Looks cold and wet and nasty, Bob. I take it you were out in it, pitched against the fury of the storm with rain pelting down all over. Great testimony to your dedication and Nikon's waterproof seals, right? color> mark greenhillsize=3>color> A u s t r a l i acolor>
>Looks cold and wet and nasty, Bob. I take it you were out >in it, pitched against the fury of the storm with rain >pelting down all over. Great testimony to your dedication >and Nikon's waterproof seals, right?
Actually, garage and doorways are good protection (most of the time)
>I think it is interesting that the tree near the street is >barely moving but the tree by the house is being whipped >into a blur. > >Probably a stupid question but here goes any way: Has >digital killed off reciprocity failure?
Since I have mainly been shooting in the last 5 years and mainly with digital - I am not sure what reciprocity failure is or what it would look like ....
>Since I have mainly been shooting in the last 5 years and >mainly with digital - I am not sure what reciprocity failure >is or what it would look like ....
Being raised on film myself, I have often wondered the same thing; has digital photography put an end to repricocity failure, which is the point at which film slows down when exposed for extended lengths of time, especially in the shadow detail department. I have found that far more recoverable shadow detail is recorded digitally than is the case when an image is captured on film. Does anyone know the answer to this question? color> mark greenhillsize=3>color> A u s t r a l i acolor>
In the November issue of "Outdoor Photographer" George Lepp discusses this issue in his column. He comments on the better sensors, larger pixel size (if I remember correctly) and better camera algorithms leading to better performance of modern digital sensors compared to film.
For you youngsters, film cartons have charts that give suggested increased exposure durations for long exposures. I don't have a box handy, but exposure settings aren't reciprocal for long exposures - and film actually has to be exposed a bit longer to achieve the correct exposure.
What do we mean by exposure reciprocity? 1/2 sec @ f/2 is the same as 1 sec @ f/2.8 is the same as 2 sec @ f/4 is the same as 4 sec @ f/5.6 and so on. The problem is, that the reciprocal longer exposure times needed to be exposed longer for exposure to be (close to) correct. As Mark says, this was a particular problem in the shadows.
>What do we mean by exposure reciprocity? > >I hope I didn't confuse you all.
Thanks Bob, a common confusion over two similar words with totally different meanings.
I'm sure you meant Repricocity, which is what you have defined extremely well.
Reciprocity is a general philosophical principle of Ethics upon which most philosophies and religions are based. color> Comments / criticism welcomed color> mark greenhillsize=3>color> A u s t r a l i acolor>
Mark - Perhaps I was taught incorrectly, or perhaps the language has changed, but I learned the concept as reciprocity failure, George Lepp used the phrase reciprocity reciprocity failure in his column, and the concept was explained as reciprocity failure in the NYIP course I took.
But - a quick Google search reveals that you're correct. Perhaps bad proofing in the articles etc. I've read through the years have allowed the incorrect word to creep into general use. The thing that's interesting is that the concept made sense to me the first time I heard it, because I linked the concept to mathematical reciprocals in my mind. I guess it's good that I "got it" before I learned that my word link was fallacious. Even the definition from dictionary.com (a so-so authority to be sure, but I'm lazy today) would lead one to use the word reciprocity:
reciprocal --> corresponding; matching; complementary; equivalent - which appears to describe the fact that exposure of 1/60 @ f/2.8 is the same as 1/30 @ f/4 rather well
>I am shaken to my core. Don't worry Bob, so was I when I discovered these two tricky words some years ago - the confusion between them is perpetuated even in technical texts that should know better.color>
>exposure of 1/60 @ f/2.8 is the same as 1/30 @ f/4 Hmm, I'm not so sure about that one either Bob. I thought that 1/60 @ f/2.8 is the same as 1/30 @ f/3.5color> mark greenhillsize=3>color> A u s t r a l i acolor>
>1 stop difference between 1/60 and 1/30, 1 stop difference >between f/2.8 and f/4. It's a 2/3 stop difference between >f/2.8 and f/3.5 - at least according to my hand-dandy >aperture table. OK, I was just going by own memory of my old film cams that had f/stops engraved on the aperture ring. I just checked an old F2.8 Pentax lens, and you are right and I was wrong on this one - the next setting after f/2.8 is f/4color> >Do you think we're boring anyone yet? I doubt it ... at least we are on topic and not just chattering about the cricket! color> mark greenhillsize=3>color> A u s t r a l i acolor>
stanjan0 wrote: >I thought that reciprocity ment when my best friend and I >switched girl friends and we both made out................
I like that Stan!!!! .... and it kinda fits in with what Bob just said, >'You'll find the word first mentioned in the section called "How to do it", just about even with the heading "Recent Deviations."color> }> }> mark greenhillsize=3>color> A u s t r a l i acolor>
>Hi, > >I'm confused. Ik can't find "Repricocity" in any on-line >dictionary or in the Britannica. Ansel Adams uses the word >"Reciprocity" and this seems like a logical word to me. But >then: I'm Dutch. > >Guy
I don't know what is mentioned in the provided link as it is broken for me. FYI reciprocity failure is where a film sensitivity does not follow the reciprical rule where you can move to the next higher f number and just double the exposure time.
When film is exposed at around 10seconds or longer doubling the exposure time with next higher f number does NOT provide sufficient photons to create a correctly exposed latent image. The solution is to refer to the manufacturers reciprocity tables (e.g. Kodak red book) which provide the correct exposure time to use for the chosen f stop.
1. I do not find "repricocity" in either Merriam-Webster's or Cambridge's online dictionary. I find "reciprocity" on both. What is the root word of "repricocity", and in which dictionary is it defined? I Googled "repricocity" and only found it used by Ilford and by web forum participants, neither of which I would consider definitive.
2. Why am I spending my time writing this when I have far more pressing business to attend to?