Who is on a Crusade?

Bill Ferris · Apr 27, 2019

In a recent thread, one of the latter comments referred to those who advocate and teach an accurate understanding of how digital cameras work as being, "on a crusade."

I find that sentiment, ironic. The folks who advocate an accurate understanding of how key camera settings (f-stop, shutter speed and ISO) can be used to take control of the image-making process, are presenting an accurate picture of how digital cameras work, We do so - not from a position of faith - but from a position of knowledge.

It is a fact that ISO has no direct control over exposure. ISO does not change the brightness of the scene. It does not change the aperture of lens or the length of time the sensor is exposed to light. ISO does not control the sensitivity of a CMOS chip to light. I think it's fair to say that, by and large, those who advocate wide r knowledge of this share the opinion that it's better to teach an accurate understanding of how a camera works than an inaccurate one.

It is ironic that those who are most critical of this effort are so passionate in their defense of a popular, widely embraced but factually wrong understanding of digital photography. Crusaders, as history teaches, were religious warriors. They went to battle in the name of a religious faith. Their belief in the righteousness of their cause was found, not in a rational assessment of an actual threat, but in faith and blind loyalty to a higher authority.

So, in a debate between people who advocate and teach an accurate understanding of how digital cameras work and others who passionately, almost dogmatically defend a popular but factually wrong understanding of the same subject, one question stands out from the crowd.

Who is being rational and who are the crusaders?

rurikw · Apr 27, 2019

[No message]

riveredger · Apr 27, 2019

Bill Ferris said:
In a recent thread, one of the latter comments referred to those who advocate and teach an accurate understanding of how digital cameras work as being, "on a crusade."

I find that sentiment, ironic. The folks who advocate an accurate understanding of how key camera settings (f-stop, shutter speed and ISO) can be used to take control of the image-making process, are presenting an accurate picture of how digital cameras work, We do so - not from a position of faith - but from a position of knowledge.

It is a fact that ISO has no direct control over exposure. ISO does not change the brightness of the scene. It does not change the aperture of lens or the length of time the sensor is exposed to light. ISO does not control the sensitivity of a CMOS chip to light. I think it's fair to say that, by and large, those who advocate wide r knowledge of this share the opinion that it's better to teach an accurate understanding of how a camera works than an inaccurate one.

It is ironic that those who are most critical of this effort are so passionate in their defense of a popular, widely embraced but factually wrong understanding of digital photography. Crusaders, as history teaches, were religious warriors. They went to battle in the name of a religious faith. Their belief in the righteousness of their cause was found, not in a rational assessment of an actual threat, but in faith and blind loyalty to a higher authority.

So, in a debate between people who advocate and teach an accurate understanding of how digital cameras work and others who passionately, almost dogmatically defend a popular but factually wrong understanding of the same subject, one question stands out from the crowd.

Who is being rational and who are the crusaders?

mamallama · Apr 27, 2019

Bill Ferris said:
In a recent thread, one of the latter comments referred to those who advocate and teach an accurate understanding of how digital cameras work as being, "on a crusade."

I find that sentiment, ironic. The folks who advocate an accurate understanding of how key camera settings (f-stop, shutter speed and ISO) can be used to take control of the image-making process, are presenting an accurate picture of how digital cameras work, We do so - not from a position of faith - but from a position of knowledge.

It is a fact that ISO has no direct control over exposure. ISO does not change the brightness of the scene. It does not change the aperture of lens or the length of time the sensor is exposed to light. ISO does not control the sensitivity of a CMOS chip to light. I think it's fair to say that, by and large, those who advocate wide r knowledge of this share the opinion that it's better to teach an accurate understanding of how a camera works than an inaccurate one.

It is ironic that those who are most critical of this effort are so passionate in their defense of a popular, widely embraced but factually wrong understanding of digital photography. Crusaders, as history teaches, were religious warriors. They went to battle in the name of a religious faith. Their belief in the righteousness of their cause was found, not in a rational assessment of an actual threat, but in faith and blind loyalty to a higher authority.

So, in a debate between people who advocate and teach an accurate understanding of how digital cameras work and others who passionately, almost dogmatically defend a popular but factually wrong understanding of the same subject, one question stands out from the crowd.

Who is being rational and who are the crusaders?

You can tell who is on a crusade in how they frame their statements, usually in putting down those who don't believe as they do and not just stating what they believe. They make statements like the exposure triangle has ruined a whole generation of beginners and making it hard for us to teach them the truth. It is difficult to undo the damage done by the exposure triangle so, as a teacher of the right way, I feel my mission is to damn the exposure triangle and expose it for its faults before it ruin anymore beginners.

