File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
The following photos were taken with a simple point and click 35mm camera. What sort of differences would there be if the same areas were shot with a higher dollar SLR camera?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>What sort of differences would there be if the same areas were shot with a higher dollar SLR camera?

you would be in here bragging about how you only could have gotten this shot with your Canon 5D and 70-200 2.8 in RAW.

wanna ask me what would change if you shot this with a leica?
>> Anonymous
>>136686
Yeah kinda, would you see angels descending from the heavens off in the distance?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>136687

nope. it would look exactly the same, but you would be bragging about how discrete your leica m7 is, and how the summilux produces magical bokeh.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
point is, if what you're taking a photo of is more than 10 feet away and in broad daylight, which is pretty much the easiest conditions under which one can shoot, all cameras will produce more or less the same results.

but for anything else, you want something more than a "point and click" (whatever that is) camera.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
both photos are quite soft and the contrast is flat.
even with a low end dSLR with any old lens you'd get a much better result that this
-clearer image (sharpness)
-obvious focal points at low f stops
-more color vibrancy
-more contrast
>> Anonymous
>>136709
because the _camera_ dictates color vibrancy for film shots. I think you are completely right.
>> Anonymous
>>136709
what he said.

also r.e 1st pic. no image can be good if its missing goode composition; too much sky and you cut off the part of the rail to the left
>> Anonymous
>>136716

The lens does, smart ass.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>136716
Well, first off, the lens does have some effect on the color reproduction.

Secondly, Beethy was referring to these pictures in particular, not to shots in general taken on film:
>a much better result than this
(Note 'this'. I.e., 'these particular photos')

Which is true. The second shot is dull and washed out. The first looks like it was just taken on B&W film. So a digital SLR where you could bump up the saturation will give you much more highly saturated colors.

A better criticism of Beethy's post would be to point out that the OP didn't specify a digital SLR. He's using a P&S film camera, and he just said
>a higher dollar SLR camera
so he may well have meant a film SLR.
>> Anonymous
>>136750
OP here, digital or film SLR, didn't really matter. I'm quite ignorant to the pluses and minuses of either format compared to the other. All I really know is the convenience of reviewing taken digital images immediately and being able to modify the image quality a little more easily. As for the colors on the original photos, the conditions of the day made them look very similar to what the scene actually was. It was a foggy, overcast day in late December with pale stone and cast iron workings.
>> Anonymous
>>136738
spoiler: [spoiler]SARCASM[/spoiler]
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
oh hay, i fixd ur photos

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:03:08 00:37:05Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width870Image Height597
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:03:08 00:29:28Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2704Image Height4015
>> Anonymous
>>136811
Sarcasm doesn't come across well in text, especially if you sage. And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just backpedaling.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
uh, most lenses (even the cheap ones) are designed to reproduce color very, very faithfully, and most succeed. if you were to break color reproduction (for slides) down into proportions, i would say that it's probably 80% choice of film, 10% developer (this is highly arguable), 9% technique (over/underexposure) and about 1% lens.