You were right ... I hadn't read the entire report. I have now. Published in 1968, it still is of some interest.Originally Posted by hansbeckert
Now ... objectivity. I did read where they assured the reader that although they didn't quite know how to report the results .. they we still *very* accurate. While this may or may not be true, as far as this article goes, it can be (from experience - it usually IS) a sign that the writer/s are not completely confident in their work. Be that as it may ...
From Column 7 - Graininess"
"... Photographs are designed for visual viewing, and the actual criterion of obtrusiveness or otherwise (??) of grain must therefore be based on visual and subjective determination."
Subjective, not Objective. To me, "subjective" always translates to, "In My Opinion." Further, it claims that magnification, using microscopes, was not feasible, so the viewing was done with the image from a slide projector. Interesting ... but ??? was the "grain" of the screen receiving the image a factor? - And I can't help but wonder why microscopes were "not effective".
The writer might also do well to research the Agfa data sheets for their film, where objective measurements of grain are given ... in terms of "u RMS".
In short, reading the entire article has not changed my opinion of the validity of the data.