>>4319859Are you sure about that because you're wrong.
What's the point of the test if you aren't going to give one side a fair shake? I'm not saying he isn't. I'm trying to see if he is with my questions.
I know from experience that he most likely isn't getting the most out of his film, and I'm trying to pick at his methods to see why.
I'm not saying he did anything like this, but you could easily falsify these tests by using the edge of a 4x5 lens' projection circle where it's at its softest. Parallelity in front and rear standard are extremely important for getting the sharpest images from 4x5. There's many variables that could influence his test that isn't the inherent quality of the film.
It's also an interesting discussion to have.