There's nothing wrong. I'm 16. I have my own darkroom in my laundry room. I process C41 film in my sink, I run E6 if I have the time, and I'm doing quite well with RA4 printing using trays and an $80 dichro enlarger off ebay. I get good pictures. I suppose I am the outliar. I also have a few opinions which I'll share.
First, when starting off with photography many of us lack vision. We merely say "that stop sign looks cool!" and snap a picture of it. The majority of our pictures come out just bad, lacking substance and ingenuity or general coolness. We lack understanding of what works, such as the distinction that black and white photography has distinctly different uses than color does. At this point in our photographic career, digital has the advantage of being free. We can shoot, we can immediately see what works, and we know that bad shots are not a problem. This eliminates the fear to shoot lots of pictures, and helps us learn faster.
However, I hate digital. I took a photography trip a few years ago and returned with 2.5 thousand shots. I liked about 25. Also, I noticed that when "properly" exposed, the colors that were contained in the highlight regions of the image were blown to friggin hell. I had to dial back the exposure a few stops until the colors looked good and the screen then looked like muddy dog barf. The slides I got back from the trip out of my Yashicamat TLR and my Kodachrome from the Pentax K1000 just glowed. There was nothing to it.
I found that I couldn't print slides easily (my schools scanner is a trainwreck,) so I started shooting negatives. I had been warded off of major color work with the message that "it's toxic and difficult" but I guess I proved them wrong. My prints from Ektar 100 35mm negatives enlarged to 11x14 show no grain WHATSOEVER (litterally less grain than a 4x5 negative and a harder time grain focusing) and the colors glow. Nothing to it. And I don't have cancer...yet.
I also prefer the feeling of film. It makes you cut off the bad images, and the results you get back all have a higher degree of quality. When you see those and discard the bad ones, you are left with a very nice portfolio.
Who knows. Each to his own, but I like film and I don't care.
I also like waiting. I'm a firm believer that we live in a too impersonal world of cellphones and internet and firmly believe that the 70s would have been a better place to live in. When I want instant gratification I have fujiroid instant packfilm in my polaroid model 350 instant packfilm camera. That's another story but that camera shifts my vision and helps in visualizing the final image. People think it's amazing too.
To fhotoace or however you spell that: It's all too true. I love how the 4x5s turn the image over and backwards, forcing you to analyze the key elements of composition. It forces you to have vision, because those cameras are not fun to set up if the image ends up being bad. Have you visited apug.org?
ADDITION: I hear the "how much does 15 billion digital shots cost in film?" question all the time but to quote ken rockwell, you don't blow off 39 pictures of your feet in the parking lot twiddling settings and white balance or exposure when you're shooting 4x5. He says, truthfully, that film is cheaper than digital because the cameras are so expensive. You don't shoot 4x5s quickly, and that slow methodical process makes you think about the image before rather than after exposure and helps you make improvements in composition and perspective before you take the image. Nobody carries around a D1 anymore because technology is better and $10,000 later you have upgraded your camera twice compared with several hundred velvia 4x5s shot in a camera that's been working since the time of gallileo. I found that digital distracted me because in trying to get the (singular) image of the sunrise looking better on the screen I failed to see some better compositions that the camera wasn't pointed at.