Not I.S.O., but ISO!

[Tronhard]

One misconception that I find a lot in the photographic community is the use of the term I.S.O. - pronounced as a series of letters. This is under the misconception that it is the initials of the International Standards Organization - which it isn't the case, because that's not what they are called.

They are, in fact, in English, the International Organization for Standards (so their acronym would be I.O.S. if that was used), but that title changes with every language that refers to the organization, which would lead to massive confusion considering the international nature of their work.

To remove confusion the organization has branded itself as the word ISO and is referred to only by that name in its publications communications. It clearly states this in its About Us and Corporate Branding pages. The corporate name is from the Greek ISOS, meaning same.
The root word is found in such terms as ISObar, ISOmetric contraction, isosceles triangle. you get the drift...

If you are not convinced let me refer you to their own website:
https://www.iso.org/about-us.html#20...me-text-Anchor
or
ISO - ISO name and logo

To quote from the bottom of that page in the first link: Note they do not use ISO as an acronym but as a word, I even checked with them directly.

"IT'S ALL IN THE NAME

Because 'International Organization for Standardization' would have different acronyms in different languages (IOS in English, OIN in French for Organisation internationale de normalisation), our founders decided to give it the short form ISO. ISO is derived from the Greek 'isos', meaning equal. Whatever the country, whatever the language, we are always ISO."

[MrB]

So if ISO is not an acronym but a word, why do they write ISO rather than iso?

Philip

[xpatUSA]

A fine pedantic post, Trev.

Be glad you don't own a Sigma camera. Over on DPR, there is a Sigma Camera forum.

The game they play there is:

Firstly Sigma names all their models e.g. "sd Quattro H" and then members there somehow feel the need to change that to something like "SDQH". Even worse is that Sigma recently changed to lower-case for the series designator, e.g. an earlier model series was "DP" - leading to posts where e.g. someone writes "DP2" (an actual Sigma camera model) when they were actually talking about a "dp2 Quattro".

The most recent Sigma model is an "fp L". Took no time at all for that to become "FP-l" et al in the forum.

Grump.

P.S. let's not forget the death of the hyphen ...

[xpatUSA]

So if ISO is not an acronym but a word, why do they write ISO rather than iso?

Philip

Good question, Philip!

[Tronhard]

So if ISO is not an acronym but a word, why do they write ISO rather than iso?

Philip

A good question, and I am making an answer based on logic rather than a direct reference from ISO. If my explanation is not acceptable I would refer you to ISO's public relations and licensing division. Their point is indisputable however, it IS a word and that's their choice.

Part of the issue with confusion to seeing ISO as a term and not an acronym is that the previous two measures of media sensitivity were associated with DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung (a German and pan-European Standard) and ASA (American Standards Association) both of which were acronyms and neither used periods or dots between the letters. The reason for the difference, as mentioned above is that many languages have different identifiers for what we call in English the Organization for International Standardization issuing body, so they needed a consistent term and, significantly Brand for their material. Thus is it the trade mark of a product and not the governing body.

The use of the capitalization is not new. Take ILFORD, which is actually a place in England, is used in full caps on the film maker's trademarked brand. For ISO I believe it is to give their standards authority and easy recognition. ISO standards are often used in long, technical documents for all sorts of application, of which sensitivity to light is only one. In such long documents it is much easier to find references to standards because ISO is in caps - a characteristic known as shrieking in the printing industry, I am told. It catches the eye because it IS capitalized. Secondly, ISO is a trade mark, so using it in capitalized form is less likely to cause confusion with its colloquial use.

[Tronhard]

A fine pedantic post, Trev.

Be glad you don't own a Sigma camera. Over on DPR, there is a Sigma Camera forum.

The game they play there is:

Firstly Sigma names all their models e.g. "sd Quattro H" and then members there somehow feel the need to change that to something like "SDQH". Even worse is that Sigma recently changed to lower-case for the series designator, e.g. an earlier model series was "DP" - leading to posts where e.g. someone writes "DP2" (an actual Sigma camera model) when they were actually talking about a "dp2 Quattro".

The most recent Sigma model is an "fp L". Took no time at all for that to become "FP-l" et al in the forum.

Grump.

P.S. let's not forget the death of the hyphen ...

Or the mis-use of the apostrophe...

Actually, I DO own a Sigma camera: the RX-10 MkIV, which I consider the finest bridge camera on the market at the present time. I am actually wondering when they will bring out a MkV, it's been a few years ...

[DanK]

Great post, albeit somewhat embarrassing , as I had thought that people who pronounced it as a word were showing a lack of knowledge.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

I've known that for a very long time, Trev, probably a good 20 years, if not a bit more.

The company I worked for looked as ISO certification and the proper pronunciation was covered off by the trainer during the session introduction.

I did come away with a bit of a bad taste though. The important side of ISO certification was adherence to proper documentation, procedures or business processes. There wasn't really a quality component to the underlying processes. It didn't matter how poor they were, as long as everyone understood them and worked to them.

