Re: Dispute with model over Trade for Copies photo shoot

Pete <available.on.request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2010-09-14 00:37:09 +0100, Floyd L. Davidson said:

Robert Montgomery <info-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Obviously if I copy the images from my camera to
email them to her or to
transfer them to a cd or a dvd to give or mail to her, then those images
are copies and not the originals.
That is not obvious at all though.
You've copied the file, but unless you've modified the
image that file still contains and "original image".
RAW data files would virtually always qualify as
"originals", but with any image format (PPM, TIFF, JPEG,
etc) it isn't as clear cut. The image generated by a
"RAW Converter" is an "original", and that is true no
matter how many times the file is copied. It becomes
something other than an "original" when it is edited, in
virtually any way, with an image editor. Changing the
resolution, the contrast, the brightness, the
saturation, the white balance ... all result in a
"derivative" that is not an original image.

By your reasoning, developing a film using a non-standard procedure,
such as push or pull processing, means it is no longer an original.
Developing any film means the raw material necessary to create an image
has been lost. After development the image will gradually fade. At what
point does it cease to be an original or a likeness of the original?

Pedantic distortion. I said *nothing* about film and nothing I said
applies to film

It doesn't apply to anything other than what I was *clearly* talking
about.

The Apple RAW viewer for NEF files ignores most of (all?) the camera
settings whereas Nikon ViewNX honours them (even so, its image is
visibly different from the camera JPEG).

A "viewer" is one thing, and "converter" is another
thing. And *nothing* "views" the RAW data. A "viewer"
either interpolates the data to make an image, or it
displays the embedded JPEG.

Different RAW converters
produce different renditions of the same data. A software update may
render the data differently from its predecessor. The camera controls
(brightness, contrast, saturation, sharpening, white balance etc.) are
post-capture editing controls.

False. When used by a RAW converter that is not editing, it is part of
the process by which and original image is *generated*. No actual data
from the RAW data set is directly transfered to an image format. Information
is derived from the data and used to generate the image data. Not a single
byte of data is directly copied. It is *not* an edit, it is interpolation of
pixel data from sensor data.

Either in-camera or externally via an
image editor, the controls produce edited versions of the RAW data.

False, the RAW data is not an image. The converter *generates* an
image. It does not "edit" the data or an image.

The
main advantage of RAW is that the photographer is not forced to set all
these controls correctly before capturing the image.

True. There are an infinite number of possible
interpolation of the data that can be used to generate
an infinite number of different images. With the RAW
file they are all still available, without it there is
just one of those images. That one image, an
"original", would have to be edited to make a different
image, and then the new image is both a copy from that
original... and an original of whatever it is that was
changed (note that is a play on words, as the term
"original" is defined differently for each of the two
uses).

Editing is
therefore an essential step in creating an original digital image; the
RAW data alone is meaningless.

False. That is not editing. The RAW data is not an
image and interpolating the RAW data is not properly
described as "editing" it. The RAW data itself is not
an integral part of the resulting image; information
derived from the RAW data is used to generate image
data. Obviously the raw data is not meaningless, but it
is not an image either.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dispute with model over Trade for Copies photo shoot
    ... are copies and not the originals. ... Developing any film means the raw material necessary to create an image ... visibly different from the camera JPEG). ... Compare that to a RAW data file, ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Dispute with model over Trade for Copies photo shoot
    ... are copies and not the originals. ... visibly different from the camera JPEG). ... post-capture editing controls. ... from the RAW data set is directly transfered to an image format. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: For the AGW Denial Crowd
    ... not all the raw data, that still exists in its original sources. ... SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. ... The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. ... but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: For the AGW Denial Crowd
    ... no his source hasn't been and the climategate "scandal" neverwaswhat you AGWers claim it was. ... not all the raw data, that still exists in its original sources. ... The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. ... but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: Dispute with model over Trade for Copies photo shoot
    ... are copies and not the originals. ... Developing any film means the raw material necessary to create an image has been lost. ... The camera controls are post-capture editing controls. ... Either in-camera or externally via an image editor, the controls produce edited versions of the RAW data. ...
    (alt.photography)