How do you count the generation for negatives and prints

<p>I see such terms as "first generation copies", which doesn't exist as far as I understand it. I really don't understand what is being referenced. I am looking for verification or correction relating to film not digital or digital methods. <br>

The original film (35mm, video, etc) or instant print is first generation.<br>

Prints made from the first generation negative (original) is second generation.<br>

If a negative is made from the first generation negative (original) that would be a second generation negative and any prints made from it would be third generation.<br>

A screen capture from online image or video would be a another generation added.<br>

Instant prints such as a Polaroid print would be first generation. To make copies you would have to have a negative made and that would be second generation (not referencing digital methods). Then prints made from this second generation negative would be a third generation. <br>

A instant print of an instant print would be second generation.<br>

The use of such terms as first generation copies seems incorrect as there is only one original and that's first generation. Yet, I will find this definition:<br>

Definition: Direct, analogue, copy of an original: several copies made directly from the original are each of them first-generation copies. * Second-generation copies i.e. made from the first-generation show degradation of facsimilitude -- in contrast to digital copies, in which there is no clear distinction between generations.<br>

Then again I will find the definition that the original film negative is first generation and any copy from it would be second generation. <br>

Making a negative or print from the original media if enlarged more then the negative or print's size can lose data? <br>

Main focus is on obtaining copies to be made from first generation instant prints from Polaroid type 107 film during the sixties with non-digital methods strictly using film negatives and prints. I want to make sure I am stating the correct generation for each negative and prints made from a original "instant print". <br>

When someone claims to have "first generation copies" of an instant print both made during the sixties I don't think they know what they are talking about. Back then to get a print of a instant print had to do a negative first. Unless a instant print of an instant print, but that wasn't the case. Maybe the word copy is throwing me.<br>

Clarification appreciated. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>It would probably help if you provided some context (as in, a specific example) for why this is troubling you. Buying something at auction? Trying to put a value on a family posession, etc?<br /><br />I think of a first generation print as being one made from the original negative. A second generation print would be a print made from a process that uses<em> a first generation print</em> rather than the original negative, as its source.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Making a negative or print from the original media if enlarged more then the negative or print's size can lose data?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it just spreads the data out over a larger area. If you mean that making something other than a contact print (and thus involving optics) can introduce losses because of imperfections in the optics, then ... yes, sort of. But if you make a large negative from a projection of the original, and then make a contact print of that large negative, you're not really losing much information (stipulating that the lens(es) and technique involved were sound). Again, this is all pretty hard to talk usefully about with some context - some understanding of what it is you're really wrestling with, here.</p>

<p>Original camera film images, be they negative or transparency are labeled "first generation". This term also applies to instant cameras that yield positive prints on paper or color transparencies. </p>

<p>There are methods to obtain copy negatives, copy transparencies, and copy prints from these first generation images. Consider, a copy of the original is exposed onto conventional negative materials. A reversal of tone takes place. We get a negative image of the original called a "second generation" .</p>

<p>Now negative images, be they on paper or film are worthless for direct viewing. We use them as an interim step to make a positive. The method is to expose negative film or paper via these negative images. Now we obtain a positive image on paper (print) or positive image on film (transparency). The prints and transparences that result are labeled "third generation".</p>

<p>When prints or negatives or transparencies are copied, most likely the tonal range of the copy will be compressed (too contrasty). Special negative materials called inter-negative materials are preferred. These materials have a lower contrast than standard materials. The result obtained is an optimized second generation copy negative or copy transparency. These inter-negatives are used to expose ordinary film or paper to make optimized third generation copy images. </p>

<p>Mary ... I think you are confused by selecting only two words 'first generation' instead of 'first gener ation copy' which removes all doubt as to what is meant. It is the 'first gen. copy' off the original. Use two words and FG is the original.</p>

<p>The matter came up with video editing where we dub-edited instead of physical cutting of the original film [ electronic and film news] The camera was first generation, we were making second generations to go to air, and when we used material from our stock library tapes it was a fourth generation we intercut with the second generation 'today's' camera material. The techs objected to us doing that in analog TV since after it had gone down the line through various repeaters it was drack. All different I guess with digital TV.</p>

<p>Sorry, confused is the word as JC stated. Copy is throwing me for a loop. First I'll state I know next to nothing about photography or developing film. I am doing this for a paper I am writing about hoaxed photos from a Polaroid Land Camera 101 using B&W type 107 film taken many years ago before the digital age. <br>

The instant prints ended up being taken to a newspaper where several sets of negatives were made and then published in the paper. Investigators involved at that time only had access to negatives made from the newspaper negatives or prints made from the newspapers negatives. There were some other sources but the process was the same a negative was made from the instant print and then prints from that negative. The original instant prints had "mysteriously" disappeared right after being published in the newspaper. <br>

Then some years ago when TV show was looking into the story and approached the owner there were still no originals just prints made from negatives of the instant prints. However, low and behold several weeks later the original Polaroid prints mysterious show up!!! The prints were passed onto someone else (for a small gift exchange). This individual wrote a pro paper on the instant prints that has so many holes you could drive a semi through. The one thing is they refuse to release the instant prints for others to inspect with all sorts of excuses that a second paper is going to be written and until then nobody can see the original prints. Well almost two decades later after the prints showed up that paper is still unwritten and the original instant prints still unavailable. Just various generations. <br>

The author has claimed as soon as that second paper is done "FIRST GENERATION COPIES" will be available. I might also add this person has claimed "...<em>photogrammetrist had worked with confirmed first-generation copies, which had been made directly from the originals before they disappeared</em>". The originals were instant prints. Tell me how do you made first generation copies of instant prints in the film age? The person also has not stated if these copies are released will they be prints or an electronic scan. Altogether, this statement is very ambiguous. If done properly with the right equipment a scan is preferable.Actually, I would prefer to put the instant print under a microscope for inspecting fine detail.</p>

<p>With all the confusion and vague terms I am trying to state clearly the process of generations. The sources I have read state (relating only to film) in so many words a print is a second generation product off the negative, a negative made from a negative would also be a second generation and prints from it third. One source "<em>Introduction to environmental Forensics</em>" by Robert D Morrison on p. 53 talking about aerial photos the original film is archived, while <em>"The original film is referred to as first generation by photogrammetics. The original film is archived a firms and agencies that make second generation copies for aerial photographs for users." </em> Seems clear that prints from the original film are called "second generation copies". Another source <em>Mastering Digital Scanning with Slides, Fim and Transparencies</em> by David Busch <em>"Prints made directly from negatives have less detail then the original negative. A print is always what we call a second-generation product, and loses some of the sharpness present in the film that was exposed in the camera. Detail is invariably lost through a variety of factors, ranging from the added "grain" of the paper the image is printed onto, to the losses in the optical system of an enlarger or automated printer used to make the print...Prints inherently have a much shorter dynamic range than film."</em> I could also add how sharp the technician adjusts the focus on the enlarger and type of developer used. Another source " <em>One of the successive stages of photographic reproduction from an original or master.</em> <em>The first generation is the camera negative film. Copies made from this first generation</em> <em>are second-generation. Copies made from the second generation, or intermediate, are</em> <em>third-generation, etc."</em>http://www.gensocietyofutah.org/pdfs/qualstandards.pdf Still another source <em>"Prints or scans from film are second generation copies which involve additional color changes, either though the enlarger optics and print developer or through the scanning lens and sensor." </em>http://www.quora.com/At-what-color-depth-does-the-difference-between-film-and-digital-become-negligible<br>

In the context of the sources I have been reading in regards to film not digital processing...FIRST GENERATION COPIES" doesn't seem to exist thought the term is batted around frequently. If a print is always a second generation copy (product) off a master negative how can it be called a a first generation copy? More like a slang term to imply a print made from an original negative, but not necessarily technically accurate. The book sources state first generation is the original negative and products (another negative or print) made off of it would be second generation (relating to film only). First generation prints might make sense to imply the prints made off the original. Then what do you call a print from a negative off of an instant print a "second generation copy", but not according to what I quoted it would be third generation copy. To restate I am dealing with the instant print that is first generation, the negative made from the instant print is second generation and prints made from the negative is third generation. Not dealing with video editing or digital in any format. Scanning is another issue. <br>

If someone can reconcile what I have quoted out of these books with the term FIRST GENERATION COPIES. I apology for having a brain freeze here, but just not seeing it and I haven't even touched scanning of the original instant prints. Alan seems to come the closest to what I am saying though I am not quite understanding what he is saying. He talks about methods for obtaining copy negatives, transparencies and prints from first generation images.I take it he means the negative made from the instant print would be second generation and then take that negative and transfer to paper it becomes third generation. If I restated that correctly then Alan is saying the same thing I am. Is there some magic table that converts "n" generations to "n" generation copy? If I say second or third generation copy what does that imply?<br>

I might as well toss out another layer. A scan of the instant print would that then be second generation too. Slides are another story being a positive negative to print you have to make a intermediate negative and from there a print (third generation) and if you then want to scan the print that's fourth generation. How would I then refer to this print a fourth generation copy or a third generation copy???<br>

Sorry this is so long and thanks so far for everyone's responses. Again, I apologized for my brain freeze. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>To copy a positive transparency [ or polaroid print] you have the choice of either using a 'reversal' material to make a positive copy or else a negative material to make a dupe negative from which you then make a positive copy :-) This is/was perhaps more common in the motion picture industry when it uses/d film than in still photography.</p>