When you start to add in the costs for higher horsepower computers (versus stainless tanks, reels and chemicals), more applications to handle the images (versus doing more limited, but longer work in the darkroom, or paying for retouching at a custom lab), more HDs piling up for storage (versus tidy boxes or trays of slides, and books for negatives), and we have not even gotten to the printing part yet, I start to think that digital is costing way more than film. The cameras certainly cost more right out of the gate, but all the other stuff costs quite a bit more also. We do wind up shooting a lot more, and I would bet that most of us are not brutal at culling shots, so we wind up storing a lot more also, much of it never looked at again.
However, I for one would not go back. Shooting digital is way more instantaneous, more productive, and it lets one try things they may never have attempted before, when film had to be bought, stored, loaded, processed, etc. I know instantly if I got the lighting correct, got things in focus, got a good composition, etc., and that is worth every penny/thousands of dollars spent on the digital darkroom and support equipment. Not a contest in my mind.
LJ