There seems to be a resurgence now underway in the practice of analog photography. Given the technical maturity of digital this would seem at first to be at once curious and counterintuitive, especially since the majority of images that are still made on film and that end up in print form will be so as digital prints, requiring the extra step of the scan. Why the newfound interest?
This may be the gateway drug for some. Digital has now been the mean norm for long enough that young practitioners and students have come of age without ever having had to learn it. Darkrooms, especially color, have been expunged from many school programs, often leaving those who might have wanted to learn left out. Established artists who are also teachers by and large have been eager to leave their cumbersome analog pasts behind, although many still use film as their capture medium and most of those are more interested in color print longevity and access to the digital print making toolbox.
Film cameras are cheap. Many of the best cameras from the apex of the golden age can be had for a fraction of their original cost. Roll film is still reasonably priced for what it is, and in large format, black & white film is still a comparative bargain. Unless they are rare collectibles most film cameras have already done their depreciating, unlike digital, where today's $2000 camera will be a $500 or less camera in a couple of years. A Nikon F2 or Rolleiflex bought today can be sold in a few years for the purchase price. Conversely, there is little chance that today's costly D800 or 5D will be in use or even useable in 10 0r 20 or more years.
Digital is easier, faster (maybe), and if used carefully, capable of delivering greater resolution within a given format size than film. That said, film is a fully mature technology and the emulsions that are being made today represent the pinnacle of silver halide technology. Yes, some of us miss Kodachrome, Super XX, along with various Kodak and Fuji color transparency and negative films as well as Polaroid's classic instant films, but by and large the films that are still available today represent the best that there ever was.
Will the digital files that you have made over the past 15-20 years be accessible 10 or 20 years from now? Will you even remember that you made them? That is really a two-part question — the first part involves the stability and reliability of the technologies, both present and future, and the second part is the human factor. Will you keep those thousands of images, so seductively easily made, organized, copied and in a form that will be readable by/on future devices? I worry about this a lot with my own comparatively modest digital archive—you can hold it up to the light and see it. With a modest amount of care a negative or transparency will be ready for use long into the future. Chance discoveries years from now are much more likely. Finding negatives made long ago is a powerful way to frame the arc of one's own history, at least for those of us who have been at it long enough.
For all of its limitations film has a look that digital capture has yet to quite match. The way film rolls off extreme highlights is much more pleasing than the sort of blat white of digital. There is a normalness, an ease, in the overall rendering that is highly evolved. I think that one of the reasons that vintage B&W prints remain so desirable among collectors today is that they just look right. They did when they were first made and they do now. Compare a 60's Jaguar E-type with a contemporary F -Type. The latter is by all measures a technically superior machine, but the earlier version is the one that will elicit more smiles from more people when encountered in the flesh.
In practice, each approach can inform the other. Each can deliver a look the other can't and each offers its own workflow, better suited for some than others.