Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,717   Posts: 1,514,832   Online: 910
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    The reason I asked that question is that the best fit to the Bond data for those two films plots as two parallel lines on log-log paper. The lines will never cross.
    Gadget Gainer

  2. #12
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    I have to admit to a rash statement. Oh, well. There's a first time for everything. If I use my own equation for reciprocity correction:
    tc = tm^1.62*a +tm
    where tm is the value of exposure time your light meter would read and tc is the exposure as corrected for reciprocity failure, and solve for tm1 where tc1 = tc2 when film 1 has ISO 400, a=.1 and film 2 has ISO 100, a = .01, I find that when tm1 = 25793.42 seconds and tm2 = 103173.68 seconds, tc1=tc2= 1427459 seconds. That is 396.52 hours, or 16.52 days. If you had a meter that would measure such a low light values, it would only be used for photographing coal mines at midnight, or scenes above the Arctic Circle at night time.

    Films 1 and 2 are closely represented in the real world by HP5+ and some of the modern films. The a coefficient I found for TMX was about .05, and TMY was about the same. That means that TMY is definitely faster than HP5+ at any metered exposure > 1 second, but so also is Delta 400.
    Gadget Gainer

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin