Punks will be punks, but very often, and certainly in this case, punks will also be liars.
Brian Pete starts by denying that he was endorsing Judyth Baker's claim that apparent anomalies in the Altgens photo may be due to the Brownian motion of the particles. But, he's the one who put up something in which "Brownian motion" was mentioned in the same article as "film emulsion." But, the fact is that the author used the term "Brownian motion" in reference to the research of someone else who is "crafting a simulation to predict the properties of complex fluids."
In other words, the article in no way addressed any practical problems in photography and whether Brownian motion could account for any errant and anomalous results in a photograph.
And note that, so far, no one has produced anything written in which a photographic expert accounted for specific results in a photo because of Brownian motion.
Remember what they are defending, which is a statement of Judyth Baker. Here's the statement:
"Brownian motion in the emulsion could account for some of these anomalies."
James Norwood was so excited about it, he was dead-sure that Judyth is right: that Brownian motion can produce photographic anomalies.
But, if it's true that Brownian motion in the film emulsion can account for photographic anomalies, don't you think that someone besides Judyth Baker would have said so and written about it?
Do a Google search for Brownian motion, film emulsion, and photographic anomalies and see what you get. I am not finding anyone attributing photographic anomalies to Brownian motion.
My father was a semi-professional photographer. He was a policeman, but he did photography on the side. And he developed his own film. He had a dark room. And I got some experience. I know about the agitation. I have agitated. We would put the film in a can with the developing fluid and manually shake it for a certain number of minutes.
There are numerous reasons why someone might get a poor photographic result. But to attribute it to Brownian motion? "Yeah, that was due to the Brownian motion. It's a killer." The Brownian motion is a constant. The motion is random, but the occurrence of it is constant. It's not a variable; it is a constant. There is a reason why no photographer who has ever lived has ever said, "Yeah, that came out bad because of the Brownian motion." It takes a Judyth Baker to say something like that, and it takes idiots like James Norwood and Brian Pete to follow her.
And they like to mock what I said about the photographic equivalent of Wite-Out. But, there are "retouching fluids" in photography.
You read what the bottle says there: "Place film on smooth clean surface with light striking it from an angle. Apply fluid with a brush on center of area to be retouched." You can read the rest yourself on the bottle.
The basic process in film emulsion photography is NOT driven by Brownian motion. It is driven by the photo-sensitive medium, that is, light-sensitive silver particles being activated by the photons (light particles) that hit them. It's driven by light, not the random motion of atoms and molecules.
This is from How Photographic Film works by Charles Woodworth.
When a photon of light is absorbed by the spectral sensitizer sitting on the surface of a silver-halide grain, the energy of an electron is raised into the from the valence band, where it can be transferred to the conduction band of the silver-halide-grain electronic structure. A conduction-band electron can then go on to combine with a positive hole in the silver-halide lattice and form a single atom of silver. This single atom of silver is unstable. However, if enough photoelectrons are present at the same time in the crystal lattice, they may combine with enough positive holes to form a . It is generally felt that a stable latent-image site is at least two to four silver atoms per grain. A silver-halide grain contains billions of silver-halide molecules, and it only takes two to four atoms of uncombined silver to form the latent-image site.
Nowhere does he mention Brownian motion.
I have yet to find anyone mention the Brownian motion of silver halide particles- at all; never mind that such motion can be the cause of photographic anomalies. Only Judyth Baker said it:
And these idiots keep defending it, when it is pure crap.
Hey Punk. You don't actually score any debate points by trashing someone. It's not like landing a punch. And the ring judges don't assign any points for punches that don't land. Anybody can sit at a keyboard and hit any keys he wants. And he can do it all day long. But, it doesn't mean squad except to establish that you are a very childish person. You never grew up. You are a perennial adolescent. I reckon it's a life sentence.