Re: Generation of slides

[P3D <StvnDJhnsn@xxxxxxx>]

In a message dated 4/19/97 10:07:08 PM, you wrote:

>> John Roberts wrote:
>> 
>> >I don't accept the premise. Developed slides are second generation.
>> 
>> 
>> WHAT??? So UNDEVELOPED slides are FIRST generation? Ah, i uh, don't
>accept
>> the premise... in fact, I might go so far as to opine that it's
>ridiculous.
>> 
>I believe the premise here is that in the reversal process film is
>developed, then re-exposed and developed a second time, thus yielding a
>"second generation" image. I don't necessarily subscribe to this or any
>other theory in this, shall we say "esoteric" argument -- I'm just offering
>a comment from the sidelines and ducking back behind my rock.

Wouldn't they be 'third generation', as the first generation would actually
be the original scene as occurred at the moment of exposure? : )

-Steven D. Johnson


------------------------------