-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
EXPLAINING THE MAGIC
- Thread starter spoonthegeezer
- Start date
- Status
Forgottenbutnotgone
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,745
- Reaction score
- 2,742
Keep in mind, the "us" you keep referring to is a group in your own head. You don't speak for me or plenty of others.THE TRUTH. Oh, my goodness, most of us here are absolutely sick and tired of hearing certain "truths”. It may well be all true, but most of us do not care, it is not important to us.That's where the original story, as always happens, gets twisted. Those details were not explained to some newbie. Those details were explained to seasoned photographers who were arguing against the truth, something else that routinely happens here.
The whole premise of this thread seems to simply be for those seasoned photographers to save face after having been proven incorrect, yet another thing that routinely goes on here.
It started with a simply stated and well-liked reply from GB:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60952330
Again, he's not talking to newbies but seasoned photographers. He made a very simple statement, explained his reasoning, and then gave an example to make it easier to understand. Even a person who might disagree with him should at least have the honesty to admit they can understand exactly what he was saying as there is not much room for disagreement there at all.
The only possible fair rebuttal would be to say that the term is not meant to suggest that all three elements are equally equate to exposure but that the three work together to determine what exposure is actually chosen. The two, aperture and shutter speed, used together in various inverse proportions to obtain a target amount of light, and the third, ISO allowing for latitude in what that actual target will be. it wasn't until after that initial premise was argued against that more proof was brought to the discussion.
There is obviously no way to prove what I'm about to say, but I'd have bet money on it if there was a way to replay it. If after starting such a vague thread, the OP had eventually made the exact same statement GB did BEFORE GB did it, there a a few people who would have argued the opposite side just as strongly as they argued against it when GB said it.
And as far as your braking analogy goes, you would be doing the student driver a big disservice if you DIDN'T explain to the new driver the effects of ABS on braking as it requires a different school of thought vs. the days before ABS, especially emergency braking.
Back in the day, one was taught how to modulate brake pressure in a panic stop to avoid skidding which robs one of directional control. Now the school of thought is to brake hard and do not be alarmed by the rapid vibrations of the brake pedal caused by the ABS system (the one you neglected to tell them about) which is doing so to allow one to simultaneously steer around whatever obstacle necessitated the hard braking in the first place.
So much easier to learn with an open mind.--
So much to learn, so little time left to do it!
Robert
Secondly, can you explain why you find it necessary to enter clearly marked threads on subjects you are absolutely sick and tired of hearing, IF indeed you don't care. Why do you seem to care so much about threads that you don't care about? It seems that if you don't care, the thing to do would be leave the thread to those who DO care. Your own words were that "you had the presumption". Maybe so but not to decide that no one should take any pleasure or interest in discussing something simply because you don't like it.
And it's one thing to enter such threads with a logical rebuttal, but it is another to enter solely to disrupt, because the thread is not important to you, ignoring the fact that there are often quite a number of people actively and positively participating and actually learning things that they mightjust find worthwhile.
Maybe not useful to you, but it is again quite presumptuous to assume that others are limited only to the conversations and ideals that you find important. There are people who may have the exact opposite opinion that you do. If everyone did everything exactly the way you do, you would undoubtedly not be the hot commodity that you are now, as the market would be flooded.
To me the most important requisite for a photographer varies from person to person, based on whatever particular area they struggle with. Whether it be composition or something technical, or even just lacking the motivation to shoot period. (something that more than few photographers have struggled with from time to time)
In any event, this is a gear oriented forum. You can't very well expect that all conversation will be centered around photography, no to say that such conversations are excluded. But there are certainly some less gear-oriented forums that lean more toward the photography side of things. It may just be easier to frequent there rather than try to duplicate here what already exists.
Robert
Last edited:
N
NCV
Guest
The OP said this above:
"And I say the magic will still work and that the exposure triangle is still relevant in the digital age. I don't care about photons, luminence etc THE MAGIC STILL WORKS".
I am in total agreement with the OP as would be any intelligent person and any person who actually uses a camera.
Who said it is a gear forum?
You may know that cameras produce photographs. It is the only reason a camera exists. They are the only interesting thing that they produce.
Discussions on total light and all the rest, are just a total waste of time as they do not contribute in any way in the production of better photographs. I think most people who use this forum would agree with me from what I see here.
