Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/12/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hey Rob, Interesting comparison. You can see some digital noise in the orange stripe in the background and on the goalie's jersey. Of course there is grain all over the film image. One is not necessarily better than the other, just different. The digital file seems to have some edge effects which amplify the apparent sharpness. To some degree these factors are manipulatable in software. I would be interested in seeing what the original scan looked like. Thanks, Mike D Robert G. Stevens wrote: > I developed the 800 speed Fuji and when comparing them, the digital has > the edge at this speed. Keep in mind that my digital will only make > decent prints up to about 8x10. > > Both images taken from the same spot with the same lens in the same > period of the same game. This means the same magnification. I had to > crop the film scan down to the same size as the digital. > > http://www.robsteve.com/images/IRC/digital.jpg > > http://www.robsteve.com/images/IRC/film.jpg > > The film had a lot more grain and took a lot of work in PhotoShop > correcting the colours and dealing with the grain. Digital wins here. > If I was shooting strobes, scanned slide film would be superior. > > For list members with high speed internet, below is the full size > digital file, saved as a 75% quality jpeg. This is right off the camera > without any fancy PhotoShop work done to it. It is about 600k. > > http://www.robsteve.com/images/IRC/LeNeveauLRG.jpg > > This is the film scan after having some Photoshop actions done on it to > decrease noise and grain. These actions also tend to soften the detail > a bit. I sized it to be about the same size as the digital file. > > http://www.robsteve.com/images/IRC/filmLRG.jpg > > My impression is that if you have the light, shoot film. Otherwise, > digital does a fine job in difficult lighting, colour balance wise. If > you are doing nature or scenics, the digital results will disappoint you > unless you are only aiming for making smaller prints. > > > Regards, > > Robert > > > At 07:04 PM 12/26/2002 -0500, Edward Caliguri wrote: > >> Robert - >> On my email computer monitor (Mac 17" CRT) it looks pretty darn good! >> Was that the 400 2.8? Also, when performing your comparison, can you >> try a >> side by side PRINT comparison (either a good ink jet or preferably a Fuji >> frontier or Lambda print) and let us know? I find that sometimes monitor >> comparisons are not true to form. >> I use the Modular System and 400 6.8 for wildlife, and can pick up a >> used D30 body in new condition pretty cheap as folks trade them in; I >> think >> I will now! >> Ed >> >> > I was using my Leica lens with a Canon D2000 digital last night. It >> gives >> > pretty good results. I was also shooting with an EOS 300mm L lens >> and the >> > Leica seemed to do a better job, even on a lowly digital. I was >> using a >> > Leica to EOS adapter. These are available on the cameraquest site. >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html