Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Agreed, but there is safety in numbers. I'm sure no one at Kodak remembers every shot of kodachrome that goes through their plant. But more to the point, if I were to create a composite image from digital sources, and then run it through a slide imager, are there tell-tales clues (scan lines, contrast issues) that shout digital versus optical? > << Also, would a doctored transparency be easier to expose (no pun intended) than a doctored digital file? > > The difference is that the slide from which the doctored version was made > still exists as it came from the processor. So, whoever is familiar with the > original slide could holler bloody murder about its modification. > By contrast, a digital file defeats the principle of an original source > because there's really no way of authenticating it. One digital file is as protean > (sorry for the use of that odd word) as any other of the image. > Who knows which is the original? They're both made of the same digital > alphabet. > > As I mentioned to LUG some time ago, there are craft magazines that won't > accept a digital image because judges and editors were let down when the original > piece didn't match the glorified digital shot of it. > > br - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html