File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Whats better?

Digital cam
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelNikon COOLSCAN V EDCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width5959Image Height3946Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution747 dpiVertical Resolution747 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:09:13 18:20:19Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height571
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
or

film

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:07:05 14:41:32Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating125Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias2 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533RenderingNormalExposure ModeAuto BracketWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
A properly exposed picture with less HDR faggotry.
>> Anonymous
>>77450
So... the 1st or the 2nd one?
>> Anonymous
You switched them.

I see what u did thar

but without hdr both formats would've yielded similar results
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
I like the second one better.

Are you trying to do a "Film vs. Digital" thing? Because if so, and if you actually meant to flip the film and the digital shot as a clever ploy, you should really post in a way that strips out the EXIF.

Unless you're being extra clever and actually switched the EXIF on the two shots.

Either way, you ought to have exposed the first one properly rather than blowing the hell out of the highlights in the sky.
>> Anonymous
Yeah the second one is much better.

If you hadn't completely blown out the first one it might have been nice.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
as contrast to others, i quite enjoy the first one.
I know blown highlights is a Neddy-no-no, but i enjoy it on the first, it doesn't seem so harsh like digital clipping.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77461
I agree that the first one's definitely a nice pic, and the blown highlights work in the scene. To clarify, my
>you ought to have exposed the first one properly rather than blowing the hell out of the highlights in the sky.
comment was meant as "if you want to do a valid comparison with film vs. digital", not an artistic judgement.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
Can't do a decent comparision between film & digital if you photoshop the hell out of the original photo
>> Anonymous
First one is meh, second one sucks an ass. It's way overshopped, has lots of aliasing and halos around the tree branches, and generally looks like horse shit.
>> Anonymous
I prefer the second pic, but you could get the same effect by reducing the exposure on the digital cam.
>> Anonymous
Why are some people so horrible? There's constructive criticism and then there's being a bastard.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77493
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
>> Anonymous
>>77493

Because I hate everyone. Especially you, OP, and just about anyone who feels the need to seek approval on an internet site full of grade A assholes.

Just to get it out of the way, everybody on /p/ sucks at photography. Some just suck more.
>> Anonymous
wait, film has exif data on it?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77522
No, but we're don't look at film here. We look at scans of film. Scanners (or Photoshop) often add EXIF data.

>>77523
*Fuck*wad. Greater internet *fuck*wad theory.
>> Anonymous
>>77530

yeah, but they can't put fuckwad on a t-shirt.
>> Anonymous
>>77476
Nonsense. Digital files require post-processing just like film requires developing and work in the enlarger.
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>77476
Yeah but in this case it'd only be a fair comparison if he processed the film in as heavily as he did the digital. i.e. if it's digital hdr, he should do the film as hdr as well, and compare results.
He killed the highlights on the film, but clearly put more effort into the digital, so it isn't much of a comparison.
>> Anonymous
>>77530
nevermind. i thought a Canon EOS 5D was a camera. a quick google later and I'll just stfu.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>77550
digital?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>77550
pencil and paper?

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:09:18 15:38:19Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width500Image Height500
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>77550

Rarely, if ever, do I need to do *any* post processing of ANY kind aside from resizing on my slides. But that isn't my point; my point here is that he post processed the digital, but did nothing to the film In order to properly make a comparision between film and digital, he should do nothing to either and shoot it as-is or do the same exact post processing to each.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77564
>>77565
I lol'd.
>> Anonymous
>>77569
IMO, to make a proper comparison, the digital frame and the film frame have to be treated independently to get the best possible results on each. They're different things with different properties, and need totally different sorts of post-processing.
>> Grayson Clark !8bjMONBtmk
There is no point to the question - one can manipulate a scan as easily as one can manipulate a digital image.
You're comparing oranges to oranges - no point.
>> Anonymous
1st is better cause i didnt have to open this crappy thread to see it...oh wait, that makes it worse cause both sucked and i didnt want to see either. OP should give himself a selectol douche
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>77584

Guess im the only one round who believes that everything should be done in-camera with no post processing at all, huh?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77596
Nope. I'm lazy too. ;)
>> Anonymous
>>77596
well its kind of different with digital since they tend to mute the colors a bit to make it more middle of everything.

