Alternative term for "exposure triangle"?

Why does it need renaming at all? Atleast two thirds (the shutter speed and the aperture) do indeed affect the exposure (in its true meaning), and the shape of the triangle makes sense, if it is drawn correctly (see below).

exp-triangle.png
Suppose you have a film or an ISO-less camera that is always at 200, and an f/2.8 lens.

So far as I can read this diagram, that means you can only shoot at f/2.8, which is certainly not the case.

Indeed, the more I look at this admittedly elegant diagram, the less it makes sense.
I'm sorry guys, it makes perfect sense to me.
1. definition of exposure: Total amount of light reaching the sensor (only a factor of shutter and aperture)

Take one of the horizontal aperture lines, and look to see where your green shutter speed line intersects it. This is the exposure youre interested in. Take a note of the iso line at that intersection point. Now to keep the exposure the same, youre just sticking on that same blue iso line, but can choose any intersecting combination of shutter and aperture => this will give the same exposure (amount of light reaching the sensor) as your original combination.

2. definition of exposure: Brightness of the resulting image (using aperture, shutter and iso).

Say youre exposing correctly at that dot (iso 1600, f2.8, 1/30 s). You want to change some/all of these to achieve the same brightness image. So like above, you can move up and down your iso line, which will change both the apeture and the shutter speed. You can move up and down the diagonal green line, which will keep the shutter speed the same, but change the iso and aperture, or you can move along the horizontal red line, which will keep the aperture the same, but change the shutter speed and the iso. Or you can do a combination of all:

From the dot, move the iso to 3200, keeping the aperture the same, we can see our correct exposure is not iso 3200, 1/60 sec, f2.8. Now from that point there, change the aperture to f5.6 We end up at 1/15 sec, f5.6, iso 3200. This is exactly the same exposure we started off with
So, this triangle suggests that if we set, say, 400 ISO, we can only use f/1.4 at 1/30 second, f/2 at 1/15 second or f/2.8 at 1/8 second. I seem to remember having used 400 ISO with a lot of other combinations of f-number and shutter than that. Do you think that there might be something missing here?

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
For a given light intensity.
Rather for a specific light intensity.
you are not nitpicking, what a strange idea I had to say so !! :-)
No, I'm not nitpicking. When you've actually succeeded in understanding this stuff, you'll be in a position to decide what is and isn't 'nitpicking'. Until then you're speaking from a position of ignorance, and using words like 'nitpicking' to cover for it.

Have you worked out what 'the signal' is yet?

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
 
Last edited:
Because it actually has two vertices?
Please explain? Two vertices? Two corners? It's a triangle, are you not including ISO?
Yes, move the point along the horizontal axis (change the ISO) without changing the speed and the aperture. The exposure does not change. It is an exposure duangle.
Change ISO, it will change how the camera meters the exposure - this is what a beginning photographer need to understand among other things...
 
For a given light intensity.
Rather for a specific light intensity.
you are not nitpicking, what a strange idea I had to say so !! :-)
No, I'm not nitpicking.
I haven't changed a word of your answer, no need. . Honestly, I could not imagine you would illustrate that much the word nitpicking ! It was spot on.

I think in fact the exposure triangle is not for nitpickers. Of course, I would advise any beginner to understand the exposure triangle.
 
It is amplification (digital ot analog)..
What is being 'amplified'?

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
The signal.
What is 'the signal'?
You play a bit too much on words saying that everybody is wrong, it becomes a bit irritating. Especially when this is nitpicking.
It's not nitpicking. You're actually just plain wrong. ISO is not 'amplification' So rather than just tell you 'you're wrong' (oh well, I have now), it's better for you to work through yourself and understand why you're wrong. See above, what is 'the signal'? You will find that you can't give a meaningful answer, because the you're already on meaningless territory.
I will continue using "pp" because lot's of people understand. Try to use "p" instead, good luck !
Again, different things. The latent image needs 'processing'. Once you've 'processed' you can apply 'post processing' operations. The distinction is important, because changing the lightness in post-processing can have very different eefcts from setting the lightness in processing.
This may be a difference without distinction to a human observer as a "latent image" is just that latent.
Conflating different ideas into the same word is the root of confusion. Don't do it, especially around beginners.
Conflation is because of the built in function of the ISO dial in most cameras as you have pointed out. However, understanding of the conflation built into the function of an ISO dial is also edifying.
--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
 
Why does it need renaming at all? Atleast two thirds (the shutter speed and the aperture) do indeed affect the exposure (in its true meaning), and the shape of the triangle makes sense, if it is drawn correctly (see below).

exp-triangle.png
Suppose you have a film or an ISO-less camera that is always at 200, and an f/2.8 lens.

So far as I can read this diagram, that means you can only shoot at f/2.8, which is certainly not the case.

Indeed, the more I look at this admittedly elegant diagram, the less it makes sense.
I'm sorry guys, it makes perfect sense to me.
1. definition of exposure: Total amount of light reaching the sensor (only a factor of shutter and aperture)

Take one of the horizontal aperture lines, and look to see where your green shutter speed line intersects it. This is the exposure youre interested in. Take a note of the iso line at that intersection point. Now to keep the exposure the same, youre just sticking on that same blue iso line, but can choose any intersecting combination of shutter and aperture => this will give the same exposure (amount of light reaching the sensor) as your original combination.

2. definition of exposure: Brightness of the resulting image (using aperture, shutter and iso).

Say youre exposing correctly at that dot (iso 1600, f2.8, 1/30 s). You want to change some/all of these to achieve the same brightness image. So like above, you can move up and down your iso line, which will change both the apeture and the shutter speed. You can move up and down the diagonal green line, which will keep the shutter speed the same, but change the iso and aperture, or you can move along the horizontal red line, which will keep the aperture the same, but change the shutter speed and the iso. Or you can do a combination of all:

From the dot, move the iso to 3200, keeping the aperture the same, we can see our correct exposure is not iso 3200, 1/60 sec, f2.8. Now from that point there, change the aperture to f5.6 We end up at 1/15 sec, f5.6, iso 3200. This is exactly the same exposure we started off with - bold added
So, this triangle suggests that if we set, say, 400 ISO, we can only use f/1.4 at 1/30 second, f/2 at 1/15 second or f/2.8 at 1/8 second.
Surprised that you did not harp on "correct exposure" ;-)
I seem to remember having used 400 ISO with a lot of other combinations of f-number and shutter than that. Do you think that there might be something missing here?
No, you have not read the manual that came with the chart :-D
--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
 
Here is a better exposure "triangle":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

Wait, no ISO??? ;-)

Popular exposure chart type, showing exposure values EV (red lines) as combinations of aperture and shutter speed values. The green lines are sample program lines, by which a digital camera automatically selects both the shutter speed and the aperture for given exposure value (brightness of light), when set to Program mode (P). (Canon, n.d.)

Popular exposure chart type, showing exposure values EV (red lines) as combinations of aperture and shutter speed values. The green lines are sample program lines, by which a digital camera automatically selects both the shutter speed and the aperture for given exposure value (brightness of light), when set to Program mode (P). (Canon, n.d.)
'Exposure Value' isn't 'brightness of light. As you correctly say above, it is the combination of f-number and shutter. The confusion is cause because flash and AF specs measure brightness of light in EV₁₀₀, which is the brightness of light where the given EV value gives nominal exposure at 100ISO. Unfortunately the subscript '100' usually gets left off, leading people to thing that 'EV' describes the brightness of light.

Like the dreaded 'triangle' your diagram omits the brightness of the light.
So it is a triangle after all? ;-)
It's a graph. The EV value is simply log 2 N^2/t, so those lines just tell you what is the EV for that combination of N and t.
What I posted are actually level plots of EV as a function of s and f#. It is one of the ways to plot a function of two variables without going to 3D. In this sense, you can call it a graph.

Which brings us to the existential question: what is an exposure triangle or whatever it is, what we want to express/visualize, etc.
 
