Caveman wrote: > This sounds very much like Brucey's standard argument. "You did not use > it for 6 months so you don't know what you're talking about".
Oh really? You are making statements that a products can't do this or that. Your claim is in contraction to manufacturer specifications and every user comment on the planet. You have no experience. You are also claiming that my images exposed say 1/3s from the 0 calibration value isn't really 1/3s from the calibration value. You are making these claims without having seen the images. I can claim that all your lenses are soft. I have never used them. Never seen them or never touched them. I don't anything about them. But it is true. > If you like this kind of arguments. I don't like this kind of argumenst because they are irrelevant. . > Which model of microdensitometer did you use for the last 6 months to > check your film density, what procedure did you follow, and what results > did you get ? > I would be happy with an Excel sheet with 2 columns: A - density for a > certain object I thought I'll get when I was pressing the shutter > release; B - density measured after film was processed. I never made any claim about densitometres. Therefore I don't think I have to have used them. But of course I could make ridiculous claims, like you do, like they are all useless even if I heve never used one or have reasons for my claim. Sarcasm aside, I did, though, make claims about exposure accuracy and variations within 1/3s which is highly visible on Velvia with my very own eyes. Pål
