Kirk,Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes
Do you really think that copying something as complicated as a family of film curves and posting the file without permission is fair use? Do you think one would have the right to do that from another source, say from a photography magazine or from a published book? I don't think so.
Without any question DeFehr violated rules about protection of intellectual rights at both APUG and the LF forum.
Sandy
Don,
have you used the BTZS software? If so, maybe you can answer a question. If step 21 measures .23, where does the .28 that appears on the graph come from? I supposed a calculation, but I'm open to alternative suggestions.
Jay
Sandy, you gave permission to use your data, in writing. Case closed.
Jay
Sandy,
it's very interesting that you have no comments other than to cry about your precious graph being used. No comment on the substance of the comparison? Interesting.
Jay
It is unclear to what extent the fair-use doctrine, usually held to apply to conventional editorial/news contexts, applies to the Internet, but it is clearly superceded in this case by the terms of use of both forums. As such, the graph of Sandy's data has been deleted.
To be honest, Jay, I have no idea where your data comes from. When I input a step 21 number into my software, that number shows up on my charts as the B+F co-ordinate. Perhaps there is something wrong with your "copy" of the software?
I am somewhat astounded that you publish data on this forum based on testing done with 35mm films which has a considerably thinner Estar base than sheets films. I would expect that different film base would change some important details in the results.
Ralph, I'm shocked that you would come down in Sandy's favor. I defer to your legal prowess. I'll post my own data in a new thread, and this link to Sandy's data at apug:
http://www.apug.org/forums/showthrea...hlight=pyrocat
Anyone who is curious can find Sandy's data there.
Jay
sandy, please don't make the mistaken assumption that the attitudes of the most vocal amongst us represents the population at large. there are scores of individuals that do not weigh in when threads degrade into the childish exchanges we are seeing here lately, but value your contributions greatly. i know i am not alone in saying that your extended absence, if you choose to make it so, will be regretted here.
Don,
I'll ask Phil Davis about the B+F calculation. My copy of the softwatre is the latest edition, and might differ from yours.
What important details do you imagine might be affected by the differences in FP4+ in35mm and in sheets? According to Ilford, there are none.
Jay
Well, according to published information from Ilford:
FP4 plus 35mm - 0.125mm/5 mill acetate base - no mention of anti-halation coating
FP4 plus sheet films - 0.18mm/7 mill polyester base - with anti- halation coating
Seems to be some differences there (although I have read that these result in slightly different development times etc, I have never done any testing of this personally - when I am testing things, I try to eliminate variables, but maybe that's just me...?)
But I am sure your "source" at Ilford must know better...
BTW, my source is here: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/...6115141521.pdf
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks