Yeah, I know the title is enough to fan flames regarding this much talked about comparison. Aside from the advances in dynamic range, low light and the ability to shoot thousands of images in a row. With digital - anyone can basically do it. To stand out amongst the masses does take skill, but when it's generated with a few keystrokes it seemingly unmasks the obscure, puzzling, or mysterious quality or character that a true analogue photograph is endowed with. A recent look at some pics from Nick Brandt and Sebastiao Salgado confirmed what I personally feel about their switch to digital. Both of these artists are well known for their unique styles and editing, but imo, the digital versions lack the character and emotion of their analogue counterparts. Nick Brandt used a Pentax 67 for most of his earlier, compelling photos, but a look at more recent "digital" versions failed to evoke that sense of mastery and awe. Salgado mentions that he switched because of the convenience of digital...AAGGHH! That's like Leonardo Da Vinci or Picaso using an iPad Pro to doodle with. I'm still learning my craft, and frankly, digital does shorten the learning curve if you have a basic understanding and fundamentals to work with. But for me the tactile nature of working with film out weighs the inconvenience. I also think there's a little push back from those bored with the endless stream of HDR, over cooked saturation and hyper resolution of digital. Film requires patience, contemplation and theory. Something I just don't get from digital, so for me, there is no comparison, but I wish my darkroom skills were better!