Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images

[Tom C]

Yes, your point? ;)

Tom C.

Of course you're ignoring the fact that for anything other than viewing with a light table and a loupe or projecting, a transparency must be post-processed as well.
Paul


>
> >
> >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.
>
>