Not flippant at all. Thank you for the clarification.
Not flippant at all. Thank you for the clarification.I don't mean to be flippant here, but I meter the way I would with any film given whatever the scene is. I do what I always do, meter for what I want 'correctly' exposed.
I didn't do anything special with this film, and that was my specific intention because I wanted to use it as a regular, unsuspecting, innocent buyer would, who has never heard of Photrio....
Which is also why I dropped it off at my lab, with no instructions as to how to develop it because I wanted the experience that a regular civilian would get.
...Kodak should have badged their “3200” film with an 800 or 1000 designation.
...Kodak should have been "more honest" and put the NOMINAL (true ISO) rating on the film canister and packaging. Explaining deviations in the documentation is fine but they marketed the film as 3200 speed...
...I don't understand the controversy, and starting to think that the revised title was more correct than I initially thought.
For absolute clarity, though... we only seem to disagree in (former) Soapbox discussions. LOLA somewhat unusual occurrence: Brian and I agree completely on this.
Following your logic, Kodak should have bdged their “3200” film with an 800 or 1000 designation.
Agree 100%. I only found out that these are actually 800 ISO films by digging into them. It is very misleading having 3200 on the box, because it is only that if you push the film 2 stops. Plus your shop - if you take it to one - will charge you for a 2 stop push.
But I guess Kodak and Ilford with their 3200 get a break. Because they are Kodak and Ilford. But Catlabs? How dare they have 320 on the box when they say to shoot it at 200!
Let me tell you sumfink. 200 is a whole heck of a lot closer to 320, than 800 is to 3200...
Neither Kodak nor Ilford have an ISO rating on their boxes. Do you think FP4 has an ISO of 4 and HP5 has an ISO of 5? I look at the Kodak and Ilford boxes and don't see an ISO rating, so I look at the datasheets. But what does CatLABS do? They take a film that has an ISO of 200 and put "EI ISO 320" on the box. And you can't see the difference. Pretty astonishing.
It says TMAX 3200 or Delta 3200 in huge print. That is what they call the film. For about 99% of people that means ISO. Even though technically they may not say ISO.
Neither Kodak nor Ilford have an ISO rating on their boxes. Do you think FP4 has an ISO of 4 and HP5 has an ISO of 5? I look at the Kodak and Ilford boxes and don't see an ISO rating, so I look at the datasheet. So looking in the datasheet is "digging" but having to go to the CatLABS site to find the recommendation that you shoot at EI 200 is not? Look at what does CatLABS does? They take a film that has an ISO of 200 and put "EI ISO 320" on the box. And did the follow the ISO rubrik for determining an ISO of 320? No, they just made it up for marketing. And you can't see the differences. Pretty astonishing.
Let me tell you sumfink. 200 is a whole heck of a lot closer to 320, than 800 is to 3200...
This...how does the CatLabs compare?
They take a film that has an ISO of 200
It says TMAX 3200 or Delta 3200 in huge print. That is what they call the film. For about 99% of people that means ISO. Even though technically they may not say ISO.
You lost me on that... who would think that and why?
Let me tell you sumfink. 200 is a whole heck of a lot closer to 320, than 800 is to 3200...
You lost me on that... who would think that and why?
I don't think it has an ISO sensitivity of 200. Most likely at least a stop less sensitive.
Fred, I'm referring to the highlighted portion of the quote, which referenced FP4 and HP5, not the 3200 products as you mistakenly quoted in post #1,042.
If people interpret P3200 to mean ISO 3200, why would they not interpret FP4 as ISO 4 and HP5 as ISO 5?
The Agfa Aviphot 200 data sheet says it can be exposed at 125 to 250 ASA. The datasheet goes on to say that exposure depends on the required image contrast, the light reflected from the earth, and the altitude and speed of the aircraft.
Aparat tests showed an ISO of around 80.
Haven't seen similar results of exposing at 80...
Not exactly up to date. Looks like an old, perhaps abandoned blog.If anyone is interested in looking at some of the CatLABS guy's photos, I ran across them here:
Seeing that Diafine usually gives you about a stop extra speed
If Aviphot is given more light - exposed and developed at something closer to its actual daylight ISO (not its aero ISO) - you will get more shadow detail. You may or may not like how the highlights render.
Just as I often don't like how the shadows are rendered when it is under-exposed at 200 and pushed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?