Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/19

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm versus 120
From: Mike Quinn <mlquinn@san.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 00:02:20 -0800

Austin.

It's very simple. You disagreed with a report that contains the experience
of several people, data charts based on measurements made by various
photography journals, and several anecdotal (but detailed) reports
addressing problems people have encountered with film flatness.

When asked what data you had collected (the same request you made for the
authors of the report), you said that you hadn't measured anything because
you had never seen the effect, and therefore found no need to do so.

Fair enough. Your personal experience is valuable and interesting, (and I
appreciate it). You have every right to refuse to believe other people's
arguments until you see their data.

But failure to see something for which you haven't looked is not strong
evidence that it isn't there.

Mike Quinn

Austin Franklin wrote:

> Mike, perhaps you could let us (or at least me) know, what, exactly WAS
> your supposed 'case', and what you are trying to get at here?
> 
> I do not need to measure 'it' to assert that the claim you cited is
> speculation, and is vague.  The claim you cited IS vague and IS speculation
> (and also unsubstantiated) by dictionary definition.  If you do not or can
> not understand that (not meant in any way to be insulting, though it sounds
> it, I know), then my efforts to explain this to you are futile, since I
> just don't understand why and what it is you don't understand.