On 6 Apr 2005 at 15:06, Tom C wrote:
> I understand what your saying, but RAW is also euphemistically referred to as a
> digital negative, and futher processing is implicit, where the same is not true
> of transparencies, in general.
Rob S. wrote:
That's how I perceive RAW files too, and that's why I prefer negative film, transparency film was so constraining, working with RAW files is creatively liberating.
It's funny, so far I find it a pain in the neck, though I realize it has benefits. I liked the fact that I got no reinterpretation of the image when using transparency film (other than the aspects of the particular film itself). I felt my results were somehow 'truer or purer' as opposed to using negative film.
To me at least, there seems to be know transparency equivalent in the digital world. All images receive post-exposure digital manipulation. It's just a factor of how much is done where and when.
Tom C.
