I use film for serious photos and digital for snapshots. There are good reasons to choose either one, but film usually wins me over.
First, when using film you're not bound by the color space of digital, like Adobe RGB. Film has a broader range of colors than what's possible on a digital display. It has no brightness endpoints, either - there is always a highlight or shadow that can be pulled out later. Most DSLRS have a 12-bit linear range (pro models might have 14), but they can't match the range of film.
I don't need a computer to use film, and the negatives can be seen long after I'm gone. I wonder sometimes whether software 50 years from now will be able to read the digital .png/.dng/.tiff files I shoot today. I bought a Pentax K200D (digital) last year, and I had to wait almost a month for Adobe to release a Lightroom update that could even open my pictures.
Images shot on film are not compressed in any way. JPEG and even some RAW images are compressed, so there is a loss of information. Film never needs sharpening, never needs white balance adjustment, and never needs noise reduction.
Film is slower - but that's a good thing for me. I take a lot less pictures when using film because they are more deliberate. I have to think more about aperture, shutter speed, film speed, composition, etc., which usually results in better shots.
No megapixel race. I've read that the effective resolution of film is 25 megapixels, blowing away any digital body I have now.
Of course, there are a lot of good reasons to shoot digital, like workflow speed, cost, and the creative possibilities of Photoshop. But at the end of the day I'm more attracted to film - Fuji Velvia 100 for landscapes and objects; Kodak Portra 160 for people; and Tri-X 400 for black and white. Even the expired Kodak Gold 400 I bought on Main Street can give acceptable results:
