I've spent a very significant part of the last 20 years of my life staring into screens. I love low-tech analog media. If nothing else, it's a great way to relax and break free from my work life.
i find digital cameras and post-processing software endlessly fiddly. as my photography teacher says, "you want to take photos? buy a dslr. you want to make art? shoot silver halide."
no, the teaching is all about technique and he teaches digital too. this is just his personal opinion and was in no way central to the teachings of the class.
If he actually cared about technique he wouldn't have said anything remotely like what you quoted. Even if it was hyperbole.
The only difference between film and digital is the set of limitations. Arbitrary limitations can be instructive - e.g. fixed focal lengths, monochrome, limited shutter counts. They can also be pointlessly stifling, e.g. tediously long feedback loops.
I would guess that with good-quality film, the lens is more often the limiting factor for sharpness. Maybe you should advocate for older, less tack-sharp lenses. You might get results you like even with a digital sensor.
I understand, my degree is in imaging technology. :) I was implying modern image sensors add a large degree of unsharp mask via their built in post processing, especially true to cell phone cameras.
