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