I'll take a crack at a personal answer to this: I'm in my mid 30's, and have been into photography since my early teens, but photography was digital from the s

I'll take a crack at a personal answer to this: I'm in my mid 30's, and have been into photography since my early teens, but photography was digital from the start for me. I've sold and exhibited my work, but it's a hobby, never my job. In the last few years, I picked up a pure manual medium format rangefinder and a slide projector. 90+% of what I've shot on film is slides, and I generally don't make a high quality scan of them. For going out where I know what I want, and go out to shoot something purely focussed on quality and flexibility of the work, I shoot digital. I'll shoot a few hundred photos in a day, and then procrastinate about choosing selections and going through and editing them. For technically complex photography (I shoot both Underwater and Infrared) being able to evaluate results immediately and tweak lets me get results I would be unable to on film. But I enjoy taking out my film camera when I'm going out casually. The medium format rangefinder workflow makes me think through the photo more. Being limited to 8 shots per roll forces me to be intentional and selective about what I'm shooting. Not having immediate feedback takes away the pressure to check out and iterate on the work, so I can enjoy the time and what I'm doing other than photography, and be more in the moment. The fixed "artifact" of the film makes it feel done in a way digital doesn't - I can't alter a slide beyond basic cropping. I don't shoot film for colour profile, or even resolution - I shoot it for how it productively artistically constraints me.