slide transparency's: I decided to digitize all my slides about 8,000 of them as I was cleaning them I noticed how good they look with color and the 3D look.I just think that you can...

Jim Bianco

I decided to digitize all my slides about 8,000 of them as I was cleaning them I noticed how good they look with color and the 3D look.I just think that you can not compare the look of slide transparencies to digital . the slide film would put the digital era to shame. I took these pics in 1970 to about 1990 with a nikon N70 camera and a cheap sigma lens, I shot Zion , Bryce, AZ., the whole West .I have not viewed them in years, but when I started viewing them I was just blown away at the colors the depth and the beauty of all these slides. I took alot of digital pics of the west and they don't compare with these slides. This is just my thought on this matter. I would like to know what you guys think. I used Fugi 50, Kodacrome 100 Fugi sensia and and various other slide films at the time. Thanks Jim Bianco

BebuLamar

Jim Bianco wrote:

I decided to digitize all my slides about 8,000 of... (show quote)

The Nikon N70 was introduced in 1994 so you must be very lucky to have early sample of the camera by more than 20 years ahead of time.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Slides are kinda like "what you see is what you get".
The number of digital sensors and the way they react are like various film types.

I like the fineness of slide film more than digital, but the advantages of digital far outweigh the fineness of film, for me.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Jim Bianco wrote:

I would like to know what you guys think.

It's ridiculous. I shot plenty of transparency film over the decades and current digital tech is in every way superior.

Jim Bianco wrote:

I used Fugi 50, Kodacrome 100 Fugi sensia and and various other slide films at the time. Thanks Jim Bianco

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ysarex wrote:

It's ridiculous. I shot plenty of transparency film over the decades and current digital tech is in every way superior.

Do you mean current digital technology as in including the ability to edit?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Longshadow wrote:

Do you mean current digital technology as in including the ability to edit?

Yes. Ability to edit? All digital images require editing by the photographer. There is no ability to not edit unless you're talking about low-end phone photos. I'm talking about digital images using a dedicated digital camera like my Canon G7 for example.

Jim Bianco

BebuLamar wrote:

The Nikon N70 was introduced in 1994 so you must be very lucky to have early sample of the camera by more than 20 years ahead of time.

Thanks

Jim Bianco

Longshadow wrote:

Slides are kinda like "what you see is what you get".
The number of digital sensors and the way they react are like various film types.

I like the fineness of slide film more than digital, but the advantages of digital far outweigh the fineness of film, for me.

Thanks for your thought

Jim Bianco

Ysarex wrote:

Yes. Ability to edit? All digital images require editing by the photographer. There is no ability to not edit unless you're talking about low-end phone photos. I'm talking about digital images using a dedicated digital camera like my Canon G7 for example.

Thanks

Jim Bianco

Longshadow wrote:

Do you mean current digital technology as in including the ability to edit?

Yes and thanks for reply.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ysarex wrote:

Yes. Ability to edit? All digital images require editing by the photographer. There is no ability to not edit unless you're talking about low-end phone photos. I'm talking about digital images using a dedicated digital camera like my Canon G7 for example.

ALL images?
The presets I have in my camera usually do quite well.
Not every shot requires editing.
Unless I want to make it "perfect"...

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Longshadow wrote:

ALL images?
The presets I have in my camera usually do quite well.

And every one of those is editing. Check your camera and see if there's an option to not apply a white balance. Then you have to do it and even if you chose to ignore it or leave it at some default you must do at least that. Done in the camera or outside the camera it's editing.

Longshadow wrote:

Not every shot requires editing.
Unless I want to make it "perfect"...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ysarex wrote:

And every one of those is editing. Check your camera and see if there's an option to not apply a white balance. Then you have to do it and even if you chose to ignore it or leave it at some default you must do at least that. Done in the camera or outside the camera it's editing.

Technically yes. but I separate them. "I" don't have to do the editing.
That's why they provide presets. Makes life simpler.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Longshadow wrote:

Technically yes. but I separate them. "I" don't have to do the editing.

Yes you do. Not choosing is a choice.

Longshadow wrote:

That's why they provide presets. Makes life simpler.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ysarex wrote:

Yes you do. Not choosing is a choice.

No I don't - but you are right in as much as it is a choice, choosing not to post process is not "editing".
Like I said, setting presets aids in reducing any <additional> post processing.

Perception...