It is exposure and it is a triangle

[steve_z]

"Firstly, for the sake of clarity, when I say "exposure" I mean the amount of light striking the sensor per unit area during a shutter activation.

There lies the difference for you and I. When I say "exposure" I mean the amount of lightness as observed in my photo when observed through my eyes.

Yep, that's fine. Clearly, and as I have posted many times, "exposure" and "correct exposure" mean different things to different people, especially between sooc jpeg photographers and raw photographers.

I don't know of any way to look at my sensor to see how well it was exposed,

Many people use the camera's histogram which is a very good indicator/estimator or the histogram of the actual raw data using something like Rawdigger.

but don't worry about it anyway, as it is what I deem the proper exposure of my photo that I am concerned with.

The difference is that I look at my photo and determine if it is what I consider properly exposed, and I suppose you look at your sensor and determine if it is properly exposed.

No problem, I use the camera's histogram to evaluate my exposure and then set the final photo lightness in post, not in the camera.

But the issue is that I have yet to see a youtube video presenter "teaching" the exposure triangle actually state in their video what they mean by the word exposure when they use it in their video.

Their non-explanation leads to confusion for newbies just starting on their photography journey about what exposure really is and many come here wondering why their photos are noisier than what they expected.

 

[A74Me]

Bill - You’re obviously an experienced photographer and I do respect your opinions, but your quiz is more about your post production LR skills than the camera’s settings. Sure, even 100 ASA film shot as if 800 can be corrected by altering the developing process. The fact that you can’t use the photo of your nice plant SOOC contradicts the point you’re trying to make, no?

Why does every handheld light meter have an ISO setting if ISO is not part of the exposure equation?

I don't see ISO as part of the "exposure equation", using your words, but as part of the "lightness equation".

The "lightness equation" being that there is a reciprocal relationship between any 2 of aperture, shutter speed and ISO in order to maintain a constant photo lightness for a given scene.

Hmmmm, I don't see it as part of the "Lightness Equation" but a part of the "Darkness Equation"!!! It can't be both simultaneously or we'd have ourselves a good old fashioned paradox!!! ;-)

See, your triangle would have way too many interpretations. Maybe that's why the founding father whom of course are not near as smart as we here are, called it the Exposure Triangle!

John

love it john. iso controls darkness

lets see that discussion play out on the forums.

These discussions will never end.

If perfect exposure was anumber line, it would be zero and runs both ways. I'm not sure if it would be lighter/darker or overexposed/underexposed!

What we call it is pretty irrelivant as long as we all agree and use that name universally!!!

John

it gets post of the year for me and its only the 2nd of January

 

[robert1955]

ISO isn't the underlying starting point. In fact, that notion is among the fundamental problems with the so-called exposure triangle. It teaches photographers to make a secondary camera setting (ASA or ISO) the #1 priority.

Does it, really?

Yep, that's the message the overwhelming majority of presenters in youtube videos taught me before I realised the fallacies the expoure triangle

Before you misinterpreted the exposure triangle

could you please share how it should be interpreted and how you personally apply it in your photography?

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

"Firstly, for the sake of clarity, when I say "exposure" I mean the amount of light striking the sensor per unit area during a shutter activation.

There lies the difference for you and I. When I say "exposure" I mean the amount of lightness as observed in my photo when observed through my eyes.

A very good reason for using the correct definition for exposure is that it's the fundamental parameter that determines noise -- which, by the way, also affects how much detail you can see.

I don't know of any way to look at my sensor to see how well it was exposed, but don't worry about it anyway, as it is what I deem the proper exposure of my photo that I am concerned with.

The difference is that I look at my photo and determine if it is what I consider properly exposed, and I suppose you look at your sensor and determine if it is properly exposed.

You won't win points by being sarcastic.

 

[FingerPainter]

Lend a hand, if you would, please: which of the following three photos would you say is under exposed, correctly exposed, or over exposed?

I like Adobe's take on what is overexposed and underexposed.

I don't see what personal preference has to do with technical accuracy.

They said, "In photography, we refer to images that are darker than the actual scene as underexposed, while those that are brighter are considered overexposed."

Not having seen the original scene myself, all I can do is guess, but with the first three pictures, I'd say the first is slightly overexposed, the second perhaps a bit underexposed, and the third more overexposed than the first. I like the second one best.

How about these two?

These appear to be pictures two and three from above but post-processed to have the same image brightness as number one.

With your Fuji X-T20, have you tried this shot with DR200% or DR400%? I'm not sure how their DR modes work, but I've liked how Olympus's auto gradation feature helps preserve shadow and highlight detail. Nikon's Active D-Lighting and Panasonic's i.Dynamic seem to work similarly. I used to have a Fuji EXR model, but while its dynamic range compression worked great on highlights, it left shadows too dark for my tastes.

All of Bill's examples are identically exposed.

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

Lend a hand, if you would, please: which of the following three photos would you say is under exposed, correctly exposed, or over exposed?

I like Adobe's take on what is overexposed and underexposed. They said, "In photography, we refer to images that are darker than the actual scene as underexposed, while those that are brighter are considered overexposed."

That's confused. If that were true, then the way to evaluate over- or underexposure would be to measure the scene with a light meter, then measure the image on your monitor with a light meter, and compare the two readings. If you turned down your monitor, you could declare the picture underexposed! Whoever wrote that statement was observing one thing and describing quite another.

Not having seen the original scene myself, all I can do is guess, but with the first three pictures, I'd say the first is slightly overexposed, the second perhaps a bit underexposed, and the third more overexposed than the first. I like the second one best.

As FingerPainter has now revealed, assuming the same illumination, all of Ferris' examples were exposed equally but printed differently.

 

[steve_z]

I like Adobe's take on what is overexposed and underexposed. They said, "In photography, we refer to images that are darker than the actual scene as underexposed, while those that are brighter are considered overexposed."

That's confused. If that were true, then the way to evaluate over- or underexposure would be to measure the scene with a light meter, then measure the image on your monitor with a light meter, and compare the two readings. If you turned down your monitor, you could declare the picture underexposed! Whoever wrote that statement was observing one thing and describing quite another.

Yes, that is an obvious flaw in that usage of over/under exposed especially when viewing images on a screen.

Whenever anyone says an image looks over/under exposed on their screen but the image looks ok on mine, it means zero to me.

All comments like that tell me is that the other person's screen is set up differently to mine.

 

[TN Args]

...Why does every handheld light meter have an ISO setting if ISO is not part of the exposure equation?

Probably for emulsion film users. Has no purpose in relation to filling the photo diodes of a digital camera sensor.

 

[steve_z]

Spot on!

When you set ISO first in one of the semi auto modes you are locking in the exposure, as defined earlier multiple times, the camera will target to output the lightness the camera is calibrated to for that metering mode and for the area of the scene being metered.

When setting ISO last (Auto ISO) it has no effect on the exposure at all. The camera will set an ISO value that will output the lightness the camera is calibrated to for the metering mode, for the previously set exposure (aperture, shutter speed) and for the area of the scene being metered.

 

[Mako2011]

interesting take on it