>Do you think this argument is going to convince someone who enjoys shooting with film?
No, I don't think it will convince them to shoot digital,
Your whole argument is based on a false premise - that people who enjoy shooting film don't like digital. There are lots of us who like doing both. I like shooting 4k digital in film production because it has huge economic advantages. I like shooting still digitally because I can take 200 pictures in an afternoon without switching cards, and go back and check focus and exposure on the stop to know if I've got the shot I wanted or not.
Shooting film isn't about having a limited number of shots or shooting in black and white (although I do prefer black and white, but have no problem doing that from digital sources, plus there are even B&W-only digital cameras that trade away color options for might higher resolution). Instead it forces you to select your shots based on how things look and the much more limited shooting options available, as well as exploring the decidedly nonlinear nature of the film substrate itself. I'm interested in the artifacts that many try to engineer away in pursuit of accuracy, and would much rather use tools where those artifacts are more likely to emerge naturally than start with a perfect image and try to paint them on afterwards.
>I'm interested in the artifacts that many try to engineer away
See, I just don't find that stuff interesting. Lens flare from non-coated lenses, light leaking into badly constructed film cameras, old film which has gone bad, weird colour shifts due to the imperfection of the chemicals used - none of these things contain any profundity for me. My interest is in the subject and the context of the photograph. These "artefacts" that you talk about are no more interesting than tool marks on a sculpture or brush strokes on a painting. It doesn't add any depth to a piece of art just because flaws in the tool are reflected in the final product. Otherwise you could make your sculpture 10 times more meaningful by refusing to use anything but a butterknife to make it.
No, I don't think it will convince them to shoot digital,
Your whole argument is based on a false premise - that people who enjoy shooting film don't like digital. There are lots of us who like doing both. I like shooting 4k digital in film production because it has huge economic advantages. I like shooting still digitally because I can take 200 pictures in an afternoon without switching cards, and go back and check focus and exposure on the stop to know if I've got the shot I wanted or not.
Shooting film isn't about having a limited number of shots or shooting in black and white (although I do prefer black and white, but have no problem doing that from digital sources, plus there are even B&W-only digital cameras that trade away color options for might higher resolution). Instead it forces you to select your shots based on how things look and the much more limited shooting options available, as well as exploring the decidedly nonlinear nature of the film substrate itself. I'm interested in the artifacts that many try to engineer away in pursuit of accuracy, and would much rather use tools where those artifacts are more likely to emerge naturally than start with a perfect image and try to paint them on afterwards.