The first was taken with my Minolta 140 EX with automatic settings and I think Kodak Max 400 film. It was scanned with my Artec Viewstation and resized in Photoshop. Yes, I know it's out of focus. What I'm looking at is the differences between this and the next one taken with my HP C500 Digital Camera. Same day, same time, same light. Besides the focus I'm just wondering why they are so different.

I don't know why, but the one on film has a wider range of colours and appears more dramatic than the one on digital. But which one looks most like reality? (Not that it matters...seeing the unreal in reality is one of the things I love about photography)

For one thing the two camera angles are different. For two the digital has green shifted everyting. However it does seem perhaps a little brighter than the 35mm. To me Kodak film always seems to yellow shift the colors which may account for the difference. Additionally the film colors although it's alittle more blury does seem to have deeper colors. Am I using the correct word when I say the tone of the clolrs are darker? Bsteph

Interesting comparison, Lisa, and I enjoyed the information, Alpha. I would have agreed that the top has too much magenta and I would have also bet that the bottom is closer to realism. Of course, I'm one that says photos don't have to be 'realistic', but in this case, I think Lisa is showing the differences in 'trying' to obtain a 'realistic' photo.

I think Picnic is right. Especially about the magenta. ( What I previously called tone. ) But I also think the top photo has the correct shading of green. The bottom photo is just too green. However I haven't been there. You tell us. Which looked correct. As compared to reality. On the other hand I agree with the levels of manipulation for the 35mm pictures as voiced by Alpha; but disagree with Alpha that these are probably the cause in the difference in your picture. For me Kodak film always seems to have a little too much yellow. And as a result I perfer to use Fuji film. However please be warned that Fuji often give caucasians a slight green tint. What one radio personality called the Jaundiced look. I don't think that Fuji colors are nescessarilly the correct color but I do think that most people perfer more color in their photos. Please note. I almost always use the local supermarket chain "Safeway" for my film processing. And as a result I assume that good or bad they are fairly consistant. One last question why were you hiding in the bushes in the first picture but stood up in the second picture? Bsteph

Notting much to add .... scanner degradation...and one more thing digital camera are not always giving the real neutral color... Also had that the posemeter in your minolta is maybe different to the one in your digital cam...Digital cam are often on average ligth of the whole pic and 35 could be centering ponderation that make it darker for 35mm. whell thecnical mumbling...

I've no idea, but do agree on the magenta thing. I'm gonna sound silly here, but the 2nd one looks more 'real' and the first looks more 'photo-ey'....I don't know any other way to describe it! It may just be the crispness in the 2nd from the focus thing. (",)

Hehe Jordy that's what I tried to express as well. And I prefer Agfa films when it comes to real cheap consumer friendly ones.

In this case, the digital portrays more realism. The light was bright, leaves were new spring leaves .. the film looks to me like it was taken more in the summer time. Thanks for the input! ;)