Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape  (Read 72560 times)

dalethorn

  • Guest
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #40 on: July 04, 2008, 08:42:21 am »

And speaking of negatives, we haven't talked about comparing prints of all-film (chemical) processing -vs- scanning the negative and processing digitally from there.
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #41 on: July 04, 2008, 09:08:02 am »

It really amazes me that here, in mid-2008, there are still some people that maintain the image quality superiority of film. To me this simply shows that they have little real world experience. This was a heated topic back in 2001 - 2003 but has long since been laid to rest.

Are there still people shooting film and doing darkroom prints or making scans? Yes of course. Some simply like the process. That's cool. But most of the leading photographic schools, like RIT, now teach the chemical darkroom as an alternative process, not mainstream technology any longer.

Does anyone seriously think that the majority (I'm not saying all) of the world's leading fine art and commercial photographers use digital is simply because of convenience. Not!

No, pundits and knowledgeable reporters laid the digital vs film argument to rest some years ago. When leading large format fine art photographers like Charles Cramer and Alain Briot give up film for digital you know that the battle has been won, and it's all over except for a few die-hards who haven't yet gotten the message.

Now, if you'll please excuse me, I have to go to the mailbox and pick up this month's checks from the major camera makers, all of whom are paying me to preach the advantages of digital. And, if you want to see how effective that program is, go to any camera store in the world and compare the number of film cameras on the shelves to the number of digital cameras. Boy, I must be powerful.

Cheers,

Michael

Ps: I still own and use at least three film cameras, more for fun than anything else, and for when image quality is less important than fun or a special application. I use my Hasselblad / Imacon scanner, and curse every time when I have to spend an hour or more cleaning dust spots, but that's another story.

As for my chemical darkroom of 30+ years. Gone, finished, closed, no regrets.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2008, 09:10:16 am by michael »
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #42 on: July 04, 2008, 09:38:27 am »

Quote
It really amazes me that here, in mid-2008, there are still some people that maintain the image quality superiority of film. To me this simply shows that they have little real world experience. This was a heated topic back in 2001 - 2003 but has long since been laid to rest.


Here's a piece I did in 1999:

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf

Here's a better JPEG to see what was printed:

http://digitaldog.net/files/FilmVsDigital.jpg

Not a bad scanner used too (ScanMate 5000).
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Slough

  • Guest
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #43 on: July 04, 2008, 10:11:50 am »

Quote
He gave you his reasons and evidence that from which he derived his conclusion. It's purely circumstantial, for sure. You would need to first prove definitively that his argument is knowingly untrue.

Not so, at least in the UK. In court it would be for Ken to prove that his statement are fact, and hence not libel. Assuming someone took him to court of course.

Quote
On the other hand, we can parse his position by putting it in the best argument form we can given the information, and then test it for validity and soundness:

His argument goes something like this, which is invalid:

(1) LL  image quality test comparing digital to scanned negatives is wrong.
(2) It's easy to see that MF scanned negatives are much better in quality than the best digital file.
(3) Since it's easy to see this difference for anyone who understands photographic and digital principles that this is true, LL must be giving out bad information knowingly.
(4) One very good reason bad information like this would be given out by people who know better is that companies pay people to do it.
(5) Conclusion: LL is being paid by camera companies.

What I would do to refute this argument would be to attack the premises first. Is the information KR gives accurate and accepted? If not, then the entire argument fails and you need go no further with it. If so, then we need to look at the argument's form to make sure that even though the premises are true, the argument's conclusions follow a valid form, that is, don't make leaps.

So second, I would test the validity of the argument's form, since an argument can be valid and unsound, meaning the premise(s) are false, but the logic is sound. (e.g., Socrates was a man. All men are deers. Ergo, Socrates was a deer. False premise, with valid argument form. Everything follows with no leaps. In this case, the first premise's "predicate" is 'distributed" in the second and the second in the third (predicate logic). You can see the validity by exchanging "deer" with "mortal" or "All As, are B's. All Bs are Cs. Therefore, all As are Cs.)

We see here that KR's argument is unsound because his premises do not lead directly to his conclusion--that LL is paid off by camera companies does not follow directly from his premises (If LL is giving out bad information, there may be other reasons for giving bad information rather than being paid off).

So in summary, even if his information is correct, the argument does not follow to it's conclusion. But if his information is correct, it does call to question many things.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205454\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry but is there much point in giving Ken any credit? His methodology is so often completely half baked, and his statements so absurd, that it is not worth the time and effort.