For a given light intensity.
Rather for a specific light intensity.
you are not nitpicking, what a strange idea I had to say so !! :-)
No, I'm not nitpicking.
I haven't changed a word of your answer, no need. . Honestly, I could not imagine you would illustrate that much the word nitpicking ! It was spot on.
No, it wasn't. 'Given' and 'specific' mean different things. The exposure for which this triangle works was never 'given', it has to be assumed. 'Given' is information 'given' on which you base your understanding. Exactly my point is that the information that you need to understand the triangle is not 'given'.
I think in fact the exposure triangle is not for nitpickers. Of course, I would advise any beginner to understand the exposure triangle.
That would be bad advice. It's a nonsense, not 'understandable'. The only people who like it are the ones who are yet to understand. It gives them a faux understanding. Instead of actually understanding, they just pass this complete nonsense between themselves.

Have you worked out what is the 'signal' yet?

I'm beginning to suspect that you're going on this detour about 'nitpicking' because you can't think of a sensible answer.
 
So... why do we need an alternative term for "exposure triangle"?! What am I missing here?
Because the three elements of the triangle are not the three parameters of exposure.

Exposure is determined by scene luminance, t-stop and length of time the sensitive medium is exposed to light. If you know only those three things, you know what the exposure is. T-stop is usually well-approximated by f-stop, but nothing constrains ISO to be a useful approximation of luminance. If you knowf-stop, shutter speed and ISO, you do not know what the exposure is.

The three elements of the so-called "exposure triangle" are the three on-camera controls that most directly affect image brightness or lightness in available light shooting. It might be more useful if the name of the diagram related better to what the elements of the triangle actually controlled.

Actual exposure, as distinct from image lightness is important in photography, because exposure is the only variables affecting noise in an image, and one of two factors (the other being ISO setting) that affects the lightness of what is produced by the camera.

I would argue that beign aware of exposure as a concept distinct from lightness is more important in digital RAW photography than it was with roll film available light photography with standard processing by a third-party lab, because with digital we
  • are more easily able to change ISO from shot to shot,
  • are more easily able to adjust lightness in our own post-capture processing,
  • don't have film grain which obscures noise
  • have a wider range of light in which we can produce usable images
 
Last edited:
Here is a better exposure "triangle":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

Wait, no ISO??? ;-)

Popular exposure chart type, showing exposure values EV (red lines) as combinations of aperture and shutter speed values. The green lines are sample program lines, by which a digital camera automatically selects both the shutter speed and the aperture for given exposure value (brightness of light), when set to Program mode (P). (Canon, n.d.)

Popular exposure chart type, showing exposure values EV (red lines) as combinations of aperture and shutter speed values. The green lines are sample program lines, by which a digital camera automatically selects both the shutter speed and the aperture for given exposure value (brightness of light), when set to Program mode (P). (Canon, n.d.)
'Exposure Value' isn't 'brightness of light. As you correctly say above, it is the combination of f-number and shutter. The confusion is cause because flash and AF specs measure brightness of light in EV₁₀₀, which is the brightness of light where the given EV value gives nominal exposure at 100ISO. Unfortunately the subscript '100' usually gets left off, leading people to thing that 'EV' describes the brightness of light.

Like the dreaded 'triangle' your diagram omits the brightness of the light.
So it is a triangle after all? ;-)
It's a graph. The EV value is simply log 2 N^2/t, so those lines just tell you what is the EV for that combination of N and t.
What I posted are actually level plots of EV as a function of s and f#. It is one of the ways to plot a function of two variables without going to 3D. In this sense, you can call it a graph.
Which brings us to the existential question: what is an exposure triangle or whatever it is, what we want to express/visualize, etc.
There is a question is exactly what it is supposed to express/visualise. I suspect that its proponents don't know.

It would be a help, if one of them could actually tell us that.

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
 
Here is a better exposure "triangle":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

Wait, no ISO??? ;-)

Popular exposure chart type, showing exposure values EV (red lines) as combinations of aperture and shutter speed values. The green lines are sample program lines, by which a digital camera automatically selects both the shutter speed and the aperture for given exposure value (brightness of light), when set to Program mode (P). (Canon, n.d.)

