In a message dated 2/20/01 9:33:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< There are far too many factors at play to make blanket statements about
one product line or another. Members of the PDML should know this better than
most.
William Robb >>
But Bill, the reverse is also true: the assertions by a professional
processor might be given more weight than say mine, who does ~not~ face the
choices you have and do. But you yourself say here: "I don't know about Agfa
or the other manufacturers of paper, either for colour stability or colour
response."
Expressly my point. You and some PDML members, on the authority of self
experience, have declared or inferred "There is (litle or no) difference"
without the imperical proof needed to make such asertions.
You also go on to say: "I think the operator is more important than the
product used. ~I~ [my emphasis] can get absolute colour matching from 3
different manufacturersof paper where I live. Kodak, Fuji, and Konica papers
for surecan be made to look the same."
Your ..."~Can~ be made (by William Robb) to look the same" is the operative
phrase and qualifier to your previous assertions, themselves laced with
qualfiers.
As an acepted authority on C-41film processing, can ~you~ say, without
equivocation, that FUJI/FUJI/FUJI or KODAK/KODAK/KODAK proccessing isn't the
best for FUJI or KODAK emulsions? Or that other chemicals-papers can (or do)
produce the same end product for any ~given~ emulsion?
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
