Slides or negatives ?

[MarkoKovacevic]

Slides and negs for the Nikon F5 SLR, as its got a awesome meter. Negs for the Zorki since I'm the meter there.

 

[ferider]

However, *usable range* of exposure zones is actually larger in neg film. Neg film is able to compress a larger range of luminosities into film, because of a flatter densitometry curve when compared to slides. It may be able to pull an extra stop or two into the film. But unfortunately, it does not give that range back in the final image!

Yes it does in my case, since my primary target is scanning and I can "uncompress" the digital image.

This is an old discussion. For example Ben Kreunen http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~bernardk/tutorials/360/technical/hdri claims to show 15 f-stops for Fuji Reala color negative film.

On the other hand, Roger N. Clark http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html claims that "print film shows about 7 stops of information".

The difference between the two is in how you expose. "Expose for shadows, develop for highlights" works for me ... where the second part is done post scanning.

Best,

Roland.

PS: See also Rik Littlefield at http://www.janrik.net/MiscSubj/2007...528/A_Comparison_of_Film_and_DSLR_Images.html, and Dante Stella's website.

 

[johannielscom]

They don't look much different than the work of David Alan Harvey or Steve McCurry. ...

Don't know Harvey, but when comparing these to McCurry's work I see big shortcomings in composition and lighting. Yes it's bright colors, and yes thats India (I guess), but that about as far as similarities go...IMHO

Had to get that off my chest, back to topic