My regret is that some people find him funny (humorous), and I never have done. I just find him rather sad.
Logged

Mike W

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 217
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #44 on: July 04, 2008, 10:13:33 am »

Quote
Now, if you'll please excuse me, I have to go to the mailbox and pick up this month's checks from the major camera makers, all of whom are paying me to preach the advantages of digital. And, if you want to see how effective that program is, go to any camera store in the world and compare the number of film cameras on the shelves to the number of digital cameras. Boy, I must be powerful.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can you PM me the contact-information of the guys at Canon, Nikon and Hasselblad who bribe you?
I've preached the advantages of digital for free so far, so I feel I deserve at least a free Mark III, D3(x) and H3D for my efforts too. :-D
Logged

Greg Barnett

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
    • http://
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #45 on: July 04, 2008, 10:51:12 am »

Quote
Are there still people shooting film and doing darkroom prints or making scans? Yes of course. Some simply like the process. That's cool. But most of the leading photographic schools, like RIT, now teach the chemical darkroom as an alternative process, not mainstream technology any longer.

Speaking of which, we (RIT) just mothballed another 80 or so darkrooms... If anyone would like a good deal on a truckload of Omega 4x5 enlargers, lets talk!

Greg
Logged

bob carnie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #46 on: July 04, 2008, 11:22:18 am »

Actually in my world I have a slightly different viewpoint.

As most major labs and institutions are mothballing their darkrooms , we in fact have increased the size of our darkrooms. We just installed a 55inch x 480inch wet sink to accomodat 4x8 ft fibre prints from enlargers and lambda.
We are still getting clients landing in Toronto and dropping off film and producing prints on enlargers to be exhibited .
Increasingly we are printing from digital files to fibre *wet* , in fact I think today digital prints outweigh the enlarger prints. But as I find that there still is those who do appreciate a crafted enlarger print and are willing to invest in film cameras and wait for the results.
I have been working in both area's as a exhibition and portfolio printer for 20 odd years in TO and as Michael points out the conversion to digital is a done deal. No argument .
But I strongly believe there is a place for both in the ** art ** and ** commercial ** world .
In fact I think most of the best advances are when digital and wet technology is combined, and that is where I believe we are headed.

As an aside,

The major schools should take a moment to pause and keep some of the darkrooms open, my bet is the ones that do will attract the new wave of students.
Colour Carbon prints off digital negs , I think will pass the grade with any one on this form , I think.

Today , I just spent two hours at a local highschool  accessing their needs for enlargers, sinks, and digital printers. All which we will donate to a very appreciative Principle and dedicated photography teacher.

Those who feel film cameras are obsolete and useless are more than welcome to donate any and all film cameras, 35-8x10. as well any digital slrs are also very welcome.
send me a email at bob@elevatordigital.ca and I will make sure all this equipment gets into the hands of some very appreciative students.

ps. I too shoot famly snaps and vacation snaps, but I use a digital point and shoot for this and keep the Noblex and Fuji 6x9 loaded with HP5 for the art prints.




Quote
It really amazes me that here, in mid-2008, there are still some people that maintain the image quality superiority of film. To me this simply shows that they have little real world experience. This was a heated topic back in 2001 - 2003 but has long since been laid to rest.

Are there still people shooting film and doing darkroom prints or making scans? Yes of course. Some simply like the process. That's cool. But most of the leading photographic schools, like RIT, now teach the chemical darkroom as an alternative process, not mainstream technology any longer.

Does anyone seriously think that the majority (I'm not saying all) of the world's leading fine art and commercial photographers use digital is simply because of convenience. Not!

No, pundits and knowledgeable reporters laid the digital vs film argument to rest some years ago. When leading large format fine art photographers like Charles Cramer and Alain Briot give up film for digital you know that the battle has been won, and it's all over except for a few die-hards who haven't yet gotten the message.

Now, if you'll please excuse me, I have to go to the mailbox and pick up this month's checks from the major camera makers, all of whom are paying me to preach the advantages of digital. And, if you want to see how effective that program is, go to any camera store in the world and compare the number of film cameras on the shelves to the number of digital cameras. Boy, I must be powerful.

Cheers,

Michael

Ps: I still own and use at least three film cameras, more for fun than anything else, and for when image quality is less important than fun or a special application. I use my Hasselblad / Imacon scanner, and curse every time when I have to spend an hour or more cleaning dust spots, but that's another story.

