Poll: should we lie to beginners? II

moving_comfort said:

moving_comfort wrote:

moving_comfort said:

Great Bustard wrote:

moving_comfort said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

moving_comfort said:

Great Bustard wrote:

moving_comfort said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

moving_comfort said:

Great Bustard wrote:

moving_comfort said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

As a continuation of this thread, I really want to focus on the impact on one's photography if taught incorrectly.

In the last thread I was specifically looking for scenario's where knowing the true definition of exposure and how it relates to ISO changed or helped your shooting habits.

moving_comfort said:

moving_comfort said:

Give me a scenario where gaining the insight that "ISO was not part of exposure" has led one to a better (or even different) decision than a person less enlightened.

Click to expand...

Iliah Borg wrote:

I gave it recently. ISO speed bump clips the highlights. On the other hand the low brightness of an important part of a scene calls for an ISO bump if ISO is considered to be a part of something (anything). So in a scenario like a narrow alley in an old Italian town where the sky is bright and the walls on one side of the alley are very dark closer to the pavement it is worth to know that one does not need to bump the ISO speed.

And by the way, what ISO are we discussing, the red, green, or blue ISO? Daylight ISO or mercury vapor ISO?

Click to expand...

GB already tried that scenario here. As in your scenario, the benefit to this technique comes purely from the understanding that lower ISOs retain more highlights, and not from how we define exposure. So photographers with less insight, who also saw that original thread, understood it as "if I use the same aperture and shutter speed, I can underexpose at ISO100 and push the shadows in post, only now retaining all the highlights as a correctly exposed shot at ISO3200". They came to the same conclusion as you without knowing the true definition of exposure.

Click to expand...

You were right there, and missed it:

Click to expand...

Nope, I was right there and nailed it. I purposely misused the definition.

Click to expand...

Well done.

moving_comfort said:

Ya'll just dancing around the fact that it doesn't matter whether ISO is part of exposure or not, shooting habits don't seem to change.

Click to expand...

Then you are of the opinion that exposure is unimportant.

moving_comfort said:

moving_comfort said:

"if I use the same aperture and shutter speed, I can underexpose at ISO100 and push the shadows in post, only now retaining all the highlights as a correctly exposed shot at ISO3200"

That's it! So you are "underexposed" whether you are at ISO 100 or ISO 3200 for that particular shot,

Click to expand...

And if you believe that only ISO 100 was underexposed and ISO 3200 was not, it still works!

Click to expand...

Both were underexposed. If you'll recall, ISO is not part of exposure.

Click to expand...

Why is this so hard for you to understand? I am *postulating* that if one did not understand this to be true, the same conclusion is drawn. Agreed?

Click to expand...

I apologize if I'm misinterpreting. Could you restate the point you are trying to make? Thanks, and sorry for missing the point.

Click to expand...

I think he's saying that if you witness the sun moving across the sky it doesn't matter if you think it revolves around the earth or if the earth is turning on it's axis, you can come to the same conclusion - that you will see it again, in roughly the same place and almost the same time, the next morning.

Click to expand...

Except, not in exactly the same place, and not at exactly the same time, and as the year goes on, these discrepancies really begin to mean something.

moving_comfort said:

He's also implying that to most people, there's no practical reason that they need to know the difference between the earth rotating on it's axis and the sun revolving around the earth - the effects, as far as everyone is concerned, are the same.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree. But then these people don't need to know about exposure at all, do they?

moving_comfort said:

There is a minor point there. It's an odious, depressing point that rewards irrationality and ignorance... But it's a point.

Click to expand...

Brightness is not an approximation for exposure (thus the analogy between Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity fails); rather, exposure and amplification are factors in the brightness. If all you really care about is brightness, then talk about the brightness. If you want to redefine exposure to mean brightness, and call exposure what it is, the light per area that falls on the sensor, then I'm completely on board with that.

Brightness is a function of the amplification (scaling) of (the independent variable which is) sensor-level Exposure. For a mathematical function, the independent variable(s) [the "inputs"] uniquely determine the value of a single dependent variable [the "output"].

Functional relationships represent what is a numerical "one-way street". It is impossible for the (dependent) output value of a function to uniquely determine the individual value of one (or more, and independent) input variables.

Note that the "ISO" equals a numerical constant divided by the sensor-level Exposure itself. "ISO" is exclusively a function of whatever the (independent variable) sensor-level Exposure is.

"ISO" has "no say" in that matter. An "ISO rating" is only a single number describing the relationship between JPEG tone-levels (in sRGB color-space) and whatever sensor-level Exposure happens to exist. A scale-factor (such as an "ISO rating") is (by definition) a dimensionless number.

"ISO" (actually) represents what is called a "small-signal amplification-factor" - that is, whatever "small-signal gain" exists at (and very closely around) one single solitary output tone-value of what is always a multiple non-linearity system that represents Red, Green, and Blue information existing when the image-sensor data is rendered into a JPEG encoded image-file in sRGB color-space.

Note that "ISO ratings" are (only, by definition) related to encoded JPEGs in sRGB color-space.

Note that the sensor-level Red, Green, and Blue channel information is processed through: any non-linearity which exists in the JPEG RGB tone-curve transfer-functions; as well as through the fixed non-linearity of the gamma-correction also applied to each of the RGB (output) channels.

So, (at best), "ISO ratings" are but a single "snapshot" of what actually exists (and at what may or may not be sRGB=118). The presently utilized "Recommended Exposure Index" (REI) allows manufacturers the choice of any particular output tone-level they happen to want to utilize.

.

SOS is the S value when the exposure generates a picture of “medium” output level corresponding to 0.461 times the maximum output level (digital value of 118 in an 8-bit system). Hm in Equation B.1 corresponds to the exposure that produces 0.461 times the maximum output level. The numeric 0.461 corresponds to the relative output level on the s-RGB gamma curve for the 18% standard reflectance of photographic subjects. SOS gives an acceptable exposure because the average output level of the picture becomes “medium.” Thus, it is convenient for a camera set. However, there is no guarantee that the exposure indicated by SOS is the best. Also, it is not suitable for an image sensor, whose output characteristic is linear.

REI is the S value when the exposure generates a picture with an “adequate” output level that a camera vendor recommends arbitrarily. According to this definition, it is apparent that REI can apply only to a camera set and that the exposure indicated by REI would be adequate only if the vendor’s recommendation is appropriate.

Source: Appendix B, Sensitivity and ISO Indication of an Imaging System, Hideaki Yoshida, Pages 319-321, Image Sensors and Signal Processing for Digital Still Cameras, 2006, Taylor and Francis Group

.

bobn2 wrote:

... ISO maps exposure to brightness. So, you can't just write 'exposure/brightness'. Different ISOs will give you different brightnesses from the same exposure. So, ISO determines which brightness you get from a given exposure.

