Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Austin, (Apology) Sorry about the (uncharacteristic) terseness of my last post on this topic. Your opinions are interesting data and very welcome. Science is theory that attempts to organize facts. It includes experiments that attempt to test that organization (hypotheses). In my opinion you are entitled to ask for an experiment to test a theory, but wrong to call the theory unscientific unless you have data that refutes it. In this case evidence was presented which you chose not to believe based on your experience. That is your right. But the theory is still potentially useful and is not challenged much by your experience if you weren't looking for the effect. Once I personally know what to look for, I often see things that were previously unnoticed. In my case I have been trying to reconcile several film experiments that showed inconsistent results. Some of the inconsistencies can be explained by a lack of film flatness in one 35mm roll. I've repeated the test after tightening the rewind knob and got better results. It could be many other things: emulsion differences, a transient gremlin, me, etc. I'm intrigued that the film flatness theory suggests a way to control one of these variables. Mike Quinn Wrote: >> Some of us are keenly interested in this topic! Austin Franklin responded: > Why? Is it just the theory that you are interested in, or has anyone > actually HAD a problem that (they believe) has been caused by this > phenomenon?