Well, it doesn't matter if I shoot K25/64 or Fuji , the color on slide just more vivid and prettier than on digital (beside learnt that Canon also melts
I think, not just me, some of you may agree with me on the color. I understand this is not a direct comparision as other user may change colors/levels before uploads. At least I didn't, the one on myshots are same color/level on the original slide.
My point is, although Digital are nice and handy and also I have been shooting quite a lot, I still prefer slides because of better color and collector value, it is the true form of photography. I found it difficult to get the right color or a more contrast color from raw output without alter it on Digital which I am disppointed about the color. (I tried Auto WB and Sunny WB in daylight)
Finally, as from the past few weeks, I have the chance chat to a few new DSLR shooter, some of them ask, I think the key issue of how to do well is, if you know how to shoot well on SLR, then DSLR is just built on the fundamental knowledge of SLR, you will get the hand of it easily. It will be harder for a person didn't have the experience of SLR and jump straight onto DSLR from a point and shoot camera.
Sorry it may sounds harsh on the new 10D shooter and any digital lover
Long live Slides!
Now go back to upload, got 2000 backlogs waiting for upload! Tell me your thinkings and experiences of how to improve color on Digital.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5288 times:
To the whiners and whingers out there who think this site is only for digital, I think that proves that if things are done properly film still has a place here. Its not so much the camera and the media, but what you do with it that matters here.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5290 times:
Sorry Sam, the comparison doesn't really make sense to me. I'm not denying your (or any slide) has better colour than any digital - it certainly has a wider range of colours. However, as soon as you scan that slide, you reduce the colour range to a digital colour space - exactly the same one that digital uses. From that point on the differences in colour are purely down to postprocessing and manipulation.
Given a scanned slide as a reference point, I'm quite confident of being able to set the colours and saturation of a digital image to match it ... I even have a Photoshop action which makes digital look like Velvia
Furthermore, while I do think the colours of your shot better, I think Paul's shot has better shadow detail.
The qualititative advantages of film (which I entirely accept) are lost at the point of scanning, because you are reducing that quality to a lowest common denominator. There is also the fact that while many slide scanners have had perhaps years to perfect their technique (I would ask anyone to compare your early attempts to current work), most digital shooters have had only a few months ... and it requires just as much work to produce a good finished image from a DSLR as it does from a scanned slide.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 37 Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5284 times:
I think neither is a good representation, Paul's shot has a yellow caste and yours has a blue caste and is slightly too dark. I think Paul could've sharpened his up a bit, but the digital still has better shadow detail.
Of course Slides and prints are still acceptable, but saying that the digital version of them is better than Digital images is not entirely true.
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5281 times:
I see your point Colin, as far as I looked at my slide now, compare to the scan I have in my PC or on A.net here, I see very little difference, prehaps there is but this time in my eyes the scan are close in color to the slide I am looking at now.
I am simply want to see if I can do something to improve the digital shot straight out of camera, without doing much color/level change and get more vivid result. I also simply pointed out to have a digital camera doesn't immediate categorize anyone into "good or awesome" photographer rank, a few ones I talked to last few weeks seems to have these thinking and they are saying goodbye to films and getting DSLR for the sake of good photos.
Here is a Q for you to answer:
It seems sometimes during good weather (prehaps just slightly haze and not too bad), the color on Digital tends to be little grey at the background and on my film shot, it is quite blue ?? Why is that and can I improve with that (anything to do with WB, I tried sunlight is better than Auto for my D100 for color accuracy from my eye)
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5273 times:
The slide is 50 ISO, on my real slide the grass is bit dark considering time of the shot is about 6pm in Manchester. There are too many comparision of my slide and raw output shot from my digital camera, and I see enough of the likekind result, whether you think make sense or not. But the only way I can bring up to the forum to let everyone see and compare is scanned and upload the digital version of slides compare with any digital shots.
Ditto to Andy, there is room for films and slides. Just look at Johan L 's stuff, is simply smokey slide scan!
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5276 times:
Sam - since you've got a D100, I would suggest in the first place to try shooting using the AdobeRGB colour space since this has a wider and more accurate colour range. I'm not sure what the D100 offers in terms of white balance control, but if possible, you could try making a custom white balance using a white card in the lighting at the location.
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5272 times:
Colin-Thank you, I will try to use AdobeRGB color to see how it goes next time. D100 offer quite many WB settings, such as Flourscent, sunny, clouds.....about 6-8 kinds I think. I have recently switched to sunny daylight one, I do see some improvement.
I gave a shot last week to Glenn Stewart's 10D, I am not sure why but may be his lens 75-300USM, at top range, shooting with a very fast takeoff plane, it seems most of the time we got blurred image? Prehaps we shaked otherwise there must be a problem! Any thought on this?
