I just read an awesome article in the January 2004 Popular Photography magazine. It is called Film: It's Alive!!! by John Owens. I will quote some here so you all can feel comforted!
Film Cameras are a Steal - Got $300? You can buy a lot more film SLR than digital anything. For instance, a 35mm Canon EOS Rebel Ti with a 28-90 mm f/4-5.6 lens costs less than a Canon digital Powershot A80 with 4MP and an f/2.8-4.9 lens (38-114mm equivalent). Both are good, but face it, the Powershot is really juts a top end snapshooter. The Rebel Ti, however, can grow with your ambitions and skills, since it has many more custom controls and can handle virtually any lens in the almost-limitless Canon EF optical family. Soon you may want to buy a digital SLR body to use with your existing lenses, but in the meantime a digital SLR is far more expensive than it's 35mm counterpart. Even at a bargain, Canon's EOS Digital Rebel is three times the price of the Rebel Ti.
Film is fast - Low light? For high image quality you can't beat film. ISO 800 color-print film can give you quite acceptable resolution, sharpness, and even grain. And quile ISO 1600 film tends to be grainy, it's not all bad. But with most digital cameras, digital noise can degrade your images to the point of "why bother"? at ISO settings above 400. Even the $11,995 16.6 MP Kodak DCS Pro Back 645H has settings only up to ISO 400. At that point, our lab tests found "moderate" noise. Yet a $300 35mm SLR handles ISO 1600 film without flinching.
Film can be enlarged.... a lot - Big prints? Think film. Load ISO 100 print film into any decent SLR, and chances are you'll get negatives that be blown up to 20x24 prints and are sharp and detailed. For a digital camera to match that, you'd have to spend 5 times as much.
Film is power-stingy - When was the last time you changed the batteries in your 35mm SLR? I can't remember either. That's especialy true when your film camera packs lithium vells. Digitals, on the other hand, need regular recharging or constant reinforcements. Not a problem if juice is readily available, but if you're out of batteries in a remote spot, you're out of photography. Not only is that less likely with a film camera, but some don't need batteries at all.
Film doesn't crash - As someone who's watched his harddrive write it's own obituary with a couple hundred of my family photos, believe me when I say there's a sense of, well, permanence, in envelopes full of negatives or a stack of sleeves loaded with slides.
Film doesn't require infrastructure - With digital, after your first few hundred shots, you must get some sort of a system. Typically that indluces album software for your computer, CD backups, online storage, etc etc ec. It's great, but far more time-consuming than envelopes and sleeves.
Film is the Original Photoshop - Infrred photography, in-camera multiple exposures, reflection-free polarized shots, they're all part of the film camera gene pool. Granted, some digital cameras can shoot IR, and some digitals can do in-camera multiple exposures, these are exceptions. Increasingly, special effects are achieved not through photographic hardware at the moment of exposure, but through software that adds time.
Film is RAW - A digital camera's JPEG and TIFF files are in effect, selective representations of the incoming data. If everything were saved on the image (as it is in the RAW format), the file would be huge and difficult (or at least slow) to process. With film, however, all of the "data" is on the negative or slide, and can be accessed with proper printing techniques or on a pro-caliber film scanner.
Film Doesn't Preclude Digital - Once you scan a slide, negative, or print into a computer, it's a digital image. From there on, the capture medium doesn't matter. And all of the enhancing/manipulating and printing gee-whiz that the digital darkroom allows is yours.
Anyways, figured I'd share that because that article is what I've believed all along
Digital isn't bad, but film isn't dead.