34 years later, in my decrepit old age, I took this stitched, perspective corrected picture, in November, combining 3 vertical orientation, tripod mounted 5D pictures with an EF50mm f1.4, for a total of about 40MB of data.
The stitched pictures were combined automatically in PTGui software, and perspective corrected in PS (filter>distort>lens correction> vertical perspective). So this more like handheld 35mm vs medium format digital back. The corrected pano was moderately uprezed to 9000 x 5250 pixels in preparation for a 30” x 17.5” print at 300 dpi.
Shown below are crops from the 35mm and the digital pano. The crop on your screen represents a full image, 8.3 foot by 5.5 foot enlargement!
p.1 #6 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
Don Clary wrote:
Isn’t modern technology wonderful?
It sure is. Though you'll probably get people saying how the first shot has a magical quality that digital technology cannot match just because it's shot on film.
p.1 #7 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
[quote It sure is. Though you'll probably get people saying how the first shot has a magical quality that digital technology cannot match just because it's shot on film.
People like me. The first is, to my eyes, a much nicer photo.
p.1 #8 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
And that is taken in good light.
Digital is SO FAR ahead of film at high ISO's it's incredible.
And yet people still pixel peep that it's not good enough or moan about features on their camera or the position of a particular button or dial or a tiny bit of noise
p.1 #10 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
What a great comparison! In addition to the obvious difference in the sky, the red foliage in the second photo really catches my eye. It would be fun to run the digital image through something like Alien Skin Exposure, or simply experiment with PS, to see how closely you could mimic the look of the Kodacrhome.
p.1 #12 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
abqnmusa wrote:
You cannot directly compare the quality of slide film to digital
What you are actually comparing is the quality of the film scanner to digital.
Given that you must digitize the slide to access the image (print, publish, etc.) is this not the same thing? I've got lots of great Kodachromes that I can not access without scanning, which is a necessary and unfortunate fact.
p.1 #13 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
This is a very good example of how a microscopic approach to photography (i.e., pixel peeping) holds no key to understanding of and creating the impact and beauty of an integral image.
I also prefer the first image as presented here because of the light quality, foliage and cloudy skies. The medium used to get to each of those photographs is hardly relevant in this kind of a personal aesthetic appraisal.
p.1 #16 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
abqnmusa wrote:
You cannot directly compare the quality of slide film to digital
What you are actually comparing is the quality of the film scanner to digital.
So how much would the OP have to spend to get his film scan to match the digital version in quality? If the answer is in the thousands, you lost that argument already since noone but the pros and rich enthusiasts would be able to get the best out of the film.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought we're just comparing the IQ of the film and digital excluding composition, lighting, etc.? Lighting wise I do prefer the first photo but it's irrelevant.
p.1 #17 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
PetKal wrote:
I also prefer the first image as presented here because of the light quality, foliage and cloudy skies. The medium used to get to each of those photographs is hardly relevant in this kind of a personal aesthetic appraisal.
Not only that, but if you throw the image into Photoshop or your favorite image editing program, you can easily tweak the colors to be similar to the first image. So, photographing with film isn't really a hindrance in that regard.
p.1 #18 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
I hardly think comparing a 35 year old photo with a recent digital image proves/shows anything other than how well the kodachrome has been stored since the exposure was made.
p.1 #19 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
jcw1982 wrote:
I hardly think comparing a 35 year old photo with a recent digital image proves/shows anything other than how well the kodachrome has been stored since the exposure was made.
What it shows is that modern digital cameras produce better quality than film. But we knew that already.
Film is dead, thankfully. Horrible unreliable stuff.
