Bob, I honestly haven't read the thread (Why I won't be buying an MZ-S) that this thread branched from, so if there's a bone of contention that I've stumbled upon forgive me my ignorance of it. I was just responding to one of John Coyle's proposals.
However, to suggest that the arguments (on mathematical grounds) really have no merit" is to take a view that may benefit you personally (you're a photojournalist, I believe), but which offers no advantage at all to photographers who do much of their work with either large format gear or with macro rigs. > I would have thought that people advanced enough to do complicated > macro exposure calculations using the f-stop system would have little > trouble reading the results off against a scale to set the aperture, > but many of the replies in this thread make me doubt it.. While this is true, at present we don't need to take that extra step. Why should we support a system that proposed the introduction of an extra step? A similar difference in reasoning exists in the area of film speed rating. ASA speeds were in arithmetical series (i.e twice or half the ASA number indicated twice or half the film speed). DIN speeds were in logarithmic series (i.e. an increase or decrease of 1 DIN indicated an increase or decrease of one third of a stop speed, a doubling or halving of speed only changed the rating by 3 DIN). Apparently the differences were never resolved because current ISO speeds are labelled as a combination of ASA and DIN ratings e.g. 50/18�... 100/21�... 200/24�... 400/27�. Similarly I think this difference of opinion is unresolvable while photographers needs are so various. I'm just as bound to say that your view has no merit, and that the status quo suits me fine, because it works best for me in my area of expertise. We simply have different needs, but because we all need to feed at the same table compromises have been made along the way. Regards, Anthony Farr ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi, > > well, my suggestion was taken rather more seriously by some people > than it really deserves. Several people have argued against it on > mathematical grounds, but the arguments really have no merit. The > scheme I proposed merely replaces one symbol with another. The f-stop > values are in a sequence. My suggestion just uses the, or a, sequence > number rather than the value itself. > > The advantage is that the magnitude of the sequence number is related > directly, rather than inversely, to the size of the aperture and I claim > that this is a more natural way of thinking about it, just as a steering > wheel is a more natural way than a tiller to steer a car. People who need > to use f-stops for advanced calculations lose nothing. > > I would have thought that people advanced enough to do complicated > macro exposure calculations using the f-stop system would have little > trouble reading the results off against a scale to set the aperture, > but many of the replies in this thread make me doubt it... > > One of my favourite stories about the way in which large-brained > people often misunderestimate (to quote large-brained Dubya) lesser > mortals is of Alan Turing, the computer pioneer. For the first > computer he wrote the instructions in base 32 notation with the most > significant digit at the right-hand end. As an advanced mathematician > he thought it obvious that the symbols have no intrinsic connection > with the things symbolised, so any coherent symbol system will do. He > could not understand that ordinary people need a more natural way of > dealing with symbols. > > The mathematicians in this group seem to have fallen between both > stools on this one. One the one hand they fail, like Turing, to recognise > the difficulties that many ordinary people have with the inverse relation > between current f-stop notation and aperture size, yet, unlike Turing, they > seem to treat the current symbols as intrinsic properties of the size of the > hole. This is quite surprising, but that's enough from me! > > --- > > Bob >
