I confess that I am not up to the scientific parameters that PE is. But, what I said 'works' and could well be a nontheoretical 'solution' to the solution problem for people who shun utter scientific precision in favor of a simpler 'pragmatism'.
I fully respect PE's caveat and am actually happy he muddied the water, because my 'science' is certainly not pure. But, in the real world, sometimes 'really good enough' is good enough. I have held prints done like this for a decade or more and they still look good, if not excellent. My ego is not worth defending (is anyone's?) over 'my way' but my post was simply meant to provide an easier approach than strict science dictates and mandates. We learned to tolerate utter garbage from phamacy 'one hour' stops (most of the time due to unexposure by flashes that were 'sold' by stating that they were more powerful than they actually were); this method that I have proposed is much, much better than that. But, it must be admitted that PE really is the authority here (and I say that with truth and respect). I do not have all (if any?) of the true answers and I welcome both sides of the argument. Both sides are needed. Few here might really care about the last amount of precision and, with many years of experience that we (or most?) possess with the color process, how many really believe, today, that the earth would come to an end (as at least I once did) if we dare to let the temperature deviate so much as 1/2 degree from the designated 'rule'.
This forum is not definitive, but, instead, evolving and dynamic. Clarification and augmentation are essential ingredients for us to all grow, both intellectually and pragmatically. In this round-about way both of us are 'correct' (but I would slant my life's worth on PE's more theoretical approach in order to cover every last possibility.) My way is 'easier access'. - David Lyga.
Last edited by David Lyga; 07-30-2011 at 01:30 PM. Click to view previous post history.