There''s definitely a difference ... In the right hands both can be fabulous, and the digital people are getting better and better cameras and post-processing (altering mood and exposure range on the computer) so it can be hard to tell ... but in the right hands, with an infinite budget, I would do film. I love the feel of superb film pictures, especially in B&W, when the digital often comes out colder, smoother, more sterile.
But I hired a digital photographer. Our budget is not infinite, so not only does it reduce the costs for your photographer (who can do a ton of touch ups on the computer, take more pictures the day of without worrying about film costs, ease the layout transition if he/she wants to do album layout on a computer) but also I''d rather have digital files to print extras from afterward than negatives. Sure, you can take negatives to Walmart to get printed, but you risk dust and scratches when you handle negatives. So if I had negatives, I''d want them scanned on a high quality expensive scanner so I can play with them on my computer as I don''t have dark room access anymore. When I realized that, I decided not to splurge on a film photographer. Plus my photography tastes were already pricing us way overbudget and something had to give. So...
Hire a great photographer and don''t look back!