Buy film, not equipment.

John wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:06:09 -0500, "jjs" wrote:

"John" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:32:52 -0500, "jjs" wrote:

Wogster: There may be more than you wish to read and _learn_ here, but GO
here and do that. http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

Yuck ! And I suppose that you're going to vote for either Bush
or Kerry as well !

Well, that's an inscrutible assertion. Mind telling me what you mean?

Too many professionals have questioned the methods used by
Wilhelm and Co. . I don't feel that his info is reliable. Does that
sound like Bush ? It should.

And not only the methods...

John wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:06:09 -0500, "jjs" wrote:

"John" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:32:52 -0500, "jjs" wrote:

Wogster: There may be more than you wish to read and _learn_ here, but GO
here and do that. http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

Yuck ! And I suppose that you're going to vote for either Bush
or Kerry as well !

Well, that's an inscrutible assertion. Mind telling me what you mean?

Too many professionals have questioned the methods used by
Wilhelm and Co. . I don't feel that his info is reliable. Does that
sound like Bush ? It should.

And not only the methods...

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


John wrote:

Too many professionals have questioned the methods used by
Wilhelm and Co. . I don't feel that his info is reliable. Does that
sound like Bush ? It should.

And not only the methods...

Meaning what, please?

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


John wrote:

Too many professionals have questioned the methods used by
Wilhelm and Co. . I don't feel that his info is reliable. Does that
sound like Bush ? It should.

And not only the methods...

Meaning what, please?

jjs wrote:

"John" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:06:09 -0500, "jjs" wrote:

Well, that's an inscrutible assertion. Mind telling me what you mean?

Too many professionals have questioned the methods used by
Wilhelm and Co. . I don't feel that his info is reliable. Does that
sound like Bush ? It should.

Well, look at it this way - it's a natural thing to disagree and in this
case there are not many people with the high level of expertise neccessary
to evaluate Wilhelm's research, and of course we have to be skeptical of the
vendors and manufacturer's who protest his evaluations. I think he has made
some corrections to one or two studies, but I'm fairly sure they followed
the usual scientific rationals which are always neccessary. It's an honest
thing to do in science. OTOH, I am not qualified to adequately critique
Henry Wilhelm's work, and I'll bet no one else here is either.

Well, I've talked to those who are qualified to critique. But I think
it's obvious his objectivity is necessarily in question being a
paid consultant rather than independent. Past false claims by
Wilhelm have borne this out...

And finally, I've talked to Henry and several of his friends and colleagues,
used his early archival washer shortly after it was commercialized, my mate
went to college with him and he was my neighbor so very long ago, so I may
be prejudiced in ways that I do not even know. (He wouldn't know me from
Adam. I keep a very low profile.)

jjs wrote:

"John" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:06:09 -0500, "jjs" wrote:

Well, that's an inscrutible assertion. Mind telling me what you mean?

Too many professionals have questioned the methods used by
Wilhelm and Co. . I don't feel that his info is reliable. Does that
sound like Bush ? It should.

Well, look at it this way - it's a natural thing to disagree and in this
case there are not many people with the high level of expertise neccessary
to evaluate Wilhelm's research, and of course we have to be skeptical of the
vendors and manufacturer's who protest his evaluations. I think he has made
some corrections to one or two studies, but I'm fairly sure they followed
the usual scientific rationals which are always neccessary. It's an honest
thing to do in science. OTOH, I am not qualified to adequately critique
Henry Wilhelm's work, and I'll bet no one else here is either.

Well, I've talked to those who are qualified to critique. But I think
it's obvious his objectivity is necessarily in question being a
paid consultant rather than independent. Past false claims by
Wilhelm have borne this out...

And finally, I've talked to Henry and several of his friends and colleagues,
used his early archival washer shortly after it was commercialized, my mate
went to college with him and he was my neighbor so very long ago, so I may
be prejudiced in ways that I do not even know. (He wouldn't know me from
Adam. I keep a very low profile.)

jjs wrote:

"John" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:06:09 -0500, "jjs" wrote:

Well, that's an inscrutible assertion. Mind telling me what you mean?

Too many professionals have questioned the methods used by
Wilhelm and Co. . I don't feel that his info is reliable. Does that
sound like Bush ? It should.

Well, look at it this way - it's a natural thing to disagree and in this
case there are not many people with the high level of expertise neccessary
to evaluate Wilhelm's research, and of course we have to be skeptical of the
vendors and manufacturer's who protest his evaluations. I think he has made
some corrections to one or two studies, but I'm fairly sure they followed
the usual scientific rationals which are always neccessary. It's an honest
thing to do in science. OTOH, I am not qualified to adequately critique
Henry Wilhelm's work, and I'll bet no one else here is either.

Well, I've talked to those who are qualified to critique. But I think
it's obvious his objectivity is necessarily in question being a
paid consultant rather than independent. Past false claims by
Wilhelm have borne this out...

And finally, I've talked to Henry and several of his friends and colleagues,
used his early archival washer shortly after it was commercialized, my mate
went to college with him and he was my neighbor so very long ago, so I may
be prejudiced in ways that I do not even know. (He wouldn't know me from
Adam. I keep a very low profile.)

Uranium Committee wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote in message ...
Uranium Committee wrote:

John wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:28:50 -0600, Tom Phillips
wrote:

..... only the photochemical
processes that it describes actually does it (i.e., literally
writes an image with light.) Digital does not write with light,
it transmits a photoelectric signal and no image is produced.
Digital images are rather reproduced output from digital signals,
not light.

I just don't know why this is seems such an abstract a concept
to people.

Me either ! One forms an image the other forms a file. It's
not really complicated.

No, that's false. Neither one 'forms an image'. The lens does that.
One simply alters the chemical state of a bunch of silver halide
crysals. The other alters the chemical stste of a bunch of sensors.
It's not really complicated.


I _know_ I shouldn't, but can't resist...

If the sensor were not chemically altered by light, it could not be
used to colect data. This should be obvious even to a moron.

The term is photoelectric, not photochemcial. If the moron label
fits (and it does...) apply it where applicable.

Uranium Committee wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote in message ...
Uranium Committee wrote:

John wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:28:50 -0600, Tom Phillips
wrote:

..... only the photochemical
processes that it describes actually does it (i.e., literally
writes an image with light.) Digital does not write with light,
it transmits a photoelectric signal and no image is produced.
Digital images are rather reproduced output from digital signals,
not light.

I just don't know why this is seems such an abstract a concept
to people.

Me either ! One forms an image the other forms a file. It's
not really complicated.

No, that's false. Neither one 'forms an image'. The lens does that.
One simply alters the chemical state of a bunch of silver halide
crysals. The other alters the chemical stste of a bunch of sensors.
It's not really complicated.


I _know_ I shouldn't, but can't resist...

If the sensor were not chemically altered by light, it could not be
used to colect data. This should be obvious even to a moron.

The term is photoelectric, not photochemcial. If the moron label
fits (and it does...) apply it where applicable.

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

Well, I've talked to those who are qualified to critique. But I think
it's obvious his objectivity is necessarily in question being a
paid consultant rather than independent. Past false claims by
Wilhelm have borne this out...

Past claims which have been critized don't mean the claims are true.
Further, such past claims could very well fall into the area of experimental
data that later had to be re-evaluated. It is typical of science to be
self-critical. So, I see nothing in the assertions you have made but
heresay.

He is a paid consultant, certainly. He has to make a living. Who doesn't
consult?
But he is also the founder of rigorous testing standards committees.