Among others here, I have never abandoned film.

The problem with comparisons is that there are too many variables involved, not the least of which is the factor limiting affordable digital, the format. This is especially true for B&W where even full frame digital is handicapped by the Bayer array.

At 24x36 digital starts to get expensive even if it has an edge in resolution and ease of use. But above that size, film comes into its own.

Two aspects of film photography that are often overlooked: film is more fun and film is more challenging.

Consider the difference between crossing a bay on a nice summer day. A motorboat will get you there in a hurry but a sailboat will be a lot more fun and more of a challenge to all of your skills. There is a lot of satisfaction to be gained from accomplishing something that most people cannot do.

Nothing can offer a better discipline to the photographer than using film. We will know what we did when the film is developed in marked contrast to digital when we have an immediate feedback and a histogram for guidance. While with film we are more selective of what we shoot because it is more expensive with digital we tend to shoot the hell out of everything we see. After all, digital is practically free.
For more discipline use slide film with its contracted dynamic range. Exposures have to be right on and what we see is what we get.
Monochrome film is a different story. It is important to figure out the actual speed of the film and it is important to arrive at the right development for the bright areas that preserves the shadow areas. This only happens with testing and that takes time.
Today film is not readily available. It is more expensive than ever to buy it and have it developed and scanned. Scans gain in grain and contrast (my experience) but those color negatives are flexible enough when we edit.
I love the tonalities in both, b&w and color negative film. I love the dynamic range. I still see tonalities with film that I cannot see with digital but that is me.
When it comes to sharpness and super enlargements film is hard to beat. Nothing comes close to a 4x5 negative for those enlargements. Film is indeed sharp although many of them are grainy.
Film and digital will get us the image we want although as has been said they are different medias.

Sure. No problem and my apologies if it appeared I was trying to hijack your thread. I appreciate your effort in offering and discussing this comparison. I evidently mistakenly thought it might be useful for some of our less experienced members if the subject was broadened slightly to further compare and contrast the two mediums while we are on the subject, particularly since Bob introduced an element of mystery that could stand some clarification by way of a couple of the most glaring examples of how one medium offers benefit over the other since they both lead to the production of the same thing - an image.