F/ number in relation to the sensor size

[bobn2]

it affects captured light once it is discharge from the pixel well.thus the image will be brighter as per your example.

If i haven't worded this correctly 'G' Bob, Golly will be along to school me again,

Sorry, I will. You're doing well but it shows how difficult it is to get rid of entrenched, false ideas. One of the false mental models that people have seems to be that there is some kind of light pipe in a photographic system. The model seems to be that light goes in one end and comes out the other and if you want the output to be 'brighter' than the input you have to 'amplify' it some way. It just isn't so. No light is 'discharged' from the pixel. The pixel makes a measurement of the amount of light that it has collected. It does this by generating a charge that is proportional to the amount of light. The electronic design problem is to make this measurement as precise as possible. Once the measurement is made, there is no more light in the system, just a set of numbers representing amounts of light pixel by pixel. Conceptually, what ISO does is set a palette of tones against that list of numbers. As you change the ISO the palette is shifted so that low light counts match lighter tones in the palette. When it comes to an output image the tones defined by the palette might be represented by pain, ink, a mask over a light source or a set of lamps, depending on your display device. As I said earlier, no 'light' comes out of the system, so nothing gets amplified. The only reason for 'amplification' is an engineering detail to make the measurements as accurate as possible.

 

[gollywop]

Thanks for the answers so far, good stuff.

Should I consider what the image device size is in my camera?

I assume you mean sensor size (or format). And, no, you needn't worry about the sensor size unless you want to assess effects across cameras with different formats – such as a micro four-thirds camera vs. an APS-C camera vs. a full-format camera.

For "Exposure" purposes, does it matter what size the device is, once my light meter determines/suggests the correct incident light exposure settings to use??

A given exposure (f-ratio and SS) for a given scene (placement, focus distance, perspective, framing) will be the same for all formats. Exposure is the amount of light per unit area impinging on the sensor. So the size of the sensor does not come into play here.

There are, however, several problems with the phrasing of your question. You can have exposure settings suggested by an incident light meter, but there is no such thing as "incident light exposure settings." Further, in all likelihood you are not using an incident light meter, but rather a reflected light meter. Camera meters are reflected light meters. Look up the difference. Finally, no meter can guarantee "correct" exposure settings. Typically you can but hope a meter suggests reasonable exposure settings. Indeed, in line with bobn2's appropriate post, meters don't even suggest exposure settings, but rather an exposure value, from which you pick from among the many exposure settings having that EV (combinations of f-ratio and SS) the one that best suits your shooting requirements.

With the ISO and Shutter already fixed, will I need to figure out a different f stop by the correct crop factor than what the meter indicates because of the "equivalent" discussion above?

Not unless you are trying to produce "equivalent" results across different formats. If all you're concerned with is exposure, the same meter reading applies to all.

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

 

[gollywop]

Hey, Gollywop. What does DPReview Contributor mean? I see the wrench but have no idea what it means.

Hi Steve, long time no hear. Well it means a small PITA. I have several dpr articles (I like to think of some substance). After dpr went to its new editor and site set-up, it no longer became possible for authors simply to edit their articles. Don't ask me why, but that's the way it was (is). To get editing privileges, I apparently needed some "official" status, like "contributor." If, eventually, I find I no longer need access to edit my articles (I haven't gotten there yet – indeed I just edited one today in light of aspects of this thread), I will ask Simon to remove the status. Meanwhile . . .

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

 

[Pan X]

I don't disagree with your points.

I'm just trying to get my head around the notion of device size versus "A Different Exposure Equivalent" as alluded to above.

Let me set up my scene this way to remove all doubts and any artistic intents.

I take a reflective, spot meter reading on an 18% grey card, standard day, noon, no clouds, no shadow, card pointed to the sun, meter pointed at the card, no shadow from the meter, no glare from the sun. The meter result should be the "Golden Rule of Exposure". Ansel Adam's Zone Five, if you will. The meter will show, (among the various ten possibilities or so), f16 * 1/125 * ISO 100. I choose to fill the frame and fully defocus on this 18% grey card. I choose ISO 100. I choose 1/125.

This is a simple, controlled set up. No artistic intent.

It seems to me that a "so-called" "Perfect Exposure" should yield a perfect Zone five, middle grey "Exposure" on the finished results, however viewed - LCD, CRT, Plasma, film negative, film positive. Is this true?

Underexposed results should/will lean towards Zone 4 and Overexposed should/will lean towards Zone 6. (reversed for film negative)

Now, for the real question, and the source of my confusion.

The meter suggested f16 for the above conditions.(Obviously, a minor plus/minus factor will be involved. Don't get hung up here.)

Do I need to make adjustments to f16 due to different image device sizes needing different "exposures" due to the "crop factor" or "equivalences" as detailed in the posts far above????

The proponents seem to be very insistent that f-stop crop factors/equivalences for the different device sizes are very real.

Will they influence the results in my test scene above?

 

[bobn2]

Typically you can but hope a meter suggests reasonable exposure settings. Indeed, in line with bobn2's appropriate post, meters don't even suggest exposure settings, but rather an exposure value, from which you pick from among the many exposure settings having that EV (combinations of f-ratio and SS) the one that best suits your shooting requirements.

The point being that the EV together with the scene luminance should result in the exposure defined by the ISO that you set.

 

[bobn2]

I don't disagree with your points.

I'm just trying to get my head around the notion of device size versus "A Different Exposure Equivalent" as alluded to above.

You're not getting your head in there because somewhere at the back of your mind you have the idea that choosing your exposure is totally about determining the output image brightness and nothing else. It's lodged there and it's stopping you thinking about anything else.

Let me set up my scene this way to remove all doubts and any artistic intents.

I take a reflective, spot meter reading on an 18% grey card, standard day, noon, no clouds, no shadow, card pointed to the sun, meter pointed at the card, no shadow from the meter, no glare from the sun. The meter result should be the "Golden Rule of Exposure". Ansel Adam's Zone Five, if you will. The meter will show, (among the various ten possibilities or so), f16 * 1/125 * ISO 100. I choose to fill the frame and fully defocus on this 18% grey card. I choose ISO 100. I choose 1/125.

Wrong way of thinking about it. The meter didn't choose, 100 ISO. You did. When you did that, you told the camera that an exposure at the sensor of 0.1 lux seconds should produce a 12.7% grey in the output file. You also told the meter to tell you which EV to set to achieve 0.1. lux seconds for an 18% grey in the scene you're photographing, so far as can be determined from light reflected from the scene (18% grey in the scene gets rendered as 12.7% grey in the output image, because lights and specular reflections need to be rendered brighter than white)

This is a simple, controlled set up. No artistic intent.

It seems to me that a "so-called" "Perfect Exposure" should yield a perfect Zone five, middle grey "Exposure" on the finished results, however viewed - LCD, CRT, Plasma, film negative, film positive. Is this true?

You're using the zone system back to front. The point of it was to place the different tones on the right place in the film characteristic to provide the most potential for processing and printing. Ansell Adams spent a lot of time manipulating his image in the darkroom, there was never an intention that some how, automatically a given tone on the scene would be rendered at a particular tone in the final print.

He wasn't at all setting up a system to control print brightness by exposure, he was setting up a system to give the most printable negatives.

Underexposed results should/will lean towards Zone 4 and Overexposed should/will lean towards Zone 6. (reversed for film negative)

Now, for the real question, and the source of my confusion.

The meter suggested f16 for the above conditions.(Obviously, a minor plus/minus factor will be involved. Don't get hung up here.)

Do I need to make adjustments to f16 due to different image device sizes needing different "exposures" due to the "crop factor" or "equivalences" as detailed in the posts far above????

No, if you're using exposure to control brightness, it doesn't change at a set ISO, because that's what ISO defines. But apart from when you're locked into how bid an exposure you can use by base ISO, you'll tend to choose ISO according to image quality constraints, and then you'll chose ISO according to sensor size. So, if you were happy with quality of mFT at 400 ISO, you'd be equally happy with FF at 1600 ISO.

The proponents seem to be very insistent that f-stop crop factors/equivalences for the different device sizes are very real.

They are very real. They determine very much what the final picture will look like, so long as you select the ISO to keep the equivalence. With two cameras of a generation, set to equivalent settings, it can be very difficult indeed to tell which was the smaller and which the larger sensor. Or turn t the other way round, at equivalent settings, sensor size isn't much of an issue.

Will they influence the results in my test scene above?

Not if you're using that 'exposure to set brightness and don't think about which ISO I'm using' method.

 

[Great Bustard]

I don't disagree with your points.

I'm just trying to get my head around the notion of device size versus "A Different Exposure Equivalent" as alluded to above.

Let me set up my scene this way to remove all doubts and any artistic intents.

I take a reflective, spot meter reading on an 18% grey card, standard day, noon, no clouds, no shadow, card pointed to the sun, meter pointed at the card, no shadow from the meter, no glare from the sun. The meter result should be the "Golden Rule of Exposure". Ansel Adam's Zone Five, if you will. The meter will show, (among the various ten possibilities or so), f16 * 1/125 * ISO 100. I choose to fill the frame and fully defocus on this 18% grey card. I choose ISO 100. I choose 1/125.

This is a simple, controlled set up. No artistic intent.

It seems to me that a "so-called" "Perfect Exposure" should yield a perfect Zone five, middle grey "Exposure" on the finished results, however viewed - LCD, CRT, Plasma, film negative, film positive. Is this true?

Underexposed results should/will lean towards Zone 4 and Overexposed should/will lean towards Zone 6. (reversed for film negative)

Now, for the real question, and the source of my confusion.

The meter suggested f16 for the above conditions.(Obviously, a minor plus/minus factor will be involved. Don't get hung up here.)

Do I need to make adjustments to f16 due to different image device sizes needing different "exposures" due to the "crop factor" or "equivalences" as detailed in the posts far above????

The proponents seem to be very insistent that f-stop crop factors/equivalences for the different device sizes are very real.

Will they influence the results in my test scene above?

No, the sensor size will not influence the exposure. The same scene luminance, relative aperture (and lens transmission, but this typically matters only near wide open), and exposure time will result in the same exposure regardless of format.

Equivalent photos, on the other hand, will *necessarily* have different exposures. The reason being that the same total amount of light falls on the sensor for Equivalent photos. Thus, the same total amount of light on sensors with different areas will result in a different density of light on the sensor, and thus a different exposure.

 

[Iliah Borg]

Exposure: the amount of light falling per unit area on a sensor: it is determined by the scene luminance, the f-ratio (more properly the T-ratio), and the shutter speed.

And light SPD

 

[gollywop]

Exposure: the amount of light falling per unit area on a sensor: it is determined by the scene luminance, the f-ratio (more properly the T-ratio), and the shutter speed.

And light SPD

Ah, to be sure. And that's all we need to add to the explaination. ;-)

 

[Iliah Borg]

Exposure: the amount of light falling per unit area on a sensor: it is determined by the scene luminance, the f-ratio (more properly the T-ratio), and the shutter speed.

And light SPD

Ah, to be sure. And that's all we need to add to the explaination. ;-)

That's a bit complicated, if we consider the difference between the exposure and exposure results. Photopic luminosity function is optimized for human observers.

 

[Steve Bingham]

Great answer - but weird from a dpreview standpoint. A wrench, hunh? Hope I didn't insult you. Just curious. Usually I use a wrench to fix things . . . or totally screw them up. I like to keep things simple. Honest. Brain's getting tired, I guess.

Hey, Gollywop. What does DPReview Contributor mean? I see the wrench but have no idea what it means.

Hi Steve, long time no hear. Well it means a small PITA. I have several dpr articles (I like to think of some substance). After dpr went to its new editor and site set-up, it no longer became possible for authors simply to edit their articles. Don't ask me why, but that's the way it was (is). To get editing privileges, I apparently needed some "official" status, like "contributor." If, eventually, I find I no longer need access to edit my articles (I haven't gotten there yet – indeed I just edited one today in light of aspects of this thread), I will ask Simon to remove the status. Meanwhile . . .

 

[gollywop]

Great answer - but weird from a dpreview standpoint. A wrench, hunh? Hope I didn't insult you. Just curious. Usually I use a wrench to fix things . . . or totally screw them up. I like to keep things simple. Honest. Brain's getting tired, I guess.

Certainly no insult. I too have been able to use a wrench to many ends – not all good.

Hey, Gollywop. What does DPReview Contributor mean? I see the wrench but have no idea what it means.

Hi Steve, long time no hear. Well it means a small PITA. I have several dpr articles (I like to think of some substance). After dpr went to its new editor and site set-up, it no longer became possible for authors simply to edit their articles. Don't ask me why, but that's the way it was (is). To get editing privileges, I apparently needed some "official" status, like "contributor." If, eventually, I find I no longer need access to edit my articles (I haven't gotten there yet – indeed I just edited one today in light of aspects of this thread), I will ask Simon to remove the status. Meanwhile . . .

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

 

[Dennis]

The meter will show, (among the various ten possibilities or so), f16 * 1/125 * ISO 100. I choose to fill the frame and fully defocus on this 18% grey card. I choose ISO 100. I choose 1/125.

It seems to me that a "so-called" "Perfect Exposure" should yield a perfect Zone five, middle grey "Exposure" on the finished results, however viewed - LCD, CRT, Plasma, film negative, film positive. Is this true?

Once you get in the mindset that the more light you put on the sensor, the better, the "perfect exposure" would be one that does just that. Some photographers will "expose to the right" (ETTR) which has to be done at base ISO, by definition, resulting in an image that has to be darkened in post processing. Some shoot jpegs and want ready to print results. Some are shooting to avoid highlights, some say highlights-be-damned expose for the subject.

But all of that is a question of metering.

The meter suggested f16 for the above conditions.(Obviously, a minor plus/minus factor will be involved. Don't get hung up here.)

Do I need to make adjustments to f16 due to different image device sizes needing different "exposures" due to the "crop factor" or "equivalences" as detailed in the posts far above????

Not for purposes of brightness. If 1/125s at f/16 and ISO 100 works on one camera, it will work on another (barring differences in how they measure ISO, and inaccuracies in shutter speeds and differences in transmission and details like that). But those are not equivalent images in terms of noise, diffraction and depth of field. So it would be strange, at least in some situations, to choose the same exposure settings for different formats.

The proponents seem to be very insistent that f-stop crop factors/equivalences for the different device sizes are very real.

I'm not sure what you mean by "very real" ... depending on what you mean, I wouldn't say the proponents are insistent about it.

As I said, the exposure settings will give you equally bright images in either case ... if you're exposing using the zone system, your zone 5's will match up. But the bigger sensor is getting more light exposure, leading to higher signal to noise ratio while the smaller sensor is suffering more from diffraction and seeing greater depth of field.

Will they influence the results in my test scene above?

In the sense that they give different results, yes ... not in terms of brightness, but other factors.

The thing is, when you're out shooting, you should be oblivious to all of this ... unless, maybe, you spent a lifetime shooting 35mm and are just switched to APS-C and maybe the conversion factors are helpful for a short time. When you're out shooting, you should be choosing exposure settings based on what makes sense for the image and that does incorporate sensor size ... you wouldn't choose to shoot f/16 on micro 4/3 (or even APS-C) if you could help it, to avoid unnecessary softening due to diffraction.

They key to understanding what proponents of equivalence are so insistent on is understanding what equivalence says. It doesn't say you need to shoot at equivalent focal length & f-stop settings to get the same brightness.

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[Iliah Borg]

ETTR) which has to be done at base ISO, by definition

It is a little bit different.

1. Not all cameras have the cleanest shadows / max well capacity at base ISO;

2. if you can't expose to the right at base ISO, increasing ISO setting helps to get cleaner image (the degree and the highest useful for this ISO setting varies depending on the camera model).

 

[Dennis]

Thanks for the clarification, Iliah.

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[Great Bustard]

ETTR) which has to be done at base ISO, by definition

It is a little bit different.

1. Not all cameras have the cleanest shadows / max well capacity at base ISO;

Can you please expand on that a bit?

 

[Moti]

I'm just amazed at how off base some of you are. It's like you are trying to fit the facts to a predetermined argument.

ITS ALL A WAY OF MAKING THE IMAGE BRIGHTER OR DIMMER!!! Hello! That's what exposure is!

Nope. There's a very clear definition of what exposure is. The fact that you choose to ignore it and make up your own stuff does not really change that.

But whatever. This is pretty common here, so you're in good company.

Just for curiosity, So you are saying that exposure is not a way of making an image brighter or dimmer?

Exposure does indeed affect the brightness of the final image,

of course, every photographer with a bit of knoledge knows that.

but it is not part of the brightening processes applied in creating that final image.

every photographer with a bit of knoledge knows that too because once the film or sensor is exposed, exposure cannot be changed anymore hence, brightening can only be controlled during processing phase.

So if a guy like Lumigraphics comes and says ITS ALL A WAY OF MAKING THE IMAGE BRIGHTER OR DIMMER, he is not that wrong as you guys make out of him.

Of course it's wrong. That's just like saying that the recording level is all a way of making the listening volume louder or softer.

His only crime maybe is coming from film photography, where exposure and brightness used to be synonyms

For a guy who, I must suppose, comes from film days, that's a pretty ignorant statement. What I did to expose the film in camera and what I did to process and print that image in the dark room hardly allowed exposure and brightness to be synonymous – any more so then than now.

now we are getting to what came first, the egg or the chicken debate. You are right, I come from long time film photography and exposure was actually the going term we used then as relation to brightness. A too bright image was called overexposed and a dark one was called underexposed. Do you think people have used these terms then because they haven't met you yet? Or maybe was there another reason.

Ignorance is clearly not just a modern-day phenomenon. Nor, apparently, is it something that some can reverse – even over a long period of time.

But let's look at those good ol' days:

Exposure = Intensity x Time *

Brightness . . . A subjective interpretation of Luminance. **

* Adams, Ansel, p. 2, "The Negative: Exposure • Development," Morgan and Morgan, NY, 1966.

** Adams, Ansel, p. vi, "The Negative: Exposure • Development," Morgan and Morgan, NY, 1966

It's one thing to be wrong; it's altogether another to take pride, and perhaps even pleasure, in the condition.

So before calling someone ignorant as you very often do to anyone who has a different opinion or a different experience than you, maybe you should look a bit in the mirror from time to time.

Oh, I do, I do. And it's funny that, in circumstances like this, the reflection apears to be blurred beyond recognition, and seems to be trying to picture someone else.

And last but not least, even that you are probably an ace of photography science, bear in mind that when it comes to real world photography, some of those you call ignorants, can still teach you some lessons about how to take good photos because what they have already forgotten, you haven't yet started to learn. And this is the only thing that really counts.

Absolutely. And lumigraphics is a good example of that: someone who, I readily grant, is a talented photographer and who demonstrates that one doesn't need to know what's really going on to make good photographs.

Sounds like an oxymoron to me. How can someone be a talented photographer and yet, doesn't know how to make a good photo?

But then maybe it is time for you, to enlighten us from the back of your high horse. Please explain what really is going on to make a good photograph? and I mean not only technically good.

Or even better, why won't you take the opportunity and show us some examples of good photography you have created because frankly speaking, maybe they are hidden somewhere but I haven't seen anything that I can call good photography, coming from you.

His value as a teacher, if it exists at all, would be via mute demonstration and not by verbiage, either spoken or written.

Not sure about this either. He may not be a good teacher as you say, but when I compare his photos to your photos, I have no doubt about the fact who can teach whom a lesson in photography, if of course you'd be clever enough to listen.

