"Crop-ability" of images?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,762
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
3

bobn2 wrote:

jonas ar wrote:

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

On the origin of the Adobe exposure slider. Exposure compensation by means of processing.

Sure, but that doesn't excuse the technical author who wrote that for them getting the definition completely wrong. But then Adobe is a software company with its roots in computer reproduction, not photography, and probably self-important enough to think that their definition is the one that counts.

Back in the day, Adobe published a white paper by late Bruce Fraser:

https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

-- hide signature --
jonas ar
jonas ar Contributing Member • Posts: 916
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

bobn2 wrote:

jonas ar wrote:

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

On the origin of the Adobe exposure slider. Exposure compensation by means of processing.

Sure, but that doesn't excuse the technical author who wrote that for them getting the definition completely wrong. But then Adobe is a software company with its roots in computer reproduction, not photography, and probably self-important enough to think that their definition is the one that counts.

No it doesn’t. But if this is their understanding then it perfectly explains the exposure slider label. And perhaps also why a lot of people think exposure = lightness since this label has been adopted by many image processing softwares (assuming this was started by Adobe)

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
1

Iliah Borg wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

jonas ar wrote:

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

On the origin of the Adobe exposure slider. Exposure compensation by means of processing.

Sure, but that doesn't excuse the technical author who wrote that for them getting the definition completely wrong. But then Adobe is a software company with its roots in computer reproduction, not photography, and probably self-important enough to think that their definition is the one that counts.

Back in the day, Adobe published a white paper by late Bruce Fraser:

https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

He seems to know what exposure is.

I was once involved in negotiations with John Warnock (a long time ago) abut the possibility of licensing software my company had produced. The deal didn't go through in the end, but at that time his company was clearly about computer printing, not image editing. Photoshop came much later, and provided them with a business model which actually made them money.

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
1

jonas ar wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

jonas ar wrote:

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

On the origin of the Adobe exposure slider. Exposure compensation by means of processing.

Sure, but that doesn't excuse the technical author who wrote that for them getting the definition completely wrong. But then Adobe is a software company with its roots in computer reproduction, not photography, and probably self-important enough to think that their definition is the one that counts.

No it doesn’t. But if this is their understanding then it perfectly explains the exposure slider label. And perhaps also why a lot of people think exposure = lightness since this label has been adopted by many image processing softwares (assuming this was started by Adobe)

Yes, it does, though the link that Iliah posted suggests that the misunderstanding isn't deeply entrenched in the company. But, I think that the misnamed 'exposure' control on image editors is one of the things that has led people not to know what 'exposure' means. The misnaming of the 'Exposure Triangle' very likely arises from that, rather than teh other way round. When Peterson invented it, before Photoshop, he called it 'the photographic triangle' (and the third side was 'film' not 'ISO').

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 6,120
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

Exposure triangle:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

That article is full of errors, as are many on that site. Argumentum ab auctoritate is a fallacy in any case, but when your authority doesn't know what it's talking about, even more so.

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

Because when people think of "exposure", they think of the image.

That depends on who is 'people'. If 'people' is people who know what exposure is, they don't.

Your people have your definition of "exposure".

'My people', is the people who invented and defined the word 'exposure', either Hurter and Driffield or someone working around the same time. It includes every film manufacturer and also ISO. 'ISO' is defined in terms of exposure, so exposure cannot include exposure, by definition.

But you don't have a replacement for the exposure that includes ISO, which many other people are concerned with.

The word you're looking for is lightness. ISO determines the lightness that you get for a given exposure.

So shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are the settings for "lightness"?

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic GH5 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus E-M5 III +16 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
1

john isaacs wrote:

The word you're looking for is lightness. ISO determines the lightness that you get for a given exposure.

So shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are the settings for "lightness"?

More precisely, exposure time, f-number and ISO, along with scene luminance - if you're using an ex-camera workflow and not changing the JPEG defaults - just the same as what you wrongly want to call 'exposure'.

I'm not sure why you put lightness in scare quotes, it is a proper, well defined part of the photographic vocabulary .

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

jonas ar
jonas ar Contributing Member • Posts: 916
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
2

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

Exposure triangle:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

That article is full of errors, as are many on that site. Argumentum ab auctoritate is a fallacy in any case, but when your authority doesn't know what it's talking about, even more so.

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

Because when people think of "exposure", they think of the image.

That depends on who is 'people'. If 'people' is people who know what exposure is, they don't.

Your people have your definition of "exposure".

'My people', is the people who invented and defined the word 'exposure', either Hurter and Driffield or someone working around the same time. It includes every film manufacturer and also ISO. 'ISO' is defined in terms of exposure, so exposure cannot include exposure, by definition.

But you don't have a replacement for the exposure that includes ISO, which many other people are concerned with.

The word you're looking for is lightness. ISO determines the lightness that you get for a given exposure.

So shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are the settings for "lightness"?

try to think about the meaning of the word “photography”. What might be the most important bit to adjust for that? Whatever the processing is, it is secondary.

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,762
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

bobn2 wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

jonas ar wrote:

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

On the origin of the Adobe exposure slider. Exposure compensation by means of processing.

Sure, but that doesn't excuse the technical author who wrote that for them getting the definition completely wrong. But then Adobe is a software company with its roots in computer reproduction, not photography, and probably self-important enough to think that their definition is the one that counts.

Back in the day, Adobe published a white paper by late Bruce Fraser:

https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

He seems to know what exposure is.

So do Adobe, but "internally"

-- hide signature --
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
2

Iliah Borg wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

jonas ar wrote:

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

On the origin of the Adobe exposure slider. Exposure compensation by means of processing.

