two pics, same rock

[low_delta]

Two different pictures of the same thing. Why do they look so different?





The first one was taken by Cyn (though that doesn't really have anything to do with it) with the digital camera. The second was taken by me with my 35mm. Cyn's was closer and with a wider angle, while mine was from farther away and also at a slightly different angle. They were taken at least twenty minutes apart, so the sky might have changed, but I'm not sure.

The first one demonstrates a wide latitude of exposure. The sky is exposed well, but the big rock, which is in shadow, shows good detail. The tree on the right is washed out, but that's not a big deal. I could probably correct it with Photoshop, anyway.

I did a lot of retouching to the second one. I brightened up the shadows a lot, and also punched up the colors a bit. The thing is, not only did I brighten up the shadows, the lab did too. Notice how the sky around the edge of the rock, and the tree trunk is lightened up? That's Kodak PerfectTouch Processing. So if we both lightened up the shadows, how dark were they in the first place?

Comments

..

[whorlpool.livejournal.com]

All you need to do is move the sky from the first photo into the second photo, and it will be perfect.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

:-)

[zaecus.livejournal.com]

Looks like contrast has been enhanced in the second picture, too.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I think I mainly brightened up the whole thing, but I probably added some contrast in the mid ranges.

[i.livejournal.com]

the one drawback to conventional photography is that, unlike digital, you don't have control of the developing and processing.

the top photo os closer to what it looked like that day. the second one is lightened up so that the rock looks like it's in direct sun, when it wasn't.

[marswalker.livejournal.com]

I'd agree - in fact, I had to look a few times to be sure the sun wasn't coming from another angle. The reds and yellows were definetly enhanced on the second photo, to the point where the bottom of the top rock almost looks like it's being lit by firelight or a sunset.

On the other hand, there are things I like using my old vivitar and film for, over using the digital camera. I have a much better feel for what I can do with film and lenses (completely manual camera) over what I can do with digital. :)

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

That's why I like my film camera so much better than the little point and shoot digital. But I could get a nice digital and have the same feel and the same control.

[marswalker.livejournal.com]

I don't think I'll ever have as good a feel for digital - i've had that manual SLR since I was about 10. :) There's no replacement for experience.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

It shouldn't be a drawback. They should develop them without "enhancing" them. They should be able to produce an image consistent with what the negative picked up.

[i.livejournal.com]

agreed

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I just got another roll back. This time I didn't ask for the Kodak PerfectTouch processing, and the prints weren't very good. You can't win. I don't remember having problems with this in the past. The digital revolution must be pushing developers.

[banana.livejournal.com]

The first one looks like a rock, whereas the second one looks like a photo of a rock, if that makes any sense. Sometimes in a TV programme where part is shot on film and part is shot on video tape you see the same sort differences.