To me, what I like about film is the color and tone. I don't get the same in my digital. Another thing I like is the feeling that as soon as I filp that shutter, the shot is done. I don't get that feeling in digital.

Theoritically you can get the same color and tone. But it is counter-productive to spend that much time for a shot in front of computer and that takes the whole advantage of "instant gratification" out of digital. For people who like the digital tone, it is decided.

The color and tonality character of film was the main reason that I didn't go completly digital on 35mm. So perhaps including workshops and knowledge sessions where one shows the difference in the tonality of the same pictures (or series) could help to get some people in.

Another thing to consider is the flow and cost. In my case per shot, my cost is less than 15 cents (film and processing cost) It takes just 1 hour to develop myself 2 rolls. In those 2 rolls, I get approximately 2 or 3 best shots and few more decent ones that I like. So for just 1 hour spend developing, I get 2 shots that are ready to go to my portfolio. In the case of Digital. I take about 150-200 shots and need to spend about 1-2 hours going through them (getting to system, deleting the bad ones and finally finding the best ones and some tone corrections). Lightroom has made it easy, but it still take a good quantity of time to get the shots on a digital to become my favorite.

Time wise, to me, there is no difference. It is the possibility of messing a shot (because we ametures don't click it unless we can get the exposure dialed it in the way we want.) is the biggest reasoning against Film. But real pros were pros before digital. They didn't mess it during the film era and they don't mess shots in the digital either. So that comes with experience.

If someone comes up with great idea on how to educate this to an ameture level photographer, I think we will have more people at least willing to consider film.