Some folks just can't let go of the past and embrace better, newer and easier to use technology to what amounts to a hobby by most.
Sure, deem the digital camera as just a data collector and not a teller of the truth. I'm loving what I'm getting with my digital camera shooting Raw. I never want to go back to shooting film. What a PITA!
No, Rob, it's never going to be over.
Indeed it is: you say why yourself: the dislike of film techniques.
It was the very visceral, organic even (distrust the use of the word 'organic' usually), life that the medium itself
offered, and which to quote somebody else, was true: the medium was
The message was born to each individual the first time (s)he developed a film and made a print. Nothing in digital sows those seeds in people.
I have repeatedly claimed to anyone who cared to listen that, were digital all there had ever been, I would not have had a reasonably good career in photography. I doubt I would have even owned a camera. There is zero in digital that attracts me, as an old photographer, other than the fact that once a camera and a card are bought, that can pretty well be the end of expenses. Unless, of course, you care to factor in all the upgrades and computers you end up buying just to stand still. I could be doing pretty much all I ever wanted to do in PS6 were it not that my latest computers can't use it. That leads to other problems of longevity of image I won't even go into here.
The magic of photography hardly exists for me now, and, I suspect, many others. We do it digitally because we have little economic or practical choice anymore. It took a lot of world-class snappers, Albert Watson amongst their number, to make that leap. Not because they were ignorant, didn't have their finger on the pulse of what was going down, but because they saw every day that, up in their stratosphere, there was a quality with film that digital just couldn't give.
So what about digital and images
? I think digital does just as the chap in the link says it does.
I look at pictures on this site that are supposed to represent the best of Leica's dedicated digital b/w cameras and then I remember how real b/white looked - I still have a very few prints from the 70s still left, highly glazed WSG D papers, and though I have managed to get digital b/white A3+ to where I think it can go, those digital prints don't even feel the same. Without a shadow of a doubt, the computer gives far more accurate control in tiny areas than did manual shading and dodging, but so what, the end product is a graceless perfection devoid of personality.
I have never owned a Leica - at the time I was working it fitted no purpose that my Nikon F and so on through the years didn't handle better. I feel no brand loyalty to the marque at all, but I still think the writer was right: it's not photography now, it's another beast altogether. In general, from what I see, it's a pretty soulless mother.
And as to digital being easier to use, I don't think so if you are being serious in your work. What it does make easier is to produce crap. From the simple, three-trick understanding challenge of film cameras it has become a bitch you often find yourself fighting. Too many choices. Too many opportunities for getting caught out on wrong machine settings. Happens to me almost every day I go shooting.
In a nutshell, digital lacks simpatico. Digital is to photography what painting by numbers is to fine art.