On Apr 7, 2005, at 4:46 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
To me at least, there seems to be no 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.
Transparency films require processing after exposure too. Calibration of the processing machine is critical ... color balances and density can go all over the place without good machine calibration.
To me the point is that the transparency is the first (and for me the last) generation of the image as I saw it & captured it, whereas the print & digital RAW are starting points.
You never see a transparency's rendering change as you move it from projector to projector, light table to light table? or as it ages? or printed? You ONLY ever view your images as a transparency on a specific light table?
A RAW file from a digital capture is the equivalent of a transparency, as is a JPEG file if that's how you stored the exposure: both are original captures. A negative is the equivalent of a transparency insofar as being an original capture too.
The difference between a JPEG/Transparency and a RAW/negative is that the latter two require rendering (which is a process of interpretation) to achieve a viewable RGB image, not that any of them are less an "original capture".
A JPEG or Transparency has built into the process of its creation the rendering used. This is done either under your control or under the control of machine automation. They can both be modified post-original capture too ... the transparency by altering the chemical processing, the JPEG by editing afterwards.
Of course, negatives can also be modified post-capture by altering the chemical processing before you can evaluate it, so in a sense the RAW file is the most stable expression of an original capture: once the data is captured, it is only changed by direct intent.
Godfrey
