Isn’t modern technology wonderful?

In my tender youth, I took this handheld Kodachrome picture in summer with a 35mm and 28mm lens.

Yes, technology is indeed a great thing but I'd rather be younger again with less technology than the other way around.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

While the "pixel" resolution of the 2nd is obviously better, that first one just jumps out at ya!

Beautiful image! Call me crazy though: I don't care for perspective correction.

The colors in the second image are very nice, but the clouds in the first image really give it that stylistic "umph".

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.

[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.

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

We are so lucky

David

jj birder wrote:
People like me. The first is, to my eyes, a much nicer photo.

Yes, because you know it's shot on film.

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.

Thanks for posting.

--tom

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.

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.

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.

What you are actually comparing is the quality of the film scanner to digital.

It was scanned with a Nikon Coolscan V at 4000 dpi. I am extremely pleased with the quality and ease of use with this scanner.

I also prefer the first image as presented here because of the light quality, foliage and cloudy skies

When traveling 5,000 miles from home, the weather and light I get on that one day is beyond my control. It is what it is.

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.

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.

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.

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.

David

dhphoto wrote:
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.

David

Or maybe it means that quality and composure are separate and apart.

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.

I guess that just shows how Digital image will never deteriorate.

Come on guys, let's be honest. The light is far better in the second shot; in the first the sun is high overhead and the colors are flat. Had he not told you it was shot on film, you would likely not be so overly complimentary to the first image. The only thing it has going for it is the clouds, which I agree are nice.

OK, I'll be honest: I am sure some of what makes the second shot better is 30 years of developing skill, including the choice of morning for the shot.

timbop wrote:
Come on guys, let's be honest. The light is far better in the second shot; in the first the sun is high overhead and the colors are flat. Had he not told you it was shot on film, you would likely not be so overly complimentary to the first image. The only thing it has going for it is the clouds, which I agree are nice.

OK, I'll be honest: I am sure some of what makes the second shot better is 30 years of developing skill, including the choice of morning for the shot.

I really wouldn't consider the light being better. I would say that the color saturation is much better in the second image, but some color tweaking of the first image can really make the colors "pop".

The second looks oversaturated IMO - but I assumed that was the look that the OP was trying for.

I could give a crap that the 1st was shot on film. I just think it has a neater overall look. As for whether or not I'm a film buff, I only shoot digital and it's not for a lack of film support...