John Shaw in one (several?) of his excellent and widely acclaimed books, state that he wished that camera manufacturers didn't put ISO values on camera bodies but the letter A, B, C, D etc and that film manufacturers should state on the film box that the photographer should set the camera to whatever letter that give the photographer the expousre HE is happy with when using THAT film. Hence, whether a photographer expose Velvia at 40 or 50 ISO depend on what HE thinks give HIM the correct exposure.
This is stupid, since the film manufacturer can't know how each and every particular person would want it too look like. So they're sticking to hard facts and measurable things, like ISO rating.
No profes! sional photographer I know of set out to test whther Velvia is really a 50ISO film.
Then they have no business making any claim on the ISO rating not being accurate.
> They don't care.
So why are they so vocal.
And as for basing statements on data; you don't.
I didn't make any claims either.
You have no personal data either: the fact that you may not be able to nail exposure consistently within 1/3s doesn't prove anything about the rest of us.
I haven't made any claims of getting 1/3 precision exposure on my films. I don't have to prove something I have not stated. And stop assuming things about my person.
It's you that claimed that precision, including really stupid things like "meters with 100% accuracy". I severely doubted it, and it turned out that your method of evaluating the results had no precision whatsoever. It was just a "I put them on a light table and I think they are in 1/3 stop precision". Bwahahaha. Use a microdensitometer or drop your claims.
cheers, caveman
