Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a tougher one, well done!  First, I am guessing the Kodak Gold is not fully analog, from exposure to print, that should affect the final product that we see. 

I am assuming the film itself was scanned to a digital file and the contrast possibly increased particularly for the skin. Given the angle here, we are unable to see the same range of values from building and shadow (that appear in the top one only) behind the subject for comparison. 

All that said very good!  I will guess the  bottom is the M9, and the top one film.

It would be fun to see the same done with an M vs Kodak Gold.

 David

HAH, alright. I hadn't seen page two with answer til just now after hitting send

Edited by DwF
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it wasn't a question of "crappy or not."

I just saw obvious signatures of scanned color neg film in the first image.

Red shadows, grain in the "bokeh" areas, and slightly blocked (but not blown) yellowish sunlit skin (pink (skin) + green (color neg crossover) = yellow.)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is the difference between those who have shot some film for longer than the current film revival, and those who haven't? So yeah, I/we told you so. 😄

Edited by 250swb
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 11 Stunden schrieb JimmyCheng:

So the answer is: bottom one is from m9 + my beloved summicron 35 iv, while the first one was shot with my m2 + 50mm lux asph and kodak gold

Are you sure, that you remember the data correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 4 Stunden schrieb JimmyCheng:

I thought it was quite obvious.

No, only 50% were correct. And some had the right answer from a pure technical point of view. The second picture was over exposed for my taste. 

What did you try to prove actually?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jankap said:

No, only 50% were correct. And some had the right answer from a pure technical point of view. The second picture was over exposed for my taste. 

What did you try to prove actually?

Nothing, really, just out of curiosity and boredness because of this virus thing.

That being said, this is actually from my very first roll of film a while ago. I never shot any film before, and I thought really enjoyed the rendering, it might be bad or boring to others, but it's new to me, and I want to see if it makes a difference to other ppl's eyes. 

Wonder if you still remember the first time you saw your first roll of film being developed.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 3 Minuten schrieb JimmyCheng:

Nothing, really, just out of curiosity and boredness because of this virus thing.

Wonder if you still remember the first time you saw your first roll of film being developed.

Yes, I remember my first films very well. I trusted the ASA number, the Rodinal data, etc. and had to fight in my provisional darkroom with under exposed negatives. Thinking of what I did wrong.I changed to slide film soon.

A few years ago I gave negative film another try with my Tessina (halve FF). But I shall stay with the sensor medium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I reduced the exposure a bit and reddened the shadows slightly. It looks a little more similar. I can't do anything with those digital highlights but I'm poor at post processing.

Pete

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...