As for my chemical darkroom of 30+ years. Gone, finished, closed, no regrets.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Greg Barnett

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
    • http://
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #47 on: July 04, 2008, 12:42:11 pm »

Quote
As an aside,

The major schools should take a moment to pause and keep some of the darkrooms open, my bet is the ones that do will attract the new wave of students.
Colour Carbon prints off digital negs , I think will pass the grade with any one on this form , I think.

We’re not doing away with darkrooms entirely, just reclaiming/repurposing  space to deal with curricular changes and current technology. We started out with ~185 darkrooms when the building was opened in the late 60’s. I’m aiming for around 35-40 to remain in service for the foreseeable future. We will also maintain our E-6 and C-41 machines until utilization bottoms out and we can’t run enough film to keep them in control... RA-4 will be around indefinitely to support our Lambda.

So  this is more about accepting and dealing with mainstream reality in the marketplace. If our students want to use film cameras and take elective classes in stuff like C printing and the Zone System, they will still have the option. Back in the spring, we received a generous donation of M series cameras from the principal owner of Leica to help perpetuate the teaching of film-based photography. And we still have quite a fleet of 4x5’s.

But to be honest, we’re talking about a digital generation (all of our incoming students grew up with computers and Photoshop) and for the most part, they have very little interest in analog processes...

Greg
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #48 on: July 04, 2008, 12:49:57 pm »

Quote
But to be honest, we’re talking about a digital generation (all of our incoming students grew up with computers and Photoshop) and for the most part, they have very little interest in analog processes...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Little interest and expect for historical purposes, little need. Its useful to provide as a historical context, but for practical knowledge in a horrendously difficult business to make a living at, is teaching film any more useful (outside of history) compared to teaching Photography capture on glass? Or having prepress students learn manual stripping or design students learning PageMaker?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Slough

  • Guest
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #49 on: July 04, 2008, 02:05:34 pm »

Quote
Little interest and expect for historical purposes, little need. Its useful to provide as a historical context, but for practical knowledge in a horrendously difficult business to make a living at, is teaching film any more useful (outside of history) compared to teaching Photography capture on glass? Or having prepress students learn manual stripping or design students learning PageMaker?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know (indirectly) several people doing photography degrees in the UK, and both a doing lots of film, and not so much digital. I have the impression that the teachers are well out of date.
Logged

bob carnie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #50 on: July 04, 2008, 02:22:25 pm »

I am a member of two other film forums , APUG and Large Format, total membership of over 40k. Thats a hell of a lot of people still shooting film and loving the process.

Though small by comparison to digital , film is a niche, viable, prosperous vocation for myself and staff.

I remember the days of a Lisle Camera *1983* before Lambda, Lightjet, Lightroom and mainstream PS.
Driven by a sequence array of commands that then pushed stepper motors of a overhead frontlight and backlight process camera. This system broke down every three days and in the day was over 400k to purchase.
The Manual Masks were hand stripped to lay over film to do montage, multiple image composites that today can be accomplished in one hour what would take back then two days. All of the blending , masking , selections that we find so easy today came from this history.

I think there is major lessons to be learned from those film days as well  40 thousand film and darkroom users can't be all wrong.

The best imaging is still to come and I believe it will include film. Specifically in high end separations off laser exposing devices to be laid down on Historic processes.
I am very interested in a digital back for large format to produce images to separate and make alternative prints. I think I will wait a year or two as prices and options become more practical.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #51 on: July 04, 2008, 03:06:52 pm »

Quote
I think there is major lessons to be learned from those film days as well  40 thousand film and darkroom users can't be all wrong.

I don't think anyone is saying they are wrong. 40K is a drop in the bucket too. But its not right or wrong. Its what's appropriate to teach and support. Its no more wrong than how the Amish prefer to handle their transportation. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that due to that mindset, schools should be scaling back transportation design majors and instead teaching classes in fixing carriages or how to clean horse hoofs.

The film, darkroom process isn't dead, its just terminal. Its the opposite of a growth market and as such, with today's economy, what manufacturers can continue to support it and for how long? It will be a smaller and smaller niche market, being harder for those who wish to use it to find support and the products to purchase and/or the cost will be very high. What's different about this than what we saw with dye transfer? I'm sure someone out there is still doing it, from supplies they hoarded when they were smart enough to see the writing on the wall. Didn't make them wrong, just in a market that wasn't well (or at all) supported.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

bob carnie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #52 on: July 04, 2008, 03:18:21 pm »

I would totally agree with your sentiments if I felt that the film and wet paper industry is dead.

