Re: Dispute with model over Trade for Copies photo shoot
- From: floyd@xxxxxxxxxx (Floyd L. Davidson)
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:11:13 -0800
Pete <available.on.request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2010-09-15 08:16:44 +0100, Floyd L. Davidson said:
Pete <available.on.request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2010-09-14 00:37:09 +0100, Floyd L. Davidson said:Pedantic distortion. I said *nothing* about film and
Robert Montgomery <info-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:By your reasoning, developing a film using a
Obviously if I copy the images from my camera toThat is not obvious at all though.
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.
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.
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?
nothing I said
applies to film
It doesn't apply to anything other than what I was
*clearly* talking
about.
It may have been clear to you, but it wasn't to me. It's clear now
because you've explained it a few paragraphs below.
Why wouldit not have been clear to you? Was film mentioned or
referenced in any way??? No...
The Apple RAW viewer for NEF files ignores most of (all?) the cameraA "viewer" is one thing, and "converter" is another
settings whereas Nikon ViewNX honours them (even so, its image is
visibly different from the camera JPEG).
thing. And *nothing* "views" the RAW data. A "viewer"
either interpolates the data to make an image, or it
displays the embedded JPEG.
And I'm pedantic? Ok, nothing "views" JPEG, GIF, TIFF, or PNG data
either. They all have to be converted into an image, resized to fit the
display, and colour managed. A "viewer" combines these separate things.
Not true. JPEG, GIF, TIFF and PNG are all *image formats*. The data
defines a single image. To the degree that it is accurately displayed,
all displays will be the same (which does not mean that all displays are
the same, just that what they attempt to display is the same).
If you want to *change* the image, that data has to be changed.
Compare that to a RAW data file, which is not an image
and from which an infinite number of *different* images
can properly be produced. The data set is not changed
to produce different images, because there are an
infinite number of *correct* ways to interpolate the
image data from the exact same sensor data.
ViewNX is a NEF, TIFF, and JPEG file viewer plus basic editor.
It does not "view" or "edit" an NEF file's sensor data.
If you "view" an NEF file it is the embedded JPEG image
that is viewed. While Nikon says it is to "edit" NEF
files, they also specifically say that by "edit" they
mean it converts the RAW data to an image format (JPEG
or TIFF).
Obviously, it must contain the required RAW and other converters. The
small JPEG embedded in the NEF is used only to produce the thumbnail
view.
The "small JPEG" is a full sized JPEG. It is commonly
used to "view" an NEF file. And yes sometimes that is
also done by actually interpolating the RAW data too,
but not usually because that is slow by comparison, hence
it is generally only done when the expectation is that
the data will also be manipulated as it is converted to
an image format such as JPEG.
TheTrue. There are an infinite number of possible
main advantage of RAW is that the photographer is not forced to set all
these controls correctly before capturing the image.
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).
That's what I've been trying to understand and the reason I used the
film example. Only when a film has been developed and turned into an
image has an original been created. The process may include scanning
and/or printing depending on the target medium. Everything leading up
the creation of the final image, be it chemical or digital, is part of
the process.
The similarity with film is that the RAW data is like
the negative, the JPEG image is the same as a print.
Every print made from the negative is an "original"; but
a xeroxed copy of a print is not an "original", and
neither it an original if it is made by photographing
(by whatever technology).
Hence for digital it might be said that any JPEG file that
has the data directly produced by a RAW converter is an
"original" (even if the file is copied as an integral unit
a million times). It isn't an original if it is edited and
saved.
Editing isFalse. That is not editing. The RAW data is not an
therefore an essential step in creating an original digital image; the
RAW data alone is meaningless.
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.
Agreed.
It seems, then, that it would be unwise to distribute a NEF (or any RAW
embedded) file because the final stage of creating the original image
is left to the recipient, using whatever software they choose. As I
said before, various RAW converters produce visibly different images.
That is true. But note the distinction that the RAW data is not
ever intended to define a single image.
To a lesser extent, JPEG decoders are not all made equal.
But that is an implementation detail. The intent of any
JPEG viewer is to produce a correct display of the one
single image that a JPEG data set defines. The fact
that no two viewers produce the same result is a *fault*
with the viewers, not a design detail of the RAW format
or data.
If it wasn't
for the huge file sizes, 16-bit TIFF or perhaps PNG would be the best
choice for archiving and distributing original images.
TIFF and PPM absolutely are the best choice. PNG comes
next perhaps, and JPEG is the least desirable. (GIF
and many other image formats aren't even worth
consideration.)
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Dispute with model over Trade for Copies photo shoot
- From: Robert Montgomery
- Re: Dispute with model over Trade for Copies photo shoot
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- Re: Dispute with model over Trade for Copies photo shoot
- From: Pete
- Dispute with model over Trade for Copies photo shoot
- Prev by Date: Comprehensive Test Banks and solution manuals 2
- Next by Date: Re: Dispute with model over Trade for Copies photo shoot
- Previous by thread: Re: Dispute with model over Trade for Copies photo shoot
- Next by thread: Re: Dispute with model over Trade for Copies photo shoot
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
