Was film photography actually a better hobby than digital, or just nostalgia?

[Paul73]

Film photography enthusiasts often argue the format genuinely forced better discipline, since a limited number of exposures per roll meant actually thinking carefully about composition before pressing the shutter rather than machine gunning hundreds of digital shots hoping one turns out. There's also a genuine tactile ritual to loading film, waiting for development, and the actual surprise of seeing results days later rather than instantly. But digital removed the genuine cost barrier that kept a lot of people from practicing regularly at all, and instant feedback lets you actually learn from mistakes immediately rather than days later. Curious whether people think film genuinely made for a better hobby experience or whether that's mostly nostalgia talking

The case for digital usually centers on genuinely faster learning through instant feedback and the freedom to experiment without worrying about the cost of each individual shot. The case for film usually comes down to that forced discipline and the genuinely different, more considered relationship with the actual process of taking a photo. Feels like a real tension between accessibility for beginners and depth of engagement for those already committed

What's actually your honest take on this, especially if you've shot both formats seriously yourself. Genuinely curious how people weigh discipline against accessibility here