Originally posted by ckiang
You can still shoot IR with digital cameras, just need the appropriate filter. Yes, it may not be quite HIE, but you can still do it. Digital camera CCDs, if I am not wrong, is rather sensitive to IR "by detault", that's why they have the IR blocking "hot mirror" filter in fron of it. But they still let some remaining IR through. If you searched through the galleries, Jed has some nice IR shots from the D1.
The point is - with film you have a lot more options. If you need IR - you can use IR film. If you want stylish grain - push T-Max 3200 to 6400. And there are reasons why people shoot T-Max 100 and other high-resolution film. And there are reasons why people lust for resolution of Zeiss 100/3.5 CFi or APO Symmar 110XL.
With digital - you are limited to characteristics of a given sensor.
With some work, digital can still emulate B&W rather well. And you definitely need more than an Image -> Adjust -> Desaturate or Image -> Mode -> Grayscale for a good B&W.
I cannot agree with you more on that. While it is as simple as doing Desaturate, emulating fine B&W is a task next to impossible.
In-camera, you have the options of several colour spaces to choose from.
Color space is not the property of a digital camera. You can do the same profile-to-profile conversions (converting from one color space into other) in Photoshop. By the way I trust accuracy of Photoshop color engine more then I would trust to any firmware.
But so can you convert scanned film image into any color space: Adobe 1998, BruceRGB that I favor most, CIELab, crapy sRGB, custom, you name it. What is your point with color spaces?
Out-of-camera, if you take the RAW CCD output, you can alter the characteristics to suit your needs. Want more warmth? No problem. With film, you are pretty much stuck. Can't really de-Velvia shots on Velvia, can you?
Yes, absolutely, I can do that. I can scan Velvia and then do any digital transformations in Photoshop. But with film, I rarely need to do that. I simply use a proper film (e.g. use Astia instead of de-Velviaing Velvia).
With digital - you are limited to characteristics of a given sensor. All the rest (digital manipulations) - are available to both film (after scanning) and digital camera users. Photoshop existed long before D1.
You lose resolution by doing so. So much for 150lpm. With digital, you get the full res of the CCD still.
D1 sensor has resolution of about 30-40lp/mm (due to 12 micron sensor). Many films have better resolution.
You must be joking right? Good lenses actually matter more in digital.
I am not joking, and neither Schneider is joking by offering (for lot $$$) UNSHARP Digitar lenses specifically designed for digital cameras.
Every electronics engineer knows that you must put low pass filter in front of any analog-to-digital converter to limit aliasing. The crossover frequency of that filter is governed by Nyquist theorem: 1/2 of sampling rate. For example, audio CD recorders (44,100kHz sampling rate) utilies 22kHz low pass filter. However 1/2 is a bare minimum, and audiophiles prefer 1/4 ratio: any audiophile will tell you that SACD (96kHz sampling rate) rules and CD sucks.
Coming back to digital cameras. Correct me if I am wrong, but D1 sensor has pixels of about 12-micron size. Which means D1 samples image at rate of about 80 samples per millimeter (1mm / 12 micron = approximately 80). Which makes Nyquist frequency to be 40 lp/mm. So for the best results you wish to have lens with MTF close to 0 at spatial frequencies 40 lp/mm and greater.
This doesn't mean that you'll get better results with Tamron 28-300 - this specific lens performs horrible at any spatial frequency (5, 10, 20 lp/mm). However, you would significantly lower aliasing and color moiré, if the lens performed great at 0-40 lp/mm, and performed poor at >40 lp/mm. It is not that easy to design such a lens, but Schneider does.
In my opinion, the main advantage of digital photography - is the convenience, especially if you want to keep, process and display images primarily digitally. On the other hand, digital photography has many limitations, which work for some photographers, but appear to be disaster for others. I am neither surprised that some pros convert back from digital to film, nor I am surprised that many people decide to go digital. Everyone chooses what works best for him or her. Anyway - it's just a tool.