We obviously have different criteria for judging our images, and different ideas of what looks good.
It is as simple as this: I have my criteria for what I want from an "imaging system. Right now, digital is
nowhere close to meeting my criteria," while film meets them (because it has, in fact defined them). When digital meets them, and does it affordably and enjoyably, I will switch.
...and any gallery owner or publisher I want to deal with will feel exactly the same way, or I won't deal with them. I am not going to be a slave to what gallery owners or publishers want. It should go the other way, in fact. They pick you because they want to sell your pictures; because they fit in to their gallery, and they believe they can make money. You don't change your work to be what they want. They represent/publish you because they think your work
as it is can make them money. At the very least, most will understand and respect my views, even if they do not hold them.
I am not interested in having anything better than the results I get from film, in the photo rag definition of better. I am interested in having these film results,
exactly. In fact, these results are what causes me to shoot film. Most people in this day and age just do not get this point of view. They feel that the technology available should constantly
redefine what one wants. Certainly, technology available can have a huge impact on what one wants, as it did with me, learning on film. I'd probably want different things if I was born and bred on digital. However, I cannot so easily redefine my aesthetic preferences when new technology comes along, nor should I be expected or forced to. So, I like what I get from film. It is perfect for me and for my work. SO, when digital can give me
exactly what I get from film, and the equipment is as affordable as is film equipment, and the equipment will last me 20 to 30 years after I buy it (I refuse to treat cameras - or anything, for that matter - as disposable consumer electronics as apposed to high-quality, long-lasting, serviceable tools.), and all of my old cameras are broken and all the people who know how to repair them are dead, and film stops being made, then digital will be my primary way of taking pix. Till then, I will not be holding my breath.
I will just shoot what I have until I feel that there is something that exceeds it in all respects.
In the commercial world, what clients want is almost totally defined by the technology that is available, as opposed to actual aesthetics. Therefore, it is no surprise that film is all but gone from the commercial world. The sad thing is that artists don't spend enough money alone to support the market, so a whole bunch of great materials went out the door when commercial work went digital. The only way to keep film alive, IMHO, is for it to have a BIG resurgence in commercial work. Artists have always largely been forced to use the materials that the commercial world makes available, and it is no different with photography.