Thank you John for the opinion. I also have a version scanned using IR
cleaning and Grain Reduction, but I think the version without those VueScan
filters keeps better the original film image vividness, despite the
difference is almost imperceptible. Yes, there is flare in the small area
you mentioned in your post; it's caused by a bright and wide adapter ring I
was using for a lens hood with a thread mount bigger than the lens thread
diameter. I'll buy an original lens hood or I'll paint the ring adapter for
the next roll. I also have a 13x18cm print from the neg made in the lab, it
looks nice really, however the Lumix image looks with better framing for
this particular shot thanks to its wider lens. I needed more distance for
the 40mm shot, however there was grass behind me and a poster "keep off the
grass"...
Carlos
PS: The sky looks more homogenous in the TIFF version.
2015-05-26 7:15 GMT-03:00 John Wild <JWild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
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