Popular exposure chart type, showing exposure values EV (red lines) as combinations of aperture and shutter speed values. The green lines are sample program lines, by which a digital camera automatically selects both the shutter speed and the aperture for given exposure value (brightness of light), when set to Program mode (P). (Canon, n.d.)
'Exposure Value' isn't 'brightness of light. As you correctly say above, it is the combination of f-number and shutter. The confusion is cause because flash and AF specs measure brightness of light in EV₁₀₀, which is the brightness of light where the given EV value gives nominal exposure at 100ISO. Unfortunately the subscript '100' usually gets left off, leading people to thing that 'EV' describes the brightness of light.

Like the dreaded 'triangle' your diagram omits the brightness of the light.
So it is a triangle after all? ;-)

Yes, EV is a relative measure of exposure (for a fixed scene luminance); the actual exposure needs to include the scene luminance. If we start digging deeper, we will discover that the light varies across the scene and across the frame, so we may have to include the position, and that adds two more variables to the three we have already.
Including scene luminance is like saying you need to include pebbles to count how many pebbles there are ;-)

Exposure metering is trying to determine the scene luminance, imho.

I can see that flash photography takes a bit of a wrinkle, though.
 
Given the extensive coverage of the concept of exposure on these forums, I suspect that we are all reasonably well versed in the term's correct definition. The trouble is students tend to find the concept of the "exposure" triangle (when applied to the overall brightness of the final image) to be quite a useful concept.

Can anybody suggest an alternative name for the exposure triangle that would be technically acceptable and doesn't sound too ridiculous?
"Three pillars of Exposure Metering" ;-)

I think "exposure triangle" is OK - we know the sun does not rise; it's the earth that rotates but we say "sun rise", anyways :-D
I expect that a much higher proportion of photographers knows that the earth's rotation is responsible for the phenomenon called "sunrise" than know that the so-called "exposure triangle" does not actually contain the three parameters of exposure.
 
Here is a better exposure "triangle":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

Wait, no ISO??? ;-)

Popular exposure chart type, showing exposure values EV (red lines) as combinations of aperture and shutter speed values. The green lines are sample program lines, by which a digital camera automatically selects both the shutter speed and the aperture for given exposure value (brightness of light), when set to Program mode (P). (Canon, n.d.)

Popular exposure chart type, showing exposure values EV (red lines) as combinations of aperture and shutter speed values. The green lines are sample program lines, by which a digital camera automatically selects both the shutter speed and the aperture for given exposure value (brightness of light), when set to Program mode (P). (Canon, n.d.)
'Exposure Value' isn't 'brightness of light. As you correctly say above, it is the combination of f-number and shutter. The confusion is cause because flash and AF specs measure brightness of light in EV₁₀₀, which is the brightness of light where the given EV value gives nominal exposure at 100ISO. Unfortunately the subscript '100' usually gets left off, leading people to thing that 'EV' describes the brightness of light.

Like the dreaded 'triangle' your diagram omits the brightness of the light.
So it is a triangle after all? ;-)

Yes, EV is a relative measure of exposure (for a fixed scene luminance); the actual exposure needs to include the scene luminance. If we start digging deeper, we will discover that the light varies across the scene and across the frame, so we may have to include the position, and that adds two more variables to the three we have already.
Including scene luminance is like saying you need to include pebbles to count how many pebbles there are ;-)

Exposure metering is trying to determine the scene luminance, imho.
That's 'light metering'. There are many kinds of 'light meter'. For instance


An exposure meter does something slightly different. You give it a target exposure (by setting the ISO) and measure the light, it then tells you the EV needed with that light to achieve the target exposure.

That's all that ISO does, set a target exposure then arrange the processing such that the target exposure gets rendered as a representation of 18% grey (which is actually 12.6% grey, but that's a different story).

