Somehow I wish I hadn't

That last go round looks nice. In the end the more diffuse lighting of the slide shot is just a lot more attractive, but the digital has tons more detail and if the lighting (and sky :) )where equal could make a better print. Analog is still king if slides are your final product, nothing comes close to a transparency on a light box viewed through a high quality loupe, but thats not the way I show my work. B&W, thats a whole other story.
 
THe M8 picture looks very disappointing to me .... also the mountains in the distance are soft/ blurry.
Problem is the quality of light has huge impact on any picture, but landscapes in particular. So i do not know if these were the same.
That said: getting the exposure of the M8 picture down by a simple curves adjustment makes it a lot better and closer to the picture from february.
 
To tell you the truth, I think the February picture would be prettier which ever camera you took it with. Nothing to do with technical quality.

JC
 
Jeepers... I'm wondering how I can use this as a further indictment of the M8.

Just kidding... :angel:
 
AusDLK said:
Jeepers... I'm wondering how I can use this as a further indictment of the M8.

Just kidding... :angel:

IR reflection from the snow misleading the meter into overexposing?

I’m kidding as well
 
Unfair! I'm in a hotel room with just a half-size laptop!!

Another one for you guys to play with: Dusk from just now...
dusk.jpg
 
When I've spent my $5,000 on an M8, all of my digital shots will look better to me as well.

Nobody will shift me from that position. :D

Until then, the second is saleable, the first is not.
 
A few questions from a Neanderthaler in the digital field :
- Talking about filters, the Sesia was shot with a POL filter, can this filter be used on an digital tcamera resulting the same effect?
- Could the light quality in the M8 picture not been influenced by changing the white balance like this can be done on film with a colour balancing filter (via the Mired system)?
- About manipulating digital images, where does the reality stops and when does the fantasy takes over? And can this be done unpunished?
 
Photeil wrote: - About manipulating digital images, where does the reality stops and when does the fantasy takes over? And can this be done unpunished?
__________________

... I find this a very good remark ....
 
This is a little disturbing. The edited picture I put up really looked good on my home monitor. From work it looks Horrible. How does one know if what you PS on your monitor will look good to others?
 
Jorge Torralba said:
This is a little disturbing. The edited picture I put up really looked good on my home monitor. From work it looks Horrible. How does one know if what you PS on your monitor will look good to others?


Calibration ?
 
There is no telling what your image will look like on any given monitor.

As to manipulation, all that's been done here is tone curve adjustment. Compare a drug store print to a master exhibition print, you would not believe they came from the same neg. How do they do it? Manipulation!
 
jaapv said:
Unfair! I'm in a hotel room with just a half-size laptop!!

Another one for you guys to play with: Dusk from just now...
I like this one and if you look at it as a DR example it certainly beats any slide film I have used.
Bob
 
Arrrgggghhh!!

That's my reaction. Two different days, times, cameras, post processing. It's all relative.

Stop bashing the M8, just to have something to bitch about! It's pointless. There are way too many variables here to come down hard in one direction.

AcckkK!
 
Jorge Torralba said:
This is a little disturbing. The edited picture I put up really looked good on my home monitor. From work it looks Horrible. How does one know if what you PS on your monitor will look good to others?
That's a major problem; in short, you don't know, even if your system is calibrated to a fare-thee-well.

To wit: when I worked at a stock photo agency, at the leading edge of the digital-imaging era, I was fielded a call from a client who complained that a scanned file we FTP'd them for a "comp" was horrible in terms of color balsnce. This was late 1999, we were just getting into scanning our work, and, cotrary to just about everyone else in the field, we ran our office on PCs, while everyone we worked with, including Sports Illustrated, were on Macs. I had figured out a thing or two regarding monitor calibration (primitive as it was at the time, 'specially on the Windows side), But I had to move mountains to resolve this issue for the client in question, including walking her through the calibration process on her own computer...via phone. It's not just about technological literacy (though, Dog knows, that helps), it's about, for lack of a better term at-hand, visual literacy. Without one or both of the above, you're truly screwed.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
This is a very interesting thread, but I must admit that I introduced one variable that clouded the issue:I used a pol-filter on the film shot.I was amazed how close the PS experts managed to come. However, today I managed to drop my filterbox into my pocket before getting into the chairlift. I think, with this parameter removed, the M8 does indeed sing. :). Having said that, the colour rendering of the original, unpolarized shot is by far closest to reality, albeit not as pleasing as the pol-filter ones.
In the mountains, B&W rules!
Two other remarks: It turns out to be impossible on the M8 to use the pol-filter without stacking it with an IRcut filter. It seems that IR light is not polarized and a pol-filter heats up the photo unacceptably. Also I notice some anti-vignetting. It may be a polfilter on a WA lens, but it may also mean that this combo: pol+ IRcut causes the firmware to overcompensate
pol.jpg


jaapv said:
Same place,same lens (Tri-Elmar) This morning, M8
L1000223.jpg


Last Februari, Fuji Sensia

corvara0170-after.jpg


Admitted, the trees have some more detail on the original slide. But not even close to the M8. And I had to use a polfilter for the film to avoid a pale sky. And I oversharpened the film shot.
 
Back
Top Bottom