i transited from film to digital, so i'd share some thots.
i agree with CK about the part where the lab takes care of everything. For a wedding, i shoot maybe 12 rolls, send it in a decent lab, throw out the rubbish, arrange, put in album, and i'm ready to deliver. For digital, it can take 1-3 weeks just to select, sort and process.
With film, however, i lose certain things, like, as synapseman said, the ability to 'cheat' and take the best of a few shots. i also lose the ability to check important shots for closed eyes and half closed eyes. i lose the ability to shoot continuously for 200 shots without 'changing film', the ability to change ISO on the fly. i also learn more as i go, being able to catch my mistakes earlier.
Anyway, to cut the long story short, i'm not going back to film for event and wedding shoots. Of course, it's not my rice bowl, so i can be dogmatic about it.
Film wins when your process/workflow does not go through the digital medium; ie, you process and print straight from the negative. However, if the workflow requires digitizing your negatives, then digital wins big time, hands down.
High resolution scanning of film brings out grain and dust, and costs a lot in either money or time/effort. Scaling a digitized film also enlarges the grain, unlike the output from dSLRs, which are clean and scale very very well. Before the 'affordable' 10D came out, i spent (estimated) about 1000 hours in front of my PC, scanning, rescanning, cloning dust, colour-correcting, trying to minimise the effect of grain with PS, etc. Not to mention the huge collection of negatives that must be filed, labeled, catalogued and maintained in flat, acid-free folders, and are currently taking up the space of three enormous binders in my dry-cab. (And once the film curls over time, you won't be able to scan it properly.)
Slides are better in the grain and colour department, but they are much harder to scan correctly, and exposure, unlike negatives, is unforgiving of errors. The also come with the same flatness, dust and storage issues as negatives.
The cost of printing from labs are now about the same for film and digital, for all sizes of prints. Printing from digital used to be 50c++ for 4R, which was a deterrent for shooting digital. But not anymore.
Digital has its own share of problems, but most of them can be solved with keyboard, mouse and (some) money. (Try cleaning a fingerprint off a negative, scanning a curled up negative.)
Anyway, the bottom line is that i conceive no situation where i would voluntarily go back to film. i have no comment about the skin-tones being better on film; but i shudder to shoot (and scan) another roll of film. i'll probably never go back to 35mm film, except maybe for emergency backups or very special situations. i may eat my words in the future, but for now, that's how it stands for me. YMMV.
i still have 50-100 rolls of film waiting to be scanned. :sweat: