Is it really ? 4x5 film is expensive, 8x10 even more. Than there are more costs coming. for example developing or scanning. Most people couldn't probably afford the same amount they shoot with film. I don't say it is a good thing just a point.
From a professional level, the acceptance to digital is down to one single thing . . . you know you have the shot. It's not prettier than film, can be as pretty, it's not faster, not with all the post work we do nowdays, but it does allow the assurance that on an important production the shot is in the can.
Now as far as costs, there is no comparison. Film is a lot cheaper, any size film, because with film you never would scan 1500 images from a day, you deliver the film, then you or the client scans the one, two three, selects.
In fact in the film days, few if any photographer shot 1500 frames a day.
When you factor in computers, computer upgrades, monitors, calibration devices, three types of storage, (always one off site), software, plug ins, training, the fact that the photographer and or their studio has now become the lab, server costs, storage fees, the costs of the cameras, including the constant upgrades of cameras, backs, digital lenses, cf cards, portable storage, multiple backups on everything and a life cycle of around 2 years for most of the major equipment, film cameras and film was cheap and all of the above doesn't include the costs of digital technicians, magliners in the place of a polaroid and portable generators.
Also from a professional level, we now produce twice minimum in a day what we did with film, which means most photographers are working less, at least on set, more after the shoot.
From an artistic standpoint the one real advantage digital has over film is the ability to shoot in lower light and once again be assured you have the shot.
This doesn't mean I don't shoot digital, I adopted it early, but I knew down the line that someday we would look back at film and think, wow, film only costs $1.45 a frame . . . man that was cheap.