Quote Originally Posted by Bob Carnie View Post
Not speaking for the other 7 here but you are right Gerald I cannot offer a scientific basis for my opinion.

What I can offer is over 30,000 roll processed in pyro , contacted then prints made from over the last 15 years. Not to mention the Sheets of film.

Some people make charts and plot curves, drink wine and pontify about printing
Others make a living from it and work 7 days a week at photography.

Which group do you fall into??
Ha, finally someone comes out saying what I've always believed in. Extensive, scientific knowledge/proof of how and why something works the way it does, does not make a great image or replace hard work/hands-on experience in making great images. In fact, I am a firm believer that, often in this field, the more you know (technically and scientifically), the less you got to show in the creativity department. That's because it is so easy to constantly get hung up on endless tests, doubts about one's processes, and trying to find scientific answers about everything, that all ingenuity and spontaneity to make a great picture is lost, behind the shutter and at printing stage. At the end of the day, for those who are inclined to always seeking scientific answers, talk is cheap (for as interesting as it may be in many cases), until you supply successful images that can back up all the wonderful theories and tech mumbo jumbo.
So, would "real" scientific information really help us in producing a great print from a Pyro negative or the advice of people who may have no clue about it but have printed thousands of negatives from it and can actually give their "professional" opinion?
I don't mean to sound harsh but I do speak my mind. This is of course a totally moot point if one is inclined to simply seek scientific knowledge/proof for the sake of it.