daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 14, 2011 14:48:50 GMT -5
This is totally by the way, but: The first lady and the (presumably) man in the background are both wearing rings. I have always considered that a no-no for engineers. If the ring snags on something on the machine, it's end of finger.
Peter, as always a fascinating insight. Thanks.
What always surprises me is that some things are covered ad nauseam on the internet, while for others information is distinctly lacking, or at least vague. Take the Wiki entries for 35mm and 135 film. Amongst other things here is a veritable treatise on the perforation sizes and shapes in the former and the latter seems to have more on the cameras that the film. There is nothing (that I have seen so far) on the dates of introduction of different speeds of film. I think kodachrome in those days was possibly as slow as 10 ASA. Certainly I remember using 25 and 64 ASA kodachrome in the sixties and seventies. Just what was the fastest B&W film of the 1940s? (Without being push-processed that is.) All links gratefully received.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 16:50:36 GMT -5
I can remember when Kodachrome was ASA 25 and it seems I can remember when it was slower than that -- in the 1950s. Anyone know when the film speeds changed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 16:57:45 GMT -5
Ah. Just as I thought. According to Wikipedia, from 1955 to 1962 Kodachrome had an ASA of 12. I was lucky because my Ansco Super Memar had an F2 lens. It was pretty touch to shoot it unless you had a flash or were in bright sunlight--or had a lot of tripod experience.
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Sept 12, 2011 19:02:41 GMT -5
Wayne, ASA 12 and f2 - tough (?) indeed. Did you ever think that you'd see usable ISO/ASA of 3200 and above? Or, for that matter, digital cameras or, for that matter, pixel peepers who complain of a DSLR's noise at ISO-3200?
I was always torn between Ektachrome E100 and E200 - the grain of the former was so much finer than the latter. Since February, Kodak have made the choice easier by dropping E200 altogether.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 19:17:00 GMT -5
Panatomix X was the black and white equivalent of Kodachrome, as as slow speed was concerned,
Even with the high digital ISOs I seldom shoot at above 400 unless there is absolutely no way to get an image.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Sept 13, 2011 20:27:48 GMT -5
I recall Ilford XP something or other that was a black and white film that was C41 processed and had exceedingly fine grain as well as unbelievable latitude.
I didn't ask Google about it but I wonder if its successors and heirs have survived to this day.
Mickey
|
|
|
Post by olroy2044 on Sept 13, 2011 21:11:32 GMT -5
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Oct 28, 2011 3:31:40 GMT -5
RIP ... so sad, that it is gone :-( There is nothing like it ... neither in the analog nor in the digital world of photography.
|
|