<< > interpreted in a negative way. It just seems (yeah, O.K., TO ME) that
we
> should be dealing more with images and less with molecular structure.
Yes, except that in this case the physical structure does affect the look of
the final image. In fact, the structure is, in a sense, part of the image.
>
> >Despite contrary opinion, many things and processes are reverse
> >engineered. However, I don't think your analogy to the human body is very
> >realistic.
It was an extreme example, but it shows the point that when you study the
muscles, bones, blood, veins, etc. there is no way you can tell that this
actually come from a sperm and an egg.
>> Look at things that we deal with in photography, take color
> >processing, do you really think that each supplier has invented their own
> >chemistry . . . not very likely. Look at cameras, why do you think they
> >all look alike overnight; as one manufacturer adds some feature the others
> >follow.
Yes, but again, if you analyze the composition of, say, a color negative and
find that there are dyes embedded in gelatine, then what do you learn about
it? Will you try to mix dyes with gelatine and then coat it and then try to
expose each layer, etc. etc.? Can you tell from the gelatine-dye structure
that it actually comes from silver halide, then somehow the silver get
bleached, the color coupler got developed and yield the final image? You
can't. You probably won't guess anything related with silver at all because
there is NO silver in the negative that you analyze.
The fact is, while like you said, each manufacturer improves from the basic
formula, if the original inventor didn't disclose the formula, it will be
extremely hard (if possible at all) to reverse engineer because some physical
and/or chemical reactions have taken place. This is not the same as re-
engineering a rotary-tube processor, for example, because in this case no
reactions have taken place.
If I remember correct (don't take me too precisely here), it happens something
like this: KODAK invented the color film, then the government required them to
disclose the basic formula related to the *concept* so that they could not
monopolize. They didn't have to disclosure all the formula to make the best
colors, saturation, contrast, etc., but the basic must be disclosed. On that
other manufacturers made their own formula or improvement. It is not as simple
as someone took a negative and analyze it and find out the process.
The manufacturer, which government office, negative or positive film or paper,
which country, etc. might be inaccurate in the above story as I am extremely
bad in history (my history teach called me stupid in front of all other
students), but I have read something like that, and I forgot where I read it
from. :(
Dave