.

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard wrote:

... exposure and amplification are factors in the brightness. If all you really care about is brightness, then talk about the brightness. If you want to redefine exposure to mean brightness, and call exposure what it is, the light per area that falls on the sensor, then I'm completely on board with that.

Click to expand...

moving_comfort said:

moving_comfort wrote:

moving_comfort said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

moving_comfort said:

moving_comfort wrote:

I ran into a situation related to this with my neighbor last year.

He had been told that shutter speed, aperture and ISO formed an exposure 'triangle', in that each was equally 'tweakable' to get more light on the sensor. (Thanks, National Camera Exchange clerk!)

He was basically under the impression that there was no downside to being lazy with aperture or shutter speed, because it could be made up with an ISO adjustment - that all three variables affected 'exposure'.

(In his defense, he wasn't really being lazy about aperture, he just had the consumer kit zoom and usually didn't have a lot of aperture range to work with.)

After I had a talk with him, he bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to get more aperture range to work with - and he started to notice noise, more, after that (he had upgraded from a P&S so he thought the noise he saw before was still 'pretty good'. ) He also bought a used 35 1.8G later.

I think there are a lot of shooters who have more of a clue than he did, and have been informed that you should perhaps carefully choose your SS and aperture first, and then let ISO make up the difference, but they know that because what's really happening with ISO has been partially described to them - which begs the question, if you're going have to partially describe it anyway, why not entirely, accurately describe it?

Click to expand...

Of course it should be described accurately, but the question is, must it be?...

Photography is not a science like photometry. It's part art, part skill, and part science. Artists are often not good scientists. If they have a hard time with science, I say give them something tangible that they can use.

Click to expand...

Like:

"Upping ISO is not affecting exposure, it's adding brightness to the image artificially after the image is captured and before it is saved. That is why... (add your usual instructional caveats/warnings to increasing ISO that you normally would give them here...)"

How could it get any simpler? This ^^ at least points in a more accurate direction, and would help them with the underpinnings of 'exposure'.

Click to expand...

It is very simple. Now tell them if they change the shutter while maintaining the same brightness, their ISO changed. Watch their eyes glaze over as they ask you, "but that button labeled ISO is in the same spot?"

"Yeah, about that....that's not really ISO..."

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard wrote:

Great Bustard said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard wrote:

Great Bustard said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard wrote:

Great Bustard said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

As a continuation of this thread, I really want to focus on the impact on one's photography if taught incorrectly.

In the last thread I was specifically looking for scenario's where knowing the true definition of exposure and how it relates to ISO changed or helped your shooting habits.

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

Give me a scenario where gaining the insight that "ISO was not part of exposure" has led one to a better (or even different) decision than a person less enlightened.

Click to expand...

Iliah Borg wrote:

I gave it recently. ISO speed bump clips the highlights. On the other hand the low brightness of an important part of a scene calls for an ISO bump if ISO is considered to be a part of something (anything). So in a scenario like a narrow alley in an old Italian town where the sky is bright and the walls on one side of the alley are very dark closer to the pavement it is worth to know that one does not need to bump the ISO speed.

And by the way, what ISO are we discussing, the red, green, or blue ISO? Daylight ISO or mercury vapor ISO?

Click to expand...

GB already tried that scenario here. As in your scenario, the benefit to this technique comes purely from the understanding that lower ISOs retain more highlights, and not from how we define exposure. So photographers with less insight, who also saw that original thread, understood it as "if I use the same aperture and shutter speed, I can underexpose at ISO100 and push the shadows in post, only now retaining all the highlights as a correctly exposed shot at ISO3200". They came to the same conclusion as you without knowing the true definition of exposure.

Click to expand...

You were right there, and missed it:

Click to expand...

Nope, I was right there and nailed it. I purposely misused the definition.

Click to expand...

Well done.

Great Bustard said:

Ya'll just dancing around the fact that it doesn't matter whether ISO is part of exposure or not, shooting habits don't seem to change.

Click to expand...

Then you are of the opinion that exposure is unimportant.

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

"if I use the same aperture and shutter speed, I can underexpose at ISO100 and push the shadows in post, only now retaining all the highlights as a correctly exposed shot at ISO3200"

That's it! So you are "underexposed" whether you are at ISO 100 or ISO 3200 for that particular shot,

Click to expand...

And if you believe that only ISO 100 was underexposed and ISO 3200 was not, it still works!

Click to expand...

Both were underexposed. If you'll recall, ISO is not part of exposure.

Click to expand...

Why is this so hard for you to understand? I am *postulating* that if one did not understand this to be true, the same conclusion is drawn. Agreed?

Click to expand...

I apologize if I'm misinterpreting.

Click to expand...

Your apologies are always accepted.

Great Bustard said:

Could you restate the point you are trying to make?

Click to expand...

Certainly.

Great Bustard said:

Thanks, and sorry for missing the point.

Click to expand...

Not a problem. I know those pesky little points are allusive.

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

moving_comfort wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

moving_comfort wrote:

I ran into a situation related to this with my neighbor last year.

He had been told that shutter speed, aperture and ISO formed an exposure 'triangle', in that each was equally 'tweakable' to get more light on the sensor. (Thanks, National Camera Exchange clerk!)

He was basically under the impression that there was no downside to being lazy with aperture or shutter speed, because it could be made up with an ISO adjustment - that all three variables affected 'exposure'.

(In his defense, he wasn't really being lazy about aperture, he just had the consumer kit zoom and usually didn't have a lot of aperture range to work with.)

After I had a talk with him, he bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to get more aperture range to work with - and he started to notice noise, more, after that (he had upgraded from a P&S so he thought the noise he saw before was still 'pretty good'. ) He also bought a used 35 1.8G later.

I think there are a lot of shooters who have more of a clue than he did, and have been informed that you should perhaps carefully choose your SS and aperture first, and then let ISO make up the difference, but they know that because what's really happening with ISO has been partially described to them - which begs the question, if you're going have to partially describe it anyway, why not entirely, accurately describe it?

Click to expand...

Of course it should be described accurately, but the question is, must it be?...

Photography is not a science like photometry. It's part art, part skill, and part science. Artists are often not good scientists. If they have a hard time with science, I say give them something tangible that they can use.

Click to expand...

Like:

"Upping ISO is not affecting exposure, it's adding brightness to the image artificially after the image is captured and before it is saved. That is why... (add your usual instructional caveats/warnings to increasing ISO that you normally would give them here...)"

How could it get any simpler? This ^^ at least points in a more accurate direction, and would help them with the underpinnings of 'exposure'.

Click to expand...

It is very simple. Now tell them if they change the shutter while maintaining the same brightness, their ISO changed. Watch their eyes glaze over as they ask you, "but that button labeled ISO is in the same spot?"

"Yeah, about that....that's not really ISO..."

