Looking at EXIF data from iPhone photos adds some fun -- stuff like 1/2959 at f/2.2, 1/2653 @ f/2.2, 1/437 @ f/2.2 -- it appears to do micro adjustments of shutter speed using aperture priority for a sizable (no doubt maximum) aperture.
In Connecticut, where I grew up, it is always 'grinder'. To me, this sounds far less obscene than Philadelphia's 'hoagie' or New York's 'hero'.Okay... I’ll play. After a 10-hour workday I’m feisty!
A light meter measures light in scientific terms - lumen or lux or candelas - not a “LV”. The presence of an exposure calculator (or direct exposure readout) makes the photographic meter, indeed, an exposure meter.
Shutter time vs shutter speed is classic mental masturbation...
There are some things that are really wrong, like calling a tomato a vegetable instead of a fruit. But then there are some things not worth making more precise, like hoagie vs submarine. Now “grinder”... THAT’S something totally different.
there are several speed ranges:
the old one:
1 - 2 - 5 -10 - 25 - 50 - 100 -200 - 400
the current one
1 – 2 – 4 – 8 – 15 – 30 – 60 – 125 – 250 – 500 – 1000 – 2000 – 4000
the correct one
1 – 2 – 4 – 8 – 16 – 32 – 64 – 128 – 256 – 512 – 1024 – 2048 – 4096
The issue with the common, actually applied versions (late and current) is just that they are intended to avoid crooked mumbers. That is all. No idea what "scientific" has to to with that.
I rather wonder that those numbers are reason for discussion, but not the terminlogy "shutter speed", when actually times or more correct time-periods are given (by means of nominator of a fraction).
I am confused here: "512" refers to a shutter speed (time), not a film speed index.1 – 2 – 4 – 8 – 16 – 32 – 64 – 128 – 256 – 512 – 1024 – 2048 – 4096 is not connect. We are working with film which is not digital, rather analog. I use ISO 400 speed film not 512.
I am confused here: "512" refers to a shutter speed (time), not a film speed index.
EDIT: Sorry, you DID mean film speed. OK, so what? The geometric theory here does not neatly conform with the easier to read and digest '400'. But the range is still correct, in that '512' is faster than '400. - David Lyga
Shutter time vs shutter speed is classic mental masturbation....
It is something Rockwell concocted; it's the difference between linear or geometric timing and both are designed to double or half the exposure just like a step in aperture change does.I’ve never heard that terminology distinction of “scientific “ Vs “geometric “. Is that something Rockwell concocted or is it common lingo that is just new to me? I use shutters with both (different shutters, of course) and always thought of it as older and newer sped progressions. But beyond that I never really worried about the difference or really wondered.
It is something Rockwell concocted; it's the difference between linear or geometric timing and both are designed to double or half the exposure just like a step in aperture change does.
Not for someone constantly switching between languages. Then this or even more something as shutter-priority AE versus aperture AE are each time a kind of stepping stone, making one pause, thinking whether one got it right. At least that is my experience.
I am old (REALLY OLD) enough to have witnessed cameras whose shutter speed designations were routinely stated non-geometrically. What I never could understand was WHY it was somehow 'better' to state shutter speeds in that way, since transferring data, via EV values, would then be very difficult.
god bye: data analysis and welcome : data paralysis!Now that’s what we want... truly accurate exposure data!
I do wish that I could understand what is so restrictive about geometrical analysis. I see no straitjackets at work here. - David Lygagod bye: data analysis and welcome : data paralysis!
And that intellect on the part of a prescient Nikon pleases David Lyga. Why? Because the progression is geometric, allowing for easy EV transfer.The Nikon F3 which was introduced 40 years ago has the standard shutter speed listed in the service manual as following
1/1000 0.976mS
1/500 1.95mS
1/250 3.91mS
1/125 7.81mS
1/60 15.6mS
1/30 31.2mS
1/15 62.5mS
1/8 125mS
1/4 250mS
1/2 500mS
Which correspond to 1024, 512, 256, 128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2 etc..
Just tell me to shut up when you have had enough. - David LygaI love this stuff! Thanks David!
I get confused by the use of the term “G-cramp” in British English and “C-clamp” in American English for the same tool. But it’s just not that difficult to understand synonyms. Determining which one is proper and correct might initiate another revolution!Not for someone constantly switching between languages. Then this or even more something as shutter-priority AE versus aperture AE are each time a kind of stepping stone, making one pause, thinking whether one got it right. At least that is my experience.
All ranges shown in this thread are linear (arithmetic), not geometric.
So I have no idea what Rockwell is talking about.
Okay... I’ll play. After a 10-hour workday I’m feisty!
A light meter measures light in scientific terms - lumen or lux or candelas - not a “LV”. The presence of an exposure calculator (or direct exposure readout) makes the photographic meter, indeed, an exposure meter.
Shutter time vs shutter speed is classic mental masturbation...
There are some things that are really wrong, like calling a tomato a vegetable instead of a fruit. But then there are some things not worth making more precise, like hoagie vs submarine. Now “grinder”... THAT’S something totally different.
Not for someone constantly switching between languages. Then this or even more something as shutter-priority AE versus aperture AE are each time a kind of stepping stone, making one pause, thinking whether one got it right. At least that is my experience.
I get confused by the use of the term “G-cramp” in British English and “C-clamp” in American English for the same tool. But it’s just not that difficult to understand synonyms. Determining which one is proper and correct might initiate another revolution!
My Graphic22 and Ciro-flex have Wolli shutters that go 10-25-50-100-200...When you have: 1, 2, 5, 10, 25,, 50, 100, 300 .... you increase too fast and this is not mere 'rounding error; but, rather, a skewed presentation which is not easily transferable with regard to EVs...- David Lyga
Little jump plus little jump adds up. Your end figure for the Rolleiflex should, theoretically be "125" which is quite different from "250", a full step off. Hence: 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 125 - David LygaMy Graphic22 and Ciro-flex have Wolli shutters that go 10-25-50-100-200
And a Rollieflex at 1-2-5-10-25-50-100-250
All close enough to one stop apart to make little difference to me, since my metering system is different (figure out the exposure needs, pick a suitable aperture/shutter speed combo for the image, and set the shutter as close as possible. With the Rollei, if I have fast film and plenty of light, I might take advantage of the slightly bigger jump in shutter speed that going from 1/100 to 1/250 can give me (might be 1/200 anyway with these old workhorses).
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?