On 21 Jul 2005 17:53:38 -0700, "
wrote:

Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

As I recall, only negatives were returned to the press, not the film.
One must admit that this procedure allowed time for "enhancing" and/or
retouching of the press photos, whether or not such was actually done.

lolol

There apears to be a slight .. uh ... gap in your photographic
knowledge, which renders your whole point ridiculous and invalid.

I've never thought of myself as an omni, far from it. I'll admit to not
knowing as much as I should about film writers in general.

[snip]

The enhancement issue aside, you can't look at the images on the film
without developing the film. This chemical process turns the film into
negatives. The exposed, but not developed, film doesn't exist anymore.

When you have your pictures developed at the local photo shop, the
negatives you get back with your pictures are the same physical film
you gave them, but it's been through a chemical process.

Photographic paper is kind of like film. They take the negative film,
shine a light through it and focus the image onto the photographic
paper. When the photographic paper is developed, what you get is a
negative image of the film negative, which is a positive image that
you see as a photograph.

For slide film, I don't know if it develops directly into positives or
if there's another step involved where they basically make a negative
of the negative and stick it into a slide case. I never developed
slides at home when I was playing with developing my own film back in
the 70's.

Whether NASA returned the original film as negatives or kept the
original negatives and returned copies or something that had been
produced by manipulating the originals is a separate issue and one
that I know nothing about, not being involved in the aerospace
industry.

-- David