Click to expand...

Part II

"So what does that button do?"

"Well, it basically changes the amplification of the analog amplifiers on the sensor"

"Ah so that just changes the sensitivity of the sensor"

"No, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes"

"Come again?"

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

moving_comfort wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

moving_comfort wrote:

I ran into a situation related to this with my neighbor last year.

He had been told that shutter speed, aperture and ISO formed an exposure 'triangle', in that each was equally 'tweakable' to get more light on the sensor. (Thanks, National Camera Exchange clerk!)

He was basically under the impression that there was no downside to being lazy with aperture or shutter speed, because it could be made up with an ISO adjustment - that all three variables affected 'exposure'.

(In his defense, he wasn't really being lazy about aperture, he just had the consumer kit zoom and usually didn't have a lot of aperture range to work with.)

After I had a talk with him, he bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to get more aperture range to work with - and he started to notice noise, more, after that (he had upgraded from a P&S so he thought the noise he saw before was still 'pretty good'. ) He also bought a used 35 1.8G later.

I think there are a lot of shooters who have more of a clue than he did, and have been informed that you should perhaps carefully choose your SS and aperture first, and then let ISO make up the difference, but they know that because what's really happening with ISO has been partially described to them - which begs the question, if you're going have to partially describe it anyway, why not entirely, accurately describe it?

Click to expand...

Of course it should be described accurately, but the question is, must it be?...

Photography is not a science like photometry. It's part art, part skill, and part science. Artists are often not good scientists. If they have a hard time with science, I say give them something tangible that they can use.

Click to expand...

Like:

"Upping ISO is not affecting exposure, it's adding brightness to the image artificially after the image is captured and before it is saved. That is why... (add your usual instructional caveats/warnings to increasing ISO that you normally would give them here...)"

How could it get any simpler? This ^^ at least points in a more accurate direction, and would help them with the underpinnings of 'exposure'.

Click to expand...

It is very simple. Now tell them if they change the shutter while maintaining the same brightness, their ISO changed. Watch their eyes glaze over as they ask you, "but that button labeled ISO is in the same spot?"

"Yeah, about that....that's not really ISO..."

Click to expand...

Part II

"So what does that button do?"

"Well, it basically changes the amplification of the analog amplifiers on the sensor"

"Ah so that just changes the sensitivity of the sensor"

"No, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes"

"Come again?"

Click to expand...

Transducers (such as an image-sensor) have a sensitivity. In this case a scale factor of Volts per unit of Lux-Seconds. That is the transducer "sensitivity". As well, the trandsducer's Dynamic Range and Signal/Noise Ratio is what is called "input-referenced" at (any only at) that transducer output point in the composite system. DR and SNR can only decrease after that point.

All circuitry that in any way scales ("amplifies") the transducer voltage output (prior to, or following Analog/Digital Conversion, and whether processing analog or discrete (digital) image-data is unrelated to the trandsucer itself (and to it's sensitivity in Volts/Lux-Second).

Post-transducer circuitry introduces additional noise-sources as well as scaling the trandsducer's output voltage signal (having it's own signal and noise). This stuff is relatively basic electronics.

Rather than chasing what are circular definitions, the foregoing facts will free you from orbiting.

DM ...

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

Great Bustard wrote:

Could you restate the point you are trying to make?

Click to expand...

Certainly.

Click to expand...

...of circular reasoning I have ever seen! Congrats!

So, taking another stab at it, is the point you are making that someone can take a photo without knowing what they're doing? The answer is: yes, absolutely they can.

No? That's not what you're saying? You're saying that someone who doesn't understand how things work can get the same results as someone who does? The answer is: yes, absolutely they can.

Indeed, someone with a cell phone can produce a better photo than someone else with a FF DSLR, and, in fact, I can even link to examples of it.

You know anything about QM (Quantum Mechanics)? How about the Totalitarian Principle:

"Everything not forbidden is compulsory."

As photography is not exempt from QM, well...

bobn2 said:

bobn2 wrote:

bobn2 said:

PhilPreston3072 wrote:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 wrote:

bobn2 said:

PhilPreston3072 wrote:

So wouldn't you get the same 'brightness' by using the exact same ISO in camera that you used in post?

Click to expand...

Since ISO maps exposure to brightness, by definition if you have the same exposure and brightness, you have the same ISO. Or vice versa.

Click to expand...

Therefore ISO (or gain in video terms) still has its part in determining the final brightness/exposure.

Click to expand...

No, because ISO maps exposure to brightness. So, you can't just write 'exposure/brightness'. Different ISOs will give you different brightnesses from the same exposure. So, ISO determines which brightness you get from a given exposure.

Click to expand...

↑↑This.
This is the point so many are missing, including the "this is just semantics" apologists.

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

moving_comfort wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

moving_comfort wrote:

I ran into a situation related to this with my neighbor last year.

He had been told that shutter speed, aperture and ISO formed an exposure 'triangle', in that each was equally 'tweakable' to get more light on the sensor. (Thanks, National Camera Exchange clerk!)

He was basically under the impression that there was no downside to being lazy with aperture or shutter speed, because it could be made up with an ISO adjustment - that all three variables affected 'exposure'.

(In his defense, he wasn't really being lazy about aperture, he just had the consumer kit zoom and usually didn't have a lot of aperture range to work with.)

After I had a talk with him, he bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to get more aperture range to work with - and he started to notice noise, more, after that (he had upgraded from a P&S so he thought the noise he saw before was still 'pretty good'. ) He also bought a used 35 1.8G later.

I think there are a lot of shooters who have more of a clue than he did, and have been informed that you should perhaps carefully choose your SS and aperture first, and then let ISO make up the difference, but they know that because what's really happening with ISO has been partially described to them - which begs the question, if you're going have to partially describe it anyway, why not entirely, accurately describe it?

Click to expand...

Of course it should be described accurately, but the question is, must it be?...

Photography is not a science like photometry. It's part art, part skill, and part science. Artists are often not good scientists. If they have a hard time with science, I say give them something tangible that they can use.

Click to expand...

Like:

"Upping ISO is not affecting exposure, it's adding brightness to the image artificially after the image is captured and before it is saved. That is why... (add your usual instructional caveats/warnings to increasing ISO that you normally would give them here...)"

How could it get any simpler? This ^^ at least points in a more accurate direction, and would help them with the underpinnings of 'exposure'.

Click to expand...

It is very simple. Now tell them if they change the shutter while maintaining the same brightness, their ISO changed. Watch their eyes glaze over as they ask you, "but that button labeled ISO is in the same spot?"

"Yeah, about that....that's not really ISO..."

Click to expand...

Part II

"So what does that button do?"

"Well, it basically changes the amplification of the analog amplifiers on the sensor"

"Ah so that just changes the sensitivity of the sensor"

"No, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes"

"Come again?"

