We have here now about 20 responses out of 20,000+ members. The thread on system engineering would take considerable work (but being in progress in part for the book anyhow). But, with only a 0.1 % response, this is similar to the disinterest shown on PN. I appreciate the enthusiasm of those who responded but I wonder about the viability of such a thread or sub forum.
I want to remind all, that in my own words elsewhere, you can throw a log across a stream to get to the other side, but that does not mean that you are an engineer. What I intend to offer is the difference between those two positions. Books like Wall and Baker offer no clue as to the science of photo systems. They were throwing logs back then.
PE
I'd be willing to bet that if more people knew about the proposed tutorials, they would respond positively. Also, there are probably many more who lurk and are interested, but choose not to respond for one reason or another.
If there was a way for Sean to put up some sort of notice at the home page of APUG informing users about the tutorials, you might get a better idea about the interest level.
Besides, the announcement was made at the height of the holiday season, so maybe there were coincidentally less folks checking in to the forum / threads.
I'm willing to wait. That is one reason for the post, to raise it back into view. See the number of 'holiday hits' for other threads though. Then compare it to this thread.
The point is that someone wanting to build a coating machine or make an emulsion will need the information I plan on raising. So, it is useless to think you can do something "throwing a log across a stream" when you cannot "build a bridge". See the hits on the coating machine thread. Lots of interest. I wish I could build one but it takes $$$ which I don't have to spend. I'm very happy someone was able to build it and show it. But without more information it will be a useless stand alone experiment.
I would say that if you were to build an exact replica of that machine, you would not be able to coat anything worth-while without lots of experimentation or someone like the original builder to impart that knowledge.
My goal is to start imparting that type of knowledge and also to hopefully get this individual to share his with us as well as get others invovled in a dialog. Otherwise it will be lost forever.
Yes please!! Remember, if all 20,000 members were to respond, this thread alone would crash the server and all of our browsers... Knowledge like this needs to be passed on while it still can.
Also the title of the thread doesn't exactly convey the importance of it's content. Doesn't jump out like "Film Coating Machine" does. Maybe a change (if allowed) would attract more attention?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
Ron: I always click on and usually read your posts here. Having people like you here is one of the great strengths of this site. I think your idea is certainly worth pursuing. Perhaps do a test article to see how well it is read and then decide if it is worth the work you have to put into it.
Dan Henderson
I would really welcome this. I'm new to APUG but it's clear to me that you possess a wealth of knowledge in this area from which all of us could benefit. I'm neither an engineer nor a chemist but what has become clear to me over the years is that the quest for a particular photographic quality in materials involves trade-offs. (Simple example would be a fine grained, high acutance developer) I would be interested in the 'Whys' of this.
It also seems to me that further significant research on film-based photography will come not from industry but from groups of enthusiasts. Individuals who have the knowledge and interest in pursuing research will need the assistance of groups of this nature for testing, feedback etc.
Linear Mode
