I'd encourage you to look into scanning the negatives if you have them, with a "true" negative scanner. Prints are, well, more limited in what you can "get".
As to digital images being "inferior" to film, well, hmm. It is true that film often specializes in optimizing things like contrast and saturation, similar to shooting jpegs and working with Picture Styles. Or, we who shoot Raw work in the "digital darkroom" to process our Raw files to the "right look". I don't look back at old prints (or scans from old prints) and wish I was still shooting film.
As for a "grainy look", well, hmm...while shooting at high ISO amplifies digital noise that is more evident due to the low light, it still outdoes the high ISO of the film days.
And, you could see the fine detail of film beginning to break down at, say, ISO 200 (or some film shooters would go lower). True, it mattered more if you were printing large, but I have a lot of larger prints, and, say, an 11x14 print shot at ISO 200 will show that "breakdown"...
Now, note that I'm talking about 35mm film here compared to a DSLR. I've never shot medium format film and so can't comment.
And, of course, the little compact digicams have issues with higher ISOs, and even my trusty ol' 30D starts to get a bit noisy at, say, ISO 400, which can be epecially bothersome when I have to closely crop for, say, wildlife shooting (most recently I had to work over some macro shots of a little fly taken by the 30D at ISO 400, but doing some work in Lightroom nicely handled the noise and also provided local sharpening for the little critter!).
