In article <1193681451.045599.275160@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
UC <uraniumcommittee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Oct 28, 9:23 pm, t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>>
>> Oh, I forgot, you just like to hang around here and _talk_ about all
the
>> photography you do. One wouldn't expect less from a famous Usenet
kook,
>> I suppose.
>
>I said I had tested the films. I did not say I generated H&D curves.
>You need special equipment for that.
Special equipment like, oh, I don't know, a densitometer? Heck, you
could get a perfectly functional one from eBay for about $100, if you
only need it for monochrome transmission sensiometry.
And to think, you like to throw around one-liners about how others have
"clearly never done critical testing of materials". I guess now I get it:
your "critical testing of materials" doesn't actually involve sensiometry
per se (it can't, since you evidently don't own the basic tools for the
job). Instead, you shoot some film and decide if you, personally, can
get the results you like without changing your technique any. If not, you
pop over here and spew some more about how the materials in question are
useless for everyone, all the time.
You really don't get it about why most people consider you a kook, do you?
--
Thor Lancelot Simon
tls@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
|