Click to expand...

The fallacy here is that amplification changes sensitivity. So what you say after the 'Come again' is:

"Yes, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes, because amplifying its output doesn't change its sensitivity".

bobn2 said:

bobn2 wrote:

bobn2 said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

bobn2 said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

bobn2 said:

moving_comfort wrote:

bobn2 said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

bobn2 said:

moving_comfort wrote:

I ran into a situation related to this with my neighbor last year.

He had been told that shutter speed, aperture and ISO formed an exposure 'triangle', in that each was equally 'tweakable' to get more light on the sensor. (Thanks, National Camera Exchange clerk!)

He was basically under the impression that there was no downside to being lazy with aperture or shutter speed, because it could be made up with an ISO adjustment - that all three variables affected 'exposure'.

(In his defense, he wasn't really being lazy about aperture, he just had the consumer kit zoom and usually didn't have a lot of aperture range to work with.)

After I had a talk with him, he bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to get more aperture range to work with - and he started to notice noise, more, after that (he had upgraded from a P&S so he thought the noise he saw before was still 'pretty good'. ) He also bought a used 35 1.8G later.

I think there are a lot of shooters who have more of a clue than he did, and have been informed that you should perhaps carefully choose your SS and aperture first, and then let ISO make up the difference, but they know that because what's really happening with ISO has been partially described to them - which begs the question, if you're going have to partially describe it anyway, why not entirely, accurately describe it?

Click to expand...

Of course it should be described accurately, but the question is, must it be?...

Photography is not a science like photometry. It's part art, part skill, and part science. Artists are often not good scientists. If they have a hard time with science, I say give them something tangible that they can use.

Click to expand...

Like:

"Upping ISO is not affecting exposure, it's adding brightness to the image artificially after the image is captured and before it is saved. That is why... (add your usual instructional caveats/warnings to increasing ISO that you normally would give them here...)"

How could it get any simpler? This ^^ at least points in a more accurate direction, and would help them with the underpinnings of 'exposure'.

Click to expand...

It is very simple. Now tell them if they change the shutter while maintaining the same brightness, their ISO changed. Watch their eyes glaze over as they ask you, "but that button labeled ISO is in the same spot?"

"Yeah, about that....that's not really ISO..."

Click to expand...

Part II

"So what does that button do?"

"Well, it basically changes the amplification of the analog amplifiers on the sensor"

"Ah so that just changes the sensitivity of the sensor"

"No, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes"

"Come again?"

Click to expand...

The fallacy here is that amplification changes sensitivity. So what you say after the 'Come again' is:

"Yes, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes, because amplifying its output doesn't change its sensitivity".

Click to expand...

You don't get it, Bob. I think the real point here is to illustrate that the beginner is going to be confused when the teacher is unable to communicate the facts and notions properly. You just want to spoil the fun.



--
gollywop

gollywop said:

gollywop wrote:

gollywop said:

bobn2 wrote:

gollywop said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

gollywop said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

gollywop said:

moving_comfort wrote:

gollywop said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

gollywop said:

moving_comfort wrote:

I ran into a situation related to this with my neighbor last year.

He had been told that shutter speed, aperture and ISO formed an exposure 'triangle', in that each was equally 'tweakable' to get more light on the sensor. (Thanks, National Camera Exchange clerk!)

He was basically under the impression that there was no downside to being lazy with aperture or shutter speed, because it could be made up with an ISO adjustment - that all three variables affected 'exposure'.

(In his defense, he wasn't really being lazy about aperture, he just had the consumer kit zoom and usually didn't have a lot of aperture range to work with.)

After I had a talk with him, he bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to get more aperture range to work with - and he started to notice noise, more, after that (he had upgraded from a P&S so he thought the noise he saw before was still 'pretty good'. ) He also bought a used 35 1.8G later.

I think there are a lot of shooters who have more of a clue than he did, and have been informed that you should perhaps carefully choose your SS and aperture first, and then let ISO make up the difference, but they know that because what's really happening with ISO has been partially described to them - which begs the question, if you're going have to partially describe it anyway, why not entirely, accurately describe it?

Click to expand...

Of course it should be described accurately, but the question is, must it be?...

Photography is not a science like photometry. It's part art, part skill, and part science. Artists are often not good scientists. If they have a hard time with science, I say give them something tangible that they can use.

Click to expand...

Like:

"Upping ISO is not affecting exposure, it's adding brightness to the image artificially after the image is captured and before it is saved. That is why... (add your usual instructional caveats/warnings to increasing ISO that you normally would give them here...)"

How could it get any simpler? This ^^ at least points in a more accurate direction, and would help them with the underpinnings of 'exposure'.

Click to expand...

It is very simple. Now tell them if they change the shutter while maintaining the same brightness, their ISO changed. Watch their eyes glaze over as they ask you, "but that button labeled ISO is in the same spot?"

"Yeah, about that....that's not really ISO..."

Click to expand...

Part II

"So what does that button do?"

"Well, it basically changes the amplification of the analog amplifiers on the sensor"

"Ah so that just changes the sensitivity of the sensor"

"No, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes"

"Come again?"

Click to expand...

The fallacy here is that amplification changes sensitivity. So what you say after the 'Come again' is:

"Yes, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes, because amplifying its output doesn't change its sensitivity".

Click to expand...

You don't get it, Bob. I think the real point here is to illustrate that the beginner is going to be confused when the teacher is unable to communicate the facts and notions properly. You just want to spoil the fun.

Click to expand...

OK, so the right answer is:

'No the button makes there be more light, just like if you used a longer shutter speed'.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 wrote:

bobn2 said:

gollywop wrote:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 wrote:

bobn2 said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

bobn2 said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

bobn2 said:

moving_comfort wrote:

bobn2 said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

bobn2 said:

moving_comfort wrote:

I ran into a situation related to this with my neighbor last year.

He had been told that shutter speed, aperture and ISO formed an exposure 'triangle', in that each was equally 'tweakable' to get more light on the sensor. (Thanks, National Camera Exchange clerk!)

He was basically under the impression that there was no downside to being lazy with aperture or shutter speed, because it could be made up with an ISO adjustment - that all three variables affected 'exposure'.

(In his defense, he wasn't really being lazy about aperture, he just had the consumer kit zoom and usually didn't have a lot of aperture range to work with.)

After I had a talk with him, he bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to get more aperture range to work with - and he started to notice noise, more, after that (he had upgraded from a P&S so he thought the noise he saw before was still 'pretty good'. ) He also bought a used 35 1.8G later.

I think there are a lot of shooters who have more of a clue than he did, and have been informed that you should perhaps carefully choose your SS and aperture first, and then let ISO make up the difference, but they know that because what's really happening with ISO has been partially described to them - which begs the question, if you're going have to partially describe it anyway, why not entirely, accurately describe it?

