   |
Jorge --
Thanks for your suggestions. I’ve been getting quite a few responses and already a consensus is emerging. In fact most of the recommendations go even farther than yours do; they’re in favor of doing away with the curves and numbers entirely and simply providing a ‘how-to-do-it’ manual for the existing Expo/Dev program, plus an overview of incident metering.
I’m inclined to favor that approach. Heck, if I’m going to emasculate the BTZS system I might as well do a thorough job of it and eliminate the testing procedures entirely. The Expo/Dev program already comes with close to 50 film/developer test files installed, so there’s no real reason for anyone to do further testing unless they want to use some weird materials that we don’t support. That will eliminate the need for the Plotter so there’ll be no need for a densitometer substitute. Incidentally, Kodak used to sell the “visual comparison” density finders you describe and they did(do) work well enough to be useful.
I don’t know that I’d agree with you entirely about the insignificance of 1/3-stop errors; they’re possibly tolerable (maybe even unavoidable) in field use, but I like to keep test data errors as small as possible.
As more responses come in I’ll keep track of the trends and post a forum report. I’m still not completely committed to this project but it is intriguing.
Thanks again, I appreciate your input!
-- Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
