To further the point... I leave my nikon digital on auto ISO.... when i get bored i toss it to auto modes and take random exposures on things... I learned that using the EV scale i can change the shutter speed 2 or 3 times,,, and using the same aperture, i can drop the AE iso from 20,000 down to 800 with no trouble...
in the realm of photographic work anymore?
Sure, you can choose to expose a film at box speed, or at your own preferend iso for the light meter to play with. You just have to learn how to develop it right...
Problem that pops up, is that with film, change the developer, change the agitation pattern, change the time you dump the developer out... You create things that change how the developed negative comes out to you.
SO if say using rodinal and foma 400, "barney" claims you can only get good shots using EI 320 setting and 1+50, but mike shoots box speed and uses 1+100, and so forth... why does one even CARE what the light meter or even the iso being shot at?
To further the point... I leave my nikon digital on auto ISO.... when i get bored i toss it to auto modes and take random exposures on things... I learned that using the EV scale i can change the shutter speed 2 or 3 times,,, and using the same aperture, i can drop the AE iso from 20,000 down to 800 with no trouble...
I think what he's saying is that you can vary the ISO setting on film a little (from box speed) and a whole lot on digital and the cameras will still be able to provide a shot that's exposed OK. We're not limited to some preset selection of ISO. I don't think he's saying the triangle of exposure can be ignored.
I feel the opposite is the case - many film beginners and youtubers these days seem to treat EI as another variable along with shutter speed and aperture, which it isn't, or at least seem to vastly overestimate the usefulness of varying it. Maybe that's a misunderstanding coming from digital cameras, people see they can adjust ISO on a film camera as well and think it does the same thing... maybe also the OP's misunderstanding. Of course EI can be varied if light dictates or tweaked a bit to suit other process variables, but sensitivity is baked into the emulsion and straying very far from the ideal exposure (especially towards underexposure, leeway for everexposure is often significant but nothing is gained by giving more exposure beyond a point) will only yield special effects negatives.I am not quite sure what the OP is saying, but I will respond to this part:
"SO if say using rodinal and foma 400, "barney" claims you can only get good shots using EI 320 setting and 1+50, but mike shoots box speed and uses 1+100, and so forth... why does one even CARE what the light meter or even the iso being shot at?"
I don't see how if people shoot at different EI's why they would have less need to meter to get the proper exposure.
But this raises the question of why people shoot the same film at different EI's. I often see where a beginner will ask what the best EI to use with film and developer like Tri-X and D-76 is. People will offer suggestions, and off the beginner will go shooting at the speed recommended.
I have mixed feelings about this. People need to start somewhere, and it is not bad to give a suggestion that may generally give satisfactory results. But it troubles me if the beginner goes off and shoots with that EI exclusively without ever knowing why. Sometimes people will glue down some camera adjustments, like the X flash setting on my Mamiya C330 lenses, so it won't get set wrong. If someone just blindly uses an EI it is like they have glued down one dimension of the exposure triangle.
There are some objectively measured characteristics of film, like its curve and speed point. But ultimately, the choice of EI is a subjective decision based on what the photographer is trying to achieve. More than other parameters like aperture and shutter speed, beginners are apt to get the impression that there is just one EI that is best for everything that can be scientifically determined. I am not accusing anyone on Photrio of saying such a thing, but beginners sometimes get that impression, partly because manufacturers print the film's box speed in big letters on the package and it seems one should follow the maker's guidance. But we can see how in the case of Delta 3200 and Tmax P3200, if they don't read the fine print that says what the films' ISO's really are, doing what is printed on the box may not be ideal.
You don't want to overwhelm newbies initially, But I agree that it is best if they eventually do some testing so they begin to understand the effects of changes in exposure and development to be able to optimize parameters for the work they do. The question is how to get them from point A to point B. Maybe direct them to some good reading materials or tutorials.
The way I read the OP's question is that exposure index is useless when conveying information about exposure because by itself it's not universal. It depends on one's metering and development. In practice this means that if I take someone's advice of exposing HP5+ at 250 and "copy&paste" it into my workflow, I may end up with a result very different from the person's giving advice.
If that's the case I agree wholeheartedly. I always ignore EI comments for this reason.
What matters is how many photons hit the film.
The way I read the OP's question is that exposure index is useless when conveying information about exposure because by itself it's not universal. It depends on one's metering and development. In practice this means that if I take someone's advice of exposing HP5+ at 250 and "copy&paste" it into my workflow, I may end up with a result very different from the person's giving advice.
If that's the case I agree wholeheartedly. I always ignore EI comments for this reason.
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?