Click to expand...

Of course it should be described accurately, but the question is, must it be?...

Photography is not a science like photometry. It's part art, part skill, and part science. Artists are often not good scientists. If they have a hard time with science, I say give them something tangible that they can use.

Click to expand...

Like:

"Upping ISO is not affecting exposure, it's adding brightness to the image artificially after the image is captured and before it is saved. That is why... (add your usual instructional caveats/warnings to increasing ISO that you normally would give them here...)"

How could it get any simpler? This ^^ at least points in a more accurate direction, and would help them with the underpinnings of 'exposure'.

Click to expand...

It is very simple. Now tell them if they change the shutter while maintaining the same brightness, their ISO changed. Watch their eyes glaze over as they ask you, "but that button labeled ISO is in the same spot?"

"Yeah, about that....that's not really ISO..."

Click to expand...

Part II

"So what does that button do?"

"Well, it basically changes the amplification of the analog amplifiers on the sensor"

"Ah so that just changes the sensitivity of the sensor"

"No, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes"

"Come again?"

Click to expand...

The fallacy here is that amplification changes sensitivity. So what you say after the 'Come again' is:

"Yes, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes, because amplifying its output doesn't change its sensitivity".

Click to expand...

You don't get it, Bob. I think the real point here is to illustrate that the beginner is going to be confused when the teacher is unable to communicate the facts and notions properly. You just want to spoil the fun.

Click to expand...

OK, so the right answer is:

'No the button makes there be more light, just like if you used a longer shutter speed'.

Click to expand...

Now you're beginning (I say, beginning) to get the idea.

Did you see the completely beautiful Lynda.com presentation of the exposure triangle that David Hull cites below?

http://blog.lynda.com/2013/09/27/ma...14-17-11&utm_medium=viral&utm_source=facebook

Here we can learn the salient facts:

• ISO controls the sensitivity of the sensor
• In triangle, there is ISO and then there are the other things
• Aperture determines the amount of light
• Shutter speed is just barely there, basically determined by the frame rate.

I mean, what else is there to say? So you see how lucky beginners are these days. I never had anyone to teach me things like that, and I've never really gotten over it.

--
gollywop

gollywop said:

gollywop wrote:

gollywop said:

bobn2 wrote:

gollywop said:

gollywop wrote:

gollywop said:

bobn2 wrote:

gollywop said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

gollywop said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

gollywop said:

moving_comfort wrote:

gollywop said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

gollywop said:

moving_comfort wrote:

I ran into a situation related to this with my neighbor last year.

He had been told that shutter speed, aperture and ISO formed an exposure 'triangle', in that each was equally 'tweakable' to get more light on the sensor. (Thanks, National Camera Exchange clerk!)

He was basically under the impression that there was no downside to being lazy with aperture or shutter speed, because it could be made up with an ISO adjustment - that all three variables affected 'exposure'.

(In his defense, he wasn't really being lazy about aperture, he just had the consumer kit zoom and usually didn't have a lot of aperture range to work with.)

After I had a talk with him, he bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to get more aperture range to work with - and he started to notice noise, more, after that (he had upgraded from a P&S so he thought the noise he saw before was still 'pretty good'. ) He also bought a used 35 1.8G later.

I think there are a lot of shooters who have more of a clue than he did, and have been informed that you should perhaps carefully choose your SS and aperture first, and then let ISO make up the difference, but they know that because what's really happening with ISO has been partially described to them - which begs the question, if you're going have to partially describe it anyway, why not entirely, accurately describe it?

Click to expand...

Of course it should be described accurately, but the question is, must it be?...

Photography is not a science like photometry. It's part art, part skill, and part science. Artists are often not good scientists. If they have a hard time with science, I say give them something tangible that they can use.

Click to expand...

Like:

"Upping ISO is not affecting exposure, it's adding brightness to the image artificially after the image is captured and before it is saved. That is why... (add your usual instructional caveats/warnings to increasing ISO that you normally would give them here...)"

How could it get any simpler? This ^^ at least points in a more accurate direction, and would help them with the underpinnings of 'exposure'.

Click to expand...

It is very simple. Now tell them if they change the shutter while maintaining the same brightness, their ISO changed. Watch their eyes glaze over as they ask you, "but that button labeled ISO is in the same spot?"

"Yeah, about that....that's not really ISO..."

Click to expand...

Part II

"So what does that button do?"

"Well, it basically changes the amplification of the analog amplifiers on the sensor"

"Ah so that just changes the sensitivity of the sensor"

"No, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes"

"Come again?"

Click to expand...

The fallacy here is that amplification changes sensitivity. So what you say after the 'Come again' is:

"Yes, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes, because amplifying its output doesn't change its sensitivity".

Click to expand...

You don't get it, Bob. I think the real point here is to illustrate that the beginner is going to be confused when the teacher is unable to communicate the facts and notions properly. You just want to spoil the fun.

Click to expand...

OK, so the right answer is:

'No the button makes there be more light, just like if you used a longer shutter speed'.

Click to expand...

Now you're beginning (I say, beginning) to get the idea.

Did you see the completely beautiful Lynda.com presentation of the exposure triangle that David Hull cites below?

http://blog.lynda.com/2013/09/27/ma...14-17-11&utm_medium=viral&utm_source=facebook

Here we can learn the salient facts:

• ISO controls the sensitivity of the sensor
• In triangle, there is ISO and then there are the other things
• Aperture determines the amount of light
• Shutter speed is just barely there, basically determined by the frame rate.

I mean, what else is there to say? So you see how lucky beginners are these days. I never had anyone to teach me things like that, and I've never really gotten over it.

Click to expand...

And it did quite clearly say that exposure was the thing in the middle that all that other stuff made up. I must have been wrong, then. I mean, it was on You Tube, it must be right.

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard wrote:

Great Bustard said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard wrote:

Could you restate the point you are trying to make?

Click to expand...

Certainly.

Click to expand...

...of circular reasoning I have ever seen! Congrats!

Click to expand...

No it's not, you're just evading the point.

Great Bustard said:

So, taking another stab at it, is the point you are making that someone can take a photo without knowing what they're doing? The answer is: yes, absolutely they can.

Click to expand...

No, my point specifically is that it makes no difference if you use the "exposure triangle" method or the" brightness triangle" method, you reach the same decisions. Considering ISO as exposure leads one to the same conclusion and the decisions about the shot.

Agreed? It's a simple Yes, or No.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 wrote:

bobn2 said:

gollywop wrote:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 wrote:

bobn2 said:

gollywop wrote:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 wrote:

bobn2 said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

bobn2 said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

bobn2 said:

moving_comfort wrote:

bobn2 said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

bobn2 said:

moving_comfort wrote:

I ran into a situation related to this with my neighbor last year.

