Originally posted by Blue That's an good image Nanok. To really compare the 2, you need a scene like that shot with Kodachrome and digital. I'm guessing the snow would be a bit brighter with Kodachrome but its just a guess.
it would be a hell of a lot brighter with anything: it's not the camera, it's me (known to have a tendency towards the "dark side" (of the histogram, ofcourse), and my way-too-birght lcd monitor), let me have something to eat, and unless i fall asleep, i will try to dig the raw out and process it reasonably
, but the point is that the light is obviously contrasty (it was shortly after sunrise, you can see what such an angle can do to the snow, and how it brings out all sorts of textures and contrasts everywhere), but still the detail is there, all the way, in the sky, snow, and the tonal gradations are still quite smooth. as i said before, in my experience, the dynamic range needed for such a scene is often overestimated, it's not small, but there's much worse than that.
ps: hell, you know what? i am willing to get some slide (even if not kodachrome) and carry it up together with a k-mount film body, when i go there this winter, and try to test the theory. i won't promise though, i am scared if i see the results (comparing on digital monitor with viewing a "real" slide), i might start shooting slide, and we don't want that, do we?..
btw: find those slide cabinets and show us some stuff, we need more examples to figure this one out. don't be lazy
Last edited by nanok; 06-23-2009 at 01:37 PM.