A lot of what you are describing Bertram is the failings of the middle and lower end digital cameras. In that sense, I have to agree with most of your comments. But, let me address it from the higher end cameras like the EOS 1D Mark II ($4K new), the EOS 1Ds ($3K used), and the EOS 1DsMarkII ($8K new). These are the cameras that really make images comparable to 35mm film IMO.
Skin looks like vinyl
This is a retouching issue, and not inherent in the digital format. I also hate the vinyl look, and it seems to be prevalent in glamour magazines (Stuff, FHM, Maxim, etc). Yech!!! Pick up a copy of Vogue or Elle magazine and look at the skin tones there. Beautiful, mostly digital, and no vinyl.
Sky and closed portions of one colour look like airbrush Highlights are always blown out in bright sunlight and/or shadow sink in 100% black loosing all structure.
This is a characteristic of the smaller sensors. The larger full frame sensors don't have this issue, as well as some of the higher level prosumer cameras. Its also further made an issue by the manufacturers tweaking those cameras to deliver contrasty highly saturated images that they feel the everyday P&S shooter wants. That blocks up the details in the blacks. And the compression they use doesn't help at all.
Higher end cameras have dynamic range almost exactly the same as E6 film. After shooting E6 for hundreds of years (ok, it just feels that way 🙂, shooting digital is very comfortable and similar. Smooth gradations, detail in the highlights and blacks, very similar to E6. Very different than what you describe above.
There is no real B&W comaparable to silver negs, desaturated colourshots from a digital camera are not black and white There is still too much colour noise Poor transitions let objects sometimes look like cut and paste
The color noise is from smaller or cheaper sensors. Once you move up to the more expensive sensors, the noise isn't an issue at all as noted by the 'clinical' or 'sterile' look people talk about. Thats caused by a lack of color noise, grain, etc.
And I disagree that desaturating color isn't real B&W. Its every bit as real as sliver negs. With silver negs you desaturate it when it hits the neg. With digital you desaturate it before you 'develop' the film. They are both images captured sans color. In fact, you can even use your normal filters you use with B&W when you shoot a color digital image. It will look weird in color, but so does it when you looked through the lens when shooting B&W. But when you desaturate the color digital image, you will get the same net results you would have with B&W film and the same filter. The process is different, but the results will be the same. The only difference is where the translation happens from color to B&W. One is between the lens and film, and the other is between the 'film' and final paper.
A crop factor eats my wide lenses and their DOF
There is no crop factor with full frame sensors! 14mm IS 14mm, period. I applaud Cannon for going with the full frames, and switched from Nikon because they decided to stick with a crop factor. To me, once Canon came out with a high quality full frame sensor capable of 35mm film quality, all my disapproval of the digital format went away. Consumer cameras and P&S are all cropped or have very small sensors.
I hate picking functions from menus, I want knobs !
Handling, ergonomics, feel, etc, are all by nature a personal thing. Yea, I like knobs also. The higher end DSLR cameras use the same knobs as a film camera. In fact, the EOS film and digital cameras feature the same controls and feel he same. Cover up the LCD and the differences are less than obvious. The lower end cameras and consumer P&S rely on menus, and poorly laid out ones at that. There is a huge difference between P&S and prosumer cameras, and top of the line professional cameras. The pro cameras are meant to feel just like their film counterparts, and they did an excellent job doing that. Much like Epson is trying to do with the R-D1, and nearly got it right.
I hate lugging power supply for a camera which works on battery only.
Me to. But my Nikon F4 and Nikon F5 film cameras had the same problem, and after switching to Canon, my EOS 1V film camera was the same. Its something we aren't going to get away from unless you turn on the way back machines and want to go retro or old school. Which is fun in and by itself 🙂 I still have may Canon QL17 GIII, Yashica 35C, Olympus 35RC, and Keiv 4A. Can't seem to part with them. Small, light, easy to use, etc. But none have seem film through them in quite a while 🙁 But sell them, no way!
I hate in general electronic gadgets with embedded systems, producing unexpected breakdowns, no matter if temporary or final breakdowns.
Unfortunately, you've described most everything in our modern society. But its not really any different from mechanical breakdowns. Nothing, electronic or mechanical is perfect, and cameras on both sides of the fence have their issues.
The only choice are DSLRS at the time, too bulky for many places.
A DLSR is big and bulky. But so is a FM2 compared to a 35mm film P&S. Or a Nikon F5 compared to a FM2. Or a 4x5 compared to a 6x6. There are smaller digital cameras that are not bulky, but then you make a trade off just like you would in film. "Should I take the 4x5 for its quality, or just the FM2 and a 50mm to go light?". There are some good P&S cameras that are very light, but you will sacrifice quality in return. With stuff like the Epson R-D1, you might get both in a small package at some point.
The return on invest I could get from saving film and dev is eaten by an enormous loss of worth, that means digital is expensive but you notice it first id you want to "upgrade". and have to face that you are broke because you gave away your old analog top gear for some few bucks I would hate a camera which I have to upgrade, it makes me feel somebody takes the piss outta me. What kinda idiocy is the need to upgrade a $1500,- camera after a year or two ?
There is no enormous loss of worth unles one chooses to have one!
If the camera takes excellent pictures and serves the need, why would you need to upgrade? Even if the value of the camera declines, does it stop producing images, or the quality degrade to less than what it is today? No. So why the need to upgrade?
Its not like computers where the applications grow in size and function and require more and more horsepower. The requirements of the application for 35mm film have not changed in decades, and if the DSLR meets those requirements today, it will still meet them as long as the requirements don't change. If a 35mm digital or flim camera can make beautiful 8x10s today, it will still be able to make the same quality 8x10's 10 years from now. Unless people want better quality 10 years from now, either a 35mm film or digital camera will suffice. I wouldn't have said this 5 years ago, but only because 5 years ago digital wasn't close to 35mm film quality. But that has changed.
But even then the very last question is not answered: What does it mean for a photog to have not a material source like a neg, into which light burned a slice of reality.
Nothing! As long as the slice of reality is captured, saved, and able to be archived, the medium it resides on isn't important. Its the capture thats important, and the ability to save it for future use. Would Ansel Adams images be any less compelling, or more so, if it was captured on a different media but with the same end results? The media is irrelevant compared to the image captured.
In fact, I should probably say, "Everything!" instead. Having only one material source of the original is far inferior to being able to have as many perfect and exact duplicates of the original source as one feels the need to have. With digital, I can make thousands of exact original duplicates without any quality loss if so desired. I can spread then around at my work, home, sisters, friends, and my studio, or around the world. Chances of me loosing that image are far less than if I had my sole negative at home and my house burned down. I want to safe guard my images, and digital will do that with a good archival backup process that transcends the media and technology it resides on far better than a single physical image.
Now, I am not trying to convince you, or anyone else for that matter, that digital is where you should be. I am just explaining some of the differences between consumer and professional gear in the digital arena that solve the issues you mentioned. So while I have defended digital in relation to your specific issues, I am not in any way trying to say that since those issues are resolved you should consider the switch. Quite the contrary. Just like I may prefer oil, I would never argue that watercolor is dead, or any different than art done in oil. The media is just a tool in the expression of ones vision. If I like an image, I could care less what it was shot with, or captured on.
