Why 'more or less stopped using ISO'?

Started Feb 19, 2014 | Questions thread
Luke Kaven Veteran Member • Posts: 5,705
Lovely and suspect properties

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

here's a question for you, Bob:

I take a picture at f/16 1/100 ISO 100. Now I want to take another shot where the final image is twice as bright. What ISO setting should I use?

I wouldn't be using f/16, 1/100 in the first place, so it's a hypothetical. But I wouldn't be using 'ISO' or exposure to set the brightness, whatever.

[Due to flat nesting, I can't tell where the preceding comment comes from.]

There is a way to nail down a distinction Bob is making here from analytical philosophy.

The property of brightness is in a class of relational properties (sometimes called "mere Cambridge properties").  This is a problem.  Brightness is dependent not just on the object itself, but a variety of other environmental and psychological conditions.  So there can be a change in the brightness of an object without any change in the object itself.

This is in contrast to monadic properties, such as the property of being 'round'.  A property of this sort cannot be changed without a corresponding change in the object itself.

The problem with relational properties is that they are artifacts of logical possibility (and linguistic possibility) that cannot be squared with nature insofar as we can see.  For example, I might have the property of being 'fifty miles south of a burning barn' (to quote a famous example due to Jaegwon Kim) one day, and not the next, but not due to any change in me.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow