jnanian: you are correct with inferring that there has to be more than mere 'fun' involved. Certainly, and I have stated previously, that, in a theoretical sense, digital is superior (no deteriorating media, immediate evaluation, histogram for thorough tonal evaluation, etc). I mean that.
But there is more to life than theory. The 'cost of entry' to make photos as good as relatively inexpensive analog is capable of, is rather formidable. Also, there is an element of craft with film. Also, though the unexposed film might go bad with bad storage, the final print, if processed correctly and especially if in traditional B&W, lasts and lasts.
Whether how I feel is really proved substantiated with future film sales remains to be seen. Folks, a horse and buggy is inferior to the automobile, but in Old City (Philadelphia) they still operate! Not trying to prove anything through faulty analogy here, but there are other sides to examine mindsets than through strict, quantitative efficiency. Have I just shot myself in the foot? - David Lyga