He had been told that shutter speed, aperture and ISO formed an exposure 'triangle', in that each was equally 'tweakable' to get more light on the sensor. (Thanks, National Camera Exchange clerk!)

He was basically under the impression that there was no downside to being lazy with aperture or shutter speed, because it could be made up with an ISO adjustment - that all three variables affected 'exposure'.

(In his defense, he wasn't really being lazy about aperture, he just had the consumer kit zoom and usually didn't have a lot of aperture range to work with.)

After I had a talk with him, he bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to get more aperture range to work with - and he started to notice noise, more, after that (he had upgraded from a P&S so he thought the noise he saw before was still 'pretty good'. ) He also bought a used 35 1.8G later.

I think there are a lot of shooters who have more of a clue than he did, and have been informed that you should perhaps carefully choose your SS and aperture first, and then let ISO make up the difference, but they know that because what's really happening with ISO has been partially described to them - which begs the question, if you're going have to partially describe it anyway, why not entirely, accurately describe it?

Click to expand...

Of course it should be described accurately, but the question is, must it be?...

Photography is not a science like photometry. It's part art, part skill, and part science. Artists are often not good scientists. If they have a hard time with science, I say give them something tangible that they can use.

Click to expand...

Like:

"Upping ISO is not affecting exposure, it's adding brightness to the image artificially after the image is captured and before it is saved. That is why... (add your usual instructional caveats/warnings to increasing ISO that you normally would give them here...)"

How could it get any simpler? This ^^ at least points in a more accurate direction, and would help them with the underpinnings of 'exposure'.

Click to expand...

It is very simple. Now tell them if they change the shutter while maintaining the same brightness, their ISO changed. Watch their eyes glaze over as they ask you, "but that button labeled ISO is in the same spot?"

"Yeah, about that....that's not really ISO..."

Click to expand...

Part II

"So what does that button do?"

"Well, it basically changes the amplification of the analog amplifiers on the sensor"

"Ah so that just changes the sensitivity of the sensor"

"No, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes"

"Come again?"

Click to expand...

The fallacy here is that amplification changes sensitivity. So what you say after the 'Come again' is:

"Yes, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes, because amplifying its output doesn't change its sensitivity".

Click to expand...

You don't get it, Bob. I think the real point here is to illustrate that the beginner is going to be confused when the teacher is unable to communicate the facts and notions properly. You just want to spoil the fun.

Click to expand...

OK, so the right answer is:

'No the button makes there be more light, just like if you used a longer shutter speed'.

Click to expand...

Now you're beginning (I say, beginning) to get the idea.

Did you see the completely beautiful Lynda.com presentation of the exposure triangle that David Hull cites below?

http://blog.lynda.com/2013/09/27/ma...14-17-11&utm_medium=viral&utm_source=facebook

Here we can learn the salient facts:

• ISO controls the sensitivity of the sensor
• In triangle, there is ISO and then there are the other things
• Aperture determines the amount of light
• Shutter speed is just barely there, basically determined by the frame rate.

I mean, what else is there to say? So you see how lucky beginners are these days. I never had anyone to teach me things like that, and I've never really gotten over it.

Click to expand...

And it did quite clearly say that exposure was the thing in the middle that all that other stuff made up. I must have been wrong, then. I mean, it was on You Tube, it must be right.

Click to expand...

Then I ask you the same question, which is the point to the whloe thread.

Do you reach the same conclusions and make the same decisions whether you use the "exposure triangle" method or the" brightness triangle" method.

Yes, or No.

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

bobn2 wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

gollywop wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

bobn2 wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

gollywop wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

bobn2 wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

moving_comfort wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

moving_comfort wrote:

I ran into a situation related to this with my neighbor last year.

He had been told that shutter speed, aperture and ISO formed an exposure 'triangle', in that each was equally 'tweakable' to get more light on the sensor. (Thanks, National Camera Exchange clerk!)

He was basically under the impression that there was no downside to being lazy with aperture or shutter speed, because it could be made up with an ISO adjustment - that all three variables affected 'exposure'.

(In his defense, he wasn't really being lazy about aperture, he just had the consumer kit zoom and usually didn't have a lot of aperture range to work with.)

After I had a talk with him, he bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to get more aperture range to work with - and he started to notice noise, more, after that (he had upgraded from a P&S so he thought the noise he saw before was still 'pretty good'. ) He also bought a used 35 1.8G later.

I think there are a lot of shooters who have more of a clue than he did, and have been informed that you should perhaps carefully choose your SS and aperture first, and then let ISO make up the difference, but they know that because what's really happening with ISO has been partially described to them - which begs the question, if you're going have to partially describe it anyway, why not entirely, accurately describe it?

Click to expand...

Of course it should be described accurately, but the question is, must it be?...

Photography is not a science like photometry. It's part art, part skill, and part science. Artists are often not good scientists. If they have a hard time with science, I say give them something tangible that they can use.

Click to expand...

Like:

"Upping ISO is not affecting exposure, it's adding brightness to the image artificially after the image is captured and before it is saved. That is why... (add your usual instructional caveats/warnings to increasing ISO that you normally would give them here...)"

How could it get any simpler? This ^^ at least points in a more accurate direction, and would help them with the underpinnings of 'exposure'.

Click to expand...

It is very simple. Now tell them if they change the shutter while maintaining the same brightness, their ISO changed. Watch their eyes glaze over as they ask you, "but that button labeled ISO is in the same spot?"

"Yeah, about that....that's not really ISO..."

Click to expand...

Part II

"So what does that button do?"

"Well, it basically changes the amplification of the analog amplifiers on the sensor"

"Ah so that just changes the sensitivity of the sensor"

"No, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes"

"Come again?"

Click to expand...

The fallacy here is that amplification changes sensitivity. So what you say after the 'Come again' is:

"Yes, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes, because amplifying its output doesn't change its sensitivity".

Click to expand...

You don't get it, Bob. I think the real point here is to illustrate that the beginner is going to be confused when the teacher is unable to communicate the facts and notions properly. You just want to spoil the fun.

Click to expand...

OK, so the right answer is:

'No the button makes there be more light, just like if you used a longer shutter speed'.

Click to expand...

Now you're beginning (I say, beginning) to get the idea.

Did you see the completely beautiful Lynda.com presentation of the exposure triangle that David Hull cites below?

http://blog.lynda.com/2013/09/27/ma...14-17-11&utm_medium=viral&utm_source=facebook

Here we can learn the salient facts:

• ISO controls the sensitivity of the sensor
• In triangle, there is ISO and then there are the other things
• Aperture determines the amount of light
• Shutter speed is just barely there, basically determined by the frame rate.

I mean, what else is there to say? So you see how lucky beginners are these days. I never had anyone to teach me things like that, and I've never really gotten over it.

Click to expand...

And it did quite clearly say that exposure was the thing in the middle that all that other stuff made up. I must have been wrong, then. I mean, it was on You Tube, it must be right.

