Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 386905" data-attributes="member: 12496">I am sorry to be a spoil-sport, and the &quot;see what you can do with no settings&quot; does seem an interesting goal, but I fear the No. 1 Kodak is merely a serious and unrelated complication today.For one thing, today, ISO 100, f/9, and 1/100 second is two stops overexposed in bright daylight.&nbsp; Which is really tough on digital.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />But I also maintain those are also invalid numbers&nbsp; for the No. 1.&nbsp; We see lots of early Kodak pictures with dark shadows in bright&nbsp; sun.&nbsp; Negative film did have much more latitude to be corrected in the&nbsp; darkroom (overexposure was often considered a plus. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> ), where digital and JPG are relatively limited. But two stops as a goal?&nbsp; Does not seem real.Film speed was NOT equivalent to ISO 100 in 1899.&nbsp; I have no clue what it was, but ASA 50 to 80 was more typical in the 1950s (for general purpose use).&nbsp; (and yes, Kodak did summarily double all those ASA numbers in 1960... less safety factor since more meters were in use, and color was creeping in).And f/9 was not f/9 in 1899.&nbsp; There were several systems of numbering apertures.&nbsp;&nbsp; F/stops nomenclature was invented earlier, but not in wide use until maybe at least the 1930s.&nbsp;&nbsp; What was in wide use in early century was the &quot;U.S. System&quot; of aperture nomenclature (heavily influenced by Kodak, in the UK too), and it's f/9 was closer to f/stop f/12 or f/13.&nbsp; &nbsp; I once had my dads Kodak folding camera from around 1930, and its aperture numbers did not match f/stops even then.&nbsp; Could not use a 1950s light meter with it.And later on, say in the 1950s, the Brownies had shutter speeds not exceeding 1/50 second, if that.I would suggest something from Sunny 16 bright sun as being a more general box camera setting today.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 386905, member: 12496"] I am sorry to be a spoil-sport, and the "see what you can do with no settings" does seem an interesting goal, but I fear the No. 1 Kodak is merely a serious and unrelated complication today. For one thing, today, ISO 100, f/9, and 1/100 second is two stops overexposed in bright daylight. Which is really tough on digital. :) But I also maintain those are also invalid numbers for the No. 1. We see lots of early Kodak pictures with dark shadows in bright sun. Negative film did have much more latitude to be corrected in the darkroom (overexposure was often considered a plus. :) ), where digital and JPG are relatively limited. But two stops as a goal? Does not seem real. Film speed was NOT equivalent to ISO 100 in 1899. I have no clue what it was, but ASA 50 to 80 was more typical in the 1950s (for general purpose use). (and yes, Kodak did summarily double all those ASA numbers in 1960... less safety factor since more meters were in use, and color was creeping in). And f/9 was not f/9 in 1899. There were several systems of numbering apertures. F/stops nomenclature was invented earlier, but not in wide use until maybe at least the 1930s. What was in wide use in early century was the "U.S. System" of aperture nomenclature (heavily influenced by Kodak, in the UK too), and it's f/9 was closer to f/stop f/12 or f/13. I once had my dads Kodak folding camera from around 1930, and its aperture numbers did not match f/stops even then. Could not use a 1950s light meter with it. And later on, say in the 1950s, the Brownies had shutter speeds not exceeding 1/50 second, if that. I would suggest something from Sunny 16 bright sun as being a more general box camera setting today. [/QUOTE]

Verification