My my Steve, sorry if I touched a tender nerve. But why would seeing my photographs help you place my comments "in context?" For that matter, what do you mean by placing my comments "in context?" What context are you talking about? I think my comments speak for themselves, there's no context in which they need to be placed.
You seem to be suggesting that if I'm a terrible photographer or printer the results of any testing I do can't be valid. If that's the case I don't see the connection at all. I said the prints I made from negatives processed in two developers looked the same. I said nothing about their technical or artistic qualities, I didn't say they were good or bad, I just said there was no difference.
There actually have been quite a few people who have done a lot of excellent testing of materials but who aren't great photographers. Richard Henry comes to mind, also Phil Davis. I'm not in their league when it comes to testing but I think it illustrates the point that there's no necessary correlaton between one's ability to test materials and one's ability as a photographer or printer.
I described in some detail the results of my tests. How about telling us in comparable detail about the testing you say you did - what materials you used, what types of scenes you photographed, how you went about determining your developing and processing times, that kind of thing would be very useful to know so that we could properly evaluate your opinions.
Bookmarks