What time is it: I Use Digital underwater for convenience
How to make the clock:
I'm going to have to put on my asbestos underwear for this one.
A buddy of mine who started out shooting film in the bad old days before Betamax had an amazing point: Film can capture +- 2 f-stops worth of luminance and shadow more than a digital signal can without significant noise. Films are still shot on film for a reason, and there is just something about the depth of emotion you can get from a nice film negative.
Also keep in mind that as standards change and things become "higher definition," in the digital world, film is the ultimate in higher definition so long as scanning / telecine technology keeps up with the latest digital chips. If Lucas wants a new digital 2160x1440p dpi scan for the "super HiDef" release of Star Wars in 10 years, all he has to do is telecine it in off film at the new resolution and he's got it at the higher quality.
That being said... The convenience factor has made me shoot mostly on digital - and the fact that I can edit DV just by plugging in firewire to a computer - makes it a slam dunk for most consumers / prosumers to go digital. Most wedding / prosumer photographers I work with feel the same way... with the notable exception of portraits and close ups of bride and groom & black-and-white contrast shots of different things. The bride's face, bride and groom together, and some artsy B&W love shots are all on film for the nice light / dark look.
For me, Its a question of the right tool for the job: If I'm underwater and need to know if I got the shot, need to color correct in software, or just need to shoot 100+ pictures, its digital with the highest res I can find (FYI, I shoot video on DVCPRO or MiniDV depending on situation). If I'm on land and want a great portrait or am doing a B&W study of a scene, its T-Max all the way.