"And I say the magic will still work and that the exposure triangle is still relevant in the digital age. I don't care about photons, luminence etc THE MAGIC STILL WORKS".
I am in total agreement with the OP as would be any intelligent person and any person who actually uses a camera.
Who said it is a gear forum?
You may know that cameras produce photographs. It is the only reason a camera exists. They are the only interesting thing that they produce.
Discussions on total light and all the rest, are just a total waste of time as they do not contribute in any way in the production of better photographs. I think most people who use this forum would agree with me from what I see here.
Great Bustard
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Well, semantics about the definition of "exposure" aside, I have to say that I never make use of the "exposure triangle" except when shooting in M mode. For example, if I'm shooting f/1.4 1/200 ISO 400 in M mode, and I decide to change to f/2.8, I'll up the ISO setting to ISO 1600 to maintain the same exposure time. In any case, nothing really "magical" about it. You just raise the ISO setting to adjust the lightness of the photo for corresponding lower exposure.
I assume you mean "Who said it is exclusively a gear forum". No one said or implied it's exclusively a gear forum, but it's certainly a gear forum. In any case, neither here nor there, really, right?
Well, some argue that cameras are another form of bling for many, but that's another topic.
Well, discussions involving "total light" come into play when comparing the noise differences between different formats. So, are you also arguing that comparing different formats is also a waste of time? I will not argue against it. However, I would suggest that, rather than singling out a single factor of comparing different formats, that you go after the real cause, which, of course, is comparing different formats. Still, wouldn't it be better to let each person choose which topics interest them and which topics don't rather than dictate it for them?
Last edited:
I can tell one of these stories myself. Forgive me those who have already read it but it is amusing and worth circulating. I also tend to think that it is an observation of people who don’t know cameras but are naturally interested in something new.
When my Samsung NX10 was a little pup its chiseled fine mini-slr looks did draw comments.
So in a fit of perversity I made a dymo sticker that just covered the Samsung logo out front. It read “Nikof” and whenever the curious asked about my camera I would explain to them in a serious manner with straight face that it was a new type of Russian camera.
Satisfied they would wander off happily - nobody ever took offence and none was intended.
But I really like helping anyone with technical advice who is seriously interested. We have a good friend who goes on cruises and he is always telling me about this great “$50” point’n’shoot he bought when on one of his trips. But he has never brought it to one of our regular walks. I have tried to talk photography with him often but his eyes glaze over soon enough and he keeps mentioning this most excellent $50 camera that I have never seen him use.
Maybe these experiences sum up the differences between dpreview forum members and everyone else.
But others know their caravans and mobile homes, places to visit, places to buy coffee, model trains, flash cars, golf clubs, some even collect money as a hobby ....
But for me the interest is mainly in crafting the image than in the actual result or how the technicalities work (I understand the basics). So I can use and choose the more or less right gear for the job what is left is good practise: practice, practice and more practice and occasionally a good image will pop out the other side.
Forgottenbutnotgone
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,745
- Reaction score
- 2,742
I didn't see anyone who didn't agree. Some just made clarifications on two legs that constitute exposure versus one that does not.
Possible the forum's mission statement, which says something about this being the place to discuss mft cameras.
The only reason a car exists is for transportation so why are there car shows?
They may not to YOU. Some would beg to differ and many have.
If that is indeed the case, it would stand to reason that you would surround yourself with those that agree with you rather than constantly ridiculing those who think or feel otherwise.
For the longest time you would not even admit that there was any truth to Equivalence, then your argument changed to "ok, it's true, but who cares? In reality you must care since you don't want anyone else who does care to freely discuss it.
Robert
I cannot see anything there that is not reasonable debate and certainly any “ridicule” is simply in the eye of the beholder that takes offence. Please leave that area of discussion aside.
Any more of this and you go on the “troll” list - this is taking the debate to the “personality” stage - please stick to facts rather than accusations which are personal.
No problems Joe but don’t you realise that you are accusing NCV of doing exactly what you are doing yourself?
The OP was not about the deep technical side of photography and here you are trying to turn it into a thread on technical issues.
Perhaps you had best start your own threads to discuss technical issues rather than keep jumping in to change existing less technical threads into them.
And for that matter NCV should desist from discussing these issues with GB as both you and he are so diagramatically opposed in photographic outlook that you will never agree.
