print. My extremely brief foray into digital didn't give me the same feeling.
That being said, if I were still doing commercial work, I'd be doing it digitally (I'd have to buy a camera, though). Business considerations would trump my personal preferences.
Digital bashing makes no sense, these days. It is improving rapidly. At one time, yeah, it was vastly inferior. Those days are gone. Many people are producing fine work with their digital tools. Bashing makes those of us who choose to do our work in a darkroom look petty, as if we need justification for our personal choices.