While this might seem silly to you, I guess some members here want to know if those of us arguing these points and by the way making fools of ourselves, not only can talk the theory but practice it and can produce a reasonably well made print. I think it is a reasonable request and curiosity, when another member issued the challange I was happy to comply.
Now, knowing you I am sure you will disagree and will start arguing the point. Let me make things easier for you, I freely and with all use of my capacities admit publicly that you are smarter than me and that you are always correct whenever you disagree with me. This should save us a lot of inane discussion and 10 pages of boring posts..
Let me make things easier for you, I freely and with all use of my capacities admit publicly that you are smarter than me and that you are always correct whenever you disagree with me. This should save us a lot of inane discussion and 10 pages of boring posts..
Given the same developer, temperature and agitation,
time being the variable. Of course the subject and the
lighting also play a part.
As for myself, the SBR, Subject Brightness Range, is just
that and no more. Members of this group speak of the SBR
in terms of stops, zones, and maybe EVs. Dan
As for myself, the SBR, Subject Brightness Range, is just
that and no more. Members of this group speak of the SBR
in terms of stops, zones, and maybe EVs. Dan
Now that's an enlightening statement to me. I thought SBR was "Shadow to Brightness Range" and measured in f-Stops/EVs. This is probably why I got lost in this discussion many pages ago. Always good to learn. Thanks.