And you have made my point, Tom. The results of a print from an improperly exposed negative and one that is properly exposed are different. true, the results may be "acceptable" and in some cases the differences subtle, but that acceptance often comes at a lower standard of quality.
While i can accept that rational from a lot of people, I find it disheartening coming from someone who's a member of a photography list, who, imo, should be striving for excellence rather than making an excuse for mediocrity. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Tom C > It's all a moot point pretty much, right? If the printer has the ability to > compensate for exposure variations that fall within a range of acceptable to > bang-on, and they have that ability *by design*, then that's just the other > side of the coin, so to speak... exposure can be controlled in camera first > and out of camera second (don't anyone think I'm saying exposure in camera > doesn't count, I shoot transparencies almost exclusively when using film).
