There's an excellent Associated Press article on the future of film. If you're one of those who participated in the Kodak survey a few months back, the results are here:
Thanks for posting the URL. However I disagree to some extent with the way the data is presented because with pros who do photography that is published/reproduced it is not the photographer who tends to choose digital or film but the photographers' clients. Doing offset reproduction from film is more costly, time-consuming and now difficult as much of the expertise of technicians like color separators has been replaced by lesser skilled scanner operators. For clients digital is more cost efficient, so many pros do digital because the clients that hire them demand it.
David, I tend to agree with you, and I think the article really reflects the same point of view. But, take a look at this response from Matthew Jordan Smith to a discussion on another forum. Someone had implied that he's "in Kodak's pocket":
"This is Matthew Jordan Smith. I'm a very busy photographer who shoots both film and digital, however I love working with film more. That's just me but if you were to come on any assignment with me you'd understand why. I am NOT in anyone's pocket and have been using Kodak film since my Dad gave me a camera at the age of 12. A lot of my clients have asked for digital over the last few years but this year I've had some of those same clients asking for FILM. For example next week I'm shooting every day for four different clients. Four days out of the five I am shooting film. Two of the clients specifically ASKED FOR FILM! These are clients who in the past have asked for digital but are now asking for film again. This is my business and I make a living doing what I love. I see digital as another tool and sometimes that tool works fine but other times I need other tools to get the best images I can. I will continue to shoot both. I am working on my third book and the process simply does not translate in digital. If you know both film and digital you have an advantage over both. I also must agree with Chris Usher, (whom I never met) with his statement of spending less time when shooting film. I've been shooting for 21 years as a pro and there is far more time invloved shooting digital and time for me is money."
Part of the quoted reply confirms what I said about the client largely dictating whether a job is submitted in digital or analog film format. A lot of smaller operations (clients) are also influenced by the digital expertise or lack of it within their organization. Companies tend to handle more of digital internally and inept and poorly skilled personnel on the client side is something I hear more bitching about than anything.
The other issue of "time" also varies depending on the client and the shooter. Many, most photographers (film) never did any processing or post shoot work to speak of other than editing (culling) frames post shoot. With digital the photographer has to using Raw do more post shoot work.
Personally I see this as an advantage if you have the ability to bill the client for what that time is worth. I would today be a very rich man if I had all of the money I spent with color labs instead of the lab getting that profit potential.
Pro photography is very diverse and varied. There are no one-size fits all solutions, just individual ones that work if thought out rationally and thoroughly. Some photographers are better business and production managers than others, some better shooters - doing both well is exceptional.