Re: Generation of slides

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997
>From: P3D Marvin Jones  comments:
>.....................
>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 love learning all about how the film is handled and what it's properties are.

However, for all practical purposes, the processed *second generation* slide
is the first *available* form of the slide. That is probably the premise
which Dr. T is referring to in making his comparison.

There is an undefined background to Dr. T's discussion on this subject which
not everyone seems aware of. The result is entertaining and educational
anyway. At the risk of misstating his viewpoint I will blunder on with my
*opinions*. He's arguing from the premise that some medium, any medium, can
be rated in an absolute comparison to reality. He places the viewer to his
eyes and tests whether or not he can actively tell that it is a picture or
whether he could be fooled into thinking he is looking at the real scene.
I'm sure this absolute comparison has been used widely for development of
many mediums including film. I don't feel that a discussion comparing slides
and prints should use this absolute standard as a test, except as perifery
interest.

I agree with one member's comment that an enlarged 35mm print would likely
be superior in resolvable detail to a contact print of that same negative. I
feel it's impossible to resolve with the eye all the detail that is present
in the film when it is unenlarged. There are obvious problems in making
direct comparisons between a transparency and a print in any case.

For my personal standards, many other factors, besides this absolute
comparison to reality, come into play. I know it's different and I expect it
to be different. What I want from the medium is a quality stereo experience.
I can get that from grainy images as well as from perfectly processed fine
grain images. 

I appreciate that there are those who seek to get any medium as close as
possible to normal reality, but I don't apply that specific standard all by
itself to the resulting available mediums. As improvements are made, I'm
happy to use them. (When improvements aren't forthcoming, I bitch about it!)
As for comparing transparencies and prints, they are still different mediums
each with totally valid strengths. The comparison is interesting, and I can
see that transparencies appear perhaps a bit clearer and sharper than most
prints. I can't accept the premise that the slides look *real* while the
print fails because you can't shake the knowledge that it is a print. I know
both mediums are mediums. I expect them to be that way.

As to duplicates, I'd rather view a duplicate set of slides than none at
all. The viewing experience is appreciably the same in total enjoyment, so
why the extreme of not using dupes? So what if they are slightly more
contrasty? So what if a print enlargement can't be defined as of the same
resolution as the negative? It's sheer size makes it more available to my
eyes and that's the bottom line. Availability is a big key issue here.
Without duplicates, many can never view a particular set of slides. As long
as various mediums and duplication processes exist, lets get stereo images
going in all of them. Yes, seek for quality, but don't let that narrow your
field of work needlessly.

I guess working in a computer as the primary environment provides a
different view of images period. I get used to color changes, contrast and
lighting changes and easily adjust stereo images in which the camera rotated
slightly causing a variety of distortions. An image is an image is an image.
Only in the computer can one feel free of the constraint that it has to be
perfect when taken, no other choice. Lest you think I'm advocating random
snapshots and shoddy use of skills, I'm not. A better original picture
remains a better picture and is worth getting.

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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