I find it all quite amusing as well. And its interesting that your film image at least apears to have better DOF. The 28mm lens is obviously sharper at the edges and corners, which is what I would expect. That threw me at first glance, because I wouldn't expect very good results from that 18mm lens. Was it the kit zoom lens or the old 18/3.5? Neither has a very good reputation.
I'm certainly not being defensive about digital. I don't give a hoot what medium others choose. But used with even a modicum of competence, the digital would, in many indoor lighting situations, be able to produce more accurate white balance than film. That's just the nature of the best, and it's not a value judgement. Paul > Well, Paul, since the cat's out of the bag, so to speak, you're right, > wrong, and in the middle. First, the owner of the DSLR just told me that > she had the WB of the istDs set to flash. When we made the pics I > certainly didn't change it. Never occurred to me to do so, never even > occurred to look. I just don't think in terms of such things. As for the > film, again, I did nothing to it. Just pointed the camera at the scene and > pushed the button. Made no adjustments when scanning, either, nor in > Photoshop other than to use a slight curves adjustment to get the tonality > to match the digi image a little closer. Fuji film is supposed to have a > 4th layer that allows a more neutral result under certain lighting > conditions. Light in the area was mixed - a little sun light filtered in, > there was some fluorescent, and, of course, tungsten. My attitude was > simply, "so what." > > This wasn't a test of white balance, or what's ultimately possible with > digi or film manipulation. Just a quick look at whether or not the FoV and > the perspective are similar between the two lenses, so, really, there was > no need, imo, to consider any other factors. > > No one intended to have any fun at anyone's expense. But when it became > clear that a number of people couldn't figure out which was film and which > was digi, I decided not to say anything. What the hell, I'm entitled to a > little chuckle every now and then ;-)) I also find it a bit amusing - and > please don't take offense here - that you once again rise to the defense of > digital with your comment about how easy it is to set the white balance in > a DSLR, and that film would tend to be off color. I guess being > inexperienced and ignorant, I just look at results for what they are > because my mind isn't set yet to think in such terms. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > If, as Rod says, the top image is from the DSLR, either someone doesn't > know what they're doing with that DSLR or they're having a bit of fun at > our expense. It's quite obvious that one can achieve accurate white balance > with a DSLR with very little difficulty and that film would tend to be off > color in tungsten light. > > > > > > > On 22 Jul 2005 at 12:57, John Francis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Has there really been much disagreement? > > > > > > > > Almost every post I've noticed seemed to agree that the top > > > > photograph was from the film camera, and the lower one was > > > > from the digital. > > > > > > > > Reasons stated included the rather better white balance of > > > > the lower picture (AWB should do better than a film being > > > > used in lighting conditions it wasn't designed for), and > > > > the better perceived DOF of the lower image (although this > > > > has also been attributed to over-sharpening). > > > > > > Ahh, but the top image is from the DSLR according to the EXIF data. > > > > > > > > > > > > Rob Studdert > > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > > > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > > > >
