EXPLAINING THE MAGIC

[Tom Caldwell]

I will preface this by saying that I've had my own share of tussles with GB and sometimes think he takes things too far (who doesn't?), but I really think you are being unfair to GB with respect to his participation in this thread. He was NOT the instigator of turning this thread into a so-called "technical" one. In fact, he offered no specific technical advice or claims whatsoever. He merely responded to NCV's opinion of what makes for good photography with his own. Frankly, I can't imagine that his words in this thread coming from pretty much any other poster (save perhaps Bobn2) would register even the slightest blip.

Yes, GB is a lightning rod for controversy (he's far from being alone in that respect), but if he's held to a different standard and expectation about what and when he can post, that's a form of prior restraint that should not be imposed. Like everyone else, his posts should be judged on their own merits and in the case of this specific thread, they sure look to me to be reasonable, non-insulting and on-topic.

If you're only looking at a singular thread, or at an individual post, then sure.

There is good reason why, as a general rule in a court of law, evidence of prior crimes or wrongdoing is not admissible as proof of a current crime or wrongdoing. There is good reason why, in the rules of logic, the character, identity or behavior of the person making the argument is irrelevant to the validity of the argument.

Tom's post is addressing a pattern of behaviour across a number of threads.

If "pattern of behavior" is the standard by which one's right to post in this forum is to be determined, then pretty much every frequent poster here should be banned. We ALL tend to hold and perpetuate and promote relatively stable and unchanging opinions. We ALL tend to engage in a consistent "pattern of behavior" in our posts. We all tend to bunch together in various tribes and cliques. Better to just accept that's the nature of the game and ignore the ones that irritate you too much or embrace the give and take of the forum and appreciate the relative freedom to express your own "pattern of behavior." As long as your antagonists' individual posts are reasonably topical and reasonably non-insulting, then stand with them on their privilege to post...because the next time it might be YOUR "pattern of behavior" that's targeted.

I think you are taking things too far. I just tried to explain to you that looking at individual posts and reaching a conclusion and passing judgement on moderation doesn't tell the whole story. Many threads/posts have been deleted recently because they have gotten out of hand.

This is not about rules of logic, and DPR is not a court of law. It's not even a democracy where forum members have rights. We post here under the benevolence of the owners and moderators. Their decisions are final.

There is no question that some threads have gotten out of hand and made moderation quite difficult. So if a moderator chooses to post a warning in a thread, even if that particular thread has not (yet) gone off the rails, he/she is entitled to do so.

 

[knickerhawk]

I will preface this by saying that I've had my own share of tussles with GB and sometimes think he takes things too far (who doesn't?), but I really think you are being unfair to GB with respect to his participation in this thread. He was NOT the instigator of turning this thread into a so-called "technical" one. In fact, he offered no specific technical advice or claims whatsoever. He merely responded to NCV's opinion of what makes for good photography with his own. Frankly, I can't imagine that his words in this thread coming from pretty much any other poster (save perhaps Bobn2) would register even the slightest blip.

Yes, GB is a lightning rod for controversy (he's far from being alone in that respect), but if he's held to a different standard and expectation about what and when he can post, that's a form of prior restraint that should not be imposed. Like everyone else, his posts should be judged on their own merits and in the case of this specific thread, they sure look to me to be reasonable, non-insulting and on-topic.

If you're only looking at a singular thread, or at an individual post, then sure.

There is good reason why, as a general rule in a court of law, evidence of prior crimes or wrongdoing is not admissible as proof of a current crime or wrongdoing. There is good reason why, in the rules of logic, the character, identity or behavior of the person making the argument is irrelevant to the validity of the argument.

Tom's post is addressing a pattern of behaviour across a number of threads.

If "pattern of behavior" is the standard by which one's right to post in this forum is to be determined, then pretty much every frequent poster here should be banned. We ALL tend to hold and perpetuate and promote relatively stable and unchanging opinions. We ALL tend to engage in a consistent "pattern of behavior" in our posts. We all tend to bunch together in various tribes and cliques. Better to just accept that's the nature of the game and ignore the ones that irritate you too much or embrace the give and take of the forum and appreciate the relative freedom to express your own "pattern of behavior." As long as your antagonists' individual posts are reasonably topical and reasonably non-insulting, then stand with them on their privilege to post...because the next time it might be YOUR "pattern of behavior" that's targeted.

I think you are taking things too far. I just tried to explain to you that looking at individual posts and reaching a conclusion and passing judgement on moderation doesn't tell the whole story. Many threads/posts have been deleted recently because they have gotten out of hand.

This is not about rules of logic, and DPR is not a court of law. It's not even a democracy where forum members have rights. We post here under the benevolence of the owners and moderators. Their decisions are final.

I prefer forum dialog that conforms to the rules of logic. Anything less is anarchic and just empty rhetoric. And of course this is not a court of law. That goes without saying but even so I was careful to refer to our participation here as a "privilege" not a right. However, the same underlying rules that have historically served courts and juries well for judging applicable rules and violations of those rules should not be disregarded by forum moderators, at least not by those who want to behave judiciously and fairly.

