http://members.aol.com/fotodave/dignegs.html
If you have *downloaded* it for future use, I would suggest that you re-
download again because I made a change in terminology.
In the original chart, I used "digital" negatives versus "silver-gelatine"
negatives. The "digital" part is a little ambiguous because I can output to a
film recorder, and the negative is digitally prepared but it is still
continous tone, but for the purpose of our discussion, I will keep the term
digital (to refer to printer output or imagesetter output).
For the "silver-gelatine," I originally used the term because we are comparing
the printer output versus the "traditional" negative, so I used silver-
gelatine. Then I realized that if we are also talking about imagesetter
output, it is basically graphic arts film, so it is also made up of silver in
gelatine (although there are toner-based imagesetters too).
So I switched back to "continuous-tone", fully aware that this term is not
very good either. As have been pointed out, the so-called "continuous-tone"
negative actually consisted of individual opaque silver particle suspended in
gelatine. Also, the grains are not uniformly suspended. There is grain
clumping, so when you use a continous-tone negative, there is a hybrid effects
of continuous-tone and discreet tone (borrowing a term commonly used in
digital electronics but still not (widely) used in photography or digital
imaging.
So you just checked out the illustration, don't bother to recheck because the
same thing, same concept is there. I simply changed the words "silver-gelatine
negatives" to "continous-tone negatives." But if you did download and saved
the image, please re-download. Thanks!
Dave Soemarko