At the moment I have a Standard Gallery photograph submitted showing my late father sitting in an amusement park ride. It was made in 1953. When I made the print last weekend I held in my hand the original negative upon which that subject had been directly rendered at that point in time. That negative had been physically inside the camera that was, at that long ago moment, only about 12 feet away from my dad. Indeed, the depicted image on that negative could not have been realized unless this were true.
As I've said before, the negative bears silent witness to the moment of time rendered upon it.* As fellow APUGger Maris has phrased it, there is an indexical relationship between the subject and the medium which recorded that subject.
For me, that relationship makes all the difference. The authenticity of film is a direct consequence of that relationship. And that relationship—that provenance—does not exist with an abstract digital image file. Sorry, it just physically doesn't. In fact, it physically can't.
That's why I choose film.
* Yes, yes. I know all about darkroom tricks with negatives, and other exceptions to rules. But that's not the core point here...