There is no question that some threads have gotten out of hand and made moderation quite difficult. So if a moderator chooses to post a warning in a thread, even if that particular thread has not (yet) gone off the rails, he/she is entitled to do so.

I don't want to drag this thread any further away from it's topical intent, and I want to give Tom any other moderator the benefit of the doubt, as well as honor the general admonition from debating moderator policy in this forum, so I will not respond further. I believe I've made my point and position clear and I believe I understand yours as well. That's the beauty of a healthy, lightly moderated discussion!

 

[knickerhawk]

I will preface this by saying that I've had my own share of tussles with GB and sometimes think he takes things too far (who doesn't?), but I really think you are being unfair to GB with respect to his participation in this thread. He was NOT the instigator of turning this thread into a so-called "technical" one. In fact, he offered no specific technical advice or claims whatsoever. He merely responded to NCV's opinion of what makes for good photography with his own. Frankly, I can't imagine that his words in this thread coming from pretty much any other poster (save perhaps Bobn2) would register even the slightest blip.

Yes, GB is a lightning rod for controversy (he's far from being alone in that respect), but if he's held to a different standard and expectation about what and when he can post, that's a form of prior restraint that should not be imposed. Like everyone else, his posts should be judged on their own merits and in the case of this specific thread, they sure look to me to be reasonable, non-insulting and on-topic.

If you're only looking at a singular thread, or at an individual post, then sure.

There is good reason why, as a general rule in a court of law, evidence of prior crimes or wrongdoing is not admissible as proof of a current crime or wrongdoing. There is good reason why, in the rules of logic, the character, identity or behavior of the person making the argument is irrelevant to the validity of the argument.

Tom's post is addressing a pattern of behaviour across a number of threads.

If "pattern of behavior" is the standard by which one's right to post in this forum is to be determined, then pretty much every frequent poster here should be banned. We ALL tend to hold and perpetuate and promote relatively stable and unchanging opinions. We ALL tend to engage in a consistent "pattern of behavior" in our posts. We all tend to bunch together in various tribes and cliques. Better to just accept that's the nature of the game and ignore the ones that irritate you too much or embrace the give and take of the forum and appreciate the relative freedom to express your own "pattern of behavior." As long as your antagonists' individual posts are reasonably topical and reasonably non-insulting, then stand with them on their privilege to post...because the next time it might be YOUR "pattern of behavior" that's targeted.

You have had your say, I have respected it as fair comment, and the matter is closed.\

Agreed and I just posted my final thoughts before seeing this one. Apologies for dragging it out further.

 

[Pete_W]

Thanks for your support Pete. We are indeed more referees than judges and the object is more to keep to the rules, the peace and civilities and I have gone to some lengths to accommodate unruly behviour and even attacks on moderation.

In any case this discussion should now stop as continuing it serves no purpose.

In some cases it might be likened to a soccer match where the referee hands out a naughty card to a player for whatever reason and the player contests it bitterly. Compare that to a court where the accused tries to similarly intimidate the judge.

Thanks Tom. You do an excellent job here!

 

[nzmacro]

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Just push the button on the box and make it go ...... click !! Unless you use silent shutter.

Danny.

 

[rurikw]

Sticking to the old, flawed exposure triangle (F+SS+ISO) is justified with the need to simplify. But how is that any simpler than the correct triangle (F+SS+scene luminance)? It still has only 3 corners.

Which is easier to use in the real world, the first or the second?

I can explain the first in a few minutes to a novice, the latter will involve a major physics class to get through something like this: http://johnlind.tripod.com/science/scienceexposure.html .

--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
https://australianimage.com.au

Why would you need to go into that? Just explain that exposure is determined by f stop and shutter speed. If you run out of f and ss to get a sufficient exposure, you can increase the image brightness digitally either in camera with ISO or in post.

???

F stands for F stop and SS for shutter speed. For a given scene they determine exposure. Say you dial in f1.8 and 1/30 but you still get an underexposed photo. 1.8 is the brightest f on your lens and 1/30 is the slowest you can go in that situation. So you need to brighten the photo after the exposure. This you can do in camera with ISO or with sliders in the program of your choice.

I said digital. Is that what caused the question marks? Yes I admit being on thin ice there. I have read ISO is not amplification so assumed it's multiplication ie. digital manipulation of the rgb values derived from the charges induced by the exposure. On the other hand sometimes increasing ISO gives less noise than brightening in post so there is probably something else involved. I am no good at the tech side but it's really irrelevant as that's exactly the kind of detail you would not include in a simple explanation.

This is how I see the process. Not a triangle but a Y. The thinner raster on the ISO rectangle depicts raising ISO from base. Keeping ISO at base would keep the raster unaltered.

 

[rurikw]

Why not just change the name of the triangle to "the brightness triangle" thus avoiding the fallacy that ISO is part of the exposure but retaining the simplicity and explanatory power?

 

[OzRay]

My question marks arose from the fact that you disassociated ISO as if it had no bearing on the other two.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the film era, but when one wanted to correctly expose film, you had to take into account the film's ASA, you set that in your exposure meter or the camera if it had an exposure meter.

Note the lightmeter below, which is the meter I used in my film days (after a sold my Weston Luna Six). It has a setting for ISO, Time (shutter speed) and F no. Why would there be these three settings? It could also measure EV, but no one used that for stills photography. BTW, this lightmeter would also give me flash readings,

--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland

https://australianimage.com.au

 

[Sergey_Green]

My question marks arose from the fact that you disassociated ISO as if it had no bearing on the other two.

His image demonstrates it quite nicely.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the film era, but when one wanted to correctly expose film, you had to take into account the film's ASA, you set that in your exposure meter or the camera if it had an exposure meter.

Sure, you would set the camera according to the ISO of the film that you have selected. How could it have been otherwise? In the digital world the signal gets boosted after the exposure has already happened, and the image has already been captured. That is not quite the same if you only think about it, as you can also add or reduce the brightness of the image in post processing, and oftentimes with the same results as you would through the ISO settings. Hope this helps.

Note the lightmeter below, which is the meter I used in my film days (after a sold my Weston Luna Six). It has a setting for ISO, Time (shutter speed) and F no. Why would there be these three settings? It could also measure EV, but no one used that for stills photography. BTW, this lightmeter would also give me flash readings,

--
- sergey

 

[rurikw]

My question marks arose from the fact that you disassociated ISO as if it had no bearing on the other two.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the film era, but when one wanted to correctly expose film, you had to take into account the film's ASA, you set that in your exposure meter or the camera if it had an exposure meter.

Note the lightmeter below, which is the meter I used in my film days (after a sold my Weston Luna Six). It has a setting for ISO, Time (shutter speed) and F no. Why would there be these three settings? It could also measure EV, but no one used that for stills photography. BTW, this lightmeter would also give me flash readings,

--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
https://australianimage.com.au

My meters were more primitive selenium meters. I used the DIN scale, later ASA. On DPR I have learned new things such as equivalence between formats, ISO is not part of exposure etc. It does not mean you don't use the three variables as before, only clarifies definitions. As I said in another post there's a simple solution to the problem with the so called exposure triangle. Just call it a brightness triangle instead. Sensitive film or high ISO allows you to lower the exposure without lowering he brightness of the resulting image. Not sure why these concepts generate such heated debates. The OP is right that a terminological flaw doesn't affect how he takes his shots, But it's still a flaw and very easy to correct without adding any complexity. You can brighten the image by increasing the exposure or by other means. ISO is one of those other means.

 

[JaKing]

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?

 

[NCV]

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?

 

[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

 

[JaKing]

Thanks, Nigel.

Some people seem to think that renaming some well known idea grants them some kind of ownership of the idea ...

In patent law comes within the ambit of the principle of "prior art" ...

 

[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?

You would probably be best suited to answer that question, since no one else in this thread has raised it, at least in the way in which you have worded it.

No one has suggested such be done in order to suit their personal prejudices. Even if a person was totally incorrect in their reasoning, (which doesn't at all appear to be the case) several detailed explanations have been made to outline why in fact ISO is not technically an element of exposure, though it indeed is a factor in determining what quantity of exposure will be necessary. Prejudice would indicate one has made a decision either ahead of, or in spite of plain evidence to the contrary. Such evidence has been provided and explained.

"tiny minority of people in one tiny corner of the internet?"

A proper response would be to acknowledge agreement or offer a reasonable, intelligent rebuttal. What has been done instead is to raise a demeaning question, using hyperbole (hypobole, in this case) to unfairly lower the perceived credibility of the other side of the debate. All that accomplishes is to make the person (who has taken the time to carefully explain their position) feel insulted and belittled, as their evidence (ISO not a direct element of exposure) has been swapped with a judgmental substitute ("suit the prejudices") again, after time was taken to offer honest evidence.

Such tactics, often coming from people with titles such as "Senior Member" or "Veteran Member" don't, in my opinion, help to give OUR forum any credibility, and only serve to create and build the exact prejudice that is incorrectly blamed on those with the differing viewpoint.

Now, in answer to your question. I would say probably for the same reason one would pay for and use an Olympus OMD EM1 MKII after having purchased and used the MKI for so long previously. The old one was good, the new one is even better, though maybe taking a short bit of time to adapt to. When you learn better, you do better or...

...at least give it a try.

Robert

 

[knickerhawk]

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

 

[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?

 

[Forgottenbutnotgone]

Thanks, Nigel.

Some people seem to think that renaming some well known idea grants them some kind of ownership of the idea ...

In contrast some people think that ignoring an idea and replacing it with magic is a much better solution

In patent law comes within the ambit of the principle of "prior art" ...

Well here's something perhaps more useful.

Loading…

petapixel.com

Robert

 

[NCV]

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

 

[Forgottenbutnotgone]

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