"scientific" vs "geometric" shutter speed designations

[BrianShaw]

In the times of changeover Gossen introduced in 1952 a meter that even showed old and new range:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendenreihe_(Optik)#/media/Datei:Skala_Gossen_Sixtomat_1952.jpg

Very cool!

 

[guangong]

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!

H.L. Mencken solved this problem. When 300,000,000 people speak a language, then 80,000,000 people speak a dialect. So C-clamp would be standard English, and G-clamp would be dialect.

 

[John Koehrer]

Grinder=Pole dancer or stripper.

 

[David Lyga]

Grinder=Pole dancer or stripper.

NOT in Connecticut. - David Lyga

 

[MattKing]

In honour of the Stanley Cup playoffs, a grinder is usually a checking winger who plays on the 4th line and specializes in pressuring the other team's players, particularly their defence.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hence: 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 125 - David Lyga

Therefore "- David Lyga" equals 250? Do I have the correctly?

 

[David Lyga]

Therefore "- David Lyga" equals 250? Do I have the correctly?

How dare you! I am only 70!

 

[Sirius Glass]

How dare you! I am only 70!

Which numbering system? Octal, Decimal, Hexadecimal?
708 =5610
7010 = 1010
7016 = 11210

 

[Chan Tran]

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 older 'scientific' progression does NOT aid with this translation because one number does not double (or halve) the next.

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. When a combined EV value is known, as 'EV 15' for T MAX 100 under sunlight, you KNOW how to change the shutter speed and aperture value. You are not 'restricted' to the sunny f16 rule because you now don't have to use only f16. - David Lyga

I don't know why they call it scientific as I can't see anything scientific about it. I think they just want nice numbers that can easily remember. 300 is a nicer number than the exact 256. With those old cameras 1/256 or 1/300 are about the same as you wouldn't know exactly what speed you get any way.

 

[DonW]

Grinder, isn't that the gay Tinder?

 

[BrianShaw]

Grinder, isn't that the gay Tinder?

I certainly wouldn’t know... but I think I heard that on the news once.

 

[Vaughn]

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 Lyga

Quite right. I treat aperture and shutter speed as part of the image, so such jumps are normally taken into account when I decide on the settings...while still realizing those who like nice even markings and/or operate off totally by EV (I do for sheet film), might prefer otherwise. If I want the exposure to be f16 at 1/125th of a second, I just pick the closest shutter speed on the camera (1/100th perhaps), and fudge the aperture if exposure is that critical...it usually is not.

The Rolleiflex 3.5 MX-EVS I use to own had the locking wheels (aperture and shutter speed), but I never saw much use for it...even so, it did have the 1,2,4,8,15,30,60,125,250,500 speed spread. I have a tendency to use a tripod and B most of the time.

 

[David Lyga]

Which numbering system? Octal, Decimal, Hexadecimal?
708 =5610
7010 = 1010
7016 = 11210

Whichever accretes the most years would be most accurate. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

Grinder, isn't that the gay Tinder?

No, it's the queer tinder. - David Lyga

 

[BrianShaw]

No, it's the queer tinder. - David Lyga

There’s a difference? Are we headed to an even different taxonomy discussion??

 

[David Lyga]

I don't know why they call it scientific as I can't see anything scientific about it. I think they just want nice numbers that can easily remember. 300 is a nicer number than the exact 256. With those old cameras 1/256 or 1/300 are about the same as you wouldn't know exactly what speed you get any way.

Except for one thing: that "300" is usually where "125" should be, not "250". - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

There’s a difference? Are we headed to an even different taxonomy discussion??

No, Brian, I just wanted to be funny, since I am always very serious. - David Lyga

 

[BrianShaw]

No, Brian, I just wanted to be funny, since I am always very serious. - David Lyga

OK... the subtlety of your humor eluded me this time.

 

[DWThomas]

OK... the subtlety of your humor eluded me this time.

That's 'cause this thread has gone from scientific to geometric to amorphous! Gaussian noise?! Enh, never mind...

 

[Chan Tran]

Except for one thing: that "300" is usually where "125" should be, not "250". - David Lyga

As you said it does have the 100 which is close enough to the 128 with those old cameras. In my opinion they just didn't like the number 128. 100 is nicer looking number.

 

[David Lyga]

As you said it does have the 100 which is close enough to the 128 with those old cameras. In my opinion they just didn't like the number 128. 100 is nicer looking number.

The problem is that that 'nice' 100 jumps up to 300. That 100 was 'supposed to be 60, and then that huge jump to 300. You can see that as the scale progresses, it becomes more and more illogical. - David Lyga

 

[Chan Tran]

The problem is that that 'nice' 100 jumps up to 300. That 100 was 'supposed to be 60, and then that huge jump to 300. You can see that as the scale progresses, it becomes more and more illogical. - David Lyga

Oh well! When I use one of those old camera like that I would test the shutter speeds and memorize what's the actual speeds are and then use the one that is closet to what I need. I hate cameras that have such a speed scale but I know many people would hate camera that have speed of 128, 256 or 512.
So today most camera manufacturers stay with the compromise of using the current speed scale. The number are not a full stop apart but they calibrate the cameras to have speeds full stop apart. Also many cameras have their 0 small like 25o or 1ooo to mean that the o is only a decimal place and has no significant value.

 

[David Lyga]

Oh well! When I use one of those old camera like that I would test the shutter speeds and memorize what's the actual speeds are and then use the one that is closet to what I need. I hate cameras that have such a speed scale but I know many people would hate camera that have speed of 128, 256 or 512.
So today most camera manufacturers stay with the compromise of using the current speed scale. The number are not a full stop apart but they calibrate the cameras to have speeds full stop apart. Also many cameras have their 0 small like 25o or 1ooo to mean that the o is only a decimal place and has no significant value.

There ARE NO cameras which have a perfectly theoretical scale written as 64, 128, 256, ..... But they DO have what is VIRTUALLY PERFECT with 60, 125, 250, 500 .... The Early scale, the 'scientific' scale is what is confusing with its jumps which make no sense and cannot ever seem to get married to standardized aperture values.

Superimposing geometric speeds (or, as I do, EVs) onto those disparately enumerated shutter speeds allows one, once again, to be able to transition combined EVs with facility. For example, if the scene/film combo demands a combined EV of, say, 12, then we have the option of using f5.6 (= EV 5) + 1/125 (= EV 7) OR just as easily, f2.8 (= EV 3) + 1/500 (= EV 9) OR f11 (= EV 7) + 1/30 (= EV 5).

Thus, as long as the shutter / aperture combined EV adds up to 12, we find success with this specific case.

You see, standardizing on geometric scales allows more facility than the sunny f16 ever dared allow. Scales which 'jump' do not. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

Therefore "- David Lyga" equals 250? Do I have the correctly?

I really hate to bare all in front of the Photrio crowd, but you have forced the issue. Yes, indeed, I am a dastardly '250'. I say this because when I was but 20, I was only '175'.

Keeping weight off when you are older is very, very difficult. The 'appestat conundrum' with its redundantly desperate need to strongly encourage one to keep eating, forces David Lyga, at 6 feet tall, to be technically 'obese'. I do not like that. - David Lyga

 

[AgX]

Also many cameras have their 0 small like 25o or 1ooo to mean that the o is only a decimal place and has no significant value.

First time I hear that. Interesting. I so far considered it just as a matter of typography.

I have to have a second look at some shutter speed dials...