I guess it depends on your purpose. For me, digitising is a practical, relatively time-and-space efficient solution to making my film images viewable on my colour-calibrated screens and other devices - my primary purpose - whilst also having them available to share with friends and family, or print on occasion (very much a secondary purpose). You might say, why not just shoot digital... and of course I do, but I like the look of my film output too, for different reasons - and I really enjoy the developing process. As a side benefit, digitising brings together my post-processing workflows and image library management rather nicely.
The vast majority of non-specialist film labs use a very similar process these days, don't they? If you request prints, they digitise the developed films and produce the prints from those files. I don't know for sure, but I believe it's been this way for at least a couple of decades or more, as I have packs of my old negatives from the early-mid 2000s containing CD-ROMs with scans, and prints from those scans.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to set up a darkroom and learn to wet-print. I'm painfully aware that I'm missing out on half or more of the analogue image-making workflow, and not learning those skills... but I don't have space at home I'm prepared to dedicate to that, and it actually doesn't serve my primary purpose very well either.
I've occasionally described some lenses as being "clinical" or "lacking character" in their rendering. In retrospect, I can see how that might sound disparaging, but that was never my intention... What I'd intended to describe is the technically near-perfect rendering - devoid of obvious aberrations - of certain high-performing lenses. I've also used the term "character" to describe technically less-than-perfect (sometimes very flawed) rendering in some vintage lenses that I find appealing. I mention this because I think it parallels some folks' description of digital photography as "sterile", which might also seem disparaging - but, again, I don't think it's meant that way...
Modern digital cameras and high-performance lenses have got to the point where the resulting images are so clean, so sharp, so precise and near-flawless in their rendering - and that can look fantastic, no doubt about it. In contrast, a lot of film photography I've viewed - and certainly my own film photos - are inherently flawed. I suspect it's a combination of the medium (and the way it records light and detail), grain, lens performance, often less-than-perfect focus, and the resulting colours, contrast and tonal distribution from wet prints (or digitising with colour profiles intended to approximate wet prints). It's certainly not just grain, as I can take any of my digital photos, add grain in post-processing, and they look nothing like my film images. I can go a stage further and apply film simulation LUTs... even shoot with adapted vintage lenses... and that gets me closer - but it still doesn't look the same. Is it possible to completely recreate the look of a certain film and analogue processing from digital photos and clever post-processing? I don't know... probably, with a lot of time and effort... but if I managed to do so, I'm sure someone would tell me it defeats the purpose of digital and I may as well just shoot film - and I think they'd have a good point :p
I suspect that if I were shooting very low ISO, minimal-grain reversal film with very high-performing modern lenses, the difference in image quality compared to modern digital photography would be significantly lessened. I've not done that, though, and suspect I never will, as I enjoy the output I'm getting from typical ISO 100 - 400 negative films and the older cameras and lenses I use.
I completely understand the attraction of digital, and the desire to achieve the best possible noise-and-aberration-free image quality. I'm not criticising it in any way, shape or form... and I'm fully aware of all the advantages of shooting digital over film. As I said previously, I benefit from them myself. I just happen to get something from shooting film - both in the process and image quality - that I don't get with digital. It's not better or worse - just different. I realise it's not to everyone's tastes and some folks just don't get it, and that's fine... we enjoy enjoy different things in different ways for different reasons :)
