First, the "opening shot":
Engaging and intriguing, for sure, the image has a strong feel of 60's Avengers, The Saint and similar "hu-duh-nit" serials. Thanks for sharing it, as it is fine indeed.
I'll forgo the tonality critique, even if different, as others have already made some note. I have a different observation and to continue the pop-culture references... Maxwell Smart often said it best "Missed it by that much!". He could say it now with regard to the gent's eyes... though their state raises the eeriness and 'noir' feel.
Therein becomes one of the double-edge blades of film VS digital techniques; the latter's ability for soft-proofing and making sure you've got it in the can is of compelling usefulness.
Second: You're partially right about film but for the wrong reasons.
I can't say that I've read anything here that rings true, that speaks to the core of the results its all mostly process-related. While associated, there are details that pull both ways.
From foundation, and upwards, there are unquestionable differences between film and digital technologies. Final results are a different argument, a lot of details have influence. There are a few isolated, and diminishing, bastions where film has no digital equivalent.
As Kodachrome is to Pan-F, all bets are off till we talk about the shooter, their experience and their location, etc. That is to say: the differences between variables in one aspect, such as media, are far outweighed by the entire suite of variables in a given situation.
"Film" is a rather broad term as is "digital". Without context these terms are individually less useful. Regardless of flavor, media and machinery they are all tools.
Plain and simple, the fact you may not be able to extract what you are looking for, today, with tools at hand, does not by itself mean it cannot be done. This is NOT a criticism of you or your skills, it is a fact that affects us all at different stages and times.
To the main points mentioned at the outset of this thread: tonality and filtration arguments are red-herrings. Genuinely, without specifics there is nothing to discuss and even with many details there is still little to waste time splitting hairs and dwelling upon.
Between large format with fine grain film and good lighting, etc., and scrawny point-and-shoot cameras in low light; accutance and tonality are not the litmus test delimiting one technology VS another.
Authenticity, perception and workflow are the main factors that differentiate the techniques. Workflow, as alluded above, has less to do with the final result but the road en-route and the butt in the driver's seat.
Practically speaking, there is no authentic analog for grain using digital technologies. Indeed my "pet peeve" with digital is sterility for some subject matter. It becomes plastic, superficial and transient therefore failing to 'feel' like traditional media.
Perception is an immeasurable detail, but it is one that plays a most significant role upon the task. Shooting film, there is a finite capacity and a delayed feedback loop. These have a greater significance upon end results than any technical detail, given appropriate tools and skill, can ever have.
I am a very early adopter of digital technologies, but I still shoot film. Not because digital can't do the job, it is because film is like the slow-food movement. Its more about flavor, pace, texture and source than it is about appearances and convenience, let alone consistency.
Like anything else, my views are my own and my comments are always meant to be constructive. Not everyone will agree, and if they do or don't, then we probably haven't covered enough ground to find the differences or similarities yet. ;-)
