Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/19

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] 35mm versus 120
From: Austin Franklin <austin@darkroom.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 09:58:01 -0500

> (Apology) Sorry about the (uncharacteristic) terseness of my last post on
> this topic.

Apology accepted.

> Science is theory that attempts to organize facts. It includes 
experiments
> that attempt to test that organization (hypotheses).

Agreed, additionally the experiments MUST be controlled.  Control means 
strict specification of the experiment it self, the conditions and the 
results.

> In my opinion you are entitled to ask for an experiment to test a theory,
> but wrong to call the theory unscientific unless you have data that 
refutes
> it.

Well, I disagree here.  What was presented could not be called data, and 
certainly was NO experiment, by any stretch of the words.  No source(s) 
was/were named for the people who allegedly made the alleged claim, and 
therefore could not be substantiated.  The number of alleged people was 
unqualified, and therefore, vague.  The supposed effect of the cause (film 
flatness) was NOT quantified either, and therefore, the alleged effect goes 
unqualified also.

> In this case evidence was presented which you chose not to believe based 
on
> your experience.

Well, that alleged 'evidence' was not, by any stretch of the law, evidence. 
 It was purely hearsay, and as such, is not admissible.  Move for 
dismissal.

> But the theory is still potentially
> useful

I do not believe hearsay is useful at all in trying to establish the facts. 
 It is only useful is postulating and speculating, but is not 'evidence', 
and certainly can not be used to establish the results.

> and is not challenged much by your experience if you weren't looking
> for the effect. Once I personally know what to look for, I often see 
things
> that were previously unnoticed.

Understood, and that's why I specifically asked someone to point me to 
seeing it in the tens of thousands of negatives I have that were shot with 
Hasselblads.  If it exists, I should be able to see it.  Interestingly 
enough, it appears, I have had no takers.  Erwin did not respond with any 
help, nor did anyone else.  If it were such an issue, someone would have 
spoken up.

> In my case I have been trying to reconcile several film experiments that
> showed inconsistent results. Some of the inconsistencies can be explained 
by
> a lack of film flatness in one 35mm roll.

Understood, but we were talking about Hasselblad backs here...and as such, 
I still say the issue of film flatness is not an issue in 99.99999% of 
Hasselblad negatives, unless the back is truly 'broken'.

Also, do you control all the elements of the experiment, such as the film 
developing and printing?  You could be chasing someone else's problem 
here...

I am also hard pressed to believe your Leica (which is my speculation for 
what camera you are using) would have film flatness problems if it weren't 
'broken'.  You might consider opening up the film back mid-roll to see how 
it is tracking...yeah, you burn a roll, but at least you'd see what it's 
doing.  Just a thought.