On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Roman [iso-8859-1] Kielich� wrote:
> Indeed, the negative films were, are and will be designed primarily to
> be copied onto a positive medium, to wit a photographic paper. The
> reason for the orange mask is an unwanted absorption of a cyan and a
> magenta dye in the negative film. It was introduced some 40-50 years
> ago, and still provides improved results. Negs are optimised for copying
> not watching, not even scanning. Investigate metameric colors, recommend
> somebody else wrote:
> >to infer that it might be generally said that these films with their orange
> >masks, whatever the differences, are optimized for traditional photographic
> >printing on photographic papers and emulsions using chemical processes where
> >the mask has little bearing on the outcome except maybe to add some time to
> >the processing and some contrast to the outcome and may not be optimized for
> >digital scanning and processing where the mask may come into more play as a
> >factor in effecting the final printed outcome? Or put another way, the
> >differences under the traditional chemical methods are intended to be
> >negligible; but not so under digital methods where the scanner can be
> >assumed to be like your eye and not like a paper emulsion?
This brought up a thought: If a film were designed for scanning without
considerations for conventional printing, what characteristics would it
include?
Could there be a negative film (with its broad exposure latitude), but
with no orange mask?
What else?
