Talk:Latent image

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Photography: History

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

"Digital" Latent Image -- non-chemical latent images -- electronic and magnetic[edit]

Does anyone know of a published source that explores the analogous latency of digital capture also needing development to be seen?

Though the "latent image" as been with modern photography since it's inception in the 1800s, referring to chemical physics, there is nothing inherently inappropriate when considering electronic physics and magnetic physics as media for latent image storage.

However, since Wikipedia is not a place for new editorial presentations, we'd need to find a resource already published elsewhere in order to expand this article to be more than historical and to include the scientific reality that chemical physics does not "own" the term "latent image".

Thanks --70.174.129.41 (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits and reversions[edit]

I've restored the text as per WP:SPCP - suspicion of a copyright violation without any evidence is not substantial enough to warrant reversion. Lack of references is NEVER enough - most articles are unreferenced; the solution is to find refs or delete particulars which cannot be ref'd. Please assume good faith until confronted with evidence otherwise. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 16:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I wrote that addition entirely, as well as another addtion I made last year. Regarding reference requirements, what I wrote here yesterday is more or less combined summaries of multiple research reports. I don't want to give false impression by giving one or a few refs. But will consider adding something useful and accessible. --Phototech21 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, happy with that (I have alas been right before, and with respect copyright violation can be hard to call if we need to track down the original source). And the new material is of course welcome. Bob aka Linuxlad 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you have to assume good faith if you have no conclusive evidence. Please see WP:SPCP and Avoid Copyright Paranoia for more info. Girolamo Savonarola 10:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs rewrite[edit]

This article is littered with unlinked references to printed material. It reads more like a bad paper summary or textbook explanation than a Wikipedia article. cipherswarm (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

35mm film frame needs to go[edit]

"Visible latent image" is a contradiction in terms. Under some circumstances a latent image may be accompanied by visible features due to the inclusion of an intense light source (most obviously, the sun) or even extremely bright and therefore severely overexposed elements of the subject, but this illustration simply shows what is known as a printed out image, one created by prolonged exposure alone (like some of the earliest camera photographs, and for many decades most paper prints), as opposed to a developed out image, which is invisible or "latent" after the exposure (as when making an enlargement on bromide paper). A printed-out camera exposure on modern film is an interesting curiosity, but as presented here it will mostly serve to confuse and misinform. AVarchaeologist (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]