Does that sound familiar to those who have waged past crusades?

It's not about accuracy, it's about how they preach their accuracy. It is just as easy to point out the deficiencies in the exposure triangle that originated during the film-only days and how it does not apply to today's digital cameras with complex highly developed sensors without condemning those who use the exposure as some type of sinner.

dwalby · Apr 27, 2019

the fact that grown adults can argue here for years over semantics truly amazes me.

If my image is too dark or too light and A, B, and C all have an effect on that brightness, that's all I need to know, I don't need or care about a textbook definition of the terminology.

Wheatfield7 · Apr 27, 2019

Bill Ferris said:
In a recent thread, one of the latter comments referred to those who advocate and teach an accurate understanding of how digital cameras work as being, "on a crusade."

I find that sentiment, ironic. The folks who advocate an accurate understanding of how key camera settings (f-stop, shutter speed and ISO) can be used to take control of the image-making process, are presenting an accurate picture of how digital cameras work, We do so - not from a position of faith - but from a position of knowledge.

It is a fact that ISO has no direct control over exposure. ISO does not change the brightness of the scene. It does not change the aperture of lens or the length of time the sensor is exposed to light. ISO does not control the sensitivity of a CMOS chip to light. I think it's fair to say that, by and large, those who advocate wide r knowledge of this share the opinion that it's better to teach an accurate understanding of how a camera works than an inaccurate one.

It is ironic that those who are most critical of this effort are so passionate in their defense of a popular, widely embraced but factually wrong understanding of digital photography. Crusaders, as history teaches, were religious warriors. They went to battle in the name of a religious faith. Their belief in the righteousness of their cause was found, not in a rational assessment of an actual threat, but in faith and blind loyalty to a higher authority.

So, in a debate between people who advocate and teach an accurate understanding of how digital cameras work and others who passionately, almost dogmatically defend a popular but factually wrong understanding of the same subject, one question stands out from the crowd.

Who is being rational and who are the crusaders?

You appear to be on a crusade.

Do you know how to crack gasoline out of crude oil without looking it up on Google? How can you possibly pump gas into your car without that knowledge?

The nice thing about photography, especially digital, Is that one can manipulate various settings and see exactly what they do. One doesn’t need to know what is going on in the background to see the results, any more than one needs to know how to refine crude oil to put gas in their car.

Consequently, the constant yammering from the acolytes of geekdom gets rather tiresome, and does start to sound rather like a crusade.

Bob A L · Apr 27, 2019

But for many of us changing iso does change the image produced by our cameras. I believe there are two different kinds of photo hobbiest. One group uses their digital cameras just as we used our film cameras and set iso, aperture, and shutter speed in combination to produce the images they want with no preconceived notion that we are going to fix the image later. For this group iso certainly effects the images we get from our cameras. If we change the iso, we must change either lens opening or shutter speed to maintain the same image in the photo. I have no thought of changing anything later in the computer, that's not my idea of fun. How the camera adjusts or effects iso, I could care less, in my eyes it is done to mimic the old days of different film sensitiveness and does a fantastic job of it. The other group intends to make their images in their computers by manipulating data furnished by the camera making iso settings in the camera irrelevant. So why is this a problem? I drive a Jeep, you drive a Ford - is there something wrong with that also?

bobn2 · Apr 27, 2019

mamallama said:
They make statements like the exposure triangle has ruined a whole generation of beginners and making it hard for us to teach them the truth. It is difficult to undo the damage done by the exposure triangle so, as a teacher of the right way, I feel my mission is to damn the exposure triangle and expose it for its faults before it ruin anymore beginners.

I think you're exaggerating. I don't think anyone has said that the 'Triangle ' has 'ruined' a whole generation of beginners. What has been said is that a large proportion of people who learned using the 'Triangle' have ended up getting the basics of photography, such as what is 'exposure', wrong.

From experience it is difficult to get people to unlearn. Some, such as yourself, actively resist learning, others just find that they can't rid themselves of a conceptual model that stops them understanding the basics (such as what is ISO).

The 'mission' is to try to ensure that when beginners ask for the facts about the basics of photography, they get them. They always get fed the Triangle view, it is when someone tries to point out that this is based on a number of fallacies, and tries to present a version which is factually correct that they get attacked, denigrated, insulted by the likes of you.

If it was possible for someone to put the Triangle point of view, then someone to put the factual point of view, without the subsequent attacks, things would be much simple. But what it wouldn't do is satisfy people such as yourself who want to create a situation where people are scared of challenging the Triangle, so that it can be presented to beginners as the sole true way of photography.

Xasan · Apr 27, 2019

This isn't a crusade. What we have here are desperate attempts to resist knowledge and progress.

