Re: Generation of slides

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 00:59:04 -0500
>From: P3D  <StvnDJhnsn@xxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Generation of slides

>>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. 

>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

Well, I guess you could call Cibachrome (is that still the name?)
*fourth* generation, since you have a double reversal on the slide, then
a double reversal on the paper. But the only ones I recall seeing looked
spectacular.

As I think Marvin was implying, "number of generations" isn't much of a
"selling point" for any particular technology - it's how the end product
looks that counts.

I agree with the slide proponents that 3D slides look great. I also think
3D prints look great.

John R


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