Sure, but that doesn't excuse the technical author who wrote that for them getting the definition completely wrong. But then Adobe is a software company with its roots in computer reproduction, not photography, and probably self-important enough to think that their definition is the one that counts.

Back in the day, Adobe published a white paper by late Bruce Fraser:

https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

He seems to know what exposure is.

So do Adobe, but "internally"

In this respect, no different from the big camera companies. It's rather poor that these companies' marketing people put out 'explainers' with so little QC.

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,762
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

bobn2 wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

jonas ar wrote:

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

On the origin of the Adobe exposure slider. Exposure compensation by means of processing.

Sure, but that doesn't excuse the technical author who wrote that for them getting the definition completely wrong. But then Adobe is a software company with its roots in computer reproduction, not photography, and probably self-important enough to think that their definition is the one that counts.

Back in the day, Adobe published a white paper by late Bruce Fraser:

https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

He seems to know what exposure is.

So do Adobe, but "internally"

In this respect, no different from the big camera companies. It's rather poor that these companies' marketing people put out 'explainers' with so little QC.

When I asked why they don't display raw histograms I was told it's over-engineering and will ruin lives

-- hide signature --
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 19,317
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

and im sure we can listen to a radio without a volume control

Don

yes you can

No you cant the volume control controls the signal going to the af stage

Don

-- hide signature --

Sony A7r2 , A6300
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1, em5mk2, em1mk2.

(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 19,317
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

Exposure triangle:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

Because when people think of "exposure", they think of the image.

ISO does not change the sensor's sensitivity to light though as per the adobe article, it's wrong

a light meter requires 3 inputs from the user for it to work.

Don

-- hide signature --

Sony A7r2 , A6300
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1, em5mk2, em1mk2.

(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 19,317
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

Exposure triangle:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

That article is full of errors, as are many on that site. Argumentum ab auctoritate is a fallacy in any case, but when your authority doesn't know what it's talking about, even more so.

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

Because when people think of "exposure", they think of the image.

That depends on who is 'people'. If 'people' is people who know what exposure is, they don't.

Your people have your definition of "exposure".

'My people', is the people who invented and defined the word 'exposure', either Hurter and Driffield or someone working around the same time. It includes every film manufacturer and also ISO. 'ISO' is defined in terms of exposure, so exposure cannot include exposure, by definition.

But you don't have a replacement for the exposure that includes ISO, which many other people are concerned with.

The word you're looking for is lightness. ISO determines the lightness that you get for a given exposure.

But you said brightness before ? so what is it ? as he said you have no definitive answer.

Don

-- hide signature --

Sony A7r2 , A6300
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1, em5mk2, em1mk2.

(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 19,317
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

Verkku wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

Tell me, please, how iso influnces exposure?

pick up a light meter and dont set the iso or flim speed and see if it works

Don

-- hide signature --

Sony A7r2 , A6300
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1, em5mk2, em1mk2.

john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 6,120
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

john isaacs wrote:

So shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are the settings for "lightness"?

No, shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are the settings for exposure.

I want an image; I set my exposure parameters; I get my image.

The internal workings of the camera are essentially irrelevant.  It's a black box (and that might explain why most cameras are black these days!).

It's the same with film, but you get to choose your ISO for each picture without having to change out the film.

Re-defining the term is of no value; especially when it isn't replaced with a comparably useful term.

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic GH5 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus E-M5 III +16 more
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 19,317
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

You got me there. The next time I want to print an image I must remember to take a picture of the LCD with my phone and print from that

a printer or computer is not a camera.

Don

-- hide signature --

Sony A7r2 , A6300
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1, em5mk2, em1mk2.

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
1

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

Exposure triangle:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

That article is full of errors, as are many on that site. Argumentum ab auctoritate is a fallacy in any case, but when your authority doesn't know what it's talking about, even more so.

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

Because when people think of "exposure", they think of the image.

That depends on who is 'people'. If 'people' is people who know what exposure is, they don't.

Your people have your definition of "exposure".

'My people', is the people who invented and defined the word 'exposure', either Hurter and Driffield or someone working around the same time. It includes every film manufacturer and also ISO. 'ISO' is defined in terms of exposure, so exposure cannot include exposure, by definition.

But you don't have a replacement for the exposure that includes ISO, which many other people are concerned with.

The word you're looking for is lightness. ISO determines the lightness that you get for a given exposure.

But you said brightness before ? so what is it ?

No I said lightness.

as he said you have no definitive answer.

I gave a perfectly good answer and linked to a definitive answer.

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
1

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

You got me there. The next time I want to print an image I must remember to take a picture of the LCD with my phone and print from that

a printer or computer is not a camera.

Some computers are cameras.

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,762
Why?
4

john isaacs wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

So shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are the settings for "lightness"?

No, shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are the settings for exposure.

Why are you trying to re-define the classic definition of exposure?

-- hide signature --
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 19,317
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

john isaacs wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

So shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are the settings for "lightness"?

No, shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are the settings for exposure.

I want an image; I set my exposure parameters; I get my image.

The internal workings of the camera are essentially irrelevant. It's a black box (and that might explain why most cameras are black these days!).

It's the same with film, but you get to choose your ISO for each picture without having to change out the film.

Re-defining the term is of no value; especially when it isn't replaced with a comparably useful term.

dont forget if you want to change exposure on a film camera that doesnt have an exposure comp dial you can also change the film speed setting oh dear my richo film camera has an exposure comp dial thats part of the film speed dial . who would have ever thought

Don

-- hide signature --

Sony A7r2 , A6300
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1, em5mk2, em1mk2.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads