Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,844   Posts: 1,582,666   Online: 1074
      
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 120
  1. #101
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    I am not suggesting that there is a direct analogy or that the same mechanism is at work. I am saying that the idea that the reciprocity relationship may have a shape part and an amplitude part. The shape part can be exponential of the type tm ^ K that is common to all films. That is what I am seeing, not theorizing. I am wondering if there is any theory that would explain what I am seeing. There seems to be that possibility because there is a similar observation to be made of the transfer fundtion of a junction diode. I don't think I am stupid or off my rocker for asking and I do see a relevance. I read your web site, and you called silver halide a form of semiconductor.
    Gadget Gainer

  2. #102

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,416
    Gainer, please do not misquote me. Silver bromide is an indirect gap semiconductor but this does not mean that silver bromide and pn silicone junctions behave the same or obey the same physical law.

    Anyone who studied semiconductor devices would know that the kinds of carriers present are very important, perhaps more so than the material itself. You are comparing very different things here.

    Again I do not see the relevance.

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Patrick - selenium is a semiconductor too. Does that mean when we tone our prints with selenium that we are making electronic components?

    Toooo much oversimplification I think.

  4. #104
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes
    Patrick - selenium is a semiconductor too. Does that mean when we tone our prints with selenium that we are making electronic components?

    Toooo much oversimplification I think.
    Well, that is your oversimplification, not mine. I know for a fact that I can use the properties of a silicon junction diode, a couple of op-amps, a couple of pots and some resistors to make an analog of the reciprocity behavior I saw and analyzed. If I knew a lot about the theory of semiconductors, I would not have asked the question. I was hoping someone would know if there is a more direct analog. A simple "No" would have sufficed.

    We have been using light meters with calculators that are analogs of the reciprocity law that says every film requires a certain number of meter-candle-seconds for correct exposure in a direct relation such that the product of illumination and exposure time is a constant for any given film. If we put an aperture before the sensor, as it is in a camera, the light falling on the sensor would be the same as the light falling on the film, assuming we use the meter correctly. There could then be a more direct transfer function from sensor to readout as seconds of exposure, and it could be any function that strikes our fancy, including the exponential function that I like.
    Gadget Gainer

  5. #105
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryuji
    Gainer, you are bringing up irrelevant issue here. What you are talking about is forward voltage drop at the pn junction. Reciprocity law failure is mostly due to the loss of the carrier or unstable latent subimage. All these are described on my webpage and references therein in greater details. The former is negligible in the exponential region of the pn junction, and the latter concept does not exist in pn junction.
    Your web page describes the mechanism of reciprocity by theoretical concepts but does not use these concepts to form an algorithm by which the real reciprocal relationship can be predicted for any particular film. If it is possible to do so, why not do it? We would be glad to call it by your name. We would like something we could program into a light meter to convert illumination measurements into exposure time for any given film.
    Gadget Gainer

  6. #106

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by gainer
    Well, that is your oversimplification, not mine. I know for a fact that I can use the properties of a silicon junction diode, a couple of op-amps, a couple of pots and some resistors to make an analog of the reciprocity behavior I saw and analyzed.
    Well, you go from talking about AgX being a semiconductor to discussing diode junction electronics. Too big of a jump for me. Now you are talking about modelling the properties of silicon diodes using op amps. Getting even further afield.

    Now if you are trying to say that some carefully constructed set of op amps model something, well that's nice. You could do it with a digital computer as well. Nothing special there. There are may ways to model things.

    Ultimately though, I think you are trying to defend your reciprocity equation. OK. I really have no problem with the modelling that the equation does. I think it looks like it does a reasonable job to matching Bond's data. So now, let's test it against some more data and see how it holds up. And it does sound like more checking needs to be done to verify the novelty of it.

    But I do have an issue with all the scientific mumbo-jumbo. "Art is real. Science is imaginary." ? Come on!

    I still don't see any significance to phi with your model. I think I calculated the standard deviation of the results and it was at 4%. Perhaps your model is really built on 34/21 and not phi, afterall, they are not that much different. And then bringing up the Boltzmann constant? Maybe there is a correlation, but I think a lot of work needs to be done first.

    "If I knew a lot about the theory of semiconductors, I would not have asked the question. I was hoping someone would know if there is a more direct analog."

    I like asking questions too! But it just seems to me that a lot of needless speculation and even misinformation gets put into these Internet forums that it just confuses and misleads a lot of people. Especially when it comes from a respected person like you, Patrick. Afterall, not everyone has quite as technical background as you and it will make it hard for them to find the real gems of information from all the surrounding chaff.

  7. #107
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Kirk Keyes]Well, you go from talking about AgX being a semiconductor to discussing diode junction electronics. Too big of a jump for me. Now you are talking about modelling the properties of silicon diodes using op amps. Getting even further afield."
    I'm not modelling the diodes. They are part of the model.

    "Now if you are trying to say that some carefully constructed set of op amps model something, well that's nice. You could do it with a digital computer as well. Nothing special there. There are may ways to model things. "

    Sure you can use a digital computer, but you can get two op-amps in an 8-pin 1/2" square package that run off a few volts.