>>77585
the point to compare oranges to oranges is to compare them. since you actually can. the thing is the OP did not manipulate the film scan nor did he do any darkroom manipulation, while on the digital its fairly obvious he did many things different.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>>77599

it isn't that i'm lazy, it's more along the lines of "do it right the first time and don't depend on photoshop to fix your photo." The results that model shoot (pic related) even though shot at 7:30 in the morning with some film I had never used before STILL looks too overexposed to me, and it's driving me crazy. I'd normally throw them out, but she needs them to use as a base photo (we're going to go back out again and reshoot).

Either way, I absolutely hate even having to tone the light down a little bit. Suppose it's really to each their own. I'm harder on myself than I probably should be.
>> Anonymous
>>77605

is dat sum pornstar? fukken saved!
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>77614

It's my coworker; she needed some photos for her portfolio so I was helpin her out.
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>77599
Well you know my opinion, I basically agree, but digital requires pp, it's just a matter of whether or not you let the camera software have all the say. Film, especially slides, you have more of a choice to just take what you get. I hate doing it too, but it's like with my vacation pictures, some of them were so close, and I wanted to keep them enough that a little pp was just a necessity. Considering that there is no way to reshoot them. And I'm pleased enough with the final results.
That shot is a tiny bit overexposed on the concrete by her feet, but I think you might want a bit more fill flash, she's a little too dark compared to the daylight coming in, and that would help balance it out.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>>77616
>> Anonymous
>>77615
no exif = lies
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>77623
It's film.
>>77620
That's just right. Might be a little hotspot on the building, but not very noticeable. Is that USD?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77605
First off, DO WANT.

Secondly, that's really impressive given you weren't particularly familiar with the film and have never really done a modeling shoot before. Looks perfectly exposed to me.

(The laziness thing was a joke. I actually think--although I'm sure there are a lot of people right here on /p/ that would disagree with me--that my good shots look fine with no postprocessing other than what the DIGIC III in my XTi does by itself)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>77623

I use film, not digital because I refuse to switch. Lurk moar, i figured pretty much everyone in /p/ would realize that by now. Shot with Fuji Pro 160S, f22 @ balboa park. Downtown San Diego.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>77624

Balboa. i was gonna post a thread with some of the better shots, but judging from the reaction she's gettin i better not so they don't get spread around like wildfire. I'll email some of them to you this weekend if you remind me.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>77625

Thanks :D I'm pretty happy with a couple of the results, but sooo many of them are over exposed it pains me to admit. I still have black and whites that I need to get developed for her as well.

To each their own again in terms of processing, i just happen to be a stiff in that regard.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77627
How about you flickr 'em? Then I could see 'em, too. :-D
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>77627
That's why it looks familiar, I was just there on saturday. Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit is sweet.
Cool, definitely interested in the results now.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>77630

gonna ask her permission first, make sure she's comfortable with it. We have another couple shoots coming up. I'm still debating over whether it's acceptable or not. Next time, i'm gonna use velvia and see what happens.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77633
>Next time, i'm gonna use velvia and see what happens.
Her face is gonna be orange like a babboon's ass. At least go with Velvia 100F.
>> Anonymous
>>77634
>>77633

skip the velvia completely. use provia (good) or astia (best ever)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>77636

Never tried Astia before. Next phootoshoot she'll be in front of the city adminstration building (heheeh, it was fun) where I had her last night, old town and Del Coronado for a sunset shoot on the beach.
>> Anonymous
>>77637

astia is the finest grained color film in the world, and of fuji's three slide films, it's got the mildest color reproduction. it's specifically designed for portraiture.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>77638

I will check it out next time around. Thanks. Though i still want the color to pop; does it do pretty well in that department?
>> Anonymous
>>77605
>>77596

I'm all for working right the first time, but there's some things that just can't be gotten around. Try getting the same effect as dodging and burning a print or file in-camera.

Two different approaches, but I'm definitely of the Ansel Adams school that holds processing is just as important to the art as the initial exposure. I've always wanted to know who HCB's secret miracle developing guy was.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>77650

Suppose i'm just old school, or too hard on myself. I expect myself to get it right the first time. If i don't, I throw it away and move on, simple as that.

Than again, i can do that because i'm not a pro; i'm a hobbyist, and don't photograph people or sell photos for a living.