All of what you say is true. I've worked in the ad biz for most of my life, and the shooters we hired always worked with transparency film. In terms of my own photography, I've done a lot of magazine work and again transparencies were the standard. The reason was just as you suggest: It provided a record of the colors as recorded by the film, which were very close to the actual colors. The color separators and the art directors didn't have to guess. However, in recent years, all of this -- advertising and magazine photography -- has gone over to digital. Now it's possible to look at the results while the subject is still in front of the camera. So color matching isn't a problem. This makes a RAW image the practical equivelant of a transparency with a much faster turnaround. Reshoots are now a thing of the past. I frequently process some of my RAW images in the studio before I take down the camera. I've even processed RAW images in the field on location shoots. Trnsparency fi! lm was once the standard but its day is gone.
In some venues, such as automotive advertising photography, digital is now being partially replaced by CGI. CGI reproductions create a digital image of a vehicle direct from the engineering CATIA files. Graphic artists enhance the vehicle image and paste it into an appropriate background. The background is sometimes totally CGI as well. In other words, even digital photograph is in danger of becoming yesterday's technology in some photographic fields. Transparency films have gone the way of the dinosaurs. > Well put Ken, and I'm not trying to stir up contention. > > The whole reason I've been a largely transparency shooter, is that the > industry, professional photographers, and How-to guides all said 'shooting > transparencies eliminates many of the variables from the process as opposed > to shooting with negative film', and 'if you want to see your images as > captured, and the results of your exposure settings reliably, negative film > and processing are too variable to do that'. As a user, I believed and > depended on that to be true, and still do. > > I'm not implying there's anything wrong with using negative film, obviously. > For me, however, I don't totally trust my memory when it comes to exactly > how the scene looked when I released the shutter vs. the images I may view > days or weeks later. I became accustomed to believing that aside from the > attributes of the film itself, Velvia vs. Provia, vs. Kodachrome, and the > dynamic range of the film to capture the gamut of light to dark, the > transparency was a pretty accurate representation of what I saw. So being > somewhat a**l, and a stickler for details, I found transparency films fit > the bill. > > I realize this is not the only point of view. The other side is, 'if you're > happy with the results, hurrah and if you're not happy, adjust it until you > are, hurrah'. I don't have a problem with that, it just hasn't been my > modus operandi. > > In my mind a developed transparency is still more of a standard of sorts, > then a RAW file. The RAW file still requires additional processing. > Digital seems to be more of a paradigm shift for slide shooters than it is > for negative film users. > > Anyway, I suspect I've beaten the horse enough... :) > > Tom C. > > > >From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images > >Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:32:43 -0400 (GMT-04:00) > > > >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 > > > >
