Right, got my film back, and here's some side by side comparisons.
Disclosure: The DSLR was set up with the wrong WB. This has been corrected in software. In all cases, I have adjusted the levels slightly and resized the images to 1024 on their longest edge. No other editing has been performed.

The order of the images are the digital first, followed by the analogue version. Thumbnails are clickable.














And finally, a photo I took of the person who's been telling me where to point my camera, and the picture she took of me to reciprocate.





This photography thing's not as easy as you'd think, eh?

The film produced 'better' results, in my opinion.
What ISO was the film and were you using a comparative ISO on the digital? I realise this may very well be a tricky question as my mate (Colin, for those that know him) was shooting on his Canon 400D and copied my settings exactly and he produced very under-exposed images so had to boost the ISO considerably from what I had.

Mark

The Canon was on Aperture priority, same as the Minolta.
The film stock was Fuji 160c, set to about 170 ISO. Most of those will have been shot with an aperture of around 1.7, with one exception that's not been posted where I wanted a slightly longer exposure.
Looking at the EXIF, the camera seems to have been on 400 ISO.

From an editing point of view, there's far more I can do with the Canon JPGs than the scans of the negs that I have. The Canon images will take far more abuse in software.

Canon JPGs? You didn't shoot RAW? That might explain a lot of the discrepancies between the film and the digital.

Mark

What a n00b... :s

Epic FAIL.

I did shoot RAW, I have a load of CR2 files accompanying the JPGs.
Buggered if I've got any software that knows what to do with them though. My version of Photoshop doesn't want to know, certainly.

If you can point me in the direction of the appropriate free software, we can talk.

n00b indeed.

Download the trial version of Lightroom?

Mark

I'm doing that now.
Then we'll see what's what.

I have a feeling Preview will open most RAW files, but you don't get much in the way of control.

The camera should have shipped with a couple of CDs of software, too. If you find you're using it a lot, you might want to install EOS Utility and Digital Photo Professional to at least let you do some basic post processing before you export to Photoshop.

Right - order is JPG from the RAW file, JPG from the camera, film.



















Bear in mind, this is probably the second time I've ever sat and used Lightroom. I'm also not fond of overly poking and tweaking at images anyway, to be honest.

Jpg from the camera's rubbish.
Jpg from the film is to contrasty for my liking, especially compared to the jpg from the RAW file.
Jpg from the RAW has a nice colour spread and the contrast, especially on the water, isn't too harsh between the light and dark areas.
I also prefer the colouring of the rocks in the first image from the RAW jpg, but I don't know which image the actual colouring more closely resembles, as I haven't seen the location with my own eyes.

Mark

To add to the confusion, the film camera was sporting a polariser, the DSLR was not.

Dude, this is a bit of a rubbish comparison, isn't it?
Different ISO settings, filters on one and not on the other.
Did you actually think about this before hand?

Mark

I never set out with a serious comparison in mind. I was out shooting for an event we're organising in September, and as well as the works camera I brought mine along to expand the range of images we could collect.

If I can wangle the camera again, and I have time, then perhaps I can do something more controlled. This thread was merely a happy spin off of an afternoon spent with a DSLR and my SLR, as the title says.