But from my vantage point I actually see a growth in fibre wet printing.

 2002 our lab produced the first mural show that combined laser *lambda exposure* onto photographic paper*agfa classic*.
2005 Harmon Group introduced their wet paper version and four labs worldwide started using this product.  Picto - Paris , Metro Imaging - UK , Lamont Imaging - New York and Elevator - Canada.

since this time other labs are introducing this product line, including Dalmation Labs- USA, Duggal USA to name a few.

The paper is Ilford Galerie grade 4 with an extended red sensitivety.  As well an Agfa emulsion has been beta tested and will be on the market in Sept 08.
Basically an analoque product maximised for laser exposure from digital files.
Finishing is the exact same as enlarger prints with the same archival attributes.

I would imagine all these operations in different parts of the world see the oportunnities in wet chemical technology that indeed requires a darkroom.

My guess is Universities with Lambdas will soon follow suit and embrace the joining of digital and analoque methods for the digital aware young students.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #53 on: July 04, 2008, 04:15:34 pm »

Quote
... Blanket statements are generally written by people who are intellectually deficient!...
Problem with blanket statements is not that they are "generally written by people who are intellectually deficient" (highly debatable anyway). The problem is that they are often read by "intellectually deficient" readers, who tend to take them at face value, i.e., literally. "Intellectually deficient" readers are also more likely to be unaware of certain figures of speech, notably the one known as hyperbole, in which, according to Wikipedia, "...statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally. Hyperbole is used to create emphasis. It is a literary device often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech...."

photodan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #54 on: July 04, 2008, 04:40:14 pm »

I read Rockwell's site from time to time - for entertainment mostly, with a mixture of way off base comments (and ridiculous comments especially if there is implied or other criticism of Luminous Landscape on ethics!!) with some bits (bytes ?:-) of good information here and there.

I believe the post that started this thread quoted from Rockwell this statement "As I keep trying to say, if all you want is 13 x 19" inkjet prints made on a $700 Epson by all means get an $8,000 1Ds. If you want to feel the texture of every grain of sand on a 40 x 60" print, stick with 4 x 5" as photographers do."

Does anyone really disagree with that opinion - i.e. that the technical quality that can be obtained from 4x5" film (using the best analog methods or best scanning) will  be superior to a DSLR (i.e. 35mm size sensor with 16mp for example)?   That is, the statement is not comparing 4x5" film to the results from a medium format back (such as Michael uses, and used for some good technical comparison tests published on LL).

So, when many people say digital is superior to film, it  would help to say what format of film is being compared to what  size of digital sensor.  

I used to shoot large format (4x5 to 8x10) color landscapes, and eventually dropped LF entirely and now use a full-frame DSLR because I rarely print larger than 13x19", and the results for me are only slightly inferior to 4x5, and there's no comparison to convenience, ongoing costs, and spontaneity (and for most shots the use of view camera movements is not important to me). At larger print sizes there is no comparison and film (4x5 or larger) wins big time over DLSR images, as long as the scan is very good. And, taking a 6x or higher power loupe to a 4x5" transparency or neg and comparing  the amount of detail seen to that viewed from a DSLR file on a computer screen, there is no comparison - the 4x5 is in a totally superior league to the DSLR. So, on this one particular point, I would have to agree with Rockwell's statement.
Logged

mrleonard

  • Guest
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #55 on: July 04, 2008, 07:53:55 pm »

Quote
Little interest and expect for historical purposes, little need. Its useful to provide as a historical context, but for practical knowledge in a horrendously difficult business to make a living at, is teaching film any more useful (outside of history) compared to teaching Photography capture on glass? Or having prepress students learn manual stripping or design students learning PageMaker?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I disagree...I think most of us here started on film cameras and the one thing we all gained from that process was previsualising light. Rather than the instant feedback of digital, we had to 'look' and 'read' the light in a scene much more carefully. Through a lot of trial and error, crappy shots, mistakes I think ,even now shooting with my 5D, my skills of composition, 'reading' of light quality, and creative vision have been enhanced by using film.
I often see a lot of weak work by the young 20 somethings starting on digital. They often go for the 'whizz bang' of crazy color saturations and 'shoot from the hip' chance compositions ,but lack much depth or scrutiny of repeated viewings.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #56 on: July 04, 2008, 08:41:04 pm »

Quote
I disagree...I think most of us here started on film cameras and the one thing we all gained from that process was previsualising light.

