Is this still an issue?
In photography we still have a few die-hard nostalgists who insist film is "better" than digital. Just like there is still a hard core of vinyl fanatics in audio.
It's hard to see how limitations in technology can be "better" in itself. But then I got to thinking, and there is in fact a valid point here: it forces you to concentrate on storytelling instead of what you can do technically. That's always a good thing.
The debate still rages on although most have now embraced digital.
It makes for a very interesting watch. Posted it out here for those who hadn't had the chance to see it yet
film is dead... the last japan site is wrapping up their factory and people whom like it the ye old way are going to need to mix their own from now on
Bollywood still shoots film but are also very slowly moving to digital. India consumes the most film of any country in the world
Motion capture processes live or die according to their worth. I think back to when I was involved in amateur film production,  we shot with a 3CCD Sony camera that was, big, cumbersome, and the video was sent to a separate tape recorder.
Although we had professional editing gear — a pair of Sony Umatic decks — it was tape based so linear. You had to trawl through your tapes and note in and out points by time code, and the decks would kind of automatically do a few edits. When you compare that to NLE systems like Premiere Pro, the convenience factor is orders of magnitude better. I believe that even when a movie is shot on film, the first thing they do is digitise it so they can use NLE systems to put it together.
Then you look at how far grading apps have come. I bet Speedgrade has a tone of presets to simulate different types of film. In fact Premiere Pro will do Cinematic looks without using outside apps.
We have the occasional speaker at PSNZ conventions who show off projects shot on 5 X 4 plate cameras, but they look like they put an old sock in front of the lens. These people tend to get upset if the entire image making process is not done in-camera, forgetting the tricks they use in their darkrooms. I can think back to that as well, and I don't mess the smell of chemicals. I can't help but think that that whole yesteryear thing is an affectation. 'Look at me'. I use film, and I always use manual exposure! 
 I can't remember the date, but I was still using an Amiga 1000 at the time, with Gen-lock and what was, at the time, an expensive application imaginatively called something like 'Video Titler'. The late 80s perhaps.
 Manual exposure is something I am driven mad about by fellow camera club members who profess to always use it, but can't tell you why. There are times and places for manual, but 90% of what I shoot is done with Aperture Priority and Exposure Compensation (Canon AV and AEC)
yes AV mode is where I spend 90% but TV and even manual still has a place... the joy of waiting to get film back to see if you stuffed up the shoot is something I don't miss
1 person found this helpful
Off hand, the only thing film excels at over digital is long exposures, where you can leave a shutter open for hours, whereas a digital camera will shut off.
Film, like hot type, is an important teaching tool.