n0b0 wrote:
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.

Odd thing to say.

Then nobo comes back with "I do prefer the first photo".

WTF?

Technology is a good thing, but as shown here I have a preference for the first image. Somehow the atmosphere and colors (but also the circumstances like clouds greenery etc) make for a "better" image. The second image looks like the high tech stuff you see all the time, but without the character.

Just a matter of taste (and it is not a film vs digital preference, as I have none).

Ruy

Some people like the hiss and pops of old records over the clean sound of CDs. "More character," they say. Whatever floats your boat.

Sorry, but digital does not always produce better results than film, apparently some of you didn't know that.

Film will always be a mystery to some, especially to those that never used it, which seems to be often the case when reading film-digital comparisons.

30 years later and still no closer to getting the top of the damned spire in the frame

Sorry man, had to do it.

*runs off giggling mischievously*

What about this one?
Still doesn't look quite right, but closer....

Film rules. Hellyeah.

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

yeah it's not the film, the first one has bad colors and weird gamma and low details etc. but the conditions/lighting were more dramatic and even framing a tad bit better




side note: digital has more DR than K64 and captures a wider range of colors so you should be able to make a conversion style to mimic K64 (not that the presented image looks terribly much like the colors i recall from k64 in the least)

old yorker wrote:
n0b0 wrote:
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.

Odd thing to say.

Then nobo comes back with "I do prefer the first photo".

WTF?



I think you need a new reading glasses old man.
n0b0 wrote:
Lighting wise I do prefer the first photo but it's irrelevant.

not that the presented image looks terribly much like the colors i recall from k64 in the least

The slides had been stored in a dark box in a cool area for 35 years; but the reds are fading, and the slide looks quite blue, like old Ektachrome. I had to boost the red channel in scanning to get back closer to a fresh kodachrome.

But I really paid little attention to color of either picture. I was trying to show the resolution advantage of a modern, compact digital package, vs say an 8'x10" view camera. I don't think an 8"x10" view camera today can match the resolution of a 40MB digital pano, and I owned and shot a 4"x5" view camera for 12 years.

Don Clary wrote:
not that the presented image looks terribly much like the colors i recall from k64 in the least

The slides had been stored in a dark box in a cool area for 35 years; but the reds are fading, and the slide looks quite blue, like old Ektachrome. I had to boost the red channel in scanning to get back closer to a fresh kodachrome.

But I really paid little attention to color of either picture. I was trying to show the resolution advantage of a modern, compact digital package, vs say an 8'x10" view camera. I don't think an 8"x10" view camera today can match the resolution of a 40MB digital pano, and I owned and shot a 4"x5" view camera for 12 years.

yeah the detail is astounding, the 40MB pano has far more detail than one could ever have gotten from 35mm K64 (even a single 21MB frame of the 5dmkii already has more detail by quite a noticeable amount!)

a little scary that your K64 is fading out with the reds, i hope my old stuff is ok, not stored in particularly cool, dry conditions....

jcbenner wrote:
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.

Sure you can. I often look at my old chromes with a loupe next to my Mac running Aperture. And the chromes often look better. Of course once scanned, the chromes lose much of their sparkle and it takes a hell of a lot of fancy dancing in PS to bring even a fraction of it back.

Funny, I can recall some years back the art department where I teach used to transfer digital images to chromes so they can project them. Those looked like hell too. What I'm saying is you lose a lot in the translation to a different media.

Interesting also to see how much the trees have grown in 34 years

rscheffler wrote:
Interesting also to see how much the trees have grown in 34 years

yeah i was going to say that too, although i wondered if maybe a touch of that might have been his perspective control on the new shot

It would have ben very interesting to directly compare the chrome shot with a single frame low ISO dslr shot

David

Sorry to resurrect this again, but my 20"x30" print just arrived today. Yes this is partly a technical exercise, a demonstration of technology. The lighting and clouds could be better.

I do have 20"x30" prints of Utah scenics, composed of 10 stitched (2 row, 5 pics per row) 5D frames at a mere 130MB with staggering detail. But that detail was 1/4 mile away; this subject is only a few hundred feet away! The sharpness and detail is beyond belief! And all in a 800gm package for the camera body, plus 290 gm for the light prime lens.

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


+1

I am loving the Kodachrome image...