It's funny how the hypocrites blame the presentation while insulting everybody who is pointing out their misrepresentations.

bobn2 · Apr 27, 2019

dwalby said:
the fact that grown adults can argue here for years over semantics truly amazes me.

Semantics is the meaning of things. It's actually important. Certainly, there is a level at which modern automation makes it possible to photograph without any knowledge of the basics. But if one decides to go further and try to learn the basics, wouldn't it be a good idea to get them right?

Xasan · Apr 27, 2019

Bob A L said:
But for many of us changing iso does change the image produced by our cameras. I believe there are two different kinds of photo hobbiest. One group uses their digital cameras just as we used our film cameras and set iso, aperture, and shutter speed in combination to produce the images they want with no preconceived notion that we are going to fix the image later. For this group iso certainly effects the images we get from our cameras. If we change the iso, we must change either lens opening or shutter speed to maintain the same image in the photo. I have no thought of changing anything later in the computer, that's not my idea of fun. How the camera adjusts or effects iso, I could care less, in my eyes it is done to mimic the old days of different film sensitiveness and does a fantastic job of it. The other group intends to make their images in their computers by manipulating data furnished by the camera making iso settings in the camera irrelevant. So why is this a problem? I drive a Jeep, you drive a Ford - is there something wrong with that also?

If we change the iso, we must change either lens opening or shutter speed to maintain the same image in the photo. - only the image is not the same. Noise, for example, is different since the exposure is different. Depth of field is different if aperture is different, blur is different if shutter speed is different. The only thing that is the same is average intensity of the image, call it lightness or brightness if you wish.

mamallama · Apr 27, 2019

bobn2 said:
mamallama said:

They make statements like the exposure triangle has ruined a whole generation of beginners and making it hard for us to teach them the truth. It is difficult to undo the damage done by the exposure triangle so, as a teacher of the right way, I feel my mission is to damn the exposure triangle and expose it for its faults before it ruin anymore beginners.

Click to expand...

I think you're exaggerating. I don't think anyone has said that the 'Triangle ' has 'ruined' a whole generation of beginners.

I paraphrased, not quoted.

bobn2 said:
What has been said is that a large proportion of people who learned using the 'Triangle' have ended up getting the basics of photography, such as what is 'exposure', wrong.

bobn2 said:
From experience it is difficult to get people to unlearn. Some, such as yourself, actively resist learning,

This is what I mean by personal attacks rather that promoting technical accuracy. You prove my case.

bobn2 said:
others just find that they can't rid themselves of a conceptual model that stops them understanding the basics (such as what is ISO).

The 'mission' is to try to ensure that when beginners ask for the facts about the basics of photography, they get them.

Who appointed you the missionary and why do you have to put others down who don't believe as you do?

bobn2 said:
They always get fed the Triangle view, it is when someone tries to point out that this is based on a number of fallacies, and tries to present a version which is factually correct that they get attacked, denigrated, insulted by the likes of you.

If it was possible for someone to put the Triangle point of view, then someone to put the factual point of view, without the subsequent attacks, things would be much simple. But what it wouldn't do is satisfy people such as yourself who want to create a situation where people are scared of challenging the Triangle, so that it can be presented to beginners as the sole true way of photography.

The triangle is a film-era concept that is outmoded and has no point of view in today's cameras. That is the point to make without going on a crusade to chastise it. But it does make you look smarter to keep preaching against it.

FingerPainter · Apr 27, 2019

Bill Ferris said:
In a recent thread, one of the latter comments referred to those who advocate and teach an accurate understanding of how digital cameras work as being, "on a crusade."

I find that sentiment, ironic. The folks who advocate an accurate understanding of how key camera settings (f-stop, shutter speed and ISO) can be used to take control of the image-making process, are presenting an accurate picture of how digital cameras work, We do so - not from a position of faith - but from a position of knowledge.

It is a fact that ISO has no direct control over exposure. ISO does not change the brightness of the scene. It does not change the aperture of lens or the length of time the sensor is exposed to light. ISO does not control the sensitivity of a CMOS chip to light. I think it's fair to say that, by and large, those who advocate wide r knowledge of this share the opinion that it's better to teach an accurate understanding of how a camera works than an inaccurate one.

I'll just add that increasing ISO usually has a negative indirect effect on exposure, and thus on noise, in only three of the eight modes most modern digital cameras have. What are these eight modes you ask? P,A,S and M (or P, Av, Tv and M) each with and without Auto-ISO enabled. Generally, the user directly adjusts ISO only when Auto-ISO is not set. When the user increases ISO in fully Manual mode, or when the camera increases ISO when Auto-ISO is enabled, it doesn't result in a decrease in exposure, so there is no decrease in SNR. On many cameras, there is actually an increase in SNR - increasing ISO in these modes reduces noisiness.

