Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
best of luck with your science experiments, research and findings,
i hope you find them helpful.
You know full well I never said I had any intention of carrying out this experiment. Please stop with the false characterizations.

Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
noble,

you are acting in this thread, just as you were acting in the LOMO thread.

the conclusions you have drawn from my additions to this thread
are nothing short of absurd, just like in the LOMO thread.
That's what this is about?! jnanian, I am sorry for whatever I may have said to you weeks ago. I don't bear any ill will towards you. I would not say something to someone about a random topic on a photography forum and even remember what I said let alone carry it around with me for weeks or months.

FYI, I am a pretty casual shooter these days. My style is heavily influenced by cost and ease of use. I like ISO 100 and slower film. 90% of what I've shot in the last 18 months was developed with stand developing. So literally I have developed everything ISO 100 and slower in one developer, for one length of time, at one temperature. My C-41 stuff I mostly send to Walmart and get developed for $0.84 unless it is a special roll from a trip or major event. So now does that sound like someone that is OBSESSED with tweaking negatives and developers?

Frankly I would try different things if it were not for time and money. I also agree with Michael R 1974. There is a lot of voodoo floating around out there and I would like to have some objective reason for making certain choices. Currently my choices are based on economics and simplicity but I don't necessarily want that to be always the case. Again I am just thinking allowed and pondering the possibilities in this thread. People are free to disagree with me but characterizing me as someone more concerned with developing film as opposed to shooting pictures is clearly wrong.