I'm sure it depends on where you are in the world.
The last meeting I had on Madison Avenue, the AD asked somewhat sheepishly, if I would mind shooting digital for a large project. I replied, no no problem most of my current work is digital and he was surprised, actually almost shocked that I didn't find that an issue. In fact, if truth be told I think I probably dropped a half step in his eyes by not proclaiming that film is the best solution, though keep in mind this is New York and also keep in mind that perception is much stronger than reality, in fact in the major cities of photography perception is reality.
Had I insisted that I shoot the project with film, I believe it would have been accepted.
As far as what is film, well it's still around and many of the "names" in this business prefer it, or better put prefer working with their old RZ's, pentax 6x7's, view cameras etc. It kind of falls under the heading if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
You can make digital "look" like film, but we all know the backend post processing of digital is much more intensive than film capture, even to get to a continuous solid base.
Now in other, smaller markets, film has disappeared, or at least film labs have virtually disappeared, though if truth be told, a lot of us that have spent huge volumes of money and time learning digital would go back to some kind of film workflow if possible. Or at least for certain projects, because regardless of the strides that digital capture has made, it is still somewhat amazing that to get to the polaroid stage it takes a technician, computer, monitor, generators and all kinds of jury rigged flags just to view the image.
Also most busy photographers are electronic upgrade weary. Obviously Annie is not sitting up at night testing her Canon images in C-1 vs. CS4, vs. DPP (actually I doubt seriously if she would know what those are), but most of us that have invested, worked at digital and do most of the backend managing of our images, long for the days of drop it off and ship it.
I know I would love to pick up any camera I chose and just use it, without thinking or even concerning myself what proprietary processor goes with what proprietary capture device and why can't I have a frame size larger than 645 and why is their only one "digital film back" that will shoot a almost full 645 frame?
Also we know that this upgrade process will never end. Larger images, newer software, bigger computers to run the newer software, bigger hard drives to store the bigger images, then once it's all sorted out it starts over again to buy equipment that only means we will take the 200mb files and downsize them to 34mb.
So what's film? Well it depends on where your standing, but I wish more now than ever that the digital process had never started. In New York you can shoot film, here in Cooter, Mo., we shoot digital.
Regardless, film is not dead and if there was any serious investment dollars left in the world, it might make a comeback.
I expect any day to open up PDN and see a photo of 8,000 photographers standing on the Hudson dropping their electronic cameras in the river, with the headline that says, Photographers say enough is enough, we want to make photographs, not work on computers.