[Minolta 500si, Tamron 28-300, Promaster mcUV filter, Fuji Superia ISO200 CNF, ~ F13 1/200s 50mm > CVS > Epson V300 > Gimp]
I think that I edited this one before the recent ICC-profiling of my main laptop LOL
Shot this around 7pm about 2 hours before sunset.
Now that I've "officially" calibrated my display, this is clearly too dark. But how are you going to make a shot taken in bright sunlight look realistically-bright? You push the hell out of it in post...
...it would have made for a great comparison-shot with my A700, if I had only remembered to put a flash-card in the camera before I left the house.
If it looks slightly "front-focused" that's because instead of a set of focus-pips with the ability to select one or all of them, the 500si has a big focus "area" which I suppose has multiple pips and no control over how they are used. I could only get it to focus even reasonably well by putting the center of the focus-area on the line formed by the top of of the trees in the foreground. Higher than that it would happily indicate focus when nothing was in sharp focus. While the A700 would happily focus on that light-colored patch in the back-center. The 28-300 was a wonderful lens for this scene, though I couldn't forget that the longer the shot the more that DOF was going to be a problem. Even in this light I ended-up shooting at ISO400 when I got out around 300mm effective.
I just wish that I had actually captured the shots :)
Ah well, I really fucked-up this one, but it isn't a hugely-important shot and it only changes so much with time. I was here this same time last year. And film can only hide from digital for so long.
I can tell you already: the A700 shots will be sharper, have more fine-detail, will be better-focused and have better DOF, and no grain in the sky. The only question is whether the browns and reds will look as good. The *D70* shots, shot with AutoWB, all look cold as ice with really just two colors, mostly blue and green. The fact that I took them in January after the leaves were down is no excuse. With a 6MP camera vs a 12MP camera, there may not be a huge difference in the linear-resolution but there seems to be a significant difference in the *color* resolution. While with negative film scanned in the V300 vs a 12MP camera the difference is significant in many key areas, Not to mention Nikon auto-wb vs Sony auto-wb vs film. Yet, still, they each have their strong and weak points. It's not like one is just better than the other in every category. If nothing else, having an AA filter then a UV/IR filter and then a Bayer-filter all behind yet another UV filter, that's definitely going to affect the color, just like film-grain, the scanner-driver settings, etc. The color always looks somewhat artificial. And the better the digital camera, the better that we expect the color to look. It's annoying for the image to be almost perfect *except* for the color, or the white-balance or the exposure, the contrast, the DOF, the sharpness across the frame, the DR, the list goes on and on. The better it is, the bigger and heavier it is the more expensive it is, the more annoying that it's *not* "just right", that you still have to make allowances for the IQ. In fact it's slightly disconcerting, as the IQ is so "unbalanced". So good in some ways, so putrid in others. So then we break out the MacBeth color chart and the Spyder colorimeter and generate some ICC profiles and it's *still* not right...but now all the editing and display is vastly-slower, because of the ICC overhead...and things just get "un-fun".
Film is grainy, kludgy, blotchy even, dusty, slow certainly, inflexible and not relatively-unlimited like digital storage, but it's still often easier to get good-looking color with film than with digital. This is why I still shoot it. That and, you know, the fact that I left my CF card at home. I will admit, though, that I took 20 frames from here, half in the morning going out and half in the afternoon coming back. And I didn't even bring another roll of film, just finished the 36-shot roll in the camera. Plus a few shots that I took at Romney Cycles. 20 shots to shoot 6 different views, including brackets. I could probably have cut that by 2/3rds but I shot brackets just to see what happened at different exposures, and with film it never hurts to have a few extra exposures of shots that you really want. Take just one frame of an important scene and you can almost guarantee that that frame is going to get fucked-up somehow. Shoot a half-dozen rolls and you'll wish that you'd never even heard of film. Shoot a few-hundred digital shots and you'll wish that you'd shot at least some of them on film. With film, whatever. It never ends. Big cameras, small cameras, cheap cameras, expensive cameras, film, digital, whatever you shoot eventually you'll wish that you had something different, that you had shot something different. It never ends.