Just found this excerpt on a friends facebook page.
I love it. One of the many reason i shoot film.
There are downsides to digital, but unfortunately for film chauvinists, most of them are loftily aesthetic -- less technical arguments than philosophical ones. To wit: Even the best prints of digitally produced stills lack the warmth, the aliveness, of snapshots produced with a film camera, because film is literally organic. It's celluloid, a compound made from cellulose, camphor and dyes, and the images it produces are direct physical records of things that happened within sight distance of the camera's lens -- records of light hitting unexposed negative and messing with its molecules. Pre-industrial people who feared that photographs took a piece of their soul weren't totally wrong. A portrait created with film is a souvenir of a person's existence at a certain point in time -- a more complex, photochemical version of a footprint in sand. Digital images are created when a sensor records the camera's field of view and puts a facsimile of the image on a computer chip. The result is still an image, but the process is different -- more detached, more theoretical.
("Requiem for print photography" By Matt Zoller Seitz)
Film: please don't ever die