>From a scanning POV, I guess anything that requires the light to be shone through to >scan it is a transparency, whether it's a photographic film or not. I think it's just >in a scanning context it makes sense to talk about a negative transparency. Mounted >or not. And I can't really imagine why anyone would want to project a negative...?
Paul, I don't really have a clue about the general state of the phrase "slide film", but I have often heard both American and European business people refer to their powerpoint presentations as "slide shows"...:-) Jostein Keith Whaley wrote: > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > "Slide film" is somewhat of an archaic term even in the US. Today, it's > > most often called transparency film. Epson's scanner terminology refers > > to it as "positive transparency" film, while what we commonly call > > negative film is designated "negative transparency" film. > > Paul > > Isn't "negative transparency" only used if it's mounted for projection? > If it's just slid into a plastic sleeve for giving it back to the customer, > it's just a "negative." No? > > keith whaley > > > On Aug 27, 2004, at 6:28 AM, Frantisek wrote: > > > >> GI> The same here in Italy: "dia", short for "diapositiva". The word > >> GI> "invertibile" (reversible) too was common, at least in a recent > >> GI> past. > >> > >> Dia seems universal in Europe, from diapositive. Only the strange US > >> must use the term "slides"... It doesn't make sense, what is slid > >> where ;-) ? > >> > >> What about "chromes"? > >> > >> Good light! > >> fra > > >
