But my response to this is to see the advantage in scarcity of shots, and the limiting nature of black and white, and apply those restrictions shooting in digital.

That has a certain rationality to it, but I don't think it's that simple. You could certainly tell people to just do it, but psychologically, emotionally, cognitively, it's not the same.

I'm not much of a photographer, but I know that with music software that has too many options, I end up confused, stressed, exhausted by possibilities. That's not inherent to the tools, it's just a feature of my limited psyche.

So I appreciate tools that are themselves "restricted." But when I'm actually using such tools—like simple guitar effect pedals, or simple portable recorders—I don't think in terms of restrictions. Because I don't have to think so much about the infinite possibilities of digital stuff at all. I can "get into a zone", kind of like driving a manual car.

When I do photography, I'm attracted to the notion of "contemplative photography," which some people might find weird. But it means among other things that the intimate physical aspects of the equipment are as important as anything. Dealing with a colorful menu display with choices of widescreen, pixel resolutions, presets, etc has a subtle cognitive presence that can be disturbing.

Instruments and tools are "user interfaces" or "user experiences." Sometimes the distinction between analog and digital is fetishized. The distinction between simplicity and complexity seems more important.

If your experience of film photography is sending a roll off and getting an envelope of prints back, then maybe, but if you are developing yourself, the development process involves all sorts of trade-offs of time, temperature, and chemistry, then wet-printing is more of the same, along with literal dodging and burning (do you ever wonder why the Photoshop tools are called that?). It really has very, very little in common with a digital workflow. So your point is one from ignorance.

I think he's kinda right there when he goes on to note that the resulting final image from a digital process can be visually adapted to emulate what can be achieved with film.

But I also think you're right to note that the craft of chemical development is markedly different to digital photo processing (photoshopping or what-have-you) [with or without printing].

It makes me consider typewriters vs. wordprocessors; or a potters hands vs. a jigger [or jolley].

To my mind the road travelled to reach a final artistic presentation can be important even if the evidence of it is not present in the form or image itself.

No, I don't think it will convince them to shoot digital,

Your whole argument is based on a false premise - that people who enjoy shooting film don't like digital. There are lots of us who like doing both. I like shooting 4k digital in film production because it has huge economic advantages. I like shooting still digitally because I can take 200 pictures in an afternoon without switching cards, and go back and check focus and exposure on the stop to know if I've got the shot I wanted or not.

Shooting film isn't about having a limited number of shots or shooting in black and white (although I do prefer black and white, but have no problem doing that from digital sources, plus there are even B&W-only digital cameras that trade away color options for might higher resolution). Instead it forces you to select your shots based on how things look and the much more limited shooting options available, as well as exploring the decidedly nonlinear nature of the film substrate itself. I'm interested in the artifacts that many try to engineer away in pursuit of accuracy, and would much rather use tools where those artifacts are more likely to emerge naturally than start with a perfect image and try to paint them on afterwards.

See, I just don't find that stuff interesting. Lens flare from non-coated lenses, light leaking into badly constructed film cameras, old film which has gone bad, weird colour shifts due to the imperfection of the chemicals used - none of these things contain any profundity for me. My interest is in the subject and the context of the photograph. These "artefacts" that you talk about are no more interesting than tool marks on a sculpture or brush strokes on a painting. It doesn't add any depth to a piece of art just because flaws in the tool are reflected in the final product. Otherwise you could make your sculpture 10 times more meaningful by refusing to use anything but a butterknife to make it.