I worked in a pro photo lab for 9 years...Film processing, slide processing, machine printing, large scale printing to quality control and spotting pics...dust ect...but then digitization came to the lab and one machine could do the work of 12...so even though negatives were the best...digital has taken over for being a cheaper method...but to be honest now most cameras are really point and click, with the viewer on the back giving TTL so what you see is what you get...depth is automatically adjusted, Camera companies don't want complications...Manual SLR's on the other hand everything was adjustable, shutter speeds, focal depth, film speed....anyone ever push a film...miss those days....sometimes..

They are both tools, and have their strengths and weaknesses. It really depends on what you are doing and what you are most comfortable with.
It is kind of like asking which is better oil paints or watercolors?

There was a period when film could be argued gave a better image but those days have gone long ago. You can argue that film gives an advantage in a few rare applications but for years now every shot I have produced is better than anything I did on film before that - now even my phone outdoes my old film cameras. Couple that with the post-processing available to digital images - and things like photo montage / stacking - and it's a no contest.

Simply considering the advances being made in electronic light sensing should answer that question. There was a time when I wouldn't think of using the electronic camera and even did all of my astronomical imaging on film. Mainly because of the control I had in developing and printing. The tide has turned. Control over electronic images has surpassed that of film by orders of magnitude. Further, one can work at extremely high ISO and grainy images are a thing of the past.

There is now, not yet on the market, a technology that will allow high power telescopes without the use of lenses or mirrors, and they say that resolution will be hundreds of times better than anything available today.

The old processes were beautiful but I agree with the saying "The best camera is the one you have with you." ...and my phone is never far away. The affordability of digital photography allows for more creative experimentation.

Who uses film any more? If you do manage to get a photo of a distant bird, it will be tiny on the film, need to be blown up, enhanced, developed, etc, at great expense and time for just ONE picture.

Sort of like keeping a horse and carriage in case cars go out of style.

I'm no photographer. But I like the "softer" and less contrasting colours of film.

Digital is convenient, cameras to phones, but development is a cool process that’s getting lost.