J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> If you recall this discussion started because Kodak recently claimed
> that
> their newer technology film TMAX 400, offered same image quality at 3
> times the speed
> as their old one PLUS-X. SAME QUALITY, but faster speed. That is not a
> hypothetical,
And as you in turn may or may not recall, that point got an
immediate reaction from people who had used both films, pointing
out that even if the *numbers* look the same, the *look* of the
images produced is different because of the shape of the grain.
So _they're_not_interchangeable_ on the attributes other than
speed!
So the stated scenario -- two films that differ only in speed --
is still only hypothetical.
> Secondly are you claiming the more than 2-3 times you wish you had a
> slower film
> was because the film you were using was too fast for your camera's
> shutter or because the
> you wished could have used a slower film to get better quality?
Too fast for my shutter at the aperture I wanted to use, or too
fast for my sync speed when I wanted to use flash (since I do not
yet have a flashbulb holder to plug into the FP socket and a stash
of slow-burning bulbs to put in it).
There have _also_ been cases where I wished I'd brought
finer-image-quality film that would also have been slower,
but I was not counting those; I'm only counting the cases
where speed itself was the relevant factor.
> There is only one advantage to a slower
> film compared
> to a faster of same quality, SLOWER SHUTTER SPEEDS when needed. But that
> is very seldom
> needed and when not needed it is a actually a distinct disadvantge. That
> is the point
> I am trying to make.
Look, we GET IT. It's not that we fail to understand that;
it's that we disagree over the magnitude and significance of
the phrase "very seldom".
Let me try that again: in my previous message, the one to which
you replied, I myself pointed out that yes, there have been more
times I've wished for faster film than times I've wished for
slower, which should make it clear that I both understand the
phenomenon _and_ understand which situation occurs more often.
I thought I had also made it clear, attempting to reiterate a
point someone else had, I thought, said fairly plainly, that
despite the _relative_ infrequency of such situations, some of
us do encounter circumstances in which we wish for a slower
film often enough to be glad that the slower options exist for
speed reasons as well as for image-quality reasons.
Not only do we GET YOUR POINT, we've restated your point to
make it obvious that we get it and that we're pointing out
situations that make your "usually" not the same as "effectively
always".
As for it being a disadvantage when it's not an advantage,
well a great many things fail to be neutral when they're
not advantageous. There's a reason I prefer to cary an
assortment of different kinds of film, rather than a bag
full of just one type.
-- Glenn
