EXPLAINING THE MAGIC

[knickerhawk]

Why should well known and well understood terminology be changed to suit the personal prejudices of a tiny minority of people in one tiny corner of the internet?

If the exposure triangle is such a widely understood and useful concept why have I never seen it referenced or illustrated in any of the user manuals of my cameras, including the basic point and shoot ones?

Open any basic photography textbook and you will find it in some form or other.

Langford’s Basic photography has a variant of the exposure triangle. This book is used in colleges where photography is taught. Or do some amateur photographer users of the M43 forum know better than professional educators? I do not think so

Where in Langford's Basic Photography is this "variant of the exposure triangle" referred to? Chapter and Section numbers should suffice. Thanks.

 

[NCV]

[No message]

 

[knickerhawk]

--
http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/

I'm looking at the 7th edition. On page 186 there is a Figure 10.12 with a description that reads:

Typical exposure auto-program for a camera with f/1.4 standard lens. Working from top to bottom of the green graph line, as scene brightness drops (the exposure needed increases) the program progressively widens the aperture and slows the shutter speed. Note speeds safest for hand-holding are retained until f/1.4 is reached. Camera may signal ‘shake’ or ‘use flash’ at 1/30 second and slower. If you select ‘Tele’ program instead (shown here for a lens of f/2.8 maximum aperture) shutter speeds of 1/250 second or faster are held as long as possible. ‘Wide’ program (f/2 lens) pays equal attention to aperture and shutter changes

Is that the "variant" of the exposure triangle to which you're referring?

 

[NCV]

[No message]

 

[Forgottenbutnotgone]

Why should well known and well understood terminology be changed to suit the personal prejudices of a tiny minority of people in one tiny corner of the internet?

If the exposure triangle is such a widely understood and useful concept why have I never seen it referenced or illustrated in any of the user manuals of my cameras, including the basic point and shoot ones?

Open any basic photography textbook and you will find it in some form or other.

Langford’s Basic photography has a variant of the exposure triangle.

The proposed distinction of ISO not being a direct element of exposure is a variant of the exposure triangle as well. Most people are not advocating getting rid of it, just clearing up a minor inconsistency.

This book is used in colleges where photography is taught.

It is indeed a relief that you take some stock in educators, as it appeared for a while that some had more faith in magic.

Or do amateur photographer users of the M43 forum know better than professional educators?

They may indeed know better than some professional educators, for that matter some ARE professional educators, many of whom actively participate in the PST forum.

In either event, there is no monopoly on knowledge. For example, the principles of Equivalence were just as valid when GB brought them to the fore years ago as they are now that Richard Butler has published articles on the same identical facts. Which goes to show that the validity of knowledge is not determined by the popularity or credentials of those expressing them.
Robert

 

[NCV]

The exposure triangle is a simplification that is used to explain to people with little or no knowledge of “how a camera works” the relationship between the three main parameters needed to get a well exposed picture. Of course, with auto ISO or easily changed ISO it is not quite true anymore, but that does not mean it cannot be useful.

Many people are not interested in learning the technicalities of taking a photograph. I found it useful to explain to my wife (who could not care less about “photography”) the basic workings of a camera I lent her for a special occasion. It was enough and she came back with some nice pictures.

People, try to understand that a gross simplification is sometimes useful to get somebody started with a camera. They can pick up a “how to do it” book later if they want to learn more.

--
http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/

 

[knickerhawk]

 

[knickerhawk]

By the way, here's the diagram in Figure 10.2 I assumed (incorrectly?) you were talking about as the "variant". It's the closest thing I've found in Langford to an "exposure triangle."

 

[NCV]

Yes, mine is a bit different, without the program modes.

But it is a variant on the exposure triangle.

 

[Forgottenbutnotgone]

Yes, mine is a bit different, without the program modes.

But it is a variant on the exposure triangle.

 

[Sergey_Green]

Why should well known and well understood terminology be changed to suit the personal prejudices of a tiny minority of people in one tiny corner of the internet?

If the exposure triangle is such a widely understood and useful concept why have I never seen it referenced or illustrated in any of the user manuals of my cameras, including the basic point and shoot ones?

Open any basic photography textbook and you will find it in some form or other.

Langford’s Basic photography has a variant of the exposure triangle. This book is used in colleges where photography is taught. Or do some amateur photographer users of the M43 forum know better than professional educators? I do not think so

..

 

[NCV]

Let us let a master photographer peak:

By Paul Graham

It’s so easy it’s ridiculous. It’s so easy that I can’t even begin – I just don’t know where to start. After all, it’s just looking at things. We all do that. It’s simply a way of recording what you see – point the camera at it, and press a button. How hard is that? And what’s more, in this digital age, its free – doesn’t even cost you the price of film. It’s so simple and basic, it’s ridiculous.

The Whole text

 

[Sergey_Green]

Why should well known and well understood terminology be changed to suit the personal prejudices of a tiny minority of people in one tiny corner of the internet?

Aside from entertaining this forum, what terminology exactly is it that you have learned, and understood? Please do tell.

 

[Sergey_Green]

Let us let a master photographer peak:

By Paul Graham

It’s so easy it’s ridiculous. It’s so easy that I can’t even begin – I just don’t know where to start. After all, it’s just looking at things. We all do that. It’s simply a way of recording what you see – point the camera at it, and press a button. How hard is that? And what’s more, in this digital age, its free – doesn’t even cost you the price of film. It’s so simple and basic, it’s ridiculous.

The Whole text

--
http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/

The title of his essay is "Photography is Easy, Photography is Difficult." Your "crop" of the essay completely misses the point he's trying to make about modern straight art photography.

Oh, and by the way, there is no reference in the essay to the exposure triangle.

Something perhaps more on topic and more useful:

https://petapixel.com/2016/07/18/never-teach-exposure-triangle-beginners/

Robert

Some guy on the internet wrote..................

Why do we see much stock given to “some guy on the internet” who writes plausible tosh as in your link?

The good thing about books from reputable publishers is that much of the “some guy said” stuff gets disposed in the waste bin of before going to print.

I tend to buy technical books written by people who have serious credentials in the subject I am interested in. It does give me some guarantee of accuracy and truthfulness. Professional deformation I guess; who would design a building based on “what some guy said on the internet”?

Indeed, technology does change, and so does terminology, would not you agree?

Did you know by any chance that this book you cited is on its 10th revision celebrating 50th anniversary - which one are you reading now? Should not you try to understand, or at the very least observe how digital cameras work by now?

--
- sergey

 

[NCV]

Let us let a master photographer peak:

By Paul Graham

It’s so easy it’s ridiculous. It’s so easy that I can’t even begin – I just don’t know where to start. After all, it’s just looking at things. We all do that. It’s simply a way of recording what you see – point the camera at it, and press a button. How hard is that? And what’s more, in this digital age, its free – doesn’t even cost you the price of film. It’s so simple and basic, it’s ridiculous.

The Whole text

 

[Sergey_Green]

Sure, it was written during the film era, I read it back in the 90's. Time you learned how digital cameras work a bit.

Consider these four images, all shot in the manual mode except the white balance, it was automatic. Each of these images had identical exposure, at different ISO, they each show identical noise. They were not adjusted in any way, except the exposure slider to +1, +2, and so on, and one was processed as is. Can you tell which is which and which one of them was opened as is?

Please do not duck, just say you don't know if you don't. Because, frankly, I would not be able to tell them apart myself.

--
- sergey

 

[NCV]

What you show us is what was once called film lattitude or pushed/pulled film. Nothing about digital is really new.

Your second shot seems to be more contrasty.

We just do not have to change film now.

 

[gary0319]

Yes, mine is a bit different, without the program modes.

But it is a variant on the exposure triangle.

 

[Sergey_Green]

What you show us is what was once called film lattitude or pushed/pulled film. Nothing about digital is really new.

Your second shot seems to be more contrasty.

We just do not have to change film now.

So how does the ISO fit into the triangle of exposure, if it all can be adjusted with one single slider after the exposure has already happened and the image have been captured? Or is there a triangle at all?

 

[NCV]

Because the triangle with the sliders set to zero gives you the optimum result.