Somehow I wish I hadn't

Not a fair comparison. Especially viewing on the computer. Not everyone's monitor is calibrated. Plus, your images were taken months apart. Conditions might have been similar, but not the same.
 
Flyfisher Tom said:
maybe it is just the effects of viewing online, but the bottom one looks like it has more detail on my monitor
Click to expand...

I don't think this is what he wanted to hear! ;)

BTW: I agree - notice the nice sharp distinctness of the ski curves in the snow of fhe bottom picture. Oh, and of course the richness of deep colors so characteristic of Fuji - true blues and greens etc.

And to think, with the M8, you get instant feedback to re-shoot if it's as washed out as the posted upper pic!

Oh well, I guess I just prefer film shots - even the digitally reproduced ones seen here on the web.

To each, his own....
 
kbg32 said:
Plus, your images were taken months apart. Conditions might have been similar, but not the same.
Click to expand...

I agree! Seems like the light is a bit more diffuse for the slide shot (with clouds visible) and very bright for the M8. Quality of light not the same....that having been said, I like the M8 shot, but not any better than the slide one.

Nancy
 
I think the slide is harder, crisper and bluer because of excessive contrast. I think you could do a lot more with the M8 -- maybe make the M8 shot essentially identical to the slide, if you wished, by pushing sharpening and contrast and dropping the brightness -- but I don't think you could do much with the slide, even after scanning. The mass of trees is too dense and undifferentiated. I think you could get the M8 close to the slide and keep the detail.

JC
 
-- but I don't think you could do much with the slide, even after scanning.

But if the slide is projected or printed traditionally with an enlarger, it's true quality would be realized.
 
It's all in post

It's all in post

Post processing whether analog or digital has a huge impact on the final image. The slide looks a little underexposed which will look great projected or on a light table but is almost impossible to scan. You just can't pull out all that beautiful saturated detail in the shadows without blowing the highlights. If you are making digital prints your film quality will be limited by your scanner. Analog prints are an art that most have not mastered. It's the same in digital, post and calibration is as important as exposure at capture.

However, a couple of minutes in Photoshop can bring things closer together.

m8test.jpg
 
Sorry, I just did a quickie side by side. I don't have full images. I basically moved the M8 file closer in balance and contrast to the slide.
 
One more point which was made before. The slide has a cloud diffusing the light in the foreground while the M8 file has harsh contrasty lighting front to back. I matched the over sharpening of the slide but the more contrasty foreground lighting makes the digiatl file a bit "crunchy" looking compared to the nice smooth slide foreground.

In case anyone thinks that is a tell tale sign of digital it's just the lighting. The trees are a similar story lots of detail in the M8 file so the USM has lots of edges to sharpen -the slide has no fine detail here so less harsh edges. Needless to say I would not sharpen the digital file this way in my work and would sharpen the dark areas less to avoid that nasty digiatl crunchy look.
 
Last edited:
On my calibrated screen the digital shot looks like a digital shot, talking about Jaap's originals. Nachkebia's digital looks different, better, but still has this sharpish forest/tree thing, whereas the slide well see for yourself it's a matter of taste actually, I prefer the slide one.
 
Latetest version!

Slide --------

corvara0170-after.jpg


Original Digital -------------

L1000223.jpg


My version of digital --------------

L10002233.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom