Yeah, that's why 99% of the wedding photographers have switched to digital, most every catalog is produced using digital cameras (direct to press), Sports Illustrated is 100% digital, nearly every newspaper has switched to digital...shall I continue?
Your son in-law may be a "professional photographer" but his thoughts that digital hasn't matured (at least to the point of being totally usable for commercial work) couldn't be more wrong.
The true last stronghold for film in professional work is for architectural photography. The problem with digital in that usage is handling multiple light sources. While you can do it with a digital back on a view camera, you end up making multiple images and then spending an inordinate amount of time in PS putting the images together.
With film, you can shoot Polaroids to get light balance (filtration, exposures, etc.) and then shoot the final image with multiple exposures. If you can get it to look good on Polaroid, the image looks 200% better on film. Ten to 30 minutes to shoot one image is a whole lot better than spending 1-2 hours in PS combining images.
I've also done several shots on location with only a single strobe and up to 60 individual exposures - something difficult if not impossible to do with digital.
But the idea that digital hasn't reached the point of being "fully developed" enough for at least 95% of commercial work is laughable.