My first camera (1980) was a Minolta film SLR. It had an "automatic" mode that was essentially aperture priority, everything else was manual. I used that thing for 15 years and took thousands of pictures with it.
Then I got a job working on software for digital cameras and knew that soon I would be switching to digital. 'Soon' turned out to be 5 years (in 1995 the high-end digicams were 640x480 resolution and could take up to 8 shots), during which I got certified for scuba. I shot film underwater with a rented Nikonos a few times, but I already had a taste for the sweet feedback of digital, even despite the drawbacks of the cameras of the day, so it was a matter of waiting.
In 2000 I got a 3 megapixel Sony consumer digicamera and my first u/w camera housing, an Ikelite, with which I used a pair of video lights. The setup had its pros and cons, but basically the camera itself was severely lacking for any serious shooter. In late 2000 I got a Canon D30, and never went back to a point and shoot.
Last year I upgraded to a D60, got a UK-Germany housing, and spent three weeks in Australia learning to use the durned thing. In three days I shot 1000 pix and went from having no idea how to place the strobe or what settings to use for proper exposure to consistently getting sharp, perfectly exposed images with no backscatter -- that short learning curve simply isn't possible with film (and wouldn't have been possible in any case if I hadn't already spent two years taking thousands of shots with essentially the same camera). Now I have a Canon 10D and a bit of a housing quandry, but no regrets.
I'm a gear-head with a decided pro-high-tech bias, but I can't see any reason to shoot with film at this point in time. Even if you could make a case for higher quality (which I would dispute), the inconvenience, lack of flexibility and lack of timely feedback make film extremely unappealing to me.