p.2 #1 · 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.
I guess that just shows how Digital image will never deteriorate.
p.2 #2 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
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.
p.2 #3 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
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".
p.2 #5 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
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...
p.2 #7 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
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).
p.2 #13 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
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)
p.2 #15 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
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.
p.2 #16 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
Don Clary wrote:
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....Show more →
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....
p.2 #17 · Notre Dame 1974 Koda vs 2008 digital pano
jcbenner wrote:
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.
