Roman Kielich® wrote:
> you sound like a first class US lawyer. Indeed, the negative films were,
> are and will be designed primarily to be copied onto a positive medium,
> to wit a photographic paper.
> The reason for the orange mask is an unwanted absorption of a cyan and a
> magenta dye in the negative film. It was introduced some 40-50 years
> ago, and still provides improved results. Negs are optimised for copying
> not watching, not even scanning. Investigate metameric colors, recommend
> reading "Digital Color Management" by Giorganni and Madden.
> From your response I gather, you are new to principles of modern color
> photography.
>
Gee, for someone accusing another of "sounding like a US Lawyer", I
believe you are the first person I've encountered on the internet who
feels the need to protect their name with a registered trademark.
Further, since this is a filmscanner group, it doesn't strike me as odd
at all that people discuss film (negative or positive) in terms of how
it relates to film scanners rather than photographic paper emulsions.
Art
> At 09:42 14/01/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>
>> >Bear in mind that it is not important, how does the mask look to
>> your eye,
>> >but how the paper emulsion sees it. and for the paper the
>> differences may
>> >be negligible.
>>
>> So would one be wrong to interpret what you are saying here in a
>> fashion as
>> to infer that it might be generally said that these films with their
>> orange
>> masks, whatever the differences, are optimized for traditional
>> photographic
>> printing on photographic papers and emulsions using chemical processes
>> where
>> the mask has little bearing on the outcome except maybe to add some
>> time to
>> the processing and some contrast to the outcome and may not be
>> optimized for
>> digital scanning and processing where the mask may come into more play
>> as a
>> factor in effecting the final printed outcome? Or put another way, the
>> differences under the traditional chemical methods are intended to be
>> negligible; but not so under digital methods where the scanner can be
>> assumed to be like your eye and not like a paper emulsion?
