Godfrey, this was what I stated - > To me the point is that the transparency is the first (and for me the > last) generation of the image as I saw it & captured it, whereas the > print & digital RAW are starting points.
I stand behind that statement. A slide is the first generation and yes given the other variables you mentioned, it can be seen differently. But the fact remains it is the first generation. A print from a negative is second generation and includes its own set of variables (neg development, printing process, paper printed on, light viewed under etc). An unaltered RAW file could be first generation. Within the limitations of jpeg, it too, unaltered could be first generation. It's the "rendering" that removes the digital images from first generation. When I choose the transparancy film (Velvia vs ?) & developing process, I'm basically saying this is the way I want this scene to be recorded in the first place. (I've used the same film and processing outfit for the last 6 to 7 years). I have a feeling the two camps in this issue will not be changing sides. Kenneth Waller -----Original Message----- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Apr 7, 2005 2:04 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images On Apr 7, 2005, at 4:46 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: >>> To me at least, there seems to be no 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. >> >> Transparency films require processing after exposure too. Calibration >> of the processing machine is critical ... color balances and density >> can go all over the place without good machine calibration. > > To me the point is that the transparency is the first (and for me the > last) generation of the image as I saw it & captured it, whereas the > print & digital RAW are starting points. You never see a transparency's rendering change as you move it from projector to projector, light table to light table? or as it ages? or printed? You ONLY ever view your images as a transparency on a specific light table? A RAW file from a digital capture is the equivalent of a transparency, as is a JPEG file if that's how you stored the exposure: both are original captures. A negative is the equivalent of a transparency insofar as being an original capture too. The difference between a JPEG/Transparency and a RAW/negative is that the latter two require rendering (which is a process of interpretation) to achieve a viewable RGB image, not that any of them are less an "original capture". A JPEG or Transparency has built into the process of its creation the rendering used. This is done either under your control or under the control of machine automation. They can both be modified post-original capture too ... the transparency by altering the chemical processing, the JPEG by editing afterwards. Of course, negatives can also be modified post-capture by altering the chemical processing before you can evaluate it, so in a sense the RAW file is the most stable expression of an original capture: once the data is captured, it is only changed by direct intent. Godfrey ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
