Aaaarghhh. You just defined exposure exactly they way I did: whatever the photographer wants.
I suggest a cup of coffee. I gave *several* examples of what a photographer *might* want. Further (sane) discussion implies that you chose one definition from my examples or you give your own specific definition. When you say "what I want", this can be anything, you have to tell us what exactly is that thing that you want.
When your employer asked you about what salary you're thinking of, did you answer just "the sallary that I want" or were you more specific as saying a figure or a range ?
> You haven't given any definition about exposure above but saying perfect exposure is what the photographer wants,
Let me explain it again. I gave examples of what a photographer *might* want. I still don't know what *you* want. C'mon, spill the beans, Paal, tell us what you want. And do it better than "I want what I want".
You have made a lot of fuss for nothing.
Nothing ? Getting a 100% accurate meter is big news, it should be on CNN first page, and on the Nobel Prize list. I am all excited about this breakthrough in physics theory and practice.
To use your own examples: Can you nail exposure for brand Y projector within 1/3s consistently? Can you nail exposure for scanner X consistently within 1/3s?
Since I never used a microdensitometer on my films, I did not make such statements. It was your claim, and unless you properly measure your film's density, I just don't believe you. You have no proven facts on which to base such claim.
This is what this discussion is all about and you avoid the issue completely.
What the discussion is all about is that you claimed a very high precision that you get on 100% of your shots, which is very hard to believe. My arguments are:
- such precision should be properly checked if real, by using a microdensitometer and not a lightbox.
- 100% no error ? Are you a human ?
You say it is impossible to nail exposure within 1/3s
Nope, Paal, I just said that I don't believe you're getting it on 100% of your shots.
but I don't know any serious photographer who doesn't want to achieve it (and they do).
Yes, they do, but not on all their photos.
You logic is so full of holes so large that they are among the few manmade concepts that can be seen from space.
Thanks Paal, but could we stick to facts.
cheers, caveman
