Digital Photography question - repost

I thought this might be a better place to post this-
Just curious, but is all wedding photography pretty much digital nowadays? I figured it would be the norm and I like the idea of getting a cd with the proofs, but from my own experiences with photography, I find that film photography comes out crisper and that way you get the negatives. It could just be that the printing I've used for digital isn't the greatest, but I am definitely partial to film. Am I totally outdated? Any experiences with either?
Thanks!

Digital is the way to go because:

Photographers can see their results instantly.

Film can be ruined at the lab if there is bad chemistry or a power failure or camera/flash problem that goes undetected. I've shot tens of thousands of digital photos and have never lost an image. I use the highest quality compact flash cards.

Photographers can spend more time and miss less shots if they don't have to load film.

In the future it may be much harder and expensive to find labs that can print from negatives. Some photographers who use film have the negatives scanned. Handling negatives can damage them in terms of scratches, dust, and fingerprints. Scanning is making a digital copy of a negative and is not equal to the quality of the digital file from the camera because it is a generation removed. The best scans are very expensive and use drum scanners. When film photographers have hundreds of scans made they are getting discount scans -- not drum scans. This introduces an extra cost without any gain. Some places don't even remove the clear plastic sleeves from the negatives during scanning -- and it shows.

it's easier to retouch and be creative with digital photos.

Digital can be printed on the same photographic paper as negatives, so the end product is the same. I provide brides with a 4x6 print of each photo (not thumbnails). Some photographers provide proof books.

Of course you need to hire a photographer that is good with digital and that uses top-of-the-line cameras and lenses.

Digital is more time-consuming (for the photographer) after the wedding than film and the equipment costs are much higher. So what a photographer using film spends on film and processing is similar to what a photographer using digital spends on equipment. But with digital it's easier for the photographer to provide the bride with more photos.

If I put one of my 16x20 or larger prints from digital next to the same size print from a negative you would not be able to tell the difference.

There are many more reasons to go digital -- this is my brief reply.

I'm still with film (although will be adding digital to stay competitive) for the reasons you cited plus a few more.

My lab scans in the negs so I have all three options: proofs, negs, and CDs. I'm not missing out on anything digital and still have the negs for backup (which everyone would acknowledge is still the highest quality.

I've heard stories of photographers losing all the info in a camera by simply being too close to ...... let's say the DJ's speaker (or anything magnetic.) Too scary for me! I find film and negs MUCH more reliable.

Proofs are much easier to look at then thumbnails. I would rather print everything just in case there is a picture that I'm not aware of that may be special to you for some reason.

Those are a few good reasons to stay with film (which my lab will continue to support.)