Oh, I understand why someone might want to do it, in the same way that someone might want to, say, weave cloth by hand -- as an interesting hobby.
I was objecting to the implied snobbery in the OP, e.g. "if you actually knew what you were doing, you'd want to shoot film for everything".
Yes, I do know what I'm doing, and no, I don't want to shoot film. Neither do the vast majority of working professional photographers (I'm not one, myself, but I know a fair number of them). Digital has become better in just about every respect you can name. Yes, you can find the occasional art photographer who still shoots film, but there aren't many of them.
The film guys are exactly like the vinyl record guys -- they're basing their preference on factors other than quantifiable objective data.
I should add that no one is suggesting professional photographers with throughput requirements should switch to film. Digital makes life a lot easier in many ways for under-pressure professionals. The only people who will shoot film these days are art photographers looking for either film textures or the way film alters their creative process, and amateur enthusiasts who enjoy shooting film mostly for process reasons. That's no different than a lot of other hobbies. (Why would you drive a vintage sports car, anyway? They're expensive, break down, and can't haul groceries for crap. By quantifiable objective data, they're terrible cars.)
I'm not a professional photographer, but a fairly serious amateur - I broke 10k photos/year at peak, and have been published and done minor gallery shows. I'll shoot a few rolls of film a year, entirely for fun. I enjoy the process, and use it to impose restrictions on myself. (The last time I shot film, I was with a friend who was modeling for me. I told her we had 36 photos available, and that was that. It really made us think, rather than just blowing through 10x that many because we could.) If I need to shoot volume, or use studio lighting, or work in any sort of difficult lighting conditions, I'll use digital, absolutely.
It's quite possible to shoot both digital and film, for different reasons, and not just be a pretentious hipster who doesn't care about "quantifiable objective data".
There so, so is much more to a good photo (art) than quantifiable objective data. IQ is only one component of a good photo, and even IQ is subjective because it is impossible to design a lens that is perfect in every aspect because correcting certain abberations can make other ones worse.
That's why I think there is still a place for film. Fidelity doesn't equal quality.
I don't know why you'd want to base your preference for something intended to provoke an emotional reaction on "quantifiable objective data". That's like saying I shouldn't love my wife because there are other women who are thinner.
Nobody is saying "If you actually knew what you were doing, you'd want to shoot film for everything." Someone is, in fact, saying "The only reason to shoot film is because you're a pretentious hipster". Who's being judgmental here?
And likewise, "The only reason to shoot film is because you're a pretentious hipster" is a pretty good paraphrase for your response.
And I was the OP. I know what I said, and you paraphrased it terribly. If I thought people should shoot film for everything, I'd do it myself. Instead, film is maybe 2-3% of my output.
I was objecting to the implied snobbery in the OP, e.g. "if you actually knew what you were doing, you'd want to shoot film for everything".
Yes, I do know what I'm doing, and no, I don't want to shoot film. Neither do the vast majority of working professional photographers (I'm not one, myself, but I know a fair number of them). Digital has become better in just about every respect you can name. Yes, you can find the occasional art photographer who still shoots film, but there aren't many of them.
The film guys are exactly like the vinyl record guys -- they're basing their preference on factors other than quantifiable objective data.