Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,939   Posts: 1,557,420   Online: 942
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,199
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by StorminMatt View Post
    I have a friend who is REALLY into car audio. And one of the big problems with SO much car audio equipment is the way that amplifier power is just SO overrated. Amplifiers often claim outrageous numbers such as 500 watts per channel RMS when you KNOW this just can't be true (especially when such an amp bears only a 20 amp fuse, which NEVER blows). In fact, amps like these have been tested to barely produce 30 watts per channel RMS! So it would appear that there is, in general, no law whatsoever that requires a product to live up to the numbers a manufacturer places on it. Of course, there may be specific laws for film ISO that don't exist for, say, power output of amplifiers. But I have never heard of such a thing.
    Matt;

    There is a law, and Kodak abides by it. Whether others do is another matter and up to them and other organizations that set such standards.

    Among other things, one of our first courses at EK is "Ethical Business Practices". So, I know what you are talking about and I know what is done by EK and others.

    PE

  2. #22
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,599
    Images
    60
    Audio power numbers have always been subject to huge distortions (pun intended).

    The ratings are meaningless, unless they also refer to distortion levels.

    IIRC, an RMS power rating for an amplifier often says more about the power supply in the box than it says about the music or sound that comes out of the speakers hooked up to that box.

    Matt

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Audio power numbers have always been subject to huge distortions (pun intended).
    This is obvious. But my point is that it would appear that manufacturers of audio equipment are not legally bound to produce products that live up to their claims. The same is true for a multitude of other products, such as aftermarket exhaust headers for cars that claim to add outrageous amounts of horsepower. Given all these sorts of things, I just don't think things are any different for film manufacturers. Might Kodak (or any other film manufacturer) voluntarily decide to be truthful in order to protect their good name? Perhaps. But this doesn't mean that they are legally bound to make good on their claims.

  4. #24
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,199
    Images
    65
    They are legally bound, but nothing happens until someone takes them to court for failing to be bound by the law.

    It is like a person who steals. They keep at it until caught and jailed. When released, they probably start again, and if never jailed they would have continued.

    Have you ever called a manufacturer on a car stereo device? I do know that we at Kodak had strict ISO specifications to follow for each aim point in product development. If we missed that aim, the product was not released or the claim was changed. This is fact, and was done to preserve the name. I also know that some other companies played more loosely by those rules.

    PE

  5. #25
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,194
    When I worked at Kodak, employees could buy the professional grades of photographic paper that did not make the grade at the cost of cutting and packaging the paper. The paper was so good that I could never detect a problem with it. Kodak did not want this product in the hands of the public.

    Integrity and honesty was considered part of the Kodak quality.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  6. #26
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,878
    Rather than paying any attention to amplifier power ratings, I've found that it's more accurate to pick the amplifier up and see how heavy it is. Heavy doesn't mean that it's powerful, but if it's light, it definitely ain't powerful (discounting digital/classD/T architectures).

    I usually assume that consumer-grade color print film is 1/2-1 stop slower than what's on the box. I've had better luck with them this way.
    f/22 and be there.

  7. #27
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,199
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    When I worked at Kodak, employees could buy the professional grades of photographic paper that did not make the grade at the cost of cutting and packaging the paper. The paper was so good that I could never detect a problem with it. Kodak did not want this product in the hands of the public.

    Integrity and honesty was considered part of the Kodak quality.

    Steve
    Steve;

    Selling this type of product was unknown to me. All unsalable paper or film was scrap, pure and simple, and was sent to silver recovery. None was sold.

    PE

  8. #28
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,199
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    I usually assume that consumer-grade color print film is 1/2-1 stop slower than what's on the box. I've had better luck with them this way.
    Color print film meets ANSI standards for ISO speed so the box speed on Kodak film is the true speed. However, IMHO, better pictures are obtained by using 1/3 stop overexposure or 100 for 160, and 320 for 400 as examples.

    This is due to the structure of the film, and not the speed, and is not fully defined by the ANSI/ISO standard.

    Of course, not everyone adheres to speed definitions in their manufacturing-release processes.

    PE

  9. #29
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Steve;

    Selling this type of product was unknown to me. All unsalable paper or film was scrap, pure and simple, and was sent to silver recovery. None was sold.

    PE
    PE
    That is what I was told at the Kodak store. I never found a difference and the paper from camera stores. Maybe that was miss information given as the reason for the paper being so cheap.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  10. #30
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,199
    Images
    65
    At the Rochester employee store, they sold regular product. Outdated material was sometimes available at reduced price. Unusable material for any reason never got to the packing stage. That is what I observed here.

    PE

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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