Cheers

Moti

--
http://www.musicalpix.com

 

[bobn2]

Absolutely. And lumigraphics is a good example of that: someone who, I readily grant, is a talented photographer and who demonstrates that one doesn't need to know what's really going on to make good photographs.

Sounds like an oxymoron to me. How can someone be a talented photographer and yet, doesn't know how to make a good photo?

There are many different routes to 'making a good photo' and much of what people choose to argue about here isn't central to it. Modern cameras will do a good deal of it automatically.

But then maybe it is time for you, to enlighten us from the back of your high horse. Please explain what really is going on to make a good photograph? and I mean not only technically good.

Well, some people have an eye fora shot and others don't. Some people arrive there as if by magic, for others it's a hard learned skill.

Or even better, why won't you take the opportunity and show us some examples of good photography you have created because frankly speaking, maybe they are hidden somewhere but I haven't seen anything that I can call good photography, coming from you.

You're confusing two different things, talent and knowledge. A talented racing driver might be very good at winning races. You wouldn't expect him to know everything about how the car actually worked. Engineers are employed for that.

His value as a teacher, if it exists at all, would be via mute demonstration and not by verbiage, either spoken or written.

Not sure about this either. He may not be a good teacher as you say, but when I compare his photos to your photos, I have no doubt about the fact who can teach whom a lesson in photography, if of course you'd be clever enough to listen.

There are many aspects to photography. Being good at crafting shots doesn't mean that you know the technical stuff, and lumigraphics certainly doesn't. I've known many professional photographers and photography teachers. Some produce wonderful images. Very few know very much about the technical side of photography, especially digital photography.

It's more interesting to ask the question the other way round. Why do some people cling so dear to their photographic knowledge, even though it's shown to be completely wrong? Is it because it's all they have?

 

[gollywop]

I'm just amazed at how off base some of you are. It's like you are trying to fit the facts to a predetermined argument.

ITS ALL A WAY OF MAKING THE IMAGE BRIGHTER OR DIMMER!!! Hello! That's what exposure is!

Nope. There's a very clear definition of what exposure is. The fact that you choose to ignore it and make up your own stuff does not really change that.

But whatever. This is pretty common here, so you're in good company.

Just for curiosity, So you are saying that exposure is not a way of making an image brighter or dimmer?

Exposure does indeed affect the brightness of the final image,

of course, every photographer with a bit of knoledge knows that.

but it is not part of the brightening processes applied in creating that final image.

every photographer with a bit of knoledge knows that too because once the film or sensor is exposed, exposure cannot be changed anymore hence, brightening can only be controlled during processing phase.

So if a guy like Lumigraphics comes and says ITS ALL A WAY OF MAKING THE IMAGE BRIGHTER OR DIMMER, he is not that wrong as you guys make out of him.

Of course it's wrong. That's just like saying that the recording level is all a way of making the listening volume louder or softer.

His only crime maybe is coming from film photography, where exposure and brightness used to be synonyms

For a guy who, I must suppose, comes from film days, that's a pretty ignorant statement. What I did to expose the film in camera and what I did to process and print that image in the dark room hardly allowed exposure and brightness to be synonymous – any more so then than now.

now we are getting to what came first, the egg or the chicken debate. You are right, I come from long time film photography and exposure was actually the going term we used then as relation to brightness. A too bright image was called overexposed and a dark one was called underexposed. Do you think people have used these terms then because they haven't met you yet? Or maybe was there another reason.

Ignorance is clearly not just a modern-day phenomenon. Nor, apparently, is it something that some can reverse – even over a long period of time.

But let's look at those good ol' days:

Exposure = Intensity x Time *

Brightness . . . A subjective interpretation of Luminance. **

* Adams, Ansel, p. 2, "The Negative: Exposure • Development," Morgan and Morgan, NY, 1966.

** Adams, Ansel, p. vi, "The Negative: Exposure • Development," Morgan and Morgan, NY, 1966

It's one thing to be wrong; it's altogether another to take pride, and perhaps even pleasure, in the condition.