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
 
For a given light intensity.
Rather for a specific light intensity.
you are not nitpicking, what a strange idea I had to say so !! :-)
No, I'm not nitpicking.
I haven't changed a word of your answer, no need. . Honestly, I could not imagine you would illustrate that much the word nitpicking ! It was spot on.
No, it wasn't. 'Given' and 'specific' mean different things. The exposure for which this triangle works was never 'given', it has to be assumed. 'Given' is information 'given' on which you base your understanding. Exactly my point is that the information that you need to understand the triangle is not 'given'.
I think in fact the exposure triangle is not for nitpickers. Of course, I would advise any beginner to understand the exposure triangle.
That would be bad advice. It's a nonsense, not 'understandable'. The only people who like it are the ones who are yet to understand. It gives them a faux understanding. Instead of actually understanding, they just pass this complete nonsense between themselves.

Have you worked out what is the 'signal' yet?
Don't you know wikipedia ? Honestly, you should.
I'm beginning to suspect that you're going on this detour about 'nitpicking' because you can't think of a sensible answer.

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
 
The 'exposure triangle' or whatever we are or arent calling it now is only relevant once you have a baseline exposure reading in terms of shutter speed and aperture (and iso). Just learn what the full and 1/3 stops are for each of those three controllable variables and go from there. Its so much easier. Dont even bother with a chart.
 
Why does it need renaming at all? Atleast two thirds (the shutter speed and the aperture) do indeed affect the exposure (in its true meaning), and the shape of the triangle makes sense, if it is drawn correctly (see below).

exp-triangle.png
This triangle seems to tell me that if I want to shoot at f/5.6 in daylight (something I often do with my APS-C cameras) that I have to use a shutter from 1/8 to 1/125 and an ISO from 1600 to 12800. This will result in a lot of blown highlights! My most typical settings at f/5.6 in daylight would actually be 1/800 and ISO 100.

Furthermore it seems to tell me that if I used 1/800 f/5.6 ISO 400 instead of 1/800 f/5.6 ISO 100 I would get a noisier image. In fact I would get a slightly less noisy image.

Also, the diagram seems to tell me that If I use f/2.8 I should get a far amount of bokeh (by which I presume they actually mean I will get a shallow DoF). Yet when I shoot a 1/2.3" sensor camera at f/2.8 my DoF stretches to infinity unless I focus closer than about 2/3 of a metre away.

Finally, the diagram doesn't seem to tell me how I should change my settings as the light changes.
 
Why does it need renaming at all? Atleast two thirds (the shutter speed and the aperture) do indeed affect the exposure (in its true meaning), and the shape of the triangle makes sense, if it is drawn correctly (see below).

exp-triangle.png
This triangle seems to tell me that if I want to shoot at f/5.6 in daylight (something I often do with my APS-C cameras) that I have to use a shutter from 1/8 to 1/125 and an ISO from 1600 to 12800. This will result in a lot of blown highlights! My most typical settings at f/5.6 in daylight would actually be 1/800 and ISO 100.
Simply, you would have another triangle for your typical settings giving you the other possible combinations.
Furthermore it seems to tell me that if I used 1/800 f/5.6 ISO 400 instead of 1/800 f/5.6 ISO 100 I would get a noisier image. In fact I would get a slightly less noisy image.
Not exactly... If you have an exposure triangle for the settings 1/800 f5.6 ISO100 then the combination with 1/800s f5.6 ISO400 is not possible. If you choose ISO400 in the same exposure triangle, the image will be noisier. So according to me it seems correct, it leads in fact to a good understanding imho.
Also, the diagram seems to tell me that If I use f/2.8 I should get a far amount of bokeh (by which I presume they actually mean I will get a shallow DoF). Yet when I shoot a 1/2.3" sensor camera at f/2.8 my DoF stretches to infinity unless I focus closer than about 2/3 of a metre away.
it just says shallower or deeper, just use this termnology if you think this is less confusing.
Finally, the diagram doesn't seem to tell me how I should change my settings as the light changes.
A diagram must be shown with explanations.
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top