For Your Entertainment...

[bmattock]

First of all, I would like to say for the record that I have seen through your evil plan. I am quite aware that you all hired cap'n slack to attempt to murder me this weekend.

He and his lovely wife, and my lovely wife and I - the four of us journeyed into the Blue Ridge Country of North Carolina. We drove out Friday, saw Boone (where the good Cap'n and his wife went to uni), stayed in Banner Elk, and sojourned into Blowing Rock to witness Rodeo Drive East and Shopping Madness. However, along the way, Cap'n Slack and his wife took me down the treacherous Bataan Death March trail known as Linville Falls, where they tried to show me this evil thing called 'nature'.

Well, folks, sorry to disappoint you, but I survived. Huffing and puffing, chest gripped with iron bands of pain, I struggled up the side of a frickin' mountain and I lived to tell the tale.

Anyway, it was a great weekend. And now I present to you a puzzle of sorts. Here are two photos.

One was taken by a Pentax *ist DS with a Tokina 28-70 f3.5-f4.5 zoom. f8.0, 1/179th second 50mm (equiv, actual 35mm), ISO 200, producing a JPG file 2000 x 3008 pixels.

The other was taken by a 1958 Agfa Karat IV with a 50mm f2.0 Solagon lens, f5.6, 1/300th second, Kodak Gold 200 film, scanned by Konica Minolta DiMage Scan Dual IV (Vuescan under Linux) resulting in a TIF file 2936 x 4424 pixels.

Both photos had levels auto-adjusted in The Gimp (Linux). Both were resized to 800 x 1205 and had USM applied with the same settings. Both were then saved as JPG files and uploaded attached to this message.

There were some differences that I neglected to control for - one camera had a polarizer on it - the other had a decent lens hood. That may give the game away for some of you, but I must be fair and mention it anyway.

Which is the digital photo and which was taken by the 40+ year-old Agfa? Which do you prefer? What do you like about one over the other? Why?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

I guess that's why they call them the blues (Blue Ridge Mountains)...

 

[ray_g]

Here's my guess, Bill: the first of the pair is the Agfa. I prefer that shot.

 

[sooner]

Bill, both shots are very nice, and in terms of resolution/detail I can't tell the difference. I also prefer the first shot, which I'm guessing had the polarizer. Glad you had a good weekend, and thanks for sharing. --John

 

[bmattock]

Some kinda flower. Ann-Marie likes it.

 

[bmattock]

And a butterfly of some sort.

 

[ray_g]

Good to see you could still hold the camera steady after your ordeal. 😉

 

[captainslack]

I'll recuse myself from this contest. Since I was there and know what camera you took the butterfly & flower pic with, I can deduce which cam you used for the Linville Falls pics. BTW, I like the Agfa one best. 😛

Also, I think that flower is some sort of snapdragon on steroids. The butterfly is a swallowtail.

We did have a great trip this past weekend, despite Bill's constant protestations that we were trying to do away with him. It's good to be a paranoid, but only a little. 😉 😀

 

[bmattock]

Good to see you could still hold the camera steady after your ordeal. 😉

Ray, I tell ya, it was horrible. They taunted me with an evil Santa. What kind of monsters are these people?

 

[XAos]

I greatly prefer the colors on #1 and am going to call it the digital shot, otherwise Mr Stir the Pot would not be posting this thread.

 

[bmattock]

I'll recuse myself from this contest. Since I was there and know what camera you took the butterfly & flower pic with, I can deduce which cam you used for the Linville Falls pics. BTW, I like the Agfa one best. 😛

Also, I think that flower is some sort of snapdragon on steroids. The butterfly is a swallowtail.

We did have a great trip this past weekend, despite Bill's constant protestations that we were trying to do away with him. It's good to be a paranoid, but only a little. 😉 😀

I can't believe you have the nerve to show yourself in here after what you did to me!

Folks, here is the Cap'n imitating the Evil Santa they tried to infest my dreams with. Now I'm afraid of the dark.

 

[bmattock]

I greatly prefer the colors on #1 and am going to call it the digital shot, otherwise Mr Stir the Pot would not be posting this thread.

Well, since I am about to toddle off to bed, I will not leave everyone in suspense. Yes, number 1 is the digital shot, and number 2 is the Agfa Karat IV on Kodak Gold 200.

I know you can't see the original scans, but I can tell you that at full magnification, the Agfa holds far more detail when viewing at 1:1. However, when reduced for purposes of posting, I don't think I can see the difference anymore.

The colors in the first shot? I won't say that they are due to anything in a film vs digital way - I have noticed that my Pentax *ist tends towards 'Fuji slide' kind of colors. This is the 'normal' setting - there is a 'saturated' setting that I don't use - too much.

Also, I think that the polarizer made a LOT of difference, really. There was a lot of haze up there - we were at high altitude and it was bright but hazy, as seen in the shot of the ridgeline. I think the polarizer really made the colors pop - I wish I had thought to take a shot of the falls without the polarizer so that I could see the difference.

