I hadn't noticed all the details that Winsor points out but I stopped
comparing after seeing the image size and exposure differences.
Chuck Norcutt
Winsor Crosby wrote:
> Well, this one is easier. If you look down the street you will see
> that in the film shot the cables and cable cars have just about faded
> away and the face of the yellow building is completely burned out. It
> looks to me that the film shot has almost a full stop overexposure
> compared to the digital shot. Of course you are going to find more
> detail lurking in a dark shop window when you increase the exposure.
> All you have to do is look at the woman in white sitting at the base
> of the sign in each to see the glaring exposure difference between
> the two images. The wire to the right of the poster is completely
> visible in the digital image and is almost completely gone in the
> film image, but that may have more to do with it being silhouetted
> against the building with higher exposure. The number 32 is just
> visible to me in the sign above the Rolex awning and I cannot tell
> what it is in the film image.
>
> I was mistaken about the time difference.
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, CA
> USA
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2006, at 10:06 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>
>
>>For the Italy shots, they are done at almost the same time, there
>>was no
>>lighting different. Ok, here again:
>>
>>http://www.accura.com.hk/P8193517.jpg (1.1MB, 11mm at F4, 1/800s, E-1)
>>
>>http://www.accura.com.hk/P_06.jpg (3.2MB, 21/2 at F5.6, OM4 auto)
>>
>>To make it easier, just look at the halogen lamps inside the
>>FARMACIA, there
>>is HUGE different between the film and digital shot.
>>
>>C.H.Ling
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
