You basically just admitted that unless a camera is ISOless, ISO Is part of th exposure. I don't see how that can be taken any other way. You do not get equivalent exposures when changing the ISO.
I guess that makes exposure "timeless";-)
You do know what an ISOless sensor is, right? It means that the read noise stays the same throughout the ISO range -- it has absolutely nothing to do with exposure.
I want to hear you say "Wikipedia is wrong and I am right":
Non-isoless, I believe. Don't know. In any case, it has no bearing on the matter (the definition of exposure) one way or another.
OK. And?
No, you'd have a rather different photo. You'd have a photo that was made with 64x (6 stops more) light. Big difference.
Well, you'd be wrong. Exposure is determined by three, and only three, parameters:
If we keep the aperture and shutter speed constant, then more flash power means a greater exposure, less flash power means a lower exposure.
Well, best of luck to you, then.
Are you new to film?
There is also the element of time and radiation intensity. You will get a worse sunburn at high noon than you will get at 4pm (a bit like aperture). It will also be worse if you lay in the sun for an hour than if you lay there for 15 minutes (a bit like shutter speed). It is all about the total energy received. Your skin is a total energy responder as is the film and the sensor diode. Of course you will also be in more trouble if you are more sensitive, but nobody would say that had anything to do with the exposure you got which is only related to intensity and time.
For cameras with non-ISOless sensors, that is correct. However, neither here nor there. Exposure is about the light falling on the sensor (specifically, the light per area falling on the sensor), not the processing of that light.
That is essentially the core of the controversy. Many photographers were 'educated' with the 'help' of the exposure triangle. I don't know who invented it, maybe it was Petersen - but whatever, it has been extensively copied. And yes, it is wrong. Not just wrong, but actually quite damaging to understanding, as are many faulty educational 'aids'.
Not so clearly, and not always. But the major point is that the exposure triangle leads to a faulty assumption, that raising ISO is the same as raising exposure, even Petersen makes that mistake, as do several 'experts' who peddle the exposure triangle.
reducing the shutter speed decreases the light, but either way, I corrected for it with the RAW editor, just as those pushing the ISO do.
If you're a radiographer producing x-rays in a hospital, you would expect radiometric exposure to be part of your training, since you need to estimate exposure, and you're not interested in the energy being weighted by the luminosity function. For photographers, radiometric exposure is not needed too often.
The key is in the meaning of the word 'exposure', which is the same whether you're talking photometric or radiometric.
Apologies -- I misinterpreted "reduced shutter speed" and was thinking the exact opposite. In any case, the photos in the link above were shot with the same camera and exposure, thus the same amount of light and thus the same noise.
Many things affect scene luminance, even down to the color of the subject. If I put up a shade or use a reflector, I change luminance. If I wait an hour for the sun to change position, I've affected scene luminance. Singling out flash makes no sense.
As does shooting at night vs during the day. Is the Sun part of the exposure settings? Is time of day or the weather?
If I open my drapes, does that not affect scene luminance?
Basically he said nothing of the sort. The ISO setting on an ISOful camera is something that you need to take account of, because it affects the performance of the camera. But if you want to tweak the last n'th out of your camera, then the way you should be working is making exposure decisions independent of 'ISO' then setting the ISO control to the optimum setting to match your exposure (which often won't be the position where the selected exposure is nominal for that ISO setting)
Difficult question. Most probably ISOless. The vast majority of CCD cameras were/are ISOless, and a good few of the newer CMOS.
I've never shot a model who could move that fast.
You can't do. The amount of light in the photo has effects other than the 'brightness'.
Who's "singling out flash"? As I said, scene luminance is one of the three elements of exposure, and the camera's flash will affect that particular element.
The scene luminance is one of three elements to exposure.
Yes, anything that affects the light falling on the subject affects scene luminance and therefor exposure. I'm a bit surprised that anyone would think it doesn't.
Yes, ... but ... let us not conceal the existence of our photomultiplier image-sensor any longer. The flyback transformer fits right into the camera body packaging. Doubles as a handy defibrillator ...
