"Peter Irwin" <pirwin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fgb4vl$o0s$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> UC <uraniumcommittee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> It is my opinion, and that of many others, that the 'new' ASA speed
>> sytem introduced in 1959 gives numbers that are too high, by about 2/3
>> stop.
>
> I think the primary reason for this is that the question
> you want the ISO rating to answer is a different question
> from the one it was designed to answer.
>
> The question the speed rating is designed to answer
> is "what is the minimum exposure required to produce
> a negative from which a print judged to be 'excellent'
> can be made?"
>
> The question you probably want answered may be
> something like "What exposure meter setting will
> consistently give negatives that are easy to print
> well?"
>
> The answer to the second question is going to generally
> be a lower exposure index than the ISO standard.
MOST EXCELLENT observation. Kodak set the metrics. Those are the same
folks
who conducted a hugely expensive and detailed survey of average customers
(largely of automatic processing) and Kodak set their metrics to those
standards, as abysymal and utterly tasteless as they were, they still
represented the drug-store processing majority. (Imagine the Bell curve -
who wants to live on top?) Oh, and what camera did Kodak come out with in
response to that study? The wholly embarassing failure, the Disc Camera!
But to add a contem****ary data point - with so many people scanning
negatives, a whole new scale must be developed (no pun). Me, I'm still
scanning prints. So shoot me already. :)
|
