[Prest_400]

I think you're right. I should add that I'm 36 started shooting with film and flirted a little with digital in 2007.

I also think that as digital is so popular, film becomes the 'cool' and 'alternative' option. I know plenty of people in their late teens who think like this; Drop the film off; get the CD; done. Photoshop is for nerds etc.

That's right. Most of what you say is why I follow film.
Film has got grain and it's different, it's like magic. I'm tired of those flat digi images.
Also, the DSLR I was looking at was an Oly (I followed the history and ended with an OM ) and didn't like the cheaper nikons and canons because everyone had them...

Film was better for my use. It comes out good, no need for photoshop; I don't want to stay all the time editing the heck of the image for HDR the whatever. Negs are HDR. I wanted a durable camera (a DSLR becomes obsolete in a year or two, a film camera still goes well, and IQ is still outstanding.

"And for those who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, album covers were an art genre to themselves" (can't find the original post, so did this for quote).
I do agree with the album covers of the good 'ol vynils. So big, and most are amazing.
That's what I thought when I took the album Hotel california. Nice grainy image. The interior had many surprises, too.