Uh oh... My paradigm has been changed. Just when I was getting the hang of
it. :( Damn digital.
Tom C.
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:24:02 +1000
> 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.