That requires film? How so? Sounds like the old time, macho school of learning. So instead of using instant evaluation of the image on an LCD (or 60 seconds with a "Roid"), we need to labor in a stinky darkroom to learn about previsulizing? I'm not buying it, but if you do, fine.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Caracalla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
    • http://
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #57 on: July 04, 2008, 09:14:58 pm »

Quote
It really amazes me that here, in mid-2008, there are still some people that maintain the image quality superiority of film. To me this simply shows that they have little real world experience. This was a heated topic back in 2001 - 2003 but has long since been laid to rest.

Are there still people shooting film and doing darkroom prints or making scans? Yes of course. Some simply like the process. That's cool. But most of the leading photographic schools, like RIT, now teach the chemical darkroom as an alternative process, not mainstream technology any longer.

Does anyone seriously think that the majority (I'm not saying all) of the world's leading fine art and commercial photographers use digital is simply because of convenience. Not!

No, pundits and knowledgeable reporters laid the digital vs film argument to rest some years ago. When leading large format fine art photographers like Charles Cramer and Alain Briot give up film for digital you know that the battle has been won, and it's all over except for a few die-hards who haven't yet gotten the message.

Now, if you'll please excuse me, I have to go to the mailbox and pick up this month's checks from the major camera makers, all of whom are paying me to preach the advantages of digital. And, if you want to see how effective that program is, go to any camera store in the world and compare the number of film cameras on the shelves to the number of digital cameras. Boy, I must be powerful.

Cheers,

Michael

Ps: I still own and use at least three film cameras, more for fun than anything else, and for when image quality is less important than fun or a special application. I use my Hasselblad / Imacon scanner, and curse every time when I have to spend an hour or more cleaning dust spots, but that's another story.

As for my chemical darkroom of 30+ years. Gone, finished, closed, no regrets.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe you are not taking him too seriously... He is using specific topics like Film vs Digital at the right time..... just before the release of 50MP hehehehehe.... and obviously for personal reasons!!! His blog/website doesn't stand a chance and is far from being at the level of LL in every respect and I think we all know that!!!

Furthermore, I think it's fair to say that the guy is amusing and we give him that much
Logged

skid00skid00

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #58 on: July 04, 2008, 11:24:30 pm »

After reading two sentences written by krockwell, most adults should know why he has a website.

HOWEVER, before those of you who have never published *any* test/comparison results continue heaping disrespect on Roger Clark, I'd suggest you find out just how much more he knows than *you*.  (I not-at-all humbly admit I fit that category).

He is - *literally* - a rocket scientist.

He works/has worked for NASA, doing *digital* imaging.

If you don't like how he compared film to digital, (and it's clear, if you can comprehend the at-most three-syllable words he uses, that he prefers digital) then grow some male appendages, and post your own, contradictory, results.

I'll be here, listening to the crickets chirp away.
Logged

Er1kksen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #59 on: July 05, 2008, 12:01:50 am »

As someone who posted in respectful disagreement of Clark's test methods, I find the language in your post unnecessarily provocative and perhaps better suited to some alternative forums?

I don't need to do any scientific testing of the fact that Clark's DR test is biased towards the strengths of digital and against the strengths of negative film. That is my one and only complaint. I see this every day when I look through film prints rescued from overexposed negatives, and then delete multiple RAW files due to a couple stops overexposure. I agree entirely with the fact that digital has superior shadow range, and may even have greater overall range, but anyone who has used both side by side can't ignore that negative film has an advantage in the highlights. If you want the scientific, definitive tests demonstrating this, I don't have to produce them myself (I lack the resources anyways). They've already been placed on the internet, and in fact posted in this very thread: Test

Clark may be literally a rocket scientist, but that doesn't stop me from finding this second test to be far more balanced. It illuminates the strengths and weaknesses of both mediums. I'm not saying that Clark intentionally biased his test. But that specific section is biased nonetheless. I fully respect that he prefers digital and agree that digital has surpassed film in nearly all ways. I'm just pointing out a small but important error, not attacking his preferences or integrity.

On a sidenote, would you care to post any test results demonstrating that the posession or lack of male reproductive organs enables one to post test results contradicting those of another?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Up