Interesting. We certainly have a lot to choose from, including my own tests. Although the feedback we get from people might be quite negative.
Somebody needs to pick one and start a new thread. I think a random choice would be the most unbiased approach.
Hi Stephen - before moving on here, can I raise a few more issues from Henry's book for your feedback? These concern his Granularity and Acutance tests for films.
I also wouldn't mind subjecting some of my tests to scrutiny/critique.
Michael, pick one of the methods, start a new thread, and open it up to critique. If I did it, people might think there's a mouse trap involved.
Hi Stephen, I do have some concerns with the way in which he comes to a few of his conclusions regarding the effects of development time and CI on acutance and granularity. I'll leave these aside for the time being since these things are a little off topic for the exposure forum - although exposure is one the variables he overlooks in that section (in my opinion). But you know, in the end my overall conclusion based on everything I've read regarding image structure characteristics is that we simply cannot generalize. Also, most everything we read is wrong. We look at the formula for a developer, and based on everything we think we know about how these things work, we think we're getting more acutance or less graininess or lower resolving power or whatever. Well, it appears to depend very much on the film. It also seems to be nearly impossible for a layperson to evaluate image structure characteristics objectively. So, we are left with all the common wisdom, and people see what they want to see, or expect to see.