[Tronhard]

I'm glad you have the same understanding as me. Yes, at the fundamental level ISO seeks to make sure that how we create processes and adhere to them is critical to good quality service and product governance and management. I found the same philosophy when I became an expert in ITIL, the UK Govt's development of IT Service best practices.

NOT using the right terminology can create dire consequences. I used this story when I would try to explain that...
A man wants to stop the risk of having children. He goes to his doctor and says that he wants to be castrated. The doctor wants assurance that this is truly what he wants, but he is adamant. Eventually, the operation is arranged and performed. In the recovery room he wakes besides another chap and they talk. He asks his companion what he was having done and his companion says a vasectomy, "Ah, says our hero, THAT's the word I meant!"

I've known that for a very long time, Trev, probably a good 20 years, if not a bit more.

The company I worked for looked as ISO certification and the proper pronunciation was covered off by the trainer during the session introduction.

I did come away with a bit of a bad taste though. The important side of ISO certification was adherence to proper documentation, procedures or business processes. There wasn't really a quality component to the underlying processes. It didn't matter how poor they were, as long as everyone understood them and worked to them.

[Tronhard]

Well Dan
You are likely to be well ahead of the pack here because you embrace a change based on new knowledge. There are lots of people out there who will fight this disruption of their view of the universe and reject it.

Great post, albeit somewhat embarrassing , as I had thought that people who pronounced it as a word were showing a lack of knowledge.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[xpatUSA]

Actually, I DO own a Sigma camera: the RX-10 MkIV

What?

[Tronhard]

Obviously I need more coffee - up at 3:00am.
I was thinking of Sony! Sorry about that...

What?

[xpatUSA]

I've known that for a very long time, Trev, probably a good 20 years, if not a bit more.

The company I worked for looked as ISO certification and the proper pronunciation was covered off by the trainer during the session introduction.

I did come away with a bit of a bad taste though. The important side of ISO certification was adherence to proper documentation, procedures or business processes. There wasn't really a quality component to the underlying processes. It didn't matter how poor they were, as long as everyone understood them and worked to them.

You have awakened less than fond memories of writing endless Company procedures for the dreaded ISO 9000 certification.

[lunaticitizen]

Have you guys ever read the actual ISO standards related to photography? I have two copies out of many of them.

• ISO 12232:2019
  Photography — Digital still cameras — Determination of exposure index, ISO speed ratings, standard output sensitivity, and recommended exposure index
  
  
• ISO 15739:2017
  Photography — Electronic still-picture imaging — Noise measurements

I could barely finish reading the first; I haven't touched the second one.

[xpatUSA]

Have you guys ever read the actual ISO standards related to photography? I have two copies out of many of them.

I possess and have read and understood:

ISO 12232 Exposure Index determination
ISO 12233 The wall chart
ISO 2721 Automatic exposure
ISO/CD 22088-2 ROMM color space (aka ProPhoto)

[rpcrowe]

English is still an evolving language (as are most languages) and common usage often predicates the pronunciation/use of any word; more so than any official source. I suspect that most folks, speaking in English use ISO as a series of letters "I" - "S" - "O" rather than as a word... Perhaps this stems from the previous designators for film and sensor sensitivity ASA...

[Tronhard]

English is still an evolving language (as are most languages) and common usage often predicates the pronunciation/use of any word; more so than any official source. I suspect that most folks, speaking in English use ISO as a series of letters "I" - "S" - "O" rather than as a word... Perhaps this stems from the previous designators for film and sensor sensitivity ASA...

Precisely. Most people are unaware of the issue of the organization having multiple names, depending upon the language in which it is used, and the organization chose a universal brand word so that it could be used consistently across all references internationally without confusion. With a history of DIN (usually said as a word) and ASA (usually spelt), it is understandable that people were not sure how to refer to ISO. However, it is absolutely crystal clear from the organization's own material that they are ISO, a word that is both a Corporate and Brand Name and Registered Trade Mark and should be pronounced as such - yet, I see videos, blogs etc. referring to it as an acronym and have been "corrected" by people who believe the use of the acronym letters is correct.

I have spent a lot of my life in two areas: education, and service and delivery management. That cocktail drives me to make sure things are referred to correctly - communication is important, and after all this is a registered trade mark and deserves respect as such. Not to do so is, IMHO, unprofessional.
see: ISO - ISO name and logo

[Acorn]

When I took up photography the film speed rating was always expressed as ASA (American Standards Association). Then ratings were expressed as ISO (International Standards Organisation). But what the hell, they both equate to one another! To be grammatically correct, full-points should be applied between the letters.

[xpatUSA]

I find it odd that the American system was commonly said as "100 ASA" but the International system is said as "ISO 100" ...

... Myself, I obstinately write "100 ISO" - it just doesn't look right the other way round, LOL.

[xpatUSA]

To be grammatically correct, full-points should be applied between the letters.

"Divided by a common language" ...

Here in the USA, wasting time putting periods (full-stops) into acronyms is de trop. Hence USAF, NASA, ISA, GE, etc. ad nauseam ...