I bought my first digital camera from Dixons (remember them?) in the Xmas sale in 1999, a 1.5 megapixel Fuji MX500 compact! I bought it to use for work as I realised it would save much time and money when taking photos to include in survey reports. I wasn't wrong, and whilst the quality wasn't a patch on what I could produce from a scanned 35mm print at the time, it was good enough for a report, especially given the time and money it saved.
I still used my two Canon T90s and A1 for 'photography' though, and I didn't get an autofocus SLR until the early 2000s. Eventually, after a 3.5mp Casio and a 5mp Minolta, I bit the bullet and bought a 10mp Canon 400D, which could use the same lenses as my then EOS-3 SLR. I now have two compact digi cameras, a 10 year-old used Fuji bridge camera with good 28-400 optical zoom range (bought recently for £16 from a charity shop) that I use for work. I also have a Canon 6D that I use mainly for 'pleasure' and more old film cameras than I want to admit to!
For work it's always digital because of the speed and convenience, for personal general-purpose use and documentary style photography (when I get time) it's usually the digital 6D, and for when I want to enjoy photography as photography (which some may not understand) it's one or more of my film cameras, that range from manual everything 6x9 medium format to autofocus 35mm SLRs that can use the same lenses as my 6D. So that's the reason I say I use digital to take photographs, but film to do photography.
Interestingly, I did an experiment a couple of years ago, I took two 'identical' photos of a scene, one with the 6D, and one with a 6x6 medium format TLR on Kodak Ektar 100 colour print film. I then printed both images at A4 (the digital image from a JPEG straight from the camera, which produces very nice looking JPEGs, and the film shot was scanned at standard settings on a flatbed home scanner). I then asked some friends and relatives to chose which photo they preferred the look of.
The film print was chosen by almost all of my sample group! On a computer screen the 6D had definitely produced more detail (it may have been closer or been beaten if I'd had a high-res lab scan of the film negative though), but as sharp and detailed as the results the 6D were (and it does produce some lovely looking images), most people preferred the 'look' of the film photo.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to go back to the days without digital cameras, my 6D performs at low light levels I could only dream about with film, and the results are instant - you can check you've got the shot before you leave the location. The sheer convenience and versatility of digital makes it a given for most professional photographers.
However, there's something about film, it has a certain look to it; and there's something slightly magical about putting a roll of film in a camera - that slight feeling of anticipation! Plus there's the skill of matching the film type and speed to suit the subject. Old cameras can be so enjoyable to use as a hobby too, lovely pieces of engineering, the sound of the moving parts, the feel of the controls, etc. Then there's that slight 'Christmas morning' type feeling of excitement when the developed film reaches your hands for the first time... did I get some good shots? I find I don't get that the same with digital.
As a work tool, I think digital photography wins hands down in most everyday situations. However, as a hobby, I think film photography has a lot going for it.