Please agree to ignore each other and the forum might be a nicer place.
I am not taking sides or expressing an opinion here on the issues.
Thank you, Tom. This pretty much hits the nail on the head for me.
Great Bustard
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
I'm not sure what you mean. I didn't mean to accuse NCV of anything.
Wasn't the OP about the "magic" of the "exposure triangle"? In my post, I simply meant to say that, for my photography, the "exposure triangle" only comes into play when I'm shooting in M Mode. Was that off topic for this thread? If so, my apologies -- I misinterpreted.
Again, my apologies if I misunderstood the OP. I had thought the thread was about the "exposure triangle" and how it applies to the "magic" of photography.
In fact, I agree with NCV on the primary point he raised. That is, comparing systems does not help one improve their photography with the equipment in hand. In fact, I specifically said "I will not argue against it". I disagreed with him on the point that comparing systems was not an appropriate subject in this forum.
I don't see where NCV said anything uncivil in the post I replied to nor am I aware of anything uncivil in my reply. I agreed with one of his points, and disagreed with another. Is that not permitted?
Last edited:
And then we'd see how many are actually interested in such stuff.
You are a great bloke GB but you just don't get it when I try to explain - the best explanation of this is in your own reply to my post.
As they say at the end of erudite mathematical proofs "QED" which is roughly "I have proved what I set out to prove" and to take it any further will need another 20 posts of back and forwards discussion where we will get nowhere and no meeting of minds will ensue.
You simply think that no one listens to your comments because you don't truly listen to or understand what they have said.
And then we'd see how many are actually interested in such stuff.
Sergey_Green
Veteran Member
I use camera, cameras actually, of veracious formats, and I do not completely agree with the op - does it make me less intelligent than those who do agree?
Not that I would get argumentative about it, but ISO is not a part of the exposure. It is only a supplement, that can often be done in post processing (with equal results) just as well.
If cameras that we are welcome to discuss is not a gear, then it is not a gear forum. They should probably change the header to it.
Not *how* they produce images .. and how to use those cameras to the optimal results, it has not place in your narrative at all?
Small wonder, light is exactly what can make one photograph look better than the other, and I do not mean the artistic side of it. Or why should we be talking about the triangle (however incomplete) to begin with?
You can be like the most, but it does not mean you would be right about it. Actually quite wrong from how you put it and as I read it.
--
- sergey
Last edited:
knickerhawk
Veteran Member
I will preface this by saying that I've had my own share of tussles with GB and sometimes think he takes things too far (who doesn't?), but I really think you are being unfair to GB with respect to his participation in this thread. He was NOT the instigator of turning this thread into a so-called "technical" one. In fact, he offered no specific technical advice or claims whatsoever. He merely responded to NCV's opinion of what makes for good photography with his own. Frankly, I can't imagine that his words in this thread coming from pretty much any other poster (save perhaps Bobn2) would register even the slightest blip.Agreed. I hope that this happens, as serious stuff should be left to serious stuff threads.And then we'd see how many are actually interested in such stuff.
--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
https://australianimage.com.au
Yes, GB is a lightning rod for controversy (he's far from being alone in that respect), but if he's held to a different standard and expectation about what and when he can post, that's a form of prior restraint that should not be imposed. Like everyone else, his posts should be judged on their own merits and in the case of this specific thread, they sure look to me to be reasonable, non-insulting and on-topic.
I know it's not kosher to discuss moderation issues in the threads themselves, but I'm responding now because you appear to be interested in conducting a public dialog about posting standards and expectations for this forum. I actually applaud you for doing that. I think it's healthy and helps to dissipate anger and frustration. It's a very, very sad state of affairs we are increasingly finding ourselves in when the online world/social media escalates to where things spill over into the real world with tragic consequences like we saw this week at Youtube. Let's all keep things in perspective! It's just us a silly photographers and gearheads clashing over topics that matter very little in the grand scheme of things...relax!
P.S. I fully understand if you delete this post. Carry on with the conscientious (and mostly thankless) work you're doing to keep this a thriving place.
