ISO is fake?
Apr 28, 2019 09:50:55 #
BebuLamar wrote:
He shot indoor under artificial light. He didn't say how he metered but he set all cameras on manual at the same aperture, shutter speed and ISO. The results are different but I actually observed the same thing on various cameras yet I still believe all the cameras meet the ISO standard. I talked like camera manufacturers rate their sensors any way they want without regard to ISO standard.
Different for different cameras? I can see that, different sensors, different algorithms.
Apr 28, 2019 12:08:48 #
frankk111
Loc: Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK
The International Organization for Standardization is an independent, non-governmental organization, the members of which are the standards organizations of the 164[1] member countries. It is the world's largest developer of voluntary international standards and facilitates world trade by providing common standards between nations. Over twenty thousand standards have been set covering everything from manufactured products and technology to food safety, agriculture and healthcare.[3]
Use of the standards aids in the creation of products and services that are safe, reliable and of good quality. The standards help businesses increase productivity while minimizing errors and waste. By enabling products from different markets to be directly compared, they facilitate companies in entering new markets and assist in the development of global trade on a fair basis. The standards also serve to safeguard consumers and the end-users of products and services, ensuring that certified products conform to the minimum standards set internationally.[3]
Use of the standards aids in the creation of products and services that are safe, reliable and of good quality. The standards help businesses increase productivity while minimizing errors and waste. By enabling products from different markets to be directly compared, they facilitate companies in entering new markets and assist in the development of global trade on a fair basis. The standards also serve to safeguard consumers and the end-users of products and services, ensuring that certified products conform to the minimum standards set internationally.[3]
Apr 28, 2019 12:54:53 #
Gene51 wrote:
I refuse to dignify his outrageous nonsense with a visit to his site. I much prefer to get my oats BEFORE they go through the horse. A couple of images that come to mind when I hear/see TN's latest "revelation"
I agree completely, Gene! Get out the Troll Spray and apply liberally!
Apr 28, 2019 12:59:06 #
smf85
Loc: Freeport, IL
srt101fan wrote:
I seem to remember using Microdol-X but can't remember why.... fine grain? 😕
It was the fine grain developer. PanX developed in Microdol-X was nearly grainless particularly if was diluted, Used on Tri-X it reduced the grain significantly. Couldn’t push with it at all - that needed something like HC110.
If I remember correctly the chemistry was really slow.
Apr 28, 2019 13:01:20 #
smf85 wrote:
It was the fine grain developer. PanX developed in Microdol-X was nearly grainless particularly if was diluted, Used on Tri-X it reduced the grain significantly. Couldn’t push with it at all - that needed something like HC110.
If I remember correctly the chemistry was really slow.
If I remember correctly the chemistry was really slow.
I used to push Tri-X to 1600 and develop in Accufine. Fantastic results.
Apr 28, 2019 21:00:13 #
Apr 28, 2019 21:23:43 #
carl hervol wrote:
how about royal x pan by kodak
I've heard of it but don't think I ever used it .... ? I used mostly Tri-X, Plus-X, some Panatomic-X and Verichrome-Pan, and played around a little with Kodalith... and, somewhere along the line Infrared. Back in the days....
(Sorry, Bebu, way off topic...)
Apr 28, 2019 21:36:27 #
Dikdik
Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
srt101fan wrote:
Back in the days...
That's going back about 50 years.
Dik
Apr 28, 2019 22:41:27 #
Apr 29, 2019 07:02:26 #
Dikdik wrote:
That's going back about 50 years.
Dik
Dik
Well, ...... yea!
Apr 29, 2019 11:41:30 #
smf85
Loc: Freeport, IL
Pan-X is an abbreviation for Panatomic-X commonly used at the jersey shore back 50-60 years ago. It was strange stuff; nearly grainless due to the small silver crystals and very high resolution.
Apr 29, 2019 14:37:19 #
It is very important to understand that the ISO is "added" after the photo is taken, after the shutter is opened and closed and after the light has already hit the sensor. Back in the old days of films there was ASA which indicated how sensitive the film was and therefore how much light was needed for a "normal exposure". That is different from ISO. When you take a photo at f5.6 and 1/100 of a second a given amount of light hits the sensor. That amount of light has nothing whatever to do with the ISO setting. The inner workings of the camera then amplify the output of the sensor if, for instance, you had the ISO set to 1600 instead of 200. But it took the photo at the original ISO. While there is a slight difference, there is not a great deal of difference between taking the photo with an ISO of 1600 which is a 4 atop increase and printing it and putting the 100 ISO photo in your computer and "upping" the exposure "or brightness" 4 stops. Some difference but in terms of lighting virtually the same.
Apr 29, 2019 14:46:03 #
ssscomp wrote:
It is very important to understand that the ISO is... (show quote)
They probably wanted to use the same mnemonic as it references "sensitivity" and would be less confusing than creating a new mnemonic or phrase. ISO is well known. For the film I used, ASA/ISO was the same, the reference just changed.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.