Of course, I started out shooting film because there was no such thing as a digital camera in the day. I continued with film when it provided good image quality that only a very expensive digital camera could equal.
Now I still shoot film because it produces "real" images that will always be accessible and transferable to whatever image file software may exist in the future.
I'm surprised that the last point has not been raised by anyone. When someone takes their pictures on a digital camera (and especially the one built into a smartphone), that image usually stays with the device. Yes, one can have prints made, or copy the image files to a desktop computer, but, in actuality, very few people get around to doing that. Further hampering image preservation is the fact that an image preserved on a PC today may be unreadable with the software on future devices.
If a child born today were to ask her mother, in 2036, "What did I look like when I was little?", the mother's answer will be: "Sorry, Brystil, those pictures were on a phone I threw out a long time ago".
That being said, I still find annoyances with digital cameras in the present day. Since a digital camera is running a powerful microprocessor, it needs a lot more battery power, and at the most inconvenient times, the battery dies or the digital camera goes into the power saver timeout. The batteries in film cameras are far more reliable, and never proprietary (and of course, many film cameras don't need a battery at all, the X-25 even shot flash with a motor drive and had no place for a battery).
Of course, a digital image (if no print has been made from it), needs hardware to be seen. A 80" 4K display remains expensive, and an 80" x 80" square 4K display (allowing presentation of square, horizontal, or vertical images in their entirety) is nowhere in sight.