Absolutely wrong. You might, but I don't. I determine what shutter speed and what aperture I need and then I choose my ISO, not the other way around.
Some of you clearly don't shoot dynamic situations where the lighting is changing faster than you can take to set your ISO and then let your exposure choices fall wherever.
Entire industry says there is a standard on ISO speed, and in that standard ISO speed is defined as being determined through exposure (page 2, 3.7), and not being a part of the exposure.
I have seen the same thing in another web site. Besides there's nothing wrong with copying and pasting something like this which may be what Tony Northrup did.
While teaching something this way might make it easier for someone to learn how to use a camera it doesn't make it right. Knowing the correct way of looking at it is important as a user advances. I remember in HS physics that one of the most difficult concepts to understand was the difference between mass and weight because a balance scale was used to determine mass. Mass is a constant while the weight of something of a constant mass can vary with something as simple as a change elevation above sea level. The mass of a weightless object in space has the same mass as it does at sea level.
What is "correct" exposure? ISO can correct the brightness as the lighting decreases.
That's why I use mainly Aperture Priority Auto Exposure mode, mostly with Auto ISO. Where a camera allows it, also use a lower shutter speed limit ‘say 250th] with Auto ISO when there are moving subjects. Bang-wallop, no manual adjustment normally necessary to get the shot.
What practical difference does how you define it make? Nothing. Nadda. Zilch. It just makes some people feel clever, overcomplicating stuff for the beginner. Who, apart from some geeky clique, cares one jot about this? As long as people get the exposure they want, the way they want to, crack on!
I’m not talking about the definition of ISO.
Using words incorrectly usually isn't a problem unless you are trying to learn about the subject.
So, you are talking about some other industry, not photographic.
Yes, and you are one of those.
Same old Iliah, tilting at the same windmills, year after year after year...
If you are technically incorrect in a technical matter, you are incorrect no matter how you try to frame it.. But if you do not care, why are you so vehement in opposing what is technically correct?
It’s not a technical matter, it’s an English language usage matter. On one side is every photography instructional book and video I’ve ever seen, and on the other is you and Iliah Borg.
Then you haven't looked at the good ones.
and the minority of people who actually know the technical meaning of the term, a meaning which hasn't changed since the term was defined 1.3 centuries ago.
But it is, because it describes how a camera [a technical thing] is designed and works
I guess this is a byproduct of the digital age, where “ISO” is just another user setting that can be changed at will. My 1983 Kodak book, which only talks about film photography obviously, does not include film speed in its discussion of “exposure”.
I’ll concede the point. As I just said in another comment, I think that in the digital age camera users see ISO as just another setting. It’s not as obviously excluded from “exposure” as with film speed.
