> It's funny, so far I find it a pain in the neck, though I realize it has > benefits. I liked the fact that I got no reinterpretation of the image when > using transparency film (other than the aspects of the particular film > itself). > I felt my results were somehow 'truer or purer' as opposed to using negative > film.
I consider the digital image processing stream far less burdensome than what I had to deal with to produce images from film so I guess that taints my perspective too. > To me at least, there seems to be know 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. To my mind the in camera JPG/TIFF is the equivalent of the transparency, the options that you can alter to affect the post processing in camera offer no more variability than selecting different transparency films. I don't perceive any explicit truth in film images over digital captures. In fact given that it's a far less linear process than digital capture it captures the light in way that's not so true. Cheers, 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
