Talk:Film speed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Speed of Kodak T-MAX p3200[edit]

T-max p3200 is listed as 1000 along with delta 3200, but the Kodak T-MAX page says that it is a 800 speed film (this is my understanding a well). (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As well as I know, 1000 is closer, but 800 is within the uncertainty. The actual ISO value depends on which developer you use.
even more, note that there are two different films with almost the same name, and both with the TMZ code. (This is true for TMX and TMY, too.)
But mostly, the characteristic (D-H) curves for TMZ (both of them), and Delta 3200 are not usual. They don't have a real straight line section, and so the ISO measurement isn't quite as good as you might hope.
Even more, this film has exceptionally poor keeping qualities. Even frozen, there are enough cosmic rays to fog it. If you have any to use, EI 400 is probably the best choice. Gah4 (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


There is an unsourced tag for the section Digital camera ISO speed and exposure index. Seems to me that it cites, among others, the ISO standard itself. Now, it isn't so convenient in that you have to pay for the ISO standard, but I don't see how it can be called unsourced. Gah4 (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That ref is in the 'The ISO 12232:2006 standard' subsection. I intended the unsourced template to relate to the section before that, but did not know how to indicate that using such a template. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the subsection is within the section. The part before the ISO 12232:2006 standard subsection is, as well as I know, the introduction to the section. That is, an overview of the following subsections where the actual details are spelled out and referenced. I am not a Wikipedia expert, but I believe that is reasonable. As above, though, the fact that the ISO standard isn't free to look at is inconvenient. (There are some standard sites that now allow free access for non-commercial use.) Gah4 (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Film speed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


Could somebody add a sentence or two about the topic of ISO-Invariance, please? Thanks! Bonomont (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

ISO in digital cameras[edit]

It would be good to have a separate article on ISO in digital cameras, as it is so widely misunderstood mainly because of its heritage and meaning in film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisvdberge (talkcontribs) 12:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)