That sounds reasonable. I don't have the equipment (or brains) to do this sort of thing, but I think that this kind of objective testing is clearly what is lacking. I'm not sure I know enough about chemistry, optics or physics to pose intelligent questions, but this is what comes to mind:
- spectral sensitivity of fresh collodion
- change in spectral sensitivity of collodion over time (older collodion has less speed, but does its sensitivity to various spectra change as well?)
- spectral transmission of lens designs (long/wide, triplets, etc) and coated vs. uncoated.
Garrett and others have pointed out that its easiest to just shoot a plate and get on with it, and I agree. But I've been made curious by the contradictory assertions, and limited data that seems to suggest that the common belief that UV is important in wet plate may be unfounded. Or maybe not. Just a bit o' fun, like a crossword, with limited practical implications.
Bookmarks