When you tell me this, then you have a point. However, have you ever seen WWI or WWII war correspondents' photos that were shot with film? Some of them were far from perfect, and the imperfection conveyed the urgency of the moment. What you have done, as they did, is to capture the essence of the moment, just as they did, and the merit would be in the photo itself, rather than the level of technical perfection. It sounds a bit artsie fartsie, but it is the best description that I can give you. Hopefully, you kept the original file for comparison and for the merit f capturing the photo in its raw format.
Having said all that, I would suggest that there are a good many films out there that are available with wide exposure latitude that can do a great job under the conditions that you described. We very often forget that photography is art and that is what we must concentrate on and not the high or low technology that went into capturing the image. For some, it is by film, for others it is digitally.
All the photography shops that I frequent say that film is not going to go away, and that there are advantages to both film and digital media. They go so far as to say that a great many phtotgraphers have re-discovered film photography. For most, the convenience of capturing a digital image is the convenience. For others, it is the discipline and incomparable capabilities of the film medium. No one is 100 % right in saying that one is decidedly and totally better than another.
And, don't any one give me the excuse that digital prints are less expensive than film prints! Have you costed out replacement ink for a good printer? I have, and it is a significant sum to make a print.
For the record, I shoot both film and digital formats.