Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Then you either live in another universe, or you are severely sight
impaired, or both.

May I ask if you were to buy a used car, if you would buy "any" of a
specific year and model, regardless of the use on it, how it was
maintained, how much mileage it had, and how many accidents it was in?

I don't mind debating with someone who knows what they are speaking
about, but some of your statements are so outlandish as to frankly be
laughable, and this is not because you are breaking "myths" which I am
dearly holding onto, it is because in numerous cases you do not have the
experience to be making the blanket statements you do. 

After all the discussions abut film handling in labs and the pitfalls,
both in terms of the equipment and the major part personnel play in the
results, for you to state (I paraphrase) "the labs all use the same
machines and they are automated, therefore the processing is identical"
is simply the ravings of a madman.  You are the one fostering myths. 
Color photocopiers, which are designed with all sorts of digital and
automated feedback systems, since most users have little direct
understanding on how they function or how to fix them, still have
results which change daily based literally upon weather conditions. 
Photo labs equipment and personnel have potentially hundreds of times
more variability than a Color photocopier.  If you actually ever worked
in a lab you'd know that.  

I'm coming to the same conclusions as others on this list... you don't
debate, or even discuss, you argue just for the sake of it, and it is
becoming tedious.

Art

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> 
> Johnny writes:
> 
> > you know how it'll turn out
> 
> Virtually everyone uses the same machines.  I'd be very hard pressed to 
>identify
> the work of one lab as opposed to another in film development.