Astia film vs. Canon a620 image comparison

I visited Big Bend National Park several months ago, and this was my only image recorded in 2 formats as a comparison. 98% of what I shot there was film: kodachrome, astia, ektar, and tmax 100. Occasional quick snaps were with my Canon a620.

I can't recall if I used a polarizer on the Astia image, but notice the differences between these images. Notice how much better/brighter the highlights are in the Astia slide film image compared to the a620 as well as the color tone. These were taken seconds apart. The initial scan of the Astia slide was rather dull, but there was the latitude within the recorded light to adjust the tone curve, etc. with Lightroom 2 to the finished version shown. And I also did what I could to fix up the a620 image using Lightroom 2 as well.

Comments? Discussion?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I can't bear to look, but I will.
However, I can bear-ly tell the difference.
Boy, that must've been a bear of a hike through the park.

I dare say they both look awful, but in their own ways, good thing there are no bears in Russia!

One of the curses and benefits of using any film emulsion is the 'personality' of that film. Some love the look of Kodachrome over any Ektachrome. Some loved the saturated colors of Velvia, or the faithful colors of Kodak EPP. I loved Kodak EPP for product shots, but Velvia for landscapes...hated Velvia when there were people in the shot, though! In short, 'it depends' upon which emulsion you choose, as the final look of the shot you take. The same scene with 20 different films will absolutely yield 20 different looks!

Digital has really no inherent personality when RAW capture is used...it is entirely dependent upon the post processing settings the person wants to use. (Yes, there is a 'Canon look' vs. a 'Nikon look', but even that varies from model to model.). If you shoot JPG, which Picture Style you choose influences the look considerably.

In summary, regarding your test..."Yeah, and what is your point? " for the above reasons.

It wasn't a test, never stated as such, just a comparison for the thought that slide film does poorly on sunny days compared to even P&S cameras. Do both photos look "awful" as Kolo retorted? No, but the lower (a620) photo looks pale in comparison to the Astia photo (higher) as has much better highlights as well.

And keep in mind both these images have been tweaked up to look their best, so the comment about "picture styles" doesn't really apply here. Note, if I apply more highlight contrast to the a620 image (to improve the highlights in the foreground grass to get similar to the Astia image), the sky just falls apart.

HappySnapper90, no need to get defensive. You put up two photos and asked for comment, which we provided. You did not specify what kind of comment, you left that open. If you had post processed the same shot in digital ten different ways as well as 10 different picture styles, you'd get some "I like photo 'n'" responses...it is a matter of personal preferences. You'd also get some 'So what was your point?" reactions, too, from an open ended posting. Had you stated your premise about slide film in sunlight in your opening post (rather than five posts into the thread) that would have sparked discussion in reponse to that opening premise.

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #11994249
And keep in mind both these images have been tweaked up to look their best, so the comment about "picture styles" doesn't really apply here. Note, if I apply more highlight contrast to the a620 image (to improve the highlights in the foreground grass to get similar to the Astia image), the sky just falls apart.

You know 35mm film is pretty big sensor compared to an A620.

It'd help to at least know which photo came from which camera, you say upper and lower, but on my screen they are side to side. I'm hoping the one on the right is the Canon.

Film or not both images were subjected to the digital process which controls the image rendition. In other words the scanner is a flat bed digital camera. The lower image features blue branches in the upper right frame and a slight blue cast in the shadows compared to the upper image. Is this a function of post processing? It is really difficult to do a comparison since the process paths are different.

OP, mail everybody a drugstore 5x7 from the film camera will ya?

GtrPlyr wrote in post #11997202
OP, mail everybody a drugstore 5x7 from the film camera will ya?

Nope, that still adds processing.

What we need is for him to mail the piece of film around so we can all put it on our light tables to review with a loupe. Or in our slide projectors.

krb wrote in post #11997223
Nope, that still adds processing.

What we need is for him to mail the piece of film around so we can all put it on our light tables to review with a loupe. Or in our slide projectors.

Yea, but what about a guy like me with only tan walls to project it on...?!

jetcode wrote in post #11996967
Film or not both images were subjected to the digital process which controls the image rendition. In other words the scanner is a flat bed digital camera. The lower image features blue branches in the upper right frame and a slight blue cast in the shadows compared to the upper image. Is this a function of post processing? It is really difficult to do a comparison since the process paths are different.

No, a scanner is not the same as a digital camera. So a scan of a film image does not result in what a digital camera would have captured. Properly scanned film maintains the film's characteristics and attributes.

The blue in the corner of the a620 image was there in the original file, I would not do processing that would create that. And the "process paths" are irrelevant because the end result of how the images are used are through digital projection and printing. There are few places that are able to optically print from color film.

And the a620 image is on the "right" for those that surf with their browser in widescreen/full screen mode. I have a wide screen but keep my browser in "letter" portrait orientation so it doesn't take over my whole screen and can have more on my screen than just one window.

bjyoder wrote in post #11997454
Yea, but what about a guy like me with only tan walls to project it on...?!

Get a 40x60 piece of white foam core and move the projector closer.

jetcode wrote in post #11996967
Film or not both images were subjected to the digital process which controls the image rendition. In other words the scanner is a flat bed digital camera.

No, it's not.