I still have a perfect Nikon F3, but donated all the darkroom stuff to a local school when I gave up trying to have a darkroom here on Mallorca. Too difficult to filter/clean the hard, dirty water; water too scarce and expensive to run a print wash for an hour, starting from when the first print hits the wash, ending an hour after the last one does. I tried those multigrade plastic papers here for the first - and last - time and hated them: I couldn't get what I could with real, graded papers, and the plastic was only used for the brief wash times it offered.
I would go back to film if I got back to Britain and close to doing any pro work again - but probably on 120 film ¡f it would still exist...
To me, the single benefit of digital is this: I can play, and it doesn't cost me any more money than the camera, lenses and computer stuff. Film would still require scanning (I have that already) and computers, so, adding film cost, it would end up being expensive for a hobby. But, becase of that, I'd probably be a damned sight more careful of what I shoot!
I think film looks better on a print or even on a monitor. Hell, I seem to be tying to noise up and artificially beat the emptiness of digital capture with every picture I do. It has no "medium-beauty" of its own; it's just colour suspended there in a frame of nothingness. Maybe that's why so many modern guys feel a need for canvas: something to relieve the emptiness. I detest the look of canvas. I love a very highly glazed black/white print; rather than add a texture of its own, it allows the nature of film to shine through and out. Not the same thing at all.
I simply don't subscribe to the theory that something new is automatically better. My eyes prove to my satisfaction that it ain't necessarily so with photography.
Rob C