On Nov 1, 12:50 pm, t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
> In article <1193932663.770567.105...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
> UC <uraniumcommit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >Well, I don't think the shadow contrast is as good at ISO as it is at
> >about 2/3 ISO. This is based on many thousands of negatives.
>
> Thousands of negatives with the _one film_ you've evidently decided is
> an acceptable film for anyone to use. How... tremendously persuasive.
??? What are you talking about? I use lots of different films. The
point is that 2/3 ISO is better than ISO for almost every film I've
tried. The exception was Ilford Pan-F, which works well right at 50.
> I don't suppose it might have occurred to you that you could probably
get
> perfectly good results with almost any film you picked up from the store
> shelf if you were willing to adjust your own technique. Well, as
materials
> disappear from the market faster and faster over the next few years, I
don't
> think you're going to have much choice about it, unfortunately.
>
> --
> Thor Lancelot Simon
t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is
to
> be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam
Chomsky
|
