U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Contact versus In-camera Exposure Times

Re: Contact versus In-camera Exposure Times

Thanks for your report.

What I got from it is that TK is bending a basic principle of physics,
and perhaps good exposure standard, so that he can call his process
in-camera negative speed. I don't really follow his publications, but it
doesn't surprise me. What is more surprising is how it can be published
in BJP. Will you send a letter to the editor of BJP and other places he
published so that the editors and readers know the facts?

Another thing that's alarming is that, people on this list and some
other photographic forums also tend to argume like: I tested this by
such and such method, which contradicts xyz's published results, and
therefore xyz must be wrong. When a reasonably knowledgeable person
looks at the details, it often happens that the test is not testing what
s/he thinks what's tested. It also happens that the argument is based on
his/her misinterpretation of the results. Just because someone did
something, and it's called "test" it doesn't mean what's shown may be
regarded as fact.

BSing advertised photographic speed has been one of the key feature of
photographic industry since the early days of commercial plates. Even
today, there is an "expert" on another forum who argues that the
in-camera negative speed of a typical enlarging paper is comparable to
ISO 25 (for b&w negative films) and such, in order to claim speed of his
emulsion to be ISO 25. In the day of digital imaging and shrinking
wet-process community, people gotta be more honest and realistic...