Making money in photography has nothing to do with film or digital.
Making money everywhere and anywhere - it is about channeling, marketing, getting to the right circles, socializing and so on. It is sales, not creation of the product (photography).
I have seen totally giftless computer graphics artists been used to make big money just because graphics company boss knew how to get contract from broadcasting company. Crappy graphics, huge money paid.
I see some local photographers taking boring portraits and staying in business. Our for sale home was photographed by so-so photographer, but he is in the system and he knows his tools and applications. Lousy pictures - who cares, he is nothing but trades. Quick, cheap, mass made.
They are all making money and they are nothing special photogs. And here is nothing wrong with it. We need just pictures, not art from them.
I have seen those who went to old school photography university programs, I used leftover chemicals and film after them, they never made it to photography.
In the opposite, one of my long time colleagues left broadcasting business and years later became photog taking pictures of mansions and yachts on West Coast. He learned sales while in broadcast and how to connect with people as well and it took him years to get to this level of commercial photography.
So, I'll put it this way - for trade like photography - bang, bang, bang, gig, gig, gig or if you need to take twenty toilets pictures in the mansion and every tiny bolt on the yacht - digital is more sofficent.
For art, which is not about quick bucks and looking at 1:1 details most and foremost, analog forms of media are still preferable. I see it in the galleries and museums.
And it is much more broader than just film.
OP needs to get to this Phortio symposium exhibition in Toronto, to see how huge spector of art in photography is.