It actually started earlier than that ... the film response thing was a response to something Herb said.
John Francis wrote: > > > > I think we have a few techno-nerds here who are overly concerned with nit > > picking details. If I take a photo with my *ist D, size and crop in PS, and > > print it on my Epson printer and the results suit me, I could give a rat's > > a** about micro managing the hardware/software I'm using. > > Didn't the nit-picking details started off coming from the film-based side > of the fence, talking about picking films with different colour response as > part of the whole process? That step, in and of itself, is just as much > against the philosophy expressed above as the technical-based equivalent. > But it was that step which led Herb to (incorrectly) claim that you could > digitally transform your *ist-captured image to match the response of any > given film; a claim which has now been qualified with the condition that > this is only possible if you are printing on a device incapable of showing > the differences (in which case any transform is completely pointless).
