Film still has a place in photography, it's just not the cheapest or most convenient place. But resolution, especially with large prints, where you can actually see the difference, is still superior to digital.
The problem is in the Pro world, where 90+ % of all output is to print, that resolution won't ever be evident (the printing process isn't as good as a modern digital sensor in resolution or dynamic range). Even billboards are digital domain since the viewing distance takes away any superior resolution advantages. So the market that bought the most quality film and larger print film is no longer, so the costs and availability has shrunk dramatically.
If you are doing Fine Art there is a place for film, and it still has a foothold in forensic imaging (basically, evidence photos) since it's easier to detect manipulation and most forms of digital manipulation don't have a corresponding manipulation avenue with a negative or print from negative.
I don't see the point in taking film to a quick photo developer to get prints. They don't have the technology to exploit film's advantages, you may as well be doing digital there. To make film worthwhile, especially considering the costs involved in processing and printing, you need to either be printing yourself with a conventional darkroom using selected "really good" images and in large print sizes (at least 20x24, and really they should be even larger) or taking the same quality shots to a professional who would do the same. To make that worthwhile, then, you need to be selling those prints as framed art.
I sold my last film camera, a Polaroid 600SE (medium format, made by Mamiya, interchangeable lenses, and using the film packs that gave a negative as well as the positive Polaroid print) to some hipster from California who wanted it to do "art photography" while he and his GF toured Europe.
I was doing Polaroid dye transfer prints with it.
[Not my image, they are buried in another Hard Drive, but illustrative of the effect.]
.