----- Original Message ----- From: Caveman ' Subject: Re: Exposure
> If you like this kind of arguments. > 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. Silly Valentin. Photography isn't about microdensitometers or computer spread sheet programs. Photography is about making pictures. I actually quite envy Pål. It would be so much easier to only have to toss images because I can't compose a picture worth looking at. I have no problem with his assertion that his images are always perfectly exposed. He uses modern equipment that is well calibrated and I expect he knows how to meter a scene to take advantage of the metering technology that he uses. All he is saying is that he is able to meter a scene to within 1/3 of a stop. This isn't rocket science or nuclear physics. This is pretty simple stuff for a well calibrated modern camera. Process variations are a non starter as well. As long as the lab he is using is "in control", there will be no measurable deviation from process run to process run. Modern chemistry will run within a few points of its benchmark forever unless some disaster happens to it. William Robb
