Check out any exhibitions that may be in your country as I have in mine. The quality of film based photography is just so stunning compared to digital. If the exhibition contains both film and digital side by side it is just so obvious which is which. In film photography I love the fact that there are so many films to choose from (black and white of course) with so many different qualities held within each film. On top of that you can then mess around with development to get an even broader set of qualities. My favourite was always Ilford FP4+ developed in Tetenal Neofin Blue on 120 roll film. After this of course you then have a wide choice of papers on which to print and even though the powers that be have effectively ruined printing papers by forcing the removal of heavy metals like cadmium, there are still some fine papers out there.
Lets check out digital shall we..?
Well, effectively you have what the CCD gives you. Yes you can manipulate with software but all that gives you is what the software programmer put into it and you'll always get those people who say that "If I want grain I just add it in Photoshop". Sorry but that is simply not grain. That is a very poor imitation of the real thing. When it comes to printing there are indeed some stunning cotton fibre papers out there on which to present your images but sadly these images have almost zero depth to them in a way that a silver halide print excels. Yes OK, if you want your images to look more like a graphic representation then fine, you'll be happy with that but if you are only interested in quality fine art you're not going to beat a silver halide print.
I guess in a way it depends on whether you are involved in photography because it is convenient or whether you are interested in photography because it is art.
Sorry to bust in on this thread. Just answering a question with a personal view.