Yeah, that's an unusually good article that avoids most of the usual quagmires. I could find a few things to quibble with, but it's nice to see film treated in terms of its own virtues rather than as part of an either/or pissing contest between media.
I'm not sure about his point 9, though. Post-processing an image shot on film takes 30 seconds? I wish I were that efficient! The text makes me think that maybe he's comparing b&w to color postprocessing, rather than film to d*g*t*l---but in general I feel like "pulling 18 slides around" is a disease of digital post, not of digital capture. And he's not addressing wet printing at all, which as we all know is (1) fun^H^H^Hexquisite torture and (2) slow.
-NT