wow, you sure took that personally. 

first of all, i'm not sure you understand painting and color, so i guess we're even.

second, i'm not saying bagginsbill is infallible.  i've watched him correct and advance a lot of his theories over a couple of years.  but i've watched long enough to know a little bit about how he works.  he tests.  excessively and more methodically than the professors i know.  i've never seen anyone else here or anywhere else go through permutations of settings and situations in such a methodical fashion.  and this is on top of his mathematical abilities and knowledge of physics.  please, go ahead and debate.  i'm sure we'lll all learn a great deal.  but since i've only ever seen postings (both here and at CG Society) by technicians who were much less accurate, i thought it would be fair to warn you that you're about to debate someone who is incredibly thorough about testing an immense amount of factors dealing with lighting, rendering and materials.  it is certainly possible that you are at the theoretical level of working with and deriving your own equations and the technical level of testing your theories with the precision of a scientist.   but even one of those qualities is rare in  these forums, both are almost unheard of, and i can't guess at how much you know about a single member of this community.  since it doesn't seem like you have even seen his comparison of gamma correction with PS and rendered gamma correction (because it would be an obvious talking point), i was guessing your knowledge just might be less than complete.