Click to expand...

Then I ask you the same question, which is the point to the whloe thread.

Do you reach the same conclusions and make the same decisions whether you use the "exposure triangle" method or the" brightness triangle" method.

Yes, or No.

Click to expand...

Can't give you a yes or no, sorry, because neither the 'exposure' or 'brightness' triangles are methods. They are in any case the same thing, people are just saying it should more accurately be called the 'brightness' triangle than the 'exposure' triangle. As for it being a 'method' I have tried for long, in vain, for one of its proponents to tell me how to use it to calculate the combination of aperture, shutter and iSO you should use. No-one has, the simple reason being that there is no method at all to it.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 wrote:

bobn2 said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 wrote:

bobn2 said:

gollywop wrote:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 wrote:

bobn2 said:

gollywop wrote:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 wrote:

bobn2 said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

bobn2 said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

bobn2 said:

moving_comfort wrote:

bobn2 said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

bobn2 said:

moving_comfort wrote:

I ran into a situation related to this with my neighbor last year.

He had been told that shutter speed, aperture and ISO formed an exposure 'triangle', in that each was equally 'tweakable' to get more light on the sensor. (Thanks, National Camera Exchange clerk!)

He was basically under the impression that there was no downside to being lazy with aperture or shutter speed, because it could be made up with an ISO adjustment - that all three variables affected 'exposure'.

(In his defense, he wasn't really being lazy about aperture, he just had the consumer kit zoom and usually didn't have a lot of aperture range to work with.)

After I had a talk with him, he bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to get more aperture range to work with - and he started to notice noise, more, after that (he had upgraded from a P&S so he thought the noise he saw before was still 'pretty good'. ) He also bought a used 35 1.8G later.

I think there are a lot of shooters who have more of a clue than he did, and have been informed that you should perhaps carefully choose your SS and aperture first, and then let ISO make up the difference, but they know that because what's really happening with ISO has been partially described to them - which begs the question, if you're going have to partially describe it anyway, why not entirely, accurately describe it?

Click to expand...

Of course it should be described accurately, but the question is, must it be?...

Photography is not a science like photometry. It's part art, part skill, and part science. Artists are often not good scientists. If they have a hard time with science, I say give them something tangible that they can use.

Click to expand...

Like:

"Upping ISO is not affecting exposure, it's adding brightness to the image artificially after the image is captured and before it is saved. That is why... (add your usual instructional caveats/warnings to increasing ISO that you normally would give them here...)"

How could it get any simpler? This ^^ at least points in a more accurate direction, and would help them with the underpinnings of 'exposure'.

Click to expand...

It is very simple. Now tell them if they change the shutter while maintaining the same brightness, their ISO changed. Watch their eyes glaze over as they ask you, "but that button labeled ISO is in the same spot?"

"Yeah, about that....that's not really ISO..."

Click to expand...

Part II

"So what does that button do?"

"Well, it basically changes the amplification of the analog amplifiers on the sensor"

"Ah so that just changes the sensitivity of the sensor"

"No, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes"

"Come again?"

Click to expand...

The fallacy here is that amplification changes sensitivity. So what you say after the 'Come again' is:

"Yes, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes, because amplifying its output doesn't change its sensitivity".

Click to expand...

You don't get it, Bob. I think the real point here is to illustrate that the beginner is going to be confused when the teacher is unable to communicate the facts and notions properly. You just want to spoil the fun.

Click to expand...

OK, so the right answer is:

'No the button makes there be more light, just like if you used a longer shutter speed'.

Click to expand...

Now you're beginning (I say, beginning) to get the idea.

Did you see the completely beautiful Lynda.com presentation of the exposure triangle that David Hull cites below?

http://blog.lynda.com/2013/09/27/ma...14-17-11&utm_medium=viral&utm_source=facebook

Here we can learn the salient facts:

• ISO controls the sensitivity of the sensor
• In triangle, there is ISO and then there are the other things
• Aperture determines the amount of light
• Shutter speed is just barely there, basically determined by the frame rate.

I mean, what else is there to say? So you see how lucky beginners are these days. I never had anyone to teach me things like that, and I've never really gotten over it.

Click to expand...

And it did quite clearly say that exposure was the thing in the middle that all that other stuff made up. I must have been wrong, then. I mean, it was on You Tube, it must be right.

Click to expand...

Then I ask you the same question, which is the point to the whloe thread.

Do you reach the same conclusions and make the same decisions whether you use the "exposure triangle" method or the" brightness triangle" method.

Yes, or No.

Click to expand...

Can't give you a yes or no, sorry, because neither the 'exposure' or 'brightness' triangles are methods. They are in any case the same thing, people are just saying it should more accurately be called the 'brightness' triangle than the 'exposure' triangle. As for it being a 'method' I have tried for long, in vain, for one of its proponents to tell me how to use it to calculate the combination of aperture, shutter and iSO you should use. No-one has, the simple reason being that there is no method at all to it.

Click to expand...

Forget whether there is a method or not. Do you come to the same conclusions about the settings of your camera whether you consider ISO part of exposure or not. In principle there is only one correct answer, and I think you know what that is.

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

bobn2 wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

gollywop wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

bobn2 wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

gollywop wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

bobn2 wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

moving_comfort wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck said:

moving_comfort wrote:

I ran into a situation related to this with my neighbor last year.

He had been told that shutter speed, aperture and ISO formed an exposure 'triangle', in that each was equally 'tweakable' to get more light on the sensor. (Thanks, National Camera Exchange clerk!)

He was basically under the impression that there was no downside to being lazy with aperture or shutter speed, because it could be made up with an ISO adjustment - that all three variables affected 'exposure'.

(In his defense, he wasn't really being lazy about aperture, he just had the consumer kit zoom and usually didn't have a lot of aperture range to work with.)

After I had a talk with him, he bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to get more aperture range to work with - and he started to notice noise, more, after that (he had upgraded from a P&S so he thought the noise he saw before was still 'pretty good'. ) He also bought a used 35 1.8G later.

I think there are a lot of shooters who have more of a clue than he did, and have been informed that you should perhaps carefully choose your SS and aperture first, and then let ISO make up the difference, but they know that because what's really happening with ISO has been partially described to them - which begs the question, if you're going have to partially describe it anyway, why not entirely, accurately describe it?

Click to expand...

Of course it should be described accurately, but the question is, must it be?...

Photography is not a science like photometry. It's part art, part skill, and part science. Artists are often not good scientists. If they have a hard time with science, I say give them something tangible that they can use.

Click to expand...

Like:

"Upping ISO is not affecting exposure, it's adding brightness to the image artificially after the image is captured and before it is saved. That is why... (add your usual instructional caveats/warnings to increasing ISO that you normally would give them here...)"

How could it get any simpler? This ^^ at least points in a more accurate direction, and would help them with the underpinnings of 'exposure'.

Click to expand...

It is very simple. Now tell them if they change the shutter while maintaining the same brightness, their ISO changed. Watch their eyes glaze over as they ask you, "but that button labeled ISO is in the same spot?"

"Yeah, about that....that's not really ISO..."

Click to expand...

Part II

"So what does that button do?"

"Well, it basically changes the amplification of the analog amplifiers on the sensor"

"Ah so that just changes the sensitivity of the sensor"

"No, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes"

"Come again?"

Click to expand...

The fallacy here is that amplification changes sensitivity. So what you say after the 'Come again' is:

"Yes, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes, because amplifying its output doesn't change its sensitivity".

Click to expand...

You don't get it, Bob. I think the real point here is to illustrate that the beginner is going to be confused when the teacher is unable to communicate the facts and notions properly. You just want to spoil the fun.

Click to expand...

OK, so the right answer is:

'No the button makes there be more light, just like if you used a longer shutter speed'.

Click to expand...

Now you're beginning (I say, beginning) to get the idea.

Did you see the completely beautiful Lynda.com presentation of the exposure triangle that David Hull cites below?

http://blog.lynda.com/2013/09/27/ma...14-17-11&utm_medium=viral&utm_source=facebook

Here we can learn the salient facts:

• ISO controls the sensitivity of the sensor
• In triangle, there is ISO and then there are the other things
• Aperture determines the amount of light
• Shutter speed is just barely there, basically determined by the frame rate.

I mean, what else is there to say? So you see how lucky beginners are these days. I never had anyone to teach me things like that, and I've never really gotten over it.

Click to expand...

And it did quite clearly say that exposure was the thing in the middle that all that other stuff made up. I must have been wrong, then. I mean, it was on You Tube, it must be right.

Click to expand...

Then I ask you the same question, which is the point to the whloe thread.

Do you reach the same conclusions and make the same decisions whether you use the "exposure triangle" method or the" brightness triangle" method.

Yes, or No.

Click to expand...

To this point, there really isn't such a thing as a "brightness triangle." Such a notion has been suggested, but, since it's not defined, whatever you have in mind exists only in your mind and cannot be conveyed by a name. Could you help me out, then, by explaining exactly how these two triangles differ in your mind?

--
gollywop

gollywop said:

gollywop said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

gollywop said:

bobn2 wrote:

gollywop said:

gollywop wrote:

gollywop said:

bobn2 wrote:

gollywop said:

gollywop wrote:

gollywop said:

bobn2 wrote:

gollywop said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

gollywop said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

gollywop said:

moving_comfort wrote:

gollywop said:

Andre Affleck wrote:

gollywop said:

moving_comfort wrote:

I ran into a situation related to this with my neighbor last year.

He had been told that shutter speed, aperture and ISO formed an exposure 'triangle', in that each was equally 'tweakable' to get more light on the sensor. (Thanks, National Camera Exchange clerk!)

He was basically under the impression that there was no downside to being lazy with aperture or shutter speed, because it could be made up with an ISO adjustment - that all three variables affected 'exposure'.

(In his defense, he wasn't really being lazy about aperture, he just had the consumer kit zoom and usually didn't have a lot of aperture range to work with.)

After I had a talk with him, he bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to get more aperture range to work with - and he started to notice noise, more, after that (he had upgraded from a P&S so he thought the noise he saw before was still 'pretty good'. ) He also bought a used 35 1.8G later.

I think there are a lot of shooters who have more of a clue than he did, and have been informed that you should perhaps carefully choose your SS and aperture first, and then let ISO make up the difference, but they know that because what's really happening with ISO has been partially described to them - which begs the question, if you're going have to partially describe it anyway, why not entirely, accurately describe it?

Click to expand...

Of course it should be described accurately, but the question is, must it be?...

Photography is not a science like photometry. It's part art, part skill, and part science. Artists are often not good scientists. If they have a hard time with science, I say give them something tangible that they can use.

Click to expand...

Like:

"Upping ISO is not affecting exposure, it's adding brightness to the image artificially after the image is captured and before it is saved. That is why... (add your usual instructional caveats/warnings to increasing ISO that you normally would give them here...)"

How could it get any simpler? This ^^ at least points in a more accurate direction, and would help them with the underpinnings of 'exposure'.

Click to expand...

It is very simple. Now tell them if they change the shutter while maintaining the same brightness, their ISO changed. Watch their eyes glaze over as they ask you, "but that button labeled ISO is in the same spot?"

"Yeah, about that....that's not really ISO..."

Click to expand...

Part II

"So what does that button do?"

"Well, it basically changes the amplification of the analog amplifiers on the sensor"

"Ah so that just changes the sensitivity of the sensor"

"No, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes"

"Come again?"

Click to expand...

The fallacy here is that amplification changes sensitivity. So what you say after the 'Come again' is:

"Yes, the sensitivity of the sensor never changes, because amplifying its output doesn't change its sensitivity".

Click to expand...

You don't get it, Bob. I think the real point here is to illustrate that the beginner is going to be confused when the teacher is unable to communicate the facts and notions properly. You just want to spoil the fun.

Click to expand...

OK, so the right answer is:

'No the button makes there be more light, just like if you used a longer shutter speed'.

Click to expand...

Now you're beginning (I say, beginning) to get the idea.

Did you see the completely beautiful Lynda.com presentation of the exposure triangle that David Hull cites below?

http://blog.lynda.com/2013/09/27/ma...14-17-11&utm_medium=viral&utm_source=facebook

Here we can learn the salient facts:

• ISO controls the sensitivity of the sensor
• In triangle, there is ISO and then there are the other things
• Aperture determines the amount of light
• Shutter speed is just barely there, basically determined by the frame rate.

I mean, what else is there to say? So you see how lucky beginners are these days. I never had anyone to teach me things like that, and I've never really gotten over it.

Click to expand...

And it did quite clearly say that exposure was the thing in the middle that all that other stuff made up. I must have been wrong, then. I mean, it was on You Tube, it must be right.

Click to expand...

Then I ask you the same question, which is the point to the whloe thread.

Do you reach the same conclusions and make the same decisions whether you use the "exposure triangle" method or the" brightness triangle" method.

Yes, or No.

Click to expand...

To this point, there really isn't such a thing as a "brightness triangle." Such a notion has been suggested, but, since it's not defined, whatever you have in mind exists only in your mind and cannot be conveyed by a name. Could you help me out, then, by explaining exactly how these two triangles differ in your mind?

--
gollywop

Click to expand...

You arrive at the same destination in the image capture paradigm, if you will, using either way of thinking. Only after this ppint does a certain methodology matter. Think about it in principle. Whether or not ISO is part of exposure, your decisions are based on other aspects of the image capture process.