you sound like a first class US lawyer. Indeed, the negative films were,
are and will be designed primarily to be copied onto a positive medium, to
wit a photographic paper.
The reason for the orange mask is an unwanted absorption of a cyan and a
magenta dye in the negative film. It was introduced some 40-50 years ago,
and still provides improved results. Negs are optimised for copying not
watching, not even scanning. Investigate metameric colors, recommend
reading "Digital Color Management" by Giorganni and Madden.
From your response I gather, you are new to principles of modern color
photography.
At 09:42 14/01/2001 -0600, you wrote:
> >Bear in mind that it is not important, how does the mask look to your eye,
> >but how the paper emulsion sees it. and for the paper the differences may
> >be negligible.
>
>So would one be wrong to interpret what you are saying here in a fashion as
>to infer that it might be generally said that these films with their orange
>masks, whatever the differences, are optimized for traditional photographic
>printing on photographic papers and emulsions using chemical processes where
>the mask has little bearing on the outcome except maybe to add some time to
>the processing and some contrast to the outcome and may not be optimized for
>digital scanning and processing where the mask may come into more play as a
>factor in effecting the final printed outcome? Or put another way, the
>differences under the traditional chemical methods are intended to be
>negligible; but not so under digital methods where the scanner can be
>assumed to be like your eye and not like a paper emulsion?
