On 7 Apr 2005 at 13:15, Tom C wrote: > In my mind a developed transparency is still more of a standard of sorts, > then a RAW file. The RAW file still requires additional processing. > Digital seems to be more of a paradigm shift for slide shooters than it is for > negative film users.
Looking at it another way, suppose your RAW conversion is a fully calibrated hands free process (PS CS can be set up this way), just like calibrated chemistry for film processing. In this case the RAW file could be considered analogous to an unprocessed colour film of any sort. Once the RAW file is processed and saved you have a fixed image file processed via a pre-calibrated system just like a processed film. You can choose to work as if the system is fixed but you also have the option to alter and optimise the process if you wish. This is true too of film but to a lesser degree (in the case of colour films). The thing is that most people working in RAW tend to take advantage of the flexibility most don't when processing films. Does this make any sense? > Anyway, I suspect I've beaten the horse enough... :) Not at all :-) 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
