"Crop-ability" of images?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 5,879
Re: Exposure vs Exposure

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Well, I put up some links, and I'm perfectly happy with them.

For myself, I suggest that ISO and Kodak trumps 'Cambridge in Colour' and Adobe. Another bit from the Kodak Sensitometry workbook, in the glossary they give, for people that are unfamiliar with the terms:

Okay, here's the thing. We seem to be talking about two different things that are defined by the same word.

Yes, clearly.

For you, Exposure is a quantitative value that is the amount light that reaches the sensor when capturing an image.

Because that is how exposure is defined in photography.

For me, Exposure is the (v.) act of capturing

Exposure is always a noun. The verb is 'expose'. 'The act of capturing' is a thing, therefore a word to describe it is a noun.

and image, or (n.) the actual image.

'Image' is a better word, that doesn't risk misinterpretation in the same way that you do if you misuse a photographic jargon word.

When I talk about an exposure, I am talking about the image, and when I talk about exposure settings, I am talking about the camera settings that were used to capture the image. And those are shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and Exposure Compensation if non-zero.

Plus a whole load of other things that affect 'the image'. Focus, focal length. Processing settings. Colour temperature. You are separating out just the things that determine lightness, with your workflow. The reason for that is that you are confusing lightness and exposure. It's a very common confusion, and one that leads down a rabbit-hole of fallacies and confusions when it comes to understanding what the technical side of photography is all about.

I have no idea under what circumstances you would use the term Exposure, or how you would use it without mentioning ISO. But you can explain that for yourself.

You'd use the term exposure when you mean exposure, as photographers have been doing for a very long time. But you probably have no idea how you'd use the term because you don't know what either exposure or ISO is.

I've provided links that define and illustrate the use of the term Exposure as I and others mean it. When I use the term, it is always clear what is meant.

Absolutely not. It doesn't seem clear even to yourself, given that you've made quite a number of contradictory statements about what you mean

The problem, as I see it, is that you are not satisfied with this, and want to correct people in the use of the term Exposure. But you don't provide a satisfactory substitution, you just say "that's wrong". Well, that is not useful, and in fact it is not necessary, either. You are not the "word police". If you have something constructive to say, rather than to simply correct the use of this word, then say it. Nit-picking over the use of Exposure is neither helpful, nor civil.

Photography, like most technical exploits, depends on a specialised vocabulary. One of the most basic concepts in photography is the light energy density at the focal plane, so it is given a word to signify just that concept. The word is 'exposure'. From that one concept springs related concepts of speed of photosensitive surfaces and exposure indexes. Once people start misusing the specialised vocabulary and assigning different meanings to the core concepts, then the vocabulary becomes seriously degraded.

Feel free to explain how your use of the term Exposure is useful.

I have done so a number of times already.

Stop trying to correct other peoples use of the term; there are enough definitions out there to prove that their use is valid.

An invalid definition doesn't make usage following it 'valid', however commonplace the invalid definition.

And if you think there is something helpful to be said, then go right ahead.

The problem is with technical vocabularies is that people that don't understand them adopt them to try and fit in with some kind of club, as an indicator of their presumed proficiency. Unfortunately what they are doing is the opposite. Show a picture that is too dark to a non photographer and they will likely say 'it's too dark', and will be right. Show it to this kind of photographer and they will say 'it's underexposed', and they might well be wrong, because a small exposure makes a picture too dark only under some specific circumstances. So, whereas the lay person will never be wrong, the photographer that mangles the technical jargon of the subject will often get it wrong and show themselves up as someone ignorant of the basics in the process.

For me; I'm sticking with the use of Exposure that communicates what I mean to say. Works for me.

What it communicates is that you don't know what exposure is. If you don't know what exposure is that suggests that you don't know very much about photography. If that's what works for you, then fine. But I'll still be pointing out the error, in case other poor souls pick up the same wrong definition from you and unwittingly go around letting people know that they don't know anything about photography. Someone did that to you at some stage.

So, I'm afraid that I'm not going to accept your order to stop correcting people misusing the basic vocabulary of photography. A small correction helps understanding and shouldn't cause offence. It's only on those that insist that their misinformation should be the new truth that will draw what should be very simple into this kind of lengthy dispute.

Maybe this guy and everyone else on the planet doesnt understand either.

https://www.slrlounge.com/photography-essentials-the-sunny-16-rule/

No, he doesn’t understand. He can talk about Lux all he wants. No one cares. It’s the image that matters.

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Nikon D750 Olympus E-M5 II Nikon D500 Olympus E-M1 II +16 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow