Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!petsd!peora!jer From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) Newsgroups: net.rec.photo Subject: Re: Is OM-4 Junk? Do I say stupid things sometimes? Message-ID: <1439@peora.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 08:54:32 EDT Article-I.D.: peora.1439 Posted: Tue Aug 6 08:54:32 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 02:46:58 EDT References: <1520@trwrba.UUCP> <9414@ucbvax.ARPA> <471@tymix.UUCP> <1415@peora.UUCP> <475@tymix.UUCP> Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl. Lines: 26 Herb Kanner: >>>by changing the ASA rating for each shot. Exposed at ASA 100, >>>the neg will have much lower contrast than it will when exposed >>>at ASA 400. Me: >>Isn't this just an effect of nonlinearities in the "toe" region of the film's >>characteristic curve? Herb: > Nope, I was not talking about working at the toe (low exposure end of the > curve) but about the other end ( would you call that the heel :-)?) Shucks, there is nothing so depressing as making a long and complex argument, with graphs, multimedia slides, hand-waving, and everything, and then be talking about the wrong end of the curve! You're right, of course; the whole reason I am always advocating the chromogenic color films in here is that the other end (I forget what that is called, too; maybe the "shoulder?") goes way off into the "unprintable" densities without flattening out too much. -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642