Joined: Mar. 2008
Well we could always convert this into an argument about gnu atheism, but seriously, my comment had a very limited scope. I had no idea I was disagreeing with anything you said.
If you are reviewing lenses on the basis of transmission, you would be lenses of the same type, as in different brands and models.
Incident light metering is rather specialized. It's used in studios and in movie making, but I think anyone going to that kind of trouble would calibrate a system with actual test shots.
Back when shutters were mechanical and involved a moving slit of varying width, it was widely recognized that effective shutter speed didn't necessarily match nominal speed.
And if you developed your own film you noticed differences between brands and types of developer. I read, for example, that National Geographic had all of their film processed in one plant, and did not allow it to be done as the first batch of the day. They wanted assurance that the chemistry was right.
For 99.9 percent of people using digital cameras, these issues are irrelevant, even if interesting. I would bet not many people shooting RAW images would notice half an f-stop difference in exposure. In fact people routinely adjust the levels in their photos to make them "pop."
This can easily truncate several f-stops of shadow and highlight detail.
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.