Thanks Carlos.
There is not much difference between the two other than the grain and few spots
of dust on the film. There seems to be a little flare/fogging at the bottom
under the left clock tower.
The film is warmer. In direct comparison I think the Lumix has a given a slight
green cast to the stone work but when you look at that image on its own, you do
not notice anything wrong.
A very useful comparison. The dust on the film is easily corrected – I suffer
with dust, and missing grain particles on high resolution scans, so I rely on
Photoshop to fill in the gaps.
John
On 26/05/2015 10:25, "CarlosMFreaza" <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2015-05-25 7:14 GMT-03:00 John Wild <JWild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
"...You use your Lumix for different photos. It would be interesting to see how
the Lumix compares to the Rollei for the same shot. From the images you have
posted, I think the Lumix photos are too ‘clean’, exposure, colour balance and
depth of field. The Rollei ones have more ‘feel’ and character to them..."
John:
I have scanned and uploaded to my Flickr gallery a photograph taken
with the Rollei 35S from the same point regarding a similar digital shot I took
with the Lumix LX7. It was not my purpose to do a comparison, it was only I
wanted a wider view on the subject; the framing difference between 40mm (Rollei
35S) lens focal length and 24mm (35mm equivalent, Lumix LX7) is visible
clearly. That morning I had the Lumix in one of my jacket pockets and the 35S
in the other pocket, the highest tower's clock shows the time difference
between both shots (one or two minutes). The film shot has a minimal and basic
PS Elements adjustment work and both images have a quick touch of perspective
correction. The film image loses a bit of quality (in the sky specially) when
you convert it from TIFF into JPEG(best quality):
Rollei 35S
https://www.flickr.com/photos/itarfoto/18102820715/in/dateposted-public/
and I repeat the Lumix shot link:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/itarfoto/17822499278/in/dateposted-public/
Carlos