So before calling someone ignorant as you very often do to anyone who has a different opinion or a different experience than you, maybe you should look a bit in the mirror from time to time.

Oh, I do, I do. And it's funny that, in circumstances like this, the reflection apears to be blurred beyond recognition, and seems to be trying to picture someone else.

And last but not least, even that you are probably an ace of photography science, bear in mind that when it comes to real world photography, some of those you call ignorants, can still teach you some lessons about how to take good photos because what they have already forgotten, you haven't yet started to learn. And this is the only thing that really counts.

Absolutely. And lumigraphics is a good example of that: someone who, I readily grant, is a talented photographer and who demonstrates that one doesn't need to know what's really going on to make good photographs.

Sounds like an oxymoron to me. How can someone be a talented photographer and yet, doesn't know how to make a good photo?

That's not what I said, is it? It only becomes an oxymoron when you synthesize a self-serving misinterpretation.

But then maybe it is time for you, to enlighten us from the back of your high horse. Please explain what really is going on to make a good photograph? and I mean not only technically good.

Good pivot, Moti. Now stick to the issue, which in this subthread was your rather hapless statement that, in the good ol' days, exposure and brightness were synonymous. I'm sure that was true for the ill-informed then, just as it is now. But it was certainly not true of those who bothered to think about the meaning of what they are saying, again, the same as it is now. And that's what threads like this and technical fora like these are all about: to inform and not to cater to carriers of misinformation and misapprehension.

Or even better, why won't you take the opportunity and show us some examples of good photography you have created because frankly speaking, maybe they are hidden somewhere

maybe they are

but I haven't seen anything that I can call good photography, coming from you.

His value as a teacher, if it exists at all, would be via mute demonstration and not by verbiage, either spoken or written.

Not sure about this either. He may not be a good teacher as you say,

No, I never said that either.

but when I compare his photos to your photos, I have no doubt about the fact who can teach whom a lesson in photography, if of course you'd be clever enough to listen.

I have no doubt he can, but it wouldn't be by listening. And in return, I have no doubt about who could teach him a thing or two if only he'd be clever enough to listen – which he has shown pretty well he isn't.

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

 

[FingerPainter]

...

ITS ALL A WAY OF MAKING THE IMAGE BRIGHTER OR DIMMER!!! Hello! That's what exposure is!

Nope. There's a very clear definition of what exposure is. The fact that you choose to ignore it and make up your own stuff does not really change that.

But whatever. This is pretty common here, so you're in good company.

Just for curiosity, So you are saying that exposure is not a way of making an image brighter or dimmer?

...

And last but not least, even that you are probably an ace of photography science, bear in mind that when it comes to real world photography, some of those you call ignorants, can still teach you some lessons about how to take good photos because what they have already forgotten, you haven't yet started to learn. And this is the only thing that really counts.

Absolutely. And lumigraphics is a good example of that: someone who, I readily grant, is a talented photographer and who demonstrates that one doesn't need to know what's really going on to make good photographs.

Sounds like an oxymoron to me. How can someone be a talented photographer and yet, doesn't know how to make a good photo?

Setting up straw men by twisting what was said seems to me to be a rather dishonest form of argument. And you've done it before in this thread (highlighted above).

How can somebody be a talented concert pianist but not be able to build a piano or teach acoustics?

But then maybe it is time for you, to enlighten us from the back of your high horse. Please explain what really is going on to make a good photograph? and I mean not only technically good.

What does that have to do with the discussion? Would you expect an acoustics physicist to explain how to play a Beethoven piano sonata? And if the physicist couldn't play a Beethoven piano sonata as well as a professional concert pianist, would that invalidate what the physicist said about acoustics?

Or even better, why won't you take the opportunity and show us some examples of good photography you have created because frankly speaking, maybe they are hidden somewhere but I haven't seen anything that I can call good photography, coming from you.

I think the reason would be because it would have nothing to do with this thread and would prove or disprove nothing related to this thread.