As advanced amateur with passion for landscape photography and personal portraits, I still shoot film - at same time also digital. Why? They are two different medias. Digital does not replace film. They render different and thus serve different applications (or preferences?).
Film (to me slides) - Pleasingly enhances reality at capture, in particular for landscapes. Fuji Velvia 50 equals magic.
Digital - Enables adjustment in many and select ways to colors, contrast, light and dark and to parts of image etc, but... not by a simple programmed rendering to result entire image being pleasing as does film.
My experience - With an eye for a high quality in rendering of image: As an advanced amateur digital is far more expensive and requires far more time to get to pleasing - Not to mention the gigantic learning curve. One must retroactively ask why? I am now also the lab, while film was simply snap and it was more or less done!
For portrait - I prefer digital (my Leaf Aptus 65), because can in much detail adjust capture to what looks best and convincing to eye and to what becomes a pleasing image. Occasionally I use Provia 100 slides.
For landscapes - Landscapes are much more complex world to adjust than portraits. Our eyes wander across an image in search of light, colors and details, while for portraits they simply wander for the eyes of subject and the light and dark of portrait being simple contrast ends to bring 3d and rendering to the image. For landscapes, nothing seems to beat Velvia 50 slides, and the larger format the better. It is simply a difficult act to adjust digital images to the same pleasing and naturally convincing enhancement in rendering as film does. With simplicity film looks right film for landscapes. Sure, it is simple to make some adjustments to a digital raw file, but... BUT, kid you not at getting it truly pleasing to a sensitive eye... because for most of time such adjustments look rather pale or not as convincing compared to how films such as Velvia 50 render the same. For those of you who disagree on that, please show me one single landscape photographer that produce digital images of same level of artistic and quality in rendering as the very best of best landscape images using 4x5s, e.g. by Jack Dykinga and similar level of images. Is there a single book produced with such level of quality digital images? Very serious, I would be pleased to find one and to learn from it. However, do think careful prior to reply on this, it is not about the gear; it is about the rendering. Lets note that in particular at the golden hours and when rendering of beautiful light as part of the image is indeed very challenging to digital. Even with the large DR of MFDB the capture remains linear and it is difficult to adjust it to the brilliance of Velvia 50... which... was captured simply with a single click.
For snaps - Digital is great (Leica M8).
In regards to digital adjustments, here is an article for thoughts.... http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/20...tography-1.html
. What do we see nowadays? Many images are over adjusted (PS) for simple attention of observers... is that quality? Perhaps for sales of products, or... Perhaps Ansel was right in f/64 and in opposing too much adjustments???
What honest got me into digital in first place was that the nearest slide film processing lab where I lived the other year was an hour away and put fine scratches across all frames of three of my rolls of slides. I thought digital excelled. Well... at least the forums raved of that... of the crappy D200 etc. Digital still does not excel. Film and digital is simply different. Nope, in no way did anything influence me "away" from film. Now I am stuck with both. Sure, I also use digital for landscapes (Aptus), but I am not yet fully convinced of it there yet. However, had I been smarter - for simplicity and low cost - I would have stuck with film. Film is also lighter gear... or... if not need pixels or brilliance of landscapes and in large prints, perhaps just get an M9 and never look back or read these forums... It does appear these forums are about the gear. Did we forget the image? Did we forget to really make photos, such as with film?