Among other things I taught Electrical Engineering and Computer Science for ten years and designed electro-optical systems but I still prefer film for many reasons including the one you stated.
I could go a produce a list of why film is nicer in my opinion, but I think it qualifies as preaching to the choir. I'm not entirely sure that the one art class I took in college was useful for a purpose, but it did allow me to understand more of what art is.
Which is why when I take photos using my film camera I do it for the aesthetic qualities it produces. The graininess of a long gone, but still here era. My favorite subject to photograph is nature and landscapes. To capture an imperfect copy of the world and store it away permanently in a write once read many media. It's permanent. Take a photo on film and its there forever. Screwed up? Oh well. With digital the fact that its simply a collection of ones and zeroes to represent the world make the photos become ephemeral. They can be erased whenever, even unintentionally. Film is permanent. The ruggedness of the camera allows me to travel without worry of damage to sensitive electronic components, and the fact that it does not require charging at all means I am untethered from the electrical grid, and instead only require a small coin cell type battery to power my light meter.
Many people arrive to art with the belief that its created by self obsessed left wing nuts, but this is merely the TV version of the artist. Much like with software engineering, they picture the individual rapidly typing at a terminal and hacking NASA and the FBI after muttering techno-babble, but the reality is that I spend my time crafting instructions for the computer to follow.
Art doesn't have a particular goal or purpose, because that is only visible to the beholder, and cannot be expressed in proper detail to anyone. Why do I like landscape and nature pictures? I just do. There is an inherent awe inspiring quality in in nature, landscapes, but also in our cities. Which is why they are known as the urban jungles.
There is some value in art school, but I just haven't found it. It doesn't seem to be required for anyone to become legendary in their chosen field. It is simply a nice to have. Even in my own field, having this degree doesn't make me amazing or special, or give me any real edge. It's mostly so that employers know I've been exposed to the subject, can express some level of competence, and to meet regulatory requirements. But all too often, you will find the legendary software engineers, and the best hackers, never stepped foot in the halls of learning. They just get to work. Powered not by some thirst for money, or to please others, but by some internal motivation.
