If you can take each RGB channel separately so that each channel can be fully exposed, then be my guest.
I'm not sure how that comment relates to what went before, but if even exposure between channels is your concern, use a magenta filter.
Isn't maxing out each channel, the epitome of "exposure management"?
That depends on your goals when you manage exposure.
As I said above, the under exposure can be cured by more exposure or more development.
That's where you are wrong. A
too small exposure can never be corrected by more development. -bold added.
This happens a lot - do you think I would think that a shot taken with lens cover on (range finders) can be corrected by more development? ;-)
Howe about, can we say "somewhat compensated"?
So long as you have at the back of your mind the idea that exposure management is all about brightness you'll make the same mistake.
If you mean, I need to pay attention to DOF and motion blur and noisiness, not to worry, the "exposure triangle" covers that. I honestly do not see your point of set f/stop and shutter speed and use auto ISO being that different.
The difference is that the way I put it builds on the actuality rather than a mythology and also that the method I put forward always leads to the maximum exposure consistent with your pictorial constraints, whereas the 'ISO first' method usually doesn't.
ISO first is carry over from film days when one had to decide what speed film to load. However, even if one uses auto ISO but say limits to up to ISO800, then it's ISO first, thinking.
Not so much 'ISO first' thinking, but confusion over what ISO does. Quite a lot of people think that it somehow generates the equivalent of more light. That's why I argue against calling it 'gain', that's where the idea comes from, that light is 'gained'.
ISO first thinking here I meant that ISO selection is the priority. If someone sets the maximum auto ISO to 800, for example, one is making decision that ISO is the more important parameter.
I'm not sure many are making a cogent decision, they do it that way because they were told to. The truth of it is that when you set the ISO all you're doing is making a guess at what is the best exposure for the scene.
At least for me, you don't need to think that I think increase in ISO increase exposure; I would correct someone else if I heard that.
Sure, I know you have that one checked off.
I hope we get away from ISO or f/stop or SS first as in reality, the three aspects are considered simultaneously and back and forth for each of the effects.
Exposure first, that's light, f-number and shutter speed. ISO is something else and doesn't affect exposure.
Indeed, it does not.
So, that's the one (or two) to think of first when managing 'exposure'. ISO is something you set when you have made a coherent decision as to what exposure to use and made the necessary light measurements to set it.
They are not terribly overloaded words, semantically. But they are inevitably comparatives, so the question implicit always is 'over' or 'under' compared to what?
Compared to what the photographer wanted/expected to what the camera metered and/or EV choice that the photographer made.
All getting a bit fuzzy, isn't it? It's that fuzziness that gets people mystified.
I though OP provided a good segueay to talk about what each of these should mean to mostly beginning photographers.
Sort out the 'what' first.
If a photographer is truly 'beginning' then it means nothing, so you can start from scratch. The problem is not-quite-beginning photographers who have latched onto all the misinformation that is around. That pollutes their thinking processes.
If some one thinks increasing ISO increase exposure is misinformation;
It is misinformation.
increasing exposure increase the brightness of the image is not a misinformation - if you are saying density of silver halides or the fill factor of photodiode is not "brightness" - I think you are taking an extremely literal position.
It is also misinformation. Exposure determines the latent image, it has no effect on 'density'.