Great Bustard · Apr 27, 2019

Wheatfield7 said:
Bill Ferris said:

In a recent thread, one of the latter comments referred to those who advocate and teach an accurate understanding of how digital cameras work as being, "on a crusade."

I find that sentiment, ironic. The folks who advocate an accurate understanding of how key camera settings (f-stop, shutter speed and ISO) can be used to take control of the image-making process, are presenting an accurate picture of how digital cameras work, We do so - not from a position of faith - but from a position of knowledge.

It is a fact that ISO has no direct control over exposure. ISO does not change the brightness of the scene. It does not change the aperture of lens or the length of time the sensor is exposed to light. ISO does not control the sensitivity of a CMOS chip to light. I think it's fair to say that, by and large, those who advocate wide r knowledge of this share the opinion that it's better to teach an accurate understanding of how a camera works than an inaccurate one.

It is ironic that those who are most critical of this effort are so passionate in their defense of a popular, widely embraced but factually wrong understanding of digital photography. Crusaders, as history teaches, were religious warriors. They went to battle in the name of a religious faith. Their belief in the righteousness of their cause was found, not in a rational assessment of an actual threat, but in faith and blind loyalty to a higher authority.

So, in a debate between people who advocate and teach an accurate understanding of how digital cameras work and others who passionately, almost dogmatically defend a popular but factually wrong understanding of the same subject, one question stands out from the crowd.

Who is being rational and who are the crusaders?

Click to expand...

You appear to be on a crusade.

Do you know how to crack gasoline out of crude oil without looking it up on Google? How can you possibly pump gas into your car without that knowledge?

Speaking just for myself, I go to a gas station and use the pump. But for my other car, I just plug it in at the house.

Member said:
The nice thing about photography, especially digital, Is that one can manipulate various settings and see exactly what they do. One doesn’t need to know what is going on in the background to see the results, any more than one needs to know how to refine crude oil to put gas in their car.

That's something of a flawed analogy, of course. A more proper analogy would be when someone asks about anti-lock brakes. They'd probably benefit from knowing what they were and how they worked. But, sure, most probably don't care.

Member said:
Consequently, the constant yammering from the acolytes of geekdom gets rather tiresome, and does start to sound rather like a crusade.

The cool thing is that you don't have to listen. And you most certainly don't have to comment. But your "team" chooses to read and comment about how useless the "geekdom" is just as the "geekdom" chooses to explain how things really work. In my opinion, one of these pursuits is more in line with the purpose of this site than the other.

lilBuddha · Apr 27, 2019

Bill Ferris said:
It is a fact that ISO has no direct control over exposure.

See? Here is where the problem lies. Changing the ISO has an effect on the image. It applies gain in-camera so the apparent effect is increasing sensitivity, even though it does not do so technically. And this is where many explainers fall down. So focused on the technical correctness of one aspect that they fail to communicate effectively.

It is a simple sentence:

ISO increases the gain in the sensor, in effect amplifying the actual light received, akin to turning up the volume on your stereo.

Rather than going into detail on what ISO does not do, simply tell what it does.

Bill Ferris said:
So, in a debate between people who advocate and teach an accurate understanding of how digital cameras work

No, this is what some of you do not get. It is not just the information imparted, but the way it is. You do not impart accurate information if you audience doesn't understand what you are attempting to impart.

Bill Ferris said:
and others who passionately, almost dogmatically defend a popular but factually wrong understanding of the same subject,

There are those who will defend inaccuracies regardless. I'd wager there are many more that would listen if the experts were better instructors.

Knowledge ≠ the ability to impart it well.

Bill Ferris said:
one question stands out from the crowd.

Who is being rational and who are the crusaders?

Personally, I think there are enough examples from both sides of this to fail to declare a winner

bobn2 · Apr 27, 2019

Bob A L said:
But for many of us changing iso does change the image produced by our cameras. I believe there are two different kinds of photo hobbiest. One group uses their digital cameras just as we used our film cameras and set iso, aperture, and shutter speed in combination to produce the images they want with no preconceived notion that we are going to fix the image later. For this group iso certainly effects the images we get from our cameras. If we change the iso, we must change either lens opening or shutter speed to maintain the same image in the photo. I have no thought of changing anything later in the computer, that's not my idea of fun. How the camera adjusts or effects iso, I could care less, in my eyes it is done to mimic the old days of different film sensitiveness and does a fantastic job of it. The other group intends to make their images in their computers by manipulating data furnished by the camera making iso settings in the camera irrelevant. So why is this a problem? I drive a Jeep, you drive a Ford - is there something wrong with that also?

