Exposure

Mark, I appreciate your perspective, but i was asking way back in the thread why we needed to stick with any historical systems once digital came to be. I mean progress and all. I was asking for a simpler system. Kind of like an automatic transmission. Sure i know how to use a clutch, but if automatic allows me to better focus on safe driving, who cares about 100 years ago?

Likesithot said:

Mark, I appreciate your perspective, but i was asking way back in the thread why we needed to stick with any historical systems once digital came to be. I mean progress and all. I was asking for a simpler system. Kind of like an automatic transmission. Sure i know how to use a clutch, but if automatic allows me to better focus on safe driving, who cares about 100 years ago?

Click to expand...

I don't think that there is anything particularly wrong with the "historical system", the problem is that for some reason you seem unable to remember that all those numbers apart from 1 ( f 2/4/5.6... 30/60/125...) are a fraction .

I can't drive but I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with cars (well over a billion people do drive ...) , I am the problem.

Likesithot said:

Mark, I appreciate your perspective, but i was asking way back in the thread why we needed to stick with any historical systems once digital came to be. I mean progress and all. I was asking for a simpler system. Kind of like an automatic transmission. Sure i know how to use a clutch, but if automatic allows me to better focus on safe driving, who cares about 100 years ago?

Click to expand...

When something works and there's not another option that's obviously better, people tend to stick with it. What's the old saying..."Don't fix what ain't broke."

For example, the English alphabet used to post messages to these forums is about 500 years old. Newtonian physics was used to get Artemis 1 to the Moon and back. That's about 300 years old. The system of quantifying exposure and ISO settings works, works well, has been for generations and no alternative method has been proposed that would offer a clear advantage.

As to the question, "who cares about 100 years ago?" I'd say that intelligent, informed, curious people do. This may come as a shock, but there are folks who are interested in things people did or naturally-occurring events that happened thousands, millions, or even billions of years ago. Pretty crazy, right

Likesithot said:

Mark, I appreciate your perspective, but i was asking way back in the thread why we needed to stick with any historical systems once digital came to be. I mean progress and all. I was asking for a simpler system. Kind of like an automatic transmission. Sure i know how to use a clutch, but if automatic allows me to better focus on safe driving, who cares about 100 years ago?

Click to expand...

They have smartphones where you don’t have to make any exposure adjustments at all, and adjusting lightness and focus is completely optional. No one I know who uses these devices exclusively cares at all for what goes on inside.

Automobiles, under the hood, still use all sorts of historical notions such as fuel/air ratios, gearing, spark and valve timing, etc. Electric cars still use quaint 19th century units of measurement.

But yeah, digital cameras might very well benefit from an exposure system based solidly on 20th century quantum theory instead of the somewhat inaccurate luminous energy model currently used.

Bill Ferris said:

Rene Gr said:

ausJena said:

Likesithot said:

...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Setup two cameras of the same make & model on tripods next to each other. Both frame a flat, evenly illuminated wall. One camera uses an f/8 lens. The other uses an f/4 lens. Both use a shutter speed of 1/100-second.

As long as wall fills both frames, the focal lengths used are irrelevant of the exposures and total light delivered to the respective sensors. The f/4 system delivers two stops greater exposure and 4-times as much total light to its sensor.1

Bill Ferris said:

...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes, given an evenly lit wall, the same shutter speed, and the same sensor size, you capture the same total light as long as the you maintain the same ratio of aperture diameter to focal length.

So if one camera has a 100mm lens with a 25mm aperture, and another camera has a 200mm lens with a 50mm aperture, both have a ratio of 1:4 (often written as "f/4").

If you change the ratio so one camera has a ratio of 1:4 and the other 1:8, the 1:4 ratio lens lets in more light yielding a higher exposure.

Things get more interesting if you allow other factors to vary. For instance if one camera has a 1:8 ratio with a full frame sensor, and another camera has 1:4 ratio and a 2X crop sensor, both capture the same amount of total light.

Likesithot said:

Mark, I appreciate your perspective, but i was asking way back in the thread why we needed to stick with any historical systems once digital came to be. I mean progress and all. I was asking for a simpler system. Kind of like an automatic transmission. Sure i know how to use a clutch, but if automatic allows me to better focus on safe driving, who cares about 100 years ago?

Click to expand...

Frankly it's not complicated, and the aperture and shutter speeds are just math and physical attributes. Sorry, but you're in the minority that think it's complicated.

Using your example of automatic transmission cars, if it's that difficult for you just use the fully automatic exposure modes. Problem solved.

Mark B. said:

Likesithot said:

Mark, I appreciate your perspective, but i was asking way back in the thread why we needed to stick with any historical systems once digital came to be. I mean progress and all. I was asking for a simpler system. Kind of like an automatic transmission. Sure i know how to use a clutch, but if automatic allows me to better focus on safe driving, who cares about 100 years ago?

Click to expand...

Frankly it's not complicated, and the aperture and shutter speeds are just math and physical attributes. Sorry, but you're in the minority that think it's complicated.

Using your example of automatic transmission cars, if it's that difficult for you just use the fully automatic exposure modes. Problem solved.

Click to expand...

Mark, i see this is going nowhere, but you miss my point. I contend using a manual transmission with a clutch is “historical” It is also more difficult to use than the newer, more common automatic transmissions. I can drive a “historical” manual transmission. I can also figure the aperture and shutter settings. My frustration is, there has to be an easier way of getting DIGITAL exposures without using a system that is 100+- years old. Im all for progress instead of “thats the way we’ve always done it”