Yes, I think that's one reason why people still shoot film. I still own a film camera (actually 2, a N80 and F100), but I haven't put any film through it in over a year now. Digital is just much easier with instant feedback, and I really enjoy the post processing part. I have never been in a darkroom, or done my own film developing, and would have loved to have the control over my film processing that I have over digital. With pro labs slowly disappearing, and the lack of local availability of pro film emulsions, I don't know that I'll ever seriously shoot film again. I've got many rolls of film in the freezer should the need arise, so I'm set if I ever do it again. Although I did enjoy shooting different types of film (I really liked Agfa portrait), I don't find myself longing for a specific emulsion.
Could that be why some people still prefer to shoot in film? For the belief in more dynamic range? Do you still shoot in film or do you shot solely in digital now?
I don't find digital too processed, and I really don't see any difference from digital prints vs film prints.
I still have my Nikon FE, my mother's Nikkormat and my mother's MF Rolliflex. So should I want to go film I could as well without having to buy a new SLR.
And you're right about the disappearing developing houses. Or the qualified ones. I think most of the ones that still exist in my city do work mostly for commercial work. Photographers who "need to" shoot in MF or LF. Or who just prefer film. But for the rest of us, unless we still have dark room equipment, I think digital is the way to go.
I'm not sure you can find dark room equipment for sale in photography shops any more these days. Not that I've actually looked that hard.
And, I too don't think I could spot a difference between a print done with a SLR vs DSLR.
Was curious. On to other topics...