Quoted By:
The problem I have with film is simply its ongoing cost.
You buy the body, and you buy lenses, except the medium of archival is not near-infinitely read-writeable.
You have to repeatedly buy film, and repeatedly pay to get it developed/buy chemicals to develop yourself.
Moreover, there is no immediate cause-effect mistake-learning loop for film like you have with digital. You cannot immediately correct mistakes for the next photo like an out of focus image, or zoom in to a part to check for blurriness, or check it was correctly exposed.
Film isn't _harder_ to work with, but requires much more thought and effort for each shot that I simply do not have the bother or wallet for.
And on top of all that, you have to physically sort and store what you shoot and develop.
An ext. HDD/SSD has half the size and footprint of a piece of toast which is capable of storing thousands of RAW+JPG pairs that will last for years without degrading even if the device catches dust or partly regular direct sunlight. You cannot do this with film. They must be stored in a dark dry book or special drawer or their colour will fade like old blue-green posters in shop windows.
Finally, film is not kind to this day and age of social media networking and sharing. With a click of a button, my a6000 can transfer copies of images wirelessly to my smartphone within the minute where I can quickly correct the photo in Snapseed, and share it to the wider world.
This can be done with film, but requires hours of time and a multitude of steps in between with specialised equipment. Which are, again, not free, and not fast.
===
>Tl;dr
I judge film on its practicality above all else. In every way possible in terms of cost, time usage, and contemporary usability, it falls laughably short of today's digital.
Given all that, in the right hands film can take better pictures than digital and it offers a unique and 'fun' challenge for those looking for something tougher to grind on and bored of digital.