Last edited:
Yxa
Veteran Member
There is always good thing to understand how a system works.Agree completely with what you wrote which in no way disagrees with my thought and does fit in with the photography debate, its not necessary to understand the engineering or science behind how the ABS works to ensure that you learn how to use the technology to best effect.And as far as your braking analogy goes, you would be doing the student driver a big disservice if you DIDN'T explain to the new driver the effects of ABS on braking as it requires a different school of thought vs. the days before ABS, especially emergency braking.
So much easier to learn with an open mind.So much to learn, so little time left to do it!
Robert
What something does and how to make correct use of it is not the same needing to understand how it does it, the former is essential knowledge the latter is of interest to those who wish to understand it but lack of understanding does not prevent effective use
(One of the development projects I was involved in required extensive research into chemistry, physics, engineering and several other aspects but the finished product only required that we trained those who applied it in how to do so in such a manner that the finished system worked as specified. A knowledge of the R&D involved would have been of no use to the operators at all and in fact it was necessary to develop the system in such a way that no such knowledge was required by the operator, a bit like driving a car or using a camera? )
--
So much to learn, so little time left to do it!
You’ll be able to sort out the Faulty operation from the limits of the system
The operators will do a better job and will be more pleased with their work
Otherwize you can automate it , ie without workers
Forgottenbutnotgone
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,745
- Reaction score
- 2,742
Agree completely with what you wrote which in no way disagrees with my thought and does fit in with the photography debate, its not necessary to understand the engineering or science behind how the ABS works to ensure that you learn how to use the technology to best effect.And as far as your braking analogy goes, you would be doing the student driver a big disservice if you DIDN'T explain to the new driver the effects of ABS on braking as it requires a different school of thought vs. the days before ABS, especially emergency braking.
So much easier to learn with an open mind.So much to learn, so little time left to do it!
Robert
What something does and how to make correct use of it is not the same needing to understand how it does it, the former is essential knowledge the latter is of interest to those who wish to understand it but lack of understanding does not prevent effective use
(One of the development projects I was involved in required extensive research into chemistry, physics, engineering and several other aspects but the finished product only required that we trained those who applied it in how to do so in such a manner that the finished system worked as specified. A knowledge of the R&D involved would have been of no use to the operators at all and in fact it was necessary to develop the system in such a way that no such knowledge was required by the operator, a bit like driving a car or using a camera? )
Yxa
Veteran Member
Agree completely with what you wrote which in no way disagrees with my thought and does fit in with the photography debate, its not necessary to understand the engineering or science behind how the ABS works to ensure that you learn how to use the technology to best effect.And as far as your braking analogy goes, you would be doing the student driver a big disservice if you DIDN'T explain to the new driver the effects of ABS on braking as it requires a different school of thought vs. the days before ABS, especially emergency braking.
So much easier to learn with an open mind.So much to learn, so little time left to do it!
Robert
What something does and how to make correct use of it is not the same needing to understand how it does it, the former is essential knowledge the latter is of interest to those who wish to understand it but lack of understanding does not prevent effective use
(One of the development projects I was involved in required extensive research into chemistry, physics, engineering and several other aspects but the finished product only required that we trained those who applied it in how to do so in such a manner that the finished system worked as specified. A knowledge of the R&D involved would have been of no use to the operators at all and in fact it was necessary to develop the system in such a way that no such knowledge was required by the operator, a bit like driving a car or using a camera? )
gary0319
Veteran Member
Agree completely with what you wrote which in no way disagrees with my thought and does fit in with the photography debate, its not necessary to understand the engineering or science behind how the ABS works to ensure that you learn how to use the technology to best effect.And as far as your braking analogy goes, you would be doing the student driver a big disservice if you DIDN'T explain to the new driver the effects of ABS on braking as it requires a different school of thought vs. the days before ABS, especially emergency braking.
So much easier to learn with an open mind.So much to learn, so little time left to do it!
Robert
What something does and how to make correct use of it is not the same needing to understand how it does it, the former is essential knowledge the latter is of interest to those who wish to understand it but lack of understanding does not prevent effective use
(One of the development projects I was involved in required extensive research into chemistry, physics, engineering and several other aspects but the finished product only required that we trained those who applied it in how to do so in such a manner that the finished system worked as specified. A knowledge of the R&D involved would have been of no use to the operators at all and in fact it was necessary to develop the system in such a way that no such knowledge was required by the operator, a bit like driving a car or using a camera? )
- Status
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum