Digital BW, The Print

> The lag time is usually related to the fact that you are using a
> consumer model point and shoot camera, a comparable point and shoot 
> film camera would have the same problem. Many people blame this 
> incorrectly on digital when it is a function of the autofocus system.

Digital cameras also perform operations like white balancing that take
time (at least in consumer models).

Professional digital cameras do not have these delays.  They don't have
the same price tags, either.

> I hear this often and it is almost always an issue with how the image
> was processed in the computer after it was shot.

Digital images usually do have a distinctive look, especially when
examined closely.  The lack of grain is usually noticed first.  The
"creamy" colors are noticed next.  The two features of the images are
related, as part of the lack of grain comes from the fact that color
resolution in digital is very poor, and color pixels are interpolated.
In other words, you're unlikely to see pixel-to-pixel noise in the blue
channel of a digicam image simply because the actual blue pixels are
separated by three other pixels, so the intervening blue pixels are
interpolated, which always smoothes out any disparities.  So you get
less grain, less color resolution, and a creamy appearance to the image.
Some people like it, some don't.  It looks nice from a distance.

> I have asked this in other forums and have never gotten a real answer,
> what is a "digital look?"

See above. A near-total lack of "grain" and a creamy, somewhat pastel
appearance to colors are typical of digital images.  The lack of grain
is mostly due to low noise, but is also due to the poor color
resolution, as stated above.  The creamy pastels are entirely due to
poor color resolution.

High-end professional digicams look a lot more like film (except for the
lack of grain), but the only way to completely eliminate the color
anomalies is to capture color information for all three primaries for
every pixel, which no existing camera currently does (except the
Foveon--but it doesn't do it well enough).

> This is most likely another problem with not knowing Photoshop, it
> sounds exactly like bad Unsharp Mask settings.

Agreed, although some cameras do USM right inside the camera (pro
cameras should allow this to be disabled, if it is present).