Again, I have to rely on what I can see here that you can't since I'm able to look at the original JPG file from the camera and the original scan from my Agfa - but on the whole, I know from experience that my Agfa, nice as it is, is no match for say, my Canon FD mount prime lenses - or my Bessa R with Canon 50mm f1.4 and a lens hood. I did take some B&W shots of the falls with my Bessa R - I'll have to soup the negs soon and take a hard look.

End result for me - digital is quick, easy, painless, and quite acceptable for many purposes - I'll be continuing to use it like crazy. But I suspect for my personal work and all B&W I'll be staying with film awhile yet.

I may believe strongly that film is doomed - but that doesn't mean that I think it sucks. On the contrary - I love it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

PS - I wasn't trying to stir the pot this time, honest!

 

[ChrisN]

Good quiz Bill. As a fellow *istDS owner I guess I'm supposed to be at an advantage here, but I'm not familiar with your lenses at all. However I'll guess that the first shot was taken with the polariser, and I'll further guess that you're more likely to have a polariser for the more modern lens. So that makes it digital for the first one. I think that's more like the colour saturation I'd expect to get from the Pentax, too. On my screen the second shot looks somewhat over-exposed, but it might also have more dynamic range (is that the expression?) due to the film having more lattitude than the sensor.

 

[bmattock]

Good quiz Bill. As a fellow *istDS owner I guess I'm supposed to be at an advantage here, but I'm not familiar with your lenses at all. However I'll guess that the first shot was taken with the polariser, and I'll further guess that you're more likely to have a polariser for the more modern lens. So that makes it digital for the first one. I think that's more like the colour saturation I'd expect to get from the Pentax, too. On my screen the second shot looks somewhat over-exposed, but it might also have more dynamic range (is that the expression?) due to the film having more lattitude than the sensor.

You're right on nearly all counts, Chris. Yes, photo 1 is the Pentax *ist DS - with polarizer. Frankly, if I wasn't a believer in the value of a polarizer before, I sure am now. Polarizers for all my men! The Agfa shot on Kodak 200 is not over-exposed - no loss of detail in the highlights, and there are black blacks. However, I may not have scanned it optimally - I'm not an expert with Vuescan yet. Additionally, Kodak Gold 200 is nice, but it is hardly Velvia in terms of color saturation. So in many ways, the dice were loaded from the start. Some folks don't necessarily prefer a punchier image - most do, though.

It would have been a more even test if I had foregone the polarizer on the *ist DS and used Velvia or Provia on the Agfa. Well, something to do for next time, eh?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[XAos]

The *ist DS is what I want should I get a DSLR in the forseable future, which is not likely. At the time I bought the RB67 I decided to wait out an entire generation, figuring that in 2-3 years I'd still have a MF SLR with killer lenses, I'd be able to afford a lot more DSLR for the same money at that point, and I would have lost less money than buying a current generation DSLR, then another one in 2-3 years. Perhaps digital is it's own worst enemy.

 

[bmattock]

The *ist DS is what I want should I get a DSLR in the forseable future, which is not likely. At the time I bought the RB67 I decided to wait out an entire generation, figuring that in 2-3 years I'd still have a MF SLR with killer lenses, I'd be able to afford a lot more DSLR for the same money at that point, and I would have lost less money than buying a current generation DSLR, then another one in 2-3 years. Perhaps digital is it's own worst enemy.

You can't really lose by waiting to buy into the digital revolution - the longer you wait, the better the cameras get, as well as becoming cheaper. Those who cannot wait for whatever reason are funding the technological advances you'll enjoy at that time.

I don't know that I'd say that digital is its own worst enemy, though. The market drives the progress. If it were not for millions of people lining up for today's best efforts, there would be no 'faster, better, and cheaper' digicams waiting for you down the road.

As far as losing money - it all depends on what you consider losing money, and what a digicam is worth to you. Certainly a DSLR will depreciate in value in ways that a film SLR never did - not that many people want a 1.5 mp DSLR today, so no matter that it cost $25,000 when first sold, less than 10 years ago. A DSLR has to be seen like a PC today - straight fast depreciation until nearly valueless.

However, there is also a cost associated with a pro's time. I'm not a pro, but I have done some things that make me appreciate the value of my DSLR in terms of time savings. No, the quality is not the same as it would be with film. But I also recognize that if I can shoot a wedding and process the shots in a day as opposed to a week, I can make more money - and the majority of the shots will be quite acceptable with a 6 mp DSLR - even up to 8x10. Not 'ultimate quality' perhaps, but 'good enough' to make the customer quite happy.

So, I'd say it is just a question of what you want your camera to do, and what you're willing to spend to obtain that. I suspect that the solution to that equation is going to be different for everyone. For those who chose to wait, the rewards are there. Of course, if a pro can spend the money now, and increase their profits because of it, then they can buy later, too. So it all depends - like most things in life.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks