William Robb escribió:
Well cripes almighty Carlos!
How can you get on your high horse and make a statment like that without making formal, scientific, error free tests.
Don't you realize that visual impressions gotten by long experience in the field don't mean shit around here?
Haven't you figured out that in order for a statement to be valid you have to test the equipment six ways from Sunday?
You just don't get it do you?
You have to test your equipment on a test bench, seek out every possible flaw in it and toss out anything that is less than perfect.
If you don't do it that way, you are just a hack photographer, and a dumb one at that.
Go back to shooting swimming pools and stop wasting our time here.
HAR!!!!!!! It's a joke.....
I'm afraid now it is too cold and windy in town to go to the nearest swimming pool and shoot some frames ;-)
Seriously, the only "test" I have performed in the last few years has been a series of shots of an IT8 target with a pair of different films, in order to build an ICC profile of those films to use such profiles with Vuescan.
Previously, I also shot a resolution target to see what was the real resolution of my Epson scanner, but I haven't returned to that "scientific" path since.
