Comparision between digicam, negative and slide film.

[Mats]

Hi.

I used digital camera and two different films during the aurora display 11th of october last year.
I thought it could be interesting for you to see the difference.

The first picture is with an Olympus 2040Z digital camera.
Setting of the camera was 16 seconds exposure and 400 asa.

Second is with Kodak Supra 400 asa negative film,
and the third one is with Fuji Provia 400F slide film.

Both of this pictures is shot with a 35mm lens @1.8 and 30 seconds exposure.

I know what film I will use for aurora photo in the future:-))

Mats



<img src="http://w1.877.telia.com/%7Eu87717747/ph ... 011_14.jpg"

[Eckart Märkel]

> I used digital camera and two different films during the aurora
> display 11th of october last year.
> I thought it could be interesting for you to see the difference.

> The first picture is with an Olympus 2040Z digital camera.
> Setting of the camera was 16 seconds exposure and 400 asa.
My 2030, the older model produces stars (hot pixels) in the picture with these settings. Is the 2040 better or did these effects disappear with compression or extra work ?

> Second is with Kodak Supra 400 asa negative film,
> and the third one is with Fuji Provia 400F slide film.
> I know what film I will use for aurora photo in the future:-))
But I do not know, because I did not see the aurora and therefore do not know which of the pictures matches reality better.

For the digital picture, you should consider white balance. Normally, AUTO is selected by default, allowing the camera to determine an appropriate setting. Due to the amount of the colour red in this scene, this might be lamp - causing the red being filtered out.

Without filter, films are usually tuned to daylight. Often, colour correction is performed at print time, which might lead to unwanted results in special cases like this. Slide film has no more correction possibilities which should allow more predictable results.

[Mats]

> My 2030, the older model produces stars (hot pixels) in the
> picture with these settings. Is the 2040 better or did these
> effects disappear with compression or extra work ?

It was rather cold when I shot this picture. I think it was around 2-3 °C. It helps a lot if the camera is cold. I took some pictures when the camera hadn't cooled down and they where rather grainy (hot pixels).

> But I do not know, because I did not see the aurora and
> therefore do not know which of the pictures matches reality
> better.
I have shot a lot of aurora pictures with both negative and slide films. In my opinion slide films perform better.

> For the digital picture, you should consider white balance.
> Normally, AUTO is selected by default, allowing the camera to
> determine an appropriate setting. Due to the amount of the
> colour red in this scene, this might be lamp - causing the red
> being filtered out.
I'm a beginner with digital photography so you are probably right.
I will look into this. Thank you for the tip.

Mats

[jan lameer]

> Hi Mats !
I am currently rescanning my polar light images with a Kodak RFS 3600 scanner.
It has "embedded profiles"

As I see it your color differences are pretty normal; a white wall looks different in late August compared to early February.
Glad to have you on the board again, missed you, how are things going?

greetings, Jan Lameer (ready for another auroral season)

[Mats]

Hi Jan

> Glad to have you on the board again, missed you, how are things
> going?

I'm very well in spite of the absence of aurora. How are you?
I hope this aurora season will turn out better than the last one.

I have seen my first aurora since the 5th of November now at August 18, a very long period without the light.

Mats