Sigh, i said right from the start that this desensitization does apply to Foma 200. I did not claim it to apply for Foma 400. Also i did not claim it to be the reasons for the Foma 400 problems in this thread here - all i said was that with Foma 200 apparently mechanical strain can lead to desensitization.
I am aware that "strain" does not equal "pressure", though i looked in a dictionary where about the last entry did translate "strain" by "pressure" - so far fetched they also could be talking about pressure, but the paper is vague on that.
But the paper makes it seem like it is the T-grain which does react by fewer density when strain is applied to the film.
I am aware that Foma 200 is the only film having T-grain.
I don`t consider emulsion cracks "reduced density due to mechanical pressure" and never said so.
If the reason for Foma 200 having these problems was emulsion cracks, it would be easier to put this in the paper - and advice people to only use medium format cameras where the film does not make tight turns, like in a Hasselblad magazine for example. If the reason was emulsion cracks this film should be unproblematic in an old folder for example - but as i read from your statement it is not related to film travel through the camera.
As we did not talk about pressure on emulsion in a thread about Foma 200, i put my finding in a thread where we were talking about pressure on emulsion - like this thread here.
I don`t have empirical evidence, i probably couldn`t provide a waterproof explanation even if the effect was real - i wanted to add my finding to a thread where we were talking about the possibility of mechanical pressure to maybe add something useful.
But you keep on interpreting that
- i am talking about Foma 400
-i believe this to be the reason for the problems of 400 discussed in this thread
-i`m trying to conjure credibility for my theory
-i consider strain to be the same a pressure
-i consider emulsion cracks to resemble reduced density
-and whatever
- and that`s why i feel like talking in a foreign language for example. People interpret a whole bunch of stuff into a statement of mine - including a lot of things i never said. And if i do state for days, over and over again, that i am talking about enlarging only - several believe that i am talking about shooting and answer related to shooting pictures.
I am aware that "strain" does not equal "pressure", though i looked in a dictionary where about the last entry did translate "strain" by "pressure" - so far fetched they also could be talking about pressure, but the paper is vague on that.
But the paper makes it seem like it is the T-grain which does react by fewer density when strain is applied to the film.
I am aware that Foma 200 is the only film having T-grain.
I don`t consider emulsion cracks "reduced density due to mechanical pressure" and never said so.
If the reason for Foma 200 having these problems was emulsion cracks, it would be easier to put this in the paper - and advice people to only use medium format cameras where the film does not make tight turns, like in a Hasselblad magazine for example. If the reason was emulsion cracks this film should be unproblematic in an old folder for example - but as i read from your statement it is not related to film travel through the camera.
As we did not talk about pressure on emulsion in a thread about Foma 200, i put my finding in a thread where we were talking about pressure on emulsion - like this thread here.
I don`t have empirical evidence, i probably couldn`t provide a waterproof explanation even if the effect was real - i wanted to add my finding to a thread where we were talking about the possibility of mechanical pressure to maybe add something useful.
But you keep on interpreting that
- i am talking about Foma 400
-i believe this to be the reason for the problems of 400 discussed in this thread
-i`m trying to conjure credibility for my theory
-i consider strain to be the same a pressure
-i consider emulsion cracks to resemble reduced density
-and whatever
- and that`s why i feel like talking in a foreign language for example. People interpret a whole bunch of stuff into a statement of mine - including a lot of things i never said. And if i do state for days, over and over again, that i am talking about enlarging only - several believe that i am talking about shooting and answer related to shooting pictures.
