[glayciar]

They're after the "look" of film in general, and in some cases the look of the individual film stock. It can be hard to emulate digitally, although you can get similar results. Film can also be a lot more forgiving, gracefully rolling off highlights that you can usually still get something out of, unlike digital which is a straight up clipping of the values.

It can also be about the process. I know when I shoot film I'm fully conscious that I've got only 36 exposures, I've got a set sensitivity, and my film stock reacts a certain way in certain situations. Limitations can be fun to work with.

All that said, I always take my negatives, but it's understandable why a lot of people don't. I don't think it's a big deal.

[macintux]

Another advantage to film is the wide variety of formats. Sure, you can always crop or stitch, but I like to take 3 different medium format cameras with different aspect ratios when I go out shooting.

And waist-level shooting is very nice. I don’t have a digital camera with an articulating screen that would let me compare experiences, but my TLR is a great way to get different angles and shoot street photography without being as obnoxious about it.

[exitb]

On top of that, there are tiny full frame film cameras. Meanwhile full frame digital cameras are significantly bigger and more expensive. Digital medium format even more so, is prohibitively expensive for amateurs.