Digital BW, The Print

Anthony,

> Why am I wrong?  You need to apply the same standards to everyone.

As I said in my previous post, I didn't say you were wrong; I asked you for 
your evidence that proves Roger Clark is wrong. I do try to apply the same 
standards to everyone; as a scientist, I've always had to. If you want 
people to believe what you say is correct, then you have to publish the 
evidence for your statements. Until someone publishes evidence that Roger 
Clark's experiments are faulty, or that his conclusions are not justified by 
his experimental evidence, they must be accepted as the the current facts.

> I've discovered in the past that evidence never seems to count in
> digital-vs.-film debates.

Without evidence, it's all just so much hot air.

> The images I shoot with film look better to me than the images I shoot
> digitally.  Until and unless this changes, there's no reason to shoot
> digital.

That is fine; you are making a subjective judgement that you prefer film. 
But it does not entitle you to make statements about the superiority of film 
that are clearly against the current published evidence. If you want to 
prove that the published evidence is faulty, do some real objective 
experiments yourself and see if you can prove the opposite is true - as you 
claim it is.


> I feel compelled to make things right, lest the uninformed be misled.

It seems to some of us, that you are the uninformed, and are constantly 
mislead by your gut feelings.

So, if you have no objective evidence to support your statements, there is 
little point in continuing this discussion.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>