Not enough information in your question which leaves a lot of speculation.
Are you referring to reproduction quality negatives or transparencies that can be used for printing? If so I suggest a company like Nancy Scans. If you're referring to having 35mm slides made from your digital files for projection, I suggest a company like Sildes.com.
But it comes down to needing to know why you want to go from digital to film because it's not just about owning equipment but also about learning how to use it for optimum results and whether it's worth spending the time and money learning how to use it over hiring a service that specializes in what you're trying to do.

Thank you (Mr. Larry Berman) for taking your time to
respond. I am a "DoItMyself" type of a person. I have my own
traditional "WetLab" and am familiar with film development
and enlarging/printing in both B/W & color. I have no
problem with photography based on traditional film
technology ... it has evolved through "the test of time".
I also embrace the convenience of photography based on
digital imagery. After photographing with a digital camera,
I printer out the image on photo quality paper as I would
imagine most people do. However, I am of the impression that
prints from traditional "wet" process are superior to
prints obtained from printer. Organic ink dyes are water
soluble and will bleed in moist environment, are more
susceptible to bleaching/fading, etc. I've taken digital
image files to commercial photofinishing labs and
received prints on FujicolorCrystalArchive and
KodakExtraLife papers. I stand to be corrected but I believe
these are RA-4 papers. So ... I am wondering, how I/myself
can place/transpose digitized image from my computer onto
film so that I can print it in my traditional "wet" lab ...
cost effectively without compromising quality like these
commercial outfits do. What I am looking for is a way to
INTEGRATE "TraditionalDarkroom" and "DigitalDarkroom"
CHEAPLY. Regards ... HybridVigor

I guess the next question is what size film you want to have your digital files written to for printing? Do a search on Google for "film recorders."

About seven years ago I came up with a line of still lifes taken with medium format Velvia (Hasselblad) to sell at art shows. I had drum scans done and used Photoshop to tweak the colors and had the lab (the same lab that did the drum scans) output the files to negative film to have conventional C prints made. The resulting prints (up to 40 inch square) were beautiful. Recently I took those same drum scans and sized the files for direct to digital Lambda prints and they look just like the C prints, if not better.

I'm not saying that it can be done better, but I do suggest trying both to see if you're satisfied with the results. It all comes down to your Photoshop skills and how much control you have over the digital print process.

For me, as I've never wanted to print, digital has made photography so much easier because I don't have to depend on anyone else. I have the best of all worlds. I have total control over the file and get accurate prints without having to do the printing.

HV, IMHO, it does nor matter whose fingers put the print in the developer. All of the traditional darkroom work can be done on the computer from scans or digital camera: burn, dodge, multiple printing, whatever you did in the wet room can be done without the WASTED PAPER and chemicals.
Just burn the file to cd or upload them to a service that will print the pictures on your choice of various paper surfaces.
You have done all of the CREATIVE WORK!!!
Putting the paper in the JOBO or tray is not really all that creative.

Hello again Mr. Berman,...
Re: "and had the lab (the same lab that did the
drum scans) output the files to negative film"
This is what I wish to do, myself rather than have it done
by a professional lab ... Take digital files originating
from a digital camera instead of drum scanner,
perhaps PhotoShop it if required, and with his "affordable"
equipment, output the files to negative film ... up to and
including medium format is fine. As you have indicated,
the technology is there, ... sooo I'm hoping either you or
someone in this cyberspace know of equipment that will
"output files to negative film" ... AFFORDABLY so that
we can use traditional optical enlarger rather than costly
digital enlarger.
Thanking you very much for your input ... respectfully,
HybridVigor. PS: The key word is "AFFORDABLY"

Affordable is a relative term that in most cases is connected proportionally to image quality. As I suggested, you need to research film recorders. That's how a negative or transparency is created from a digital file. I think you can also put a sheet of clear acetate into an ink jet printer as a poor man's film recorder, but I wouldn't expect it to have a level of quality that you would be happy with. If it were me, I'd be more selective in which files I wanted to print and pay someone (a good service bureau) to make the film for me the right way.

Hi ...Creativity was not the issue in starting this thread.
PhotoShop to me is digital simulation of darkroom
experiences with a bit more kick, so working in front of a
monitor is very much like working in front of an enlarger.
For me though, seeing an image appear like a ghost
coming slowly out of a mist is like a mystical experience.
On the practical side, immediacy and independence are the
benefits and gratification of being able to do things
myself and these are the reasons for my search for an
affordable way to output files to negative film. Regards ...
HybridVigor

>>However, I am of the impression that
prints from traditional "wet" process are superior to
prints obtained from printer.<<

I believe you are making an assumption that is not entirely born out by the facts. Particularly relative to color, prints made with a digital printer that uses pigment inks are inherently more stable than any traditional commercially made color print which utilizes a dye to form the image colors.

In addition I would have a great deal more confidence in a pure fiber 100% cotton paper base for an image than any resin based substrate, as the resin is a petroleum derivative and is not proven to be stable over long periods of time.

Thank you (Mr. Berman) ... for the leads you have provided
me ... I am looking into them. Re: "affordable is a relative
term". Yes it is, and since photography is my hobby and not
my vocation ... it is a limiting term. Since it is possible
to migrate from film to digital with a Minolta MultiScan
for under 2 grand, I would be pleased to have a laser
device that can scan directly onto negative/film for under
2 grand. Respectfully ... HybridVigor

Hi ... thank you (Mr. Brooks) for your input.
I agree that "pigment inks are inherently more stable"
assuming that you are referring to inorganic pigments,
but the comment was made with commonalty & affordability
in mind.
Regards ... HybridVigor