Like film digital photography can be made to look exactly how you want it to be. There is no clear-cut difference in that respect. None is inherently "better" in a system sense.
However, I wonder if this alleged difference boils down to the general public now have access to a technical quality of their cameras few other than studio photographers with their view cameras had in the past.
For me, not being into the finer technical aspects of either medium, I find film and wet printing much more limiting than digital and computer processing. Your point of making digital look like film, the ability of adding grain/noise, et cetera, is precisely my point. Even with limited processing expertise, you can make digital look a billion+ different ways, potentially, all of them good. With film and wet printing, you have finite possibilities and only a few are truly good.
With our imagination we can see the world a billion different ways ... with our eyes, our vision is limited.
Hasselblad 500 C/M w/Zeiss 80mm, Tri-X
