Sure they do, Rob ... they look like digital images. They look different than film, different than a tintype, or a daguerreotype ... they have their own look. Calling it "neutral" is fine. Digital images look neutral, ergo, the neutral look is digital, since that neutrality (as defined by you) cannot be achieved by film.
It's not a pissing match, Rob ... it's a strong disagreement. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 23 Jan 2005 at 19:41, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > That's just about the most absurd comment I've read here recently ... there is a > > definite look to digital images when they come out of the camera. Then, after > > you muck around with them in Photoshop and whatever, they may take on a > > different look. Show me a digital camera that will produce Tri-X tonality and > > grain structure right out of the box. Perhaps you meant to say that a digital > > image can BE MADE to look like anything ... > > Direct digital captured images don't look like anything, they are as close to > neutral as we can currently achieve if processed by someone with an > understanding of limitations of the media. Without getting into a pissing match > or speaking for Godfrey I expect the point that was being made is that digital > imaging should not impose its own noise/transfer fingerprint on the image > unlike film. (And I'm not referring to in camera image processing either, just > like you aren't referring to an instant film process.) > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
