[stas2k]

What tripped me when shooting and developing film is that it usually works in negative. With digital you are always looking for overexposure, while negative film is OK with overexposure. Light builds silver density, while lack of it leaves a clear base with no information.

Then you get an analogue NOT operation when printing the negative on the enlarger. Two negative processes make a positive.

Film photography is very interesting as it combines art with optics and chemistry. Just pure magic seeing the image fade into the paper when developing.

[aimor]

This really got me too when I went from film to digital. I still really miss having so much range in the highlights.

[xdennis]

Anecdotally, I heard that this is the reason why, as recently as 10 years ago, a majority of movies were shot on film: it handles highlights so well. It took a while for digital to catch up.

[stas2k]

Oh yes, I dabbled a bit into using motion picture film stock for photography. It is fun to shoot it by the frame and not in feet, if you have a lab close to you to deal with the process.

Vision3 50D was recently(for film) introduced in 2011, and I had amazing results with it. Super smooth with very good latitude.