easier to scan? Well, to get the right look perhaps Neg takes more getting to know (and can't be automated with such ease) but dealing with high contrast ... well that's where neg makes something worth while. Chromes are as bad as digital for that.
Slides can't handle high contrast situations well, never could, never will. They do produce beautiful blacks, though, something neither my Coolscan V nor my V700 could ever get out of negatives. Once you fix negative scans to the point that blacks are black instead of grey grainy mush with a nasty color cast, all that "can handle harsh contrasts" beauty is gone. Nope, my negatives are fine, they print beautifully on an optical enlarger.
Stuff such as this just can't really be done with chromes
well ... and get the sun, the sky textures, the shadows and the glints on the snow ...
Whenever I scan such a neg (I love shooting into the sun BTW), my scanner (software) gives me all kinds of colors around the sun (see attached image) and it takes serious post processing to fix it. When I scan slides with similar image matter, there are no such rings of color (see other attached image). And again, these rings I see on negative scans are mysteriously gone when I print them optically.
Scanner and the scanning software seem to have conspired to make my neg scans look like crap, whereas even as complete noob I got acceptable scans from my slides with little effort. Maybe a pro can do more with scans from negatives, but for a noob with little ambition in the post processing area (I don't lug around an RZ67 so that I have to spend hours to fix my scans) slides are much, much easier.