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5260 times:
Actually, I think you've missed the point. Firstly, as far as I'm concerned the scanned image is way better than the digital in terms of colour (I was there too, and Sam's picture does represent reality more accurately. But as you point out BOTH are subject to the skills of the person doing the post processing - the difference could therefore be as much down to Sam's skills in post processing as it could to Paul's. However, as you also point out "the qualititative advantages of film are lost at the point of scanning, because you are reducing that quality to a lowest common denominator" and therein is the rub - the digital image will ALWAYS be subject to that, whereas the film stands on its own merits and need never be subjected to this lowest common denominator when it is reproduced - its only here on airliners.net or on other websites that the slide has to be dragged down (as you seem to put it) to the level of the digital image.
The real point to me here is that the slide can produce at least as good an image for airliners.net as can a new digital. Yes, this is possibly down to the skill of the post-processor, but none the less the result from the slide stands as an illustration that film users can, if they want, produce as good if not better a result for this site than can digital users.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5257 times:
Sorry Sam - very hard to say without being there, or having that lens. If the whole image is consistently blurred, I'd say camera shake. If part of the image seems to be sharp, I'd say an AF issue. A lot of people have been caught out by the 10D's AF ... it has quite a wide sensor range, and has caught people out by locking on to peripheral subjects - in some cases it is better to select a single focus point rather than let the camera guess
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 11, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5244 times:
Ben, I respect your view.
But when a person like me have shoted many slides and now I've also shoted quite many Digitals. I have the answer to myself, digital is very handy and good, but it can't replace my slides, there are certain valuable elemants I don't found them in digital, one is color closeness and many elements, true can be based on my biased thinkings.
One smart question to you, have you shoted many slides and prehaps see many slides or even films before making up your mind digital is the way, I guess the answer doesn't matter coz Digital is your choice right??
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5225 times:
The day I shoot "the photo", I'll cry blood if it's with a digital and not on a slide. A slide means so much more than a digital file. Don't get me wrong, digitals are great, but I'd rather have a very special shot on a slide than as a digital file.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 14, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5157 times:
Andy - we're not in disagreement - film is in absolute terms better.
the digital image will ALWAYS be subject to that, whereas the film stands on its own merits and need never be subjected to this lowest common denominator when it is reproduced
Agree with that too - except that I would argue that all that really matters is the final presentation of the image. If you deal in slide, or use professional hand crafted print production, then slide film wins hands down. But machine prints, most magazine repro and obviously online cannot capture that quality.
And yes, your last point is exactly right (assuming a reasonable quality scanner) there is nothing to prevent slides (or negs for that matter) matching digital quality on screen - aside for the skill of the operator - the only difference is the translation from analogue to digital, where sadly, many go astray. I think of it this way ... when you scan, you're throwing something away (dynamic range, colour range, resolution and sharpness) - the skill lies in deciding what to through away and what to keep
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 15, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5076 times:
I just forgot to point out, When Andy, Paul and myself were together in MAN, we all know exactly the timing of the Thomas Cook, 6pm, and not much sun on the plane, I am SURPRISED to see how light Paul's photo it is. and I believe, in myself, my slide shows the truth shooting condition. Whatever I transformed from analogue lost details, I see the real slide with me here, and it come very close to the scan I have in the DB now. I am always with slide, Andy gave enough reason, when you scan them up here, you do lose something but if you look into the original slide in your eye, it is beautiful and super, one thing many digital shooter missed is the real beauty of slide are. I susupect many people coudln't even bother to look through a maginfier/loupe or projector and blindly think digital is all great and all about. Definity not quiet. One thing I missed is you can only make a fair judgement after a long time of shooting slides and a while of digital. No way you can hand down a big NO to either form of photos if you only been around shooting for 4 weeks coz the longer you shoot, the more you know.
P.S. (Edited) I found it amazing the digital photo shows the grass that day was that yellowish-green, I recalled it was more bright green. Not sure why the digital shot is showing the uncorrect color to at least what I see in my eyes.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5051 times:
I think that one of the issues with digital (cameras) is that it allows a photographer to make something out of an image that isn't there... OK, OK, I know its there really, but it almost goes beyond what the eye is picking up - the digital camera allows details to be pulled out of an image that simply hasn't been possible before and quite possibly went undetected by the eye at the time the photo was taken. Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends on your point of view - it certainly allows things to be done that weren't easy before, but whether it portrays accuracy...
* Sam's slide image still looks better than the digital image
* The slide image looks more like I remember the scene on the day in question
* The digital colours look washed out in comparison to the slide colours
Looking at my own photo of that airplane, I'd say the D60 has delivered something slightly more colour-rich that Paul's image, but way short of the slide.
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 15 Reply 17, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5021 times:
Sorry to say this but Sam's photo is a little bit over contrasted and saturated, Thomas Cook blue is not so dark. In conclusion, this is a result of post editing the digital image and not a consequence of using slides or Canon 10D.
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 18, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5026 times:
You forgot what I am shooting with, only a 50 speed slide film at 6pm in UK. Andy, Paul was next to me, only a few of us know whats the real situation and lighting on the color of the plane shows. I personally think the reality come close to my slide and was little off from the digital photo (Andy also believed in that) As I said before, my real slide compare to the scan looks very close, I merely sharpened it and uploaded. (Not even crop coz it is full frame already ) I am surprised to see the 10D or any digital pictures so light unlike the condition 6pm that evening what I see in my eyes. Beside 50 (Velvia) speed film and is getting quite dark the lighting, no other reason I see why my slide is overcontrasted or saturated.
