Of course you're ignoring the fact that for anything other than viewing with a light table and a loupe or projecting, a transparency must be post-processed as well. Paul
> > > > >On 6 Apr 2005 at 15:06, Tom C wrote: > > > > > I understand what your saying, but RAW is also euphemistically referred > >to as a > > > digital negative, and futher processing is implicit, where the same is > >not true > > > of transparencies, in general. > > Rob S. wrote: > > > > >That's how I perceive RAW files too, and that's why I prefer negative film, > >transparency film was so constraining, working with RAW files is creatively > >liberating. > > > > 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. > > 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. > > Tom C. > >
