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.

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

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.

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.

After one attempt at photography in high school, with a SLR and a darkroom, I decided to wait until I felt that the tech had matured enough so that I never, ever had to deal with physical film media. Reciprocity is a perfect example; when I'm in art mode (or scientific data collection), I never want to think about the nonlinearity of my sensor.

Digital sensors get noise instead of reciprocity failure. That’s why the original Acros was so loved for long exposures

Film has noise too. It's called "grain". It even mirrors how DSLRs work pretty directly: Higher ISO values result in more noise/grain.

Not quite. Film doesn't get more grain with longer exposures, whereas it does with digital sensors, as you can get [hot pixels](https://photofocus.com/software/what-are-hot-pixels-and-how-...) and other artifacts the longer the sensor is exposing a shot.