Gee, I didn't mean to piss in your wheaties.
First, I didn't read your August post. Secondly, I read the post I originally referred to at face value. I wasn't trying to imply that you didn't know that. If that is what you implied, I apologize. I only pointed out that the statement, taken on its face, was misleading (again not having read your August post).
Instead I get a chest beating 45+ years of experience and condescending lesson. You win. You got me by over 20 years.
My one and only major point was that simply moving to a faster film will not change your depth of field.
Lets see if we can agree on something:
1) Loading the camera with a faster film, absent an automatic or manual change of aperture, will not change DOF. Aperture controls depth of field.
Agreed?
2) Reasons to move to a faster film, for arguments sake, one stop's worth (100 to 200, 200 to 400) will allow the user to:
a) Move to a faster shutter speed (to better capture movement) or
b) Move to smaller f-stop (to increase depth of field)
or
c) Increase the amount of chemical reaction of the film to light at the existing exposure settings.
If one moves to from 100 to 400, the equivalent of 2 f-stops, these adjustments are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Agreed?
My point that you took issue with, mostly do to my lack of clarity, "negating the advantage of 400 speed film" needs clarification.
I sometimes recommend moving to 400 speed film to point and shooters for reason c) above. With exposure controls and strobe light fixed, certain underwater limited light situations would be better served with a faster film. My point was that if you double your film speed, then decrease your aperture one stop, you no longer gain the advantage of c) above.
Agreed?
Just one more point. This is just a personal anal distinction. Yes, shutter speed, aperture and film speed are all interrelated. I make a distinction between shutter speed and aperture - that which controls light passing through the camera, and film speed, a chemical reaction to those light rays allowed to the film via shutter speed and aperture. My term direct referred to the control of the light itself, with indirect referring to how that light is processed on film. Semantics, I know.
I acquiesce to your omniscience with regard to all things photographic in the future.
First, I didn't read your August post. Secondly, I read the post I originally referred to at face value. I wasn't trying to imply that you didn't know that. If that is what you implied, I apologize. I only pointed out that the statement, taken on its face, was misleading (again not having read your August post).
Instead I get a chest beating 45+ years of experience and condescending lesson. You win. You got me by over 20 years.
My one and only major point was that simply moving to a faster film will not change your depth of field.
Lets see if we can agree on something:
1) Loading the camera with a faster film, absent an automatic or manual change of aperture, will not change DOF. Aperture controls depth of field.
Agreed?
2) Reasons to move to a faster film, for arguments sake, one stop's worth (100 to 200, 200 to 400) will allow the user to:
a) Move to a faster shutter speed (to better capture movement) or
b) Move to smaller f-stop (to increase depth of field)
or
c) Increase the amount of chemical reaction of the film to light at the existing exposure settings.
If one moves to from 100 to 400, the equivalent of 2 f-stops, these adjustments are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Agreed?
My point that you took issue with, mostly do to my lack of clarity, "negating the advantage of 400 speed film" needs clarification.
I sometimes recommend moving to 400 speed film to point and shooters for reason c) above. With exposure controls and strobe light fixed, certain underwater limited light situations would be better served with a faster film. My point was that if you double your film speed, then decrease your aperture one stop, you no longer gain the advantage of c) above.
Agreed?
Just one more point. This is just a personal anal distinction. Yes, shutter speed, aperture and film speed are all interrelated. I make a distinction between shutter speed and aperture - that which controls light passing through the camera, and film speed, a chemical reaction to those light rays allowed to the film via shutter speed and aperture. My term direct referred to the control of the light itself, with indirect referring to how that light is processed on film. Semantics, I know.
I acquiesce to your omniscience with regard to all things photographic in the future.