    "Ultimately though, I think you are trying to defend your reciprocity equation. OK. I really have no problem with the modelling that the equation does. I think it looks like it does a reasonable job to matching Bond's data. So now, let's test it against some more data and see how it holds up. And it does sound like more checking needs to be done to verify the novelty of it."

    Defend, deschmend, as some of my friends would say. If I design and sell a successful product using it, I won't even tell anyone that it's in there. If it helps someone else to make art, so much the better. If you didn't attack it, I wouldn't defend it. Your attacks seem more to be based on what you think I know than on what I did. Now I cannot publish data that I porduce by my own experiments for fear of being accused of forging the results. If you want to see more data, go to the AZO forum.

    "But I do have an issue with all the scientific mumbo-jumbo. "Art is real. Science is imaginary." ? Come on!"

    Art becomes art through the senses, visual, auditory and tactile. Hawings can do science without enough physical ability to hold a pen. It is real in the neural pathways of his brain, but it means nothing to most people. It is in fact a work of art that can be appreciated by very few.

    If scientists did not imagine that there is a way to describe in words and pictures the workings of Nature, there would be no science. If we did ot have first the ability to create art, we could not have created science.

    It is not mumbo-jumbo to say that every system of axioms at least as rich as arithmetic is either incomplete or inconsistent. If it is, it is not my mumbo- jumbo but that of Kurt Godel.

    "I still don't see any significance to phi with your model. I think I calculated the standard deviation of the results and it was at 4%. Perhaps your model is really built on 34/21 and not phi, afterall, they are not that much different. And then bringing up the Boltzmann constant? Maybe there is a correlation, but I think a lot of work needs to be done first."

    You guys really don't have a sense of humor, do you? A statistics book I once read pointed out that there was a high correlation between illegitimate births in a certain area and the number of men leaving. Cause and effect? maybe so, maybe no. Statistics won't tell you either way.
    What does your 4% mean in terms of f-stops? What the heck are you talking about when you talk about phi? I know it's Greek, and I have seen it used in a lot of places, but what does it have to do with the unweighted method of least squares? Same goes for 31/21.

    If you have a set of independent observations relating the same unknown constants and there are more observations than constants, you can solve for the set of constants that give the minimum square of the deviations from the curve represented by the equation that uses the constants. Traditionally, the probable error of fit is 0.67 times the mean square error. That number is based on the assumption that the error distribution is random and normal. If you don't know if the distribution is normal, the best you can do is assume normality. After you're done, you may know more about the distribution if you have enough observations.


    "I like asking questions too! But it just seems to me that a lot of needless speculation and even misinformation gets put into these Internet forums that it just confuses and misleads a lot of people. Especially when it comes from a respected person like you, Patrick. Afterall, not everyone has quite as technical background as you and it will make it hard for them to find the real gems of information from all the surrounding chaff."

    If someone does not ask foolish questions, we will all think that the existing foolish ideas are absolute fact. Like the well known facts that tomatos are deadly poison and that rubbing garlic on a permanent magnet will destroy its magnetism.
    Gadget Gainer

  8. #108
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    I should also refer you to the real definition of science. Science is knowledge. Don't confuse it with the scientific method, whic is a way of getting that knowledge, and is as much an art as singing or dancing.
    Gadget Gainer

  9. #109

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    May I make the observation; I think both Kirk and Ryuji have missed the point that Mr Gainer is making. The key to Patrick's (healthy imo) exploration here, is in his statement quoted:

    Quote Originally Posted by gainer
    I am not suggesting that there is a direct analogy or that the same mechanism is at work. I am saying that the idea that the reciprocity relationship may have a shape part and an amplitude part. The shape part can be exponential of the type tm ^ K that is common to all films. That is what I am seeing, not theorizing. I am wondering if there is any theory that would explain what I am seeing.
    It appears from his observation that many film types appear to be able to have a mathematical model with a shape component and an amplitude component fits the characteristics of film speed performance whilst in reciprocity failure. This is analogous to signal amplification most commonly seen in electronics, and incidentally is a model commonly seen in nature also.
    Cellular growth of trees.
    Bird wing flap frequency.
    Crickets chirping.
    etc, etc ....
    (Try to argue against that.)

    The reason it is a healthy exploration is because when a mathematical model can be successfully applied to a closed system, then that system becomes more predictable. This is tremendously useful to us laymen.
    Sorry for the venting of a little frustration; but argueing the method rather than result is ........ well ....... it's just not cricket dear chap!
    Last edited by John McCallum; 01-28-2005 at 06:49 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #110
    Loose Gravel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    921
    Images
    14
    Wow, what a thread.

    When I'm out making a photograph shortly after sunset and the light is decaying, I often think that there must be a moment at which one could start an exposure that it would take all the light you could get (for the rest of the day) to complete the exposure. That is that because the light is decaying while I am exposing the film, my exposure needs to increase and by the time I've reached my predicted exposure, the light has faded more. Do you all think you can add this effect to your graphs?

    If this is true, then there must be a point at which one cannot complete an exposure no matter how long the exposure is (assuming that the ambient light is fading forever). You would have started too late .

    Just a thought.
    Watch for Loose Gravel

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin