mverta said:
Very rarely can I say with absolute certainty that a particular piece of damage is "original negative damage." Say it's one of those white spots we see in some shots, one that shows up on every print that's ever been struck (that we've SEEN). Should that be preserved? Even then, I can't say that white spot was on the original negative as it first came out of the camera after shooting. And if it wasn't, then it's not original negative, it's damage/dirt/dust. Even if it happened on the way from the camera mag to the developer, it's not original negative. It was shit floating in the air. And finding some clear definition for where in the process shit on the negative is good shit and where it's bad shit becomes random and insane and arbitrary. What, one hour after filming is good shit, but if it showed up two days later while striking IP's it's bad shit? It's impossible to say, I mean literally impossible. So in this case, I've decided to follow my own definition, which asks the question: Is it IN the scene, or ON the scene? If it's on the scene (physically on the emulsion of the negative), then it goes. Nuked from orbit; the only way to be sure. If it's something that's IN the scene (a crewmember in the shot) it stays.
Very well said, I like your philosophy on this.
By the way, will this be released to the public? The videos really got me interested.