Guest mc_k Posted November 21, 2009 Share #21 Posted November 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would be interested in comparing the result in the magazine--the final stage; the interest being which is best for an editorial spread. And I don't suppose the final scan made much of a difference. If the two workflows to get there were optimal why not make the comparison? I think the problem with this particular comparison is the two pictures are not matched for exposure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 Hi Guest mc_k, Take a look here M9 and M7 sample image comparisons. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
specpro Posted November 22, 2009 Author Share #22 Posted November 22, 2009 A native Japanese speaker was kind enough to translate the caption to the right of the photos: "Both images are taken with the same focal length but there's big difference on exposure rate around the edge. But such film camera's image may be good,too." Yes I agree that the film camera image is good too! I don't have access to the original images just the magazine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheewai_m6 Posted November 23, 2009 Share #23 Posted November 23, 2009 she looks dopey Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
specpro Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share #24 Posted January 8, 2010 For what it's worth, some more sample image comparisons from the M9 and M7 this time from the January 2010 issue of AsahiCamera magazine on my blog: M9 and M7 Sample Image Comparison from Asahi Camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 8, 2010 Share #25 Posted January 8, 2010 I can't see any point in that comparison.Conclusion; Film is not digital. Digital is not film. Oh look, the sentences are exactly the same length! The first sentence appears in fact longer! Says it all really doesn't it! It would appear that Film is just slightly longer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mc_k Posted January 8, 2010 Share #26 Posted January 8, 2010 ...some more sample image comparisons from the M9 and M7 this time from the January 2010 issue of AsahiCamera magazine... thanks for the additions Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 8, 2010 Share #27 Posted January 8, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Says it all really doesn't it! It would appear that Film is just slightly longer. To complicate further... Film is not digital Digital is not film Scanning is both Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 8, 2010 Share #28 Posted January 8, 2010 So the film image was scanned, then it was printed, and then it was scanned again. The digital image was printed and then it was scanned. Both are being presented in low resolution. From this I conclude I should just use my old 2 megapixel p&s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted January 8, 2010 Share #29 Posted January 8, 2010 What caught my eye is that the M9 appears to be correcting for vignetting and the M7 of course not. I happen to like vignetting - wish there was a way we could define in FW to color correct the edges but not the exposure. The M9 shot should also have been more exposed for the highlights. I find digital to be a hybrid between slide and color neg when it comes to exposure and then the ability to correct after the fact. Something to keep in mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.