ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Best film for scanning with FS 2710





Johnny Deadman wrote:

> on 6/21/01 7:37 PM, Arthur Entlich at artistic@ampsc.com wrote:
> 
> 
>>> I use a lot of this film pushed to +3 stops..according to Kodak the 
>resulting
>>> ASA numbers are 200 (normal), 320, 640, 1000. Even at 1000 it still has very
>>> low
>>> grain (a bit less than a 400ASA print film), of course you have to be 
>careful
>>> since it will not tolerate improper exposures at ASA1000. Pushed +3 its a
>>> good
>>> film for available light photography. Extremely fine grain when used at 200
>>> or
>>> 320.
>> 
>> OK, now I'm confused.  I thought taking ASA 200 film up three 'stops'
>> meant 200 to 400 to 800 to 1600 ISO/ASA. As I understood "stops" it was
>> an additional f-stop.  I thought each "full" f-stop more open increased
>> the amount of light reaching the film by a factor of 2, which was also
>> equivalent to one shutter speed position lower.  So, if I had a 200 ASA
>> film without any pushing, and the perfect expose was 1/125th sec at
>> f/5.6, that I could also take this same image at either 1/250th sec at
>> f5.6 or at 1/125th sec at f4.0 if I had the film push processed for one
>> additional stop, and so on.
> 
> 
> you were going pretty good until the last bit. If you pushed the film a
> stop, you could used 1/250 @ f/5.6 or 1/125 @ f/8 NOT f/4.

Yeah, what he said ;-)

Thanks for the correction,

Not firing on all neurons...

Art




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.