I have been a photographer since 1989. I have no intensions to shoot film. I did that in all forms for many years. Besides that I am not a dark room fan. To me Lightroom is a lot more fun. Editing can be done anywhere and it does not smell that bad. For me who was not very good in the dark room the possibilities with digital are far more bigger.
I don´t think that 35mm slide film gives any advantages. Quality in digital is superior compared to 35mm film. Most people want their photos digitally anyway, so why shoot film and scan?
I am not saying that there is no room for film. Of course the old methods, wet plate and such has its place. Also B&W if the whole process is done in a dark room. Large format is also a valid reason to shoot film. It gives the extra quality that DSLRs cannot give.
For some the feeling of nostalgy is a thing. I think this is the real reason for the rise of analog and there is nothing wrong with that
Then there is the discussion of the costs. I shot around 16.000 images last year. I calculated the costs if I had shot all in film. I most likely would have shot most of the images on Fuji Velvia. The film I used before going 100% digital in 2002 (I think it was 2002).
16.000 images is about 445 36 frame rolls. The cost of the film would have been about 7.565€ euros. Of course those films had to be processed. the lowest price I could find was 5,50€ a roll. That would sum up to be around 2.447€. The total cost would have been just about 10.000€. Naturally that cost would have been on the bill as material costs.
What about the cost of digital? Lets say that you bought 10.000€ worth of gear. Of course also that cost should be in the invoice some how. Maybe its not marked as a material cost, but some way it has to be baked in the the final cost of your shoot.
What this means is that if you plan to pay the gear back in a year, you can invest 10.000€ every year on gear. If the pay back time is two years, you earn 5.000€ more per year or clients gets your services cheaper and they save 5.000€ a year.
One might argue that the cost of computers must be aded. Yes, and they are right. I didi have a computer almost ten years before turning to digital photography. The cost was there already. The only thing is that I need a more powerful computer and they are more expensive. The difference in the price of a laptop that can handle office needs vs. computer for editing pictures is the cost that must be taken in to considerations.
This was a simplyfied calculation but gives an idea about the cost of film vs. digital.
Disclamer: I am a photographer that shoots 100% digital and my native language is Finnish.
Picture: By Thistle33 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons