Why are my old slides sharper than my present digital images? I started to clean out a closet that contained boxes and boxes of slides. Naturally, I started to look at them and I was...

LEGALDR Loc: Southern California

I started to clean out a closet that contained boxes and boxes of slides. Naturally, I started to look at them and I was amazed at how crisp they were in comparison to a lot of my more recent stuff. These slides are over forty years old and many shot with a Yashica 35mm and a Canon AE -1. Were my eyes that much better with manual focus than now? By the way, the AE-1 does have a split screen focus. What say you?

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Examples of comparison photos would help.

KotaKrome

LEGALDR wrote:

By the way, the AE-1 does have a split screen focus. What say you?

I have a split screen focus screen on my Nikon F2. Made it VERY easy to focus even when your vision wasn't the best.
There were several different focus screens available.
Sure wish they had that option on the DSLR.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/ for digital cameras.

Shutter Bugger

I saw a poster size Cibachrome print of a Ferrari made from a Kodachrome 64 Transparency.

It was so sharp (and lifelike) it seemed like you could
get in the car and drive away... except it was better looking
than reality.

New isn't always better.

twiga Loc: near Boston, MA

Shutter Bugger wrote:

I saw a poster size Cibachrome print of a Ferrari made from a Kodachrome 64 Transparency.

It was so sharp (and lifelike) it seemed like you could
get in the car and drive away... except it was better looking
than reality.

New isn't always better.

ahhhhhh.....I used to print all my Kodachrome slides on Cibachrome....reading your description put a lump of longing in my throat....:(

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

twiga wrote:

ahhhhhh.....I used to print all my Kodachrome slides on Cibachrome....reading your description put a lump of longing in my throat....:(

same here, it was good stuff.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

LEGALDR wrote:

... Were my eyes that much better with manual focus than now? ...

Kodachrome 25 transparencies (and Fuji Velvia 50) were/are as good as any 20-24MP digital today. Even thought their color response may not be absolutely neutral, you can do just as well by scanning and printing these slides as you can with the best affordable digital equipment.

Of course, all of those 35mm cameras were full-frame. The only way to do better without breaking the bank is with medium and large format film.

Psergel Loc: New Mexico

One of the big arguments against digital photography many years ago was that it would never be comparable to film. It's so amazingly good today though that most of us never look back. If we do, and if we come across an image captured on Kodachrome 25........well....maybe it's best not to look back.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

LEGALDR wrote:

I started to clean out a closet that contained boxes and boxes of slides. Naturally, I started to look at them and I was amazed at how crisp they were in comparison to a lot of my more recent stuff. These slides are over forty years old and many shot with a Yashica 35mm and a Canon AE -1. Were my eyes that much better with manual focus than now? By the way, the AE-1 does have a split screen focus. What say you?

Samples would help, and how are you viewing them? If you are viewing slides with the naked eye they will always be super sharp, same as viewing a thumbnail digital image looks sharp until you zoom in on it and the imperfections start to pop out at you.
Also, another big difference, no digital camera made can capture the dynamic range that film can, and slide film will capture more dynamic range than print film can.

TheDman Loc: USA

MT Shooter wrote:

Also, another big difference, no digital camera made can capture the dynamic range that film can, and slide film will capture more dynamic range than print film can.

I think you have both of those things backwards.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

TheDman wrote:

I think you have both of those things backwards.

The human eye typically sees 18 stops dynamic range.
Kodachrome 64 and Fuji Velvia were both rated at 14 stops.
Kodak Ektar Pro negative film is rated at 13 stops.
Below is the dynamic range rating of several current DSLR cameras:
Nikon D800 11.4
Nikon D600 11.2
Sony A99 11
Nikon D4 10.1
Panasonic AF100 10
Canon 6D 9.1
Canon 5D Mark II 8.9
Canon 1DX 8.8
Canon 1DC 8.8
Canon 5D Mark III 8.7
Canon 7D 8.7
Panasonic GH2 8.3

So how do I have this info backwards????

TheDman Loc: USA

MT Shooter wrote:

Kodachrome 64 and Fuji Velvis were both rated at 16 stops.

LOL, by who?? That would be awfully close to what the human eye can see. According to these stats, shooting Velvia was like shooting HDR.

I shot lots of Velvia, and it was more like 5 stops. Very contrasty. That's why the popular mantra at the time was that you had to be very careful with your exposure when you shot slide film. Any bit over or under and you would blow out highlights or shadows.

TheDman Loc: USA

"Velvia's dynamic range was miserably narrow compared with negative film or less saturated positive emulsions... Today, RAW files from even entry level DSLRs offer better dynamic range and cleaner capture than Velvia"

"Digital cameras, like the Canon 1D Mark II, show a huge dynamic range compared to either print or slide film"

"Now we can see that the digital images show much more shadow detail than either print or slide film. Even an 8-bit jpeg digital camera image shows more shadow detail than film. Also of note: the print film shows More shadow detail than slide film."

"Ive been shooting a small latitude film for most of my time as a photographer. Fuji Velvia, which has perhaps around 4 to 5 stops of dynamic range to it."

Michael66 Loc: Queens, New York

LEGALDR wrote:

I started to clean out a closet that contained boxes and boxes of slides. Naturally, I started to look at them and I was amazed at how crisp they were in comparison to a lot of my more recent stuff. These slides are over forty years old and many shot with a Yashica 35mm and a Canon AE -1. Were my eyes that much better with manual focus than now? By the way, the AE-1 does have a split screen focus. What say you?

Sigh. The same occurred to me the other week. I came across a box of slides I took in the late '70s. They were nothing to write home about, just pictures of my college gang, horsing around. However, the sharpness just blue me away. I have tried several digital conversion services and self-scanning techniques on more recent taken slides, and none of them do the slides justice. I'm going to just put the slides away and leave them be.

As for digital images, I've seen numerous that were tack sharp. And printing just doesn't do them justice. I think trying to convert one medium to the other, causes some kind of loss.

If I compare analog images in an analog medium ( print or slides ) to digital images on a monitor, I find them to be comparable in quality. IMHO, it is the conversion process that seems to be lacking.