Okay.
Film is biased based on the colors and how chemicals reproduce them, and over 50+ years of experience and brilliant minds trying every combination under the sun, the output was the pinnacle of how one can translate an image onto a physical medium.
However, digital cameras have pixels, which in essence, like recording audio on a CD versus vinyl, may not have the type of "bit detail" as a vinyl would (think cameras with lower megapixels; you get the entire song as a whole but you may not have many nuances only the most expert would search for), but this detail is completely marred by the fact that you convert energy (light or sound) into a physical medium.
Digital sensors however, are much better suited at understanding the energy impulses that a photon or light wavelength can leave, and basically can store this as it's raw info.
From years of seeing edited images and films, photos of real life unedited and taken digitally, tend to look flatter and way less "smooth" / appealing because you aren't seeing the colorations that the translation to a physical medium, provides, and the numerous years we've had to cater for it, much like 120 gram vinyl or exotic cartridges and turntables.
However. One can argue that while you can take a very high megapixel photo, edit it and emulate grain, and have it transferred to the physical through newer digital to film methods, a digital shooter can produce a film shot indistinguishable from the characteristics of film, while to do it the other way is almost impossible without sourcing the finest films and flawless darkroom technique, not to mention scans and all the work it takes.