Paulinbna From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 1114 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4996 times:
All right no one has even come up the argument. Could it have some thing to do with the fact that the ISO rating is different Sam said that his slide is ISO 50 and the 10D lowest is 100. Also the brightness might be associated with the fact that Paul used the auto level in Photoshop I have had pictures start off looking like Sams and after using this feature end up looking like Paul's.
Also what were the lenses uses? Where they the exact type of lens.
Maybe slides are better......Because I have read that slides are the equivalent of close to 25-30 Megapixels.
Canon 50D user; 100-400 MM L IS 10-22 MM, 60MM Macro
Tsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 16 Reply 20, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4946 times:
I dont see how the 2 shots can be compared since the equipment used are different.
We have different camera brands, different lens brands, different angles, different ISO speeds. There are so many different factors that would play a part in making the image different. Sam shoots Nikon F5 with a Nikon lens, while Paul shoots Canon 10D with a Canon lens. I dont see how this comparism would be valid in anyway since there is no ceteris parabis(sp?) [memory from my Econs class].
Perhaps a better way to compare it would be to use perhaps...
Photographer A: Canon EOS 1V, with Canon 50mm F1.8 II, Provia 100 (or whatever 100 film there is)
Photographer B: Canon EOS 1Ds, with Canon 50mm F1.8 II, 100ISO.
Subject: A static/ramp shot of some plane maybe a Thomas Cook B757.
Photos have to be taken at the same time, with the same settings (ie maybe F8,1/250, with 0EV etc), and at the same focus or metering point. Of course it has to be same photographer Also, we have to compare the slide through a projector and the image on a PC, no modifications.
Once this can be done, then I can say that it is a good comparism between digital and slide. Otherwise, there are too many factors in the sway and this would be a biased comparism.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 21, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4928 times:
Photos have to be taken at the same time, with the same settings (ie maybe F8,1/250, with 0EV etc), and at the same focus or metering point.
Why? That assumes the digital and slide are somehow the same, which they aren't - each requires its own technique, a reason I think, some film shooters are initially frustrated. Use the same settings on both cameras and there's a good chance that one or the other will be rubbish.
Actually, any comparison is really quite pointless - its like comparing TV and film - different media, which, while superficially similar, each has its own strengths and weaknesses. All that matters is if the photographer can achieve the intended result.
And of course if anyone was really interested in the best possible quality, they'd be shooting medium format wouldn't they? The slide shooters have already made a quality compromise going with 35mm, so really shouldn't sneer at DSLRs, which is just another step toward greater efficiency and flexibility.
Airsnaps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4941 times:
No problem Sam - thanks for highlighting my amateur photography skills!
I admit that my Thomas Cook shot could do with some more sharpening... It's also not too good for me as that particular shot wasn't taken with my own gear - instead Danny Hill's Canon 75-300mm lens and I'm not used to the post-processing turn out with it!
However, I feel these two might be of better comparison for the point you are trying to raise.
I can honestly tell you that I have not cropped the image but only added some very slight contrast (no brightness) and around 130% USM at 0.3, 0 threshold. On second glance however, perhaps I could have sharpened it a little further, although I do like to keep all of my images as "original" as possible.
I'm heading out of the house now, so I hope this hasn't turned into a war by the time I get back!
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 24, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4836 times:
Not really directly comparing the slide with digital shot without reasons
Please read carefully:
One point I pointed out several points you missed is that , Me , Andy and Paul (and few others) shoted the Thomas Cook and BMI ERJ together almost same timing. We knew what the weather condition is, and I can clearly remember it is closer to my slides. Andy recalls that too. I am just amazed and surprised that digital photo (Paul's and others too) turned out to be inaccurate reflect the weather and light condition (lower light, darker grass, bluer sky then) . Of course, this may be because of his post processing. I think what lens he shoot doesn't matter too much, it won't cause such a big difference. I am concerned that if I shoot digital, the shot on digital should come close to what I see in my eye (at least slide does to a level). I don't want to get some pale blue sky when the sky is rich blue. I understand I can do post processing but it will be great if the digital shot shows more close to reality form.
Thanks for the tip Royal on WB. I am getting ok on the sunny daylight one better than Auto.
25 Ckw: I am concerned that if I shoot digital, the shot on digital should come close to what I see in my eye (at least slide does to a level). To some extent
26 Clickhappy: sunny WB offers a very cool color cast. cloudy WB is a lot warmer.
27 Tonimr: Sam: I agree with those that see a yellow cast, but I think that is due to Canon Auto WB. I'm sure that this wouldn't have occured if you had shot dig
28 Jwenting: You're right Tony. The D60 will automatically apply a warming filter to every single frame it shoots (though I think you can turn it off). That's what
29 Usa4624: You will also notice a color difference between Kodak and Fuju film, not just digital and slides...