slide transparency's (Page 4): You make the menu selection or turn a dial before pressing the shutter but all you're doing is pre-setting what action will be applied after the shutter...

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

burkphoto wrote:

I don't believe I was arguing that point. I agree with it. If I misled, sorry. A minor quibble is that pre-processing (setting menu choices) for JPEGs does occur before the shutter opens most of the time.

You make the menu selection or turn a dial before pressing the shutter but all you're doing is pre-setting what action will be applied after the shutter opens and closes -- post capture processing.

You stepped into the middle of a discussion as to whether those camera picture control settings constitute editing. I maintain they do. They are applied as a result of choices made by the photographer and they are applied post capture.

burkphoto wrote:

A few cameras will let you apply JPEG processing to a newly-captured raw file manually, at the camera, after "knob twiddling."

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

All good.

AnotherBob

Jim Bianco wrote:

I decided to digitize all my slides about 8,000 of them..... 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.... I took a lot of digital pics of the west and they don't compare with these slides..... Thanks Jim Bianco

I took thousands of slides from the early 60's until our first Sony "point, release shutter, wait while subject moves, listen for actual shutter release, curse." I've used a number of DSLR's subsequently. What I get from the old slides, whether projected or digitized, are great memories. I seldom pixel peep; I enjoy being reminded of the good trips and a younger family. I often used "high speed" Ektachrome, not my best move, but I was often shooting moving subjects in less than optimal light. The images I've captured (many have been catch and release) with the newer digital cameras are so much sharper, have a much greater chance of being in focus, and can be caught in much poorer light, that I only regret that I lacked this equipment / technology years ago.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

cbtsam wrote:

Projecting generally produces an image larger than most of us usually print to, and I think that accounts for a lot of the power we see looking back at our old slides (I too have many). I have a digital image that I liked quite a bit on my 27 inch monitor; my niece had it printed to about 6 feet x 9 feet and put up on her dining room wall, and it really blew me away. Quite often, bigger looks better, and much bigger looks much better.

Bigger looks better...probably why watching a movie at the theater is more rewarding than watching the same movie at home on tv.

As for the argument about processing images, I liken it to garden vegetables. With few exceptions, most vegetables taste better cooked (processed). Even a watermelon that tastes great straight out of the garden tastes better after setting in the refrigerator or cold water for a while. I suspect that very few photos, digital or film, would look superb without some alterations.

robertperry Loc: Sacramento, Ca.

If you have boxes of slides, a projector and screen, gather the family around and show the kids, grandkids what life was like growing up in our era. Give them that family experience we had growing up.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

Good idea Robert! I’m already giving a couple of my grandsons a taste of what it was like. Chores, running power tools, a sawmill, plant ID, speaking German but also going for walks, plant ID, speaking German, taking photos, going places, eating meals as a family. And they don’t have their own cell phones and their momma really limits video games. And you know what? They are happy!

Bo0mer

If you consider choosing your white balance editing, then technically with film you have to start editing before you even take the first picture by choosing your film type or color correction filters.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Bo0mer wrote:

If you consider choosing your white balance editing, then technically with film you have to start editing before you even take the first picture by choosing your film type or color correction filters.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

bikinkawboy wrote:

Good idea Robert! I’m already giving a couple of my grandsons a taste of what it was like. Chores, running power tools, a sawmill, plant ID, speaking German but also going for walks, plant ID, speaking German, taking photos, going places, eating meals as a family. And they don’t have their own cell phones and their momma really limits video games. And you know what? They are happy!

That's great! Kudos to you

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Bo0mer wrote:

If you consider choosing your white balance editing,

Did someone say that? I didn't.

Bo0mer wrote:

then technically with film you have to start editing before you even take the first picture by choosing your film type or color correction filters.

When a digital image is captured by a digital camera no white balance value is applied to the data up to and including the point of writing the raw data to storage. Non-demosaiced raw data has no white balance. With film the white balance is baked into the film during manufacturing and it's response can't be altered. So I was never referring to film when I used WB as one example of necessary post capture editing/processing that all digital images require.

Look at the two camera JPEGs I posted here: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-742232-3.html#13217720 One reason they appear different is that two different WB values were used in the separate in-camera edits. Those two images don't look very similar, but I didn't do any editing?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

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.

adm

Slides (transparencies) have a unique look. Whether they are superior to digital or not is subjective. I still shoot some slide film because I like the way it renders color. There are some drawbacks as well, such as narrow exposure latitude, so-so dynamic range, and (increasingly) cost. My own personal preference would be not to digitize my slides, unless I wanted to share the shots digitally. But that is just me. Cost of slide film is increasingly a concern. I recently ordered some Fuji Velvia 50. It is now going for about $30 a roll. It was back ordered, which at least shows that there is still a demand for it. Kodak Ektachrome 100 D sells for "only" about $20 per roll.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Jim Bianco wrote:

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

In digitizing hundreds of slides, many of them commercially successful, I am constantly stuck by how poor they are compared to digital. For me there is no comparison. Digital wins by a country Mike, whether it be in color depth, sharpness, noise. The only place where film has an edge is in highlight latitude, and that is easily solved in digital by exposing for highlights and raising shadow values, given that digital wins hands down in shadow noise.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

kymarto wrote:

In digitizing hundreds of slides, many of them commercially successful, I am constantly stuck by how poor they are compared to digital. For me there is no comparison. Digital wins by a country Mike, whether it be in color depth, sharpness, noise. The only place where film has an edge is in highlight latitude, and that is easily solved in digital by exposing for highlights and raising shadow values, given that digital wins hands down in shadow noise.

Out of the mouths of working pros comes much wisdom. These are my experiences, too.

I loved using Kodachrome for its color and stability. But I love digital for its latitude and precise predictability and repeatability.

BebuLamar

burkphoto wrote:

Out of the mouths of working pros comes much wisdom. These are my experiences, too.

I loved using Kodachrome for its color and stability. But I love digital for its latitude and precise predictability and repeatability.

Yes although you can have 2 cameras of same make and model that are quite different but the same camera would produce the same result consistently. You don't have that with film. Each roll is a bit different.