Digital BW, The Print

> No 35mm digital camera compares favorably to medium-format film; 
even 35mm
> film does not compare favorably to medium-format film.
> 

Carefull here.  I suspect the comparison you were refering to was on 
www.luminous-landscape.com where micheal has abandoned MF for a 1Ds.  
The important thing here is that he states that the 1Ds gives better 
results FOR WHAT HE DOES - that is produce prints up to 13*19 
occasionally bigger , colour.  The comparison he makes is that while 
MF may have greater resolution, the gains of the digital workflow get 
most of it back again. 
It also appears to be the case that the 1Ds shows up the flaws in all 
but the best lenses.

BUT - from what I gather, one major problem may be that B&W film has 
a greater dynamic range that any colour film or digital sensor.

BUT I also read that inkjet prints can have a greater contrast range 
than the best conventional prints (don't flame me  - look at 
www.piezography.com)

BUT - if you shoot digital, you can shoot in colour and apply 
filters  (red , yellow etc)in post proccessing.

My analysis (FWIW) is:
If you use 35mm ,then shooting digital (on a good DSLR),and inkjet 
printing will probably produce final prints that are essentially 
indistingishable from conventional prints. 

Or you can shoot B&W film, scan it on a good scanner (don't use a 
flatbed), and get the same result.

If you shoot MF and have a good scanner (= expensive) you will 
probably get better results (but possibly only really visible on BIG 
prints)

let the flames begin.