I don't think anyone on either side of this discussion has suggested that ISO doesn't change the image produced by your camera. However, it's certainly not the case that if you change the ISO and then change 'lens opening' or shutter speed that you will get the same image as you had before making those changes. The amount of motion blur or the depth of field will be different and so will the amount of noise. Already you're talking as someone who has been led to a wrong conclusion.

As to why its a problem, you have given a rather good example. For you, the fine points of how ISO and exposure interact don't matter, but that's because you don't want to delve much further into photography than you have now (and that's not a criticism, it's just a rephrasing of what you said). For those that do, the triangle stops them understanding how that relationship works and they have difficulty moving forwards. These arguments generally occur on the BQ forum, when a beginner asks for help understanding the basics and someone gives a Triangle based answer, which is then challenged. If that beginner does want to move further, adopting the Triangle explanation will make it harder, which is why an alternative is given. No-one says that Triangle believers should give up their comfort blanket, it's just that when peopleask, they should be given the grown-up view too.

mamallama · Apr 27, 2019

bobn2 said:
dwalby said:

the fact that grown adults can argue here for years over semantics truly amazes me.

Click to expand...

Semantics is the meaning of things. It's actually important. Certainly, there is a level at which modern automation makes it possible to photograph without any knowledge of the basics. But if one decides to go further and try to learn the basics, wouldn't it be a good idea to get them right?

And you know the person who will always help everyone get it right. :-D

bobn2 · Apr 27, 2019

lilBuddha said:
Bill Ferris said:

It is a fact that ISO has no direct control over exposure.

Click to expand...

See? Here is where the problem lies. Changing the ISO has an effect on the image. It applies gain in-camera so the apparent effect is increasing sensitivity, even though it does not do so technically. And this is where many explainers fall down. So focused on the technical correctness of one aspect that they fail to communicate effectively.

It is a simple sentence:

ISO increases the gain in the sensor, in effect amplifying the actual light received, akin to turning up the volume on your stereo.

Rather than going into detail on what ISO does not do, simply tell what it does.

No that doesn't tell what it does. There is no effect remotely similar to 'amplifying the actual light'. In these discussions, when I've said that the Triangle leads people to think that light is amplified, I've been told that no-one actually thinks that. You've just added to the list of people who clearly do think that.

Christof21 · Apr 27, 2019

bobn2 said:
mamallama said:

They make statements like the exposure triangle has ruined a whole generation of beginners and making it hard for us to teach them the truth. It is difficult to undo the damage done by the exposure triangle so, as a teacher of the right way, I feel my mission is to damn the exposure triangle and expose it for its faults before it ruin anymore beginners.

Click to expand...

I think you're exaggerating. I don't think anyone has said that the 'Triangle ' has 'ruined' a whole generation of beginners. What has been said is that a large proportion of people who learned using the 'Triangle' have ended up getting the basics of photography, such as what is 'exposure', wrong.

From experience it is difficult to get people to unlearn. Some, such as yourself, actively resist learning, others just find that they can't rid themselves of a conceptual model that stops them understanding the basics (such as what is ISO).

The 'mission' is to try to ensure that when beginners ask for the facts about the basics of photography, they get them. They always get fed the Triangle view, it is when someone tries to point out that this is based on a number of fallacies, and tries to present a version which is factually correct that they get attacked, denigrated, insulted by the likes of you.

If it was possible for someone to put the Triangle point of view, then someone to put the factual point of view, without the subsequent attacks, things would be much simple. But what it wouldn't do is satisfy people such as yourself who want to create a situation where people are scared of challenging the Triangle, so that it can be presented to beginners as the sole true way of photography.

Before pretending the exposure triangle is wrong, you have to say what the exposure triangle is.

I have already answered to this question.

I don't think that for this question there are on one hand the people who knows and on the other side the crusaders. It is not that simple.

bobn2 · Apr 27, 2019

mamallama said:
bobn2 said:

dwalby said:

the fact that grown adults can argue here for years over semantics truly amazes me.

Click to expand...

Semantics is the meaning of things. It's actually important. Certainly, there is a level at which modern automation makes it possible to photograph without any knowledge of the basics. But if one decides to go further and try to learn the basics, wouldn't it be a good idea to get them right?

Click to expand...

And you know the person who will always help everyone get it right. :-D

I know a few people who will generally get it right. You're not one of them. In fact, I've yet to see you make a useful contribution to this discussion, on either side of it.

Who is on a Crusade?

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Wheatfield7

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Christof21

Guest

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts