I spent today scanning slides and thought I'd show two versions of the same subject. Each type of photography has its advantages and disadvantages. Some think the color looks better on film. Film is known to last several lifetimes. Digital is fast, cheap, and shows detail better than 35mm film. Bigger film can show detail too, but it's expensive. So here they are side by side.
My grandfather used that wheelbarrow building the house eighty years ago.
Aaaaah,........Steve, you might add one more little detail to the otherwise interesting comparison; as I'm really not quite sure which is which! (???)
I've been retired from the RR Police Dept. for almost 12 years now, so am kinda' "out of the loop", however, I recall that originally, when digital photos were a relatively new thing, they were not admissible as evidence in court. I would assume that that no longer holds true, but not really sure. I know one thing, 35mm film is still around, and as you say, has it's advantages, but digital photography sure took over quickly.
For 35mm work I don't think there is any advantage to film now. I believe that most places that will still process film convert it to digital to print anyway.
A real disadvantage of slides and especially Ektachrome is that they will fade away over time. I have a bunch or 40 year old slides that are fading away. The best thing to do to save them is to make quality digital scans of them. As long as you don't lose or corrupt the digital files, they will last forever with no loss of quality.
Here is a way to copy/scan slides or even negatives:
Here is a slide copied with the camera above:
The Diamond T photo in this thread was a color negative copied with the same setup.
Then processed in a photo editor to inverse the colors to a positive image.
Even larger formats like 6 x 6 is digital today.
For example this digital 50 megapixel back for the Hasselblad are clearly better than any 6 x 6 film and for both amateur and professional-the ability to see the shot right away and redo is unbeatable.
And for Hasselblads you can still use the old one you bought in the 70's - just switch the back to a digital.
That is unfortunately not possible with the Konica T-3 Autoreflex I bought at that time (and I couldn't afford the Hasselblad)
Well, Steve didn't say which was film, and digital in the pic above, but no doubt the shot on the left is from film. The color saturation is much better. Digital however, is certainly much sharper nowadays, unless you use a slow speed film with a super sharp lens, and most people couldn't afford them. When I used to do wedding photography, I always wanted either a Hasselblad or a Leica, but couldn't afford nor justify the cost. So I went with the best Mamiya I could get and frankly no one was the wiser. There is a difference even in todays digital cameras, but I don't think quite as drastic. I've seen some pretty good pics come out of a $49 cheapie.
The best part of digital is, as I jokingly tell people...take lots of pictures, "cause the film's cheap"!!
Jim, that is an interesting camera/slide scanning bracket. Thanks for posting it. I would really appreciate a couple more views of that device if possible.
I had some slides "professionally" scanned locally and was not too pleased with the results.
I really cant tell the difference with color. I use Photoshop, Lightroom and OnOne software to post process. B&W was one of my favorite media long ago, remember +X by Kodak. I can now process digital B&W to look like film.
Ivan I can smell the Dectol now...
Fading depends mostly on which film was used. I have some pictures on Agfachrome that haven't held up well. On the other hand, this 1953 photo on Kodachrome is fine. It's not sharp because it was shot with a cheap camera, but the color is still good.
Mike Jelf, Kirk Jelf, Ernie Parker (cousin), Steve Jelf
Here is a picture over 100 years old. Taken before 1893. The man with the beard is my great grandfather and the one by himself on the left of the picture is my grandfather. I loaded it into the computer about 10 years ago. The original picture is still hanging on the wall. It might be faded, but I think it might have been a cloudy day. It was taken in New Bremen Ny which is in the northwest part of the state near Watertown.
Now that's a dollhouse that any girl would kill for!
G.R.: wow, Dectol...you just brought back a flood of memories from my younger days holed up in my darkroom under the basement steps. Then I got brave and started developing my own color slides, wow what a thrill that was.
Actually it was an apartment house for Purple Martin birds. They would put the house up on top of a pole and the colony of birds would nest in it.
Just something to think about. We had a tornado strike near us last month. After seeing up close what is lost, convert all of your keepsakes to digital and store them somewhere like Googledrive or DropBox, etc. No matter how they look make sure they are preserved through a disaster.
Steve,Is the one wheeled truck a Studebaker?? Bud.
My dad called wheel barrows an "Irishman's chariot". Likely from the early days of Irish immigration when only cheap manpower jobs were open to them.
That reminds me of when I worked with a couple of old fellows in construction, they always called them and "Irishman's dumptruck"
I have scanned and filed many old family pictures on the computer and also sent to children, cousins and other family members who might be interested. Our area is prone to brush fires and we could lose them very quickly if one should destroy our home.
From a personal family experience, my mother's girlhood home was destroyed by an avalanche and all those things in her family were destroyed many years before I was born. Through the Lutheran church in Kaustinen Finland, many years later, I was able to locate some second cousins who still live in Finland. (My mother's family had imigrated to U.S.A from Finland. The avalanche was in Utah) The cousins in Finland had pictures my family had sent them before the avalanche. We were able to reconstruct the history of my mother's family. So that is why I send our story and pictures to our children and cousins.
Actually there's quite a striking difference in the colors and detail between the 2 shots. I'm assuming the Rt. is digital. The colors are truer and the detail is much better. Ok the shots are posed and there's probably a slight time difference between them, (check Steve's leg position), but the shadowing on the Lft. is marked compared to the Rt.