Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Math, now bwc41 at 800
From: kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour)
Date: Fri Dec 8 05:52:37 2006
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061206152403.027b4508@infoave.net> <45772DC5.3040508@mcclary.net> <23C63C29-1E1D-43D6-A946-45C580F2326E@pandora.be> <4577300C.7000108@mcclary.net> <F04C2DAF-1C77-416C-ACC7-72A31E62F94F@pandora.be> <p0623090dc19e3edfaa21@[10.1.16.133]> <4578A515.7040506@waltjohnson.com> <p06230914c19eb640e40f@[10.1.16.133]> <45796BA5.1080109@waltjohnson.com>

Walt and others... have you shot C41bw 400, at 800 with normal  
development?  Results?

I see this now as advantageous, have never done it, but I plan to  
try....

thankjs, Steve


On Dec 8, 2006, at 6:41 AM, Walt Johnson wrote:

> I think I'll start shooting all my Tri-X at 666 ISO. BTW has anyone  
> noticed the change (years ago) from ASA to ISO appears useless?
>
> Henning Wulff wrote:
>
>>> Doesn't it have something to do with logging rhythms. in .3  
>>> increments?
>>>
>>> Henning Wulff wrote:
>>>
>>>> At 10:29 PM +0100 12/6/06, Philippe Orlent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was just remembering my ISO scale on the back of my MP:  
>>>>> 50-100-200-400-800- etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the zones in between are divided in 3 parts.
>>>>>
>>>>> So between 50-100: 50/3=16,7
>>>>> Between: 100-200: 100/3=33,33, which would put 160 at 100 and  
>>>>> 2/3ds
>>>>> Two full stops under brings us at
>>>>> 400 and 2/3ds
>>>>> Which is 400 + (800-400)x2/3= 666,7
>>>>>
>>>>> I may be wrong, but it looks like Leica logics to me.
>>>>> :-)
>>>>> Philippe
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ISO is not continuous. It's only defined for the discrete  
>>>> progression (from 100 to 3200) for 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320,  
>>>> 400, 500, 640, 800, 1000, 1250, 1600, 2000, 2500, 3200.
>>>>
>>>> No numbers in between, ie, there is not 'ISO 300' or 'ISO 666'.
>>>>
>>
>> ISO combines the old ASA and DIN scales, and makes the measurement  
>> methods and ratings equivalent. DIN was logarithmic while ASA was  
>> arithmetic, with 400 ASA = 27DIN, 320 ASA = 26 DIN. For every step  
>> the ASA took an arithmetic step, and DIN took a logarithmic step.  
>> Different measurement methods meant that there wasn't a complete  
>> equivalency, but then they got together and came out with the ISO  
>> method and scaling, which allows for both an arithmetic and  
>> logarithmic scale. So now the old 400 ASA is approximately ISO  
>> 400/27.
>>
>> Both systems jump in discrete, defined steps with intermediate  
>> values undefined.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Math, now bwc41 at 800)
In reply to: Message from images at InfoAve.Net (Tina Manley) ([Leica] Math Question)
Message from harrison at mcclary.net (Harrison McClary) ([Leica] Math Question)
Message from philippe.orlent at pandora.be (Philippe Orlent) ([Leica] Math Question)
Message from harrison at mcclary.net (Harrison McClary) ([Leica] Math Question)
Message from philippe.orlent at pandora.be (Philippe Orlent) ([Leica] Math Question)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Math Question)
Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Math Question)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Math Question)
Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Math Question)