Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> (Apology) Sorry about the (uncharacteristic) terseness of my last post on > this topic. Apology accepted. > Science is theory that attempts to organize facts. It includes experiments > that attempt to test that organization (hypotheses). Agreed, additionally the experiments MUST be controlled. Control means strict specification of the experiment it self, the conditions and the results. > 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. Well, I disagree here. What was presented could not be called data, and certainly was NO experiment, by any stretch of the words. No source(s) was/were named for the people who allegedly made the alleged claim, and therefore could not be substantiated. The number of alleged people was unqualified, and therefore, vague. The supposed effect of the cause (film flatness) was NOT quantified either, and therefore, the alleged effect goes unqualified also. > In this case evidence was presented which you chose not to believe based on > your experience. Well, that alleged 'evidence' was not, by any stretch of the law, evidence. It was purely hearsay, and as such, is not admissible. Move for dismissal. > But the theory is still potentially > useful I do not believe hearsay is useful at all in trying to establish the facts. It is only useful is postulating and speculating, but is not 'evidence', and certainly can not be used to establish the results. > 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. Understood, and that's why I specifically asked someone to point me to seeing it in the tens of thousands of negatives I have that were shot with Hasselblads. If it exists, I should be able to see it. Interestingly enough, it appears, I have had no takers. Erwin did not respond with any help, nor did anyone else. If it were such an issue, someone would have spoken up. > 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. Understood, but we were talking about Hasselblad backs here...and as such, I still say the issue of film flatness is not an issue in 99.99999% of Hasselblad negatives, unless the back is truly 'broken'. Also, do you control all the elements of the experiment, such as the film developing and printing? You could be chasing someone else's problem here... I am also hard pressed to believe your Leica (which is my speculation for what camera you are using) would have film flatness problems if it weren't 'broken'. You might consider opening up the film back mid-roll to see how it is tracking...yeah, you burn a roll, but at least you'd see what it's doing. Just a thought.