For me it depends on the situation and what film you're shooting. If I'm shooting negatives, then I probably spend more time with digital. Negatives have a higher exposure latitude and you don't generally have to worry about overexposure (unless you really botched it up), while with the digital you have to be relatively careful.
If I'm shooting slides, then I most probably will take more time with the slides. This depends on the photographic situation, whether I'm going to be using filters or not, etc. If I'm using ND filters then I'm definitely going to be taking more time with film. I don't use them with the digital anymore. There are programs and plugins for Photoshop these days that offer High Dynamic Range, so I've begun to experiment with that. Taking 5 shots with different EVs and then combining them is less bothersome than carefully aligning an ND filter or two with (say) the horizon.
With a digital, there's also, of course, the added advantage of being able to review and simply delete any errors. No one really wants to waste film due to the costs involved.
I still favour film over digital when it comes to landscapes, however. If I had a full frame camera I'd probably experiment more... and I say probably because I still think films such as Velvia or E100VS are more suited for landscape photography. This is only my opinion however. I'm not trying to start yet another film vs. digital debate, nor do I wish to participate in one.