Triangle?

[rubank]

Somewhat surprised to see this on Lensrentals.com

Photography Fundamentals – How Aperture Changes Photos

We cover a lot of things over here on the Lensrentals blog, and most of them teeter on the technically advanced edge of the scale. From measuring the flange distance on cameras down to the fraction of a millimeter to performing light tests to check the accuracy of color shift throughout power...

www.lensrentals.com

 

[spider-mario]

Same here, I was surprised and rather disappointed.

 

[Chris Noble]

Same here, I was surprised and rather disappointed.

Here goes another Exposure Triangle thread...

 

[SmilerGrogan]

Two worlds, two sets of rules. The expectations and pressures placed on commercial photographers—especially portrait photographers—are very different from those felt by people who shoot only for themselves.

When shooting for a client, you are expected you to show the results of your work every few minutes—whether shooting tethered or to card. They quickly lose faith if your exposures are not within 1/3 of a stop of perfect.

I can tell you from long experience that no one, not even other photographers can see the potential in an overly dark, too light, badly white balanced, or otherwise poorly executed photograph.

With portrait subjects you have even less leeway because 90 percent of your job is calming down a nervous person and reassuring them that you are making them look fantastic. A key technique is to frequently show your subject the back of the camera and remark on how great they look. Do you think this technique would work if your photos were on the edge of being blown out?

Now let's take a 10-hour shoot in which the clients expect a dozen or two finished photos on a one- or two-day turn around. I finish the shoot, the clients are gone, but now It's 6 p.m., I'm starving, exhausted, and my last molecule of rhodopsin was consumed hours ago. Which member of the "ISO isn't part of exposure" brigade can I call to come make my photos look gorgeous and have them uploaded to the client's server before 9 a.m. tomorrow?

spider-mario wrote:

Same here, I was surprised and rather disappointed.

 

[spider-mario]

Believing wrong stuff is not a prerequisite for knowing how to use a gray card, so I am not really sure what your point is. I think I smell a false dichotomy, but I hope I am wrong.

 

[spider-mario]

Same here, I was surprised and rather disappointed.

Here goes another Exposure Triangle thread...

We can find other stuff to be disappointed about, if you prefer.

How about this bit:

apertures such as f/8, f/11, & f/14 will assure that a larger plane within the image is in focus.

A “larger plane” is for sure an interesting concept.

 

[D Cox]

Same here, I was surprised and rather disappointed.

It is a pity to see misleading material from a usually authoritative site.

What it does show is that modern cameras are so clever that even an ignoramus can get good results.

 

[D Cox]

Two worlds, two sets of rules. The expectations and pressures placed on commercial photographers—especially portrait photographers—are very different from those felt by people who shoot only for themselves.

When shooting for a client, you are expected you to show the results of your work every few minutes—whether shooting tethered or to card. They quickly lose faith if your exposures are not within 1/3 of a stop of perfect.

I can tell you from long experience that no one, not even other photographers can see the potential in an overly dark, too light, badly white balanced, or otherwise poorly executed photograph.

With portrait subjects you have even less leeway because 90 percent of your job is calming down a nervous person and reassuring them that you are making them look fantastic. A key technique is to frequently show your subject the back of the camera and remark on how great they look. Do you think this technique would work if your photos were on the edge of being blown out?

Now let's take a 10-hour shoot in which the clients expect a dozen or two finished photos on a one- or two-day turn around. I finish the shoot, the clients are gone, but now It's 6 p.m., I'm starving, exhausted, and my last molecule of rhodopsin was consumed hours ago. Which member of the "ISO isn't part of exposure" brigade can I call to come make my photos look gorgeous and have them uploaded to the client's server before 9 a.m. tomorrow?

spider-mario wrote:

Same here, I was surprised and rather disappointed.

Nobody is suggesting that bad exposures are OK. The point is that the "ISO" setting on a camera does not do what that writer thinks it does.

You are more likely to get good exposures if you understand how the camera works.

Which metering mode do you generally use for studio work ? Do you use continuous light or flash ? Do you save JPGs or raw files or both ? All these things are part of the strategy for getting good exposures.

 

[SmilerGrogan]

Zach Sutton knows something you don't—ISO isn't a thing. It's not an element in the image processing chain, or a knob you twirl on your camera, or a slider you push in Photoshop. It's a standard, an agreed-upon system of expectations that was developed over the years to make life easier for people who create images.

As Ken Parulski, project leader for ISO 12232 points out: “the standard enables different products to operate seamlessly with one another.”

Take strobes, for instance. If I'm ignoring ISO how do I even know what size extension cord to bring? Can I get by with a monolight and a 16-amp cord? Or do I need a couple of pack and head systems that require bringing a 10-amp cable.

And if ISO is not part of exposure, how will I set output levels? When I give instructions to to my assistant to light a portrait with a 2:1 ratio, key at f/8, with a hair light at f/5.6 how is she supposed to set that?

Nobody is suggesting that bad exposures are OK. The point is that the "ISO" setting on a camera does not do what that writer thinks it does.

You are more likely to get good exposures if you understand how the camera works.

Which metering mode do you generally use for studio work ? Do you use continuous light or flash ? Do you save JPGs or raw files or both ? All these things are part of the strategy for getting good exposures.

 

[SmilerGrogan]

That is the correct term—it's a concise, more easily understood way of saying "range of image plane distances z' with an acceptable level of defocusing."

Same here, I was surprised and rather disappointed.

Here goes another Exposure Triangle thread...

We can find other stuff to be disappointed about, if you prefer.

How about this bit:

apertures such as f/8, f/11, & f/14 will assure that a larger plane within the image is in focus.

A “larger plane” is for sure an interesting concept.

 

[D Cox]

Zach Sutton knows something you don't—ISO isn't a thing. It's not an element in the image processing chain, or a knob you twirl on your camera, or a slider you push in Photoshop. It's a standard, an agreed-upon system of expectations that was developed over the years to make life easier for people who create images.

As Ken Parulski, project leader for ISO 12232 points out: “the standard enables different products to operate seamlessly with one another.”

The ISO standard defines the base ISO of a camera when shooting JPGs. It does not cover the "ISO" controls on cameras, or shooting raw files.

SmilerGrogan, post: 64169132, member: 1163177"]

Nobody is suggesting that bad exposures are OK. The point is that the "ISO" setting on a camera does not do what that writer thinks it does.

You are more likely to get good exposures if you understand how the camera works.

Which metering mode do you generally use for studio work ? Do you use continuous light or flash ? Do you save JPGs or raw files or both ? All these things are part of the strategy for getting good exposures.

[/QUOTE]

 

[rubank]

And if ISO is not part of exposure,

It isn´t.

Exposure is the amount of light hitting the sensor (or film).
ISO has nothing to do with that,

 

[spider-mario]

As Ken Parulski, project leader for ISO 12232 points out: “the standard enables different products to operate seamlessly with one another.”

So, speaking of ISO 12232, have you read it? ISO is essentially a way to relate exposure to tone reproduction. Oversimplifying a little, at ISO 100, a mid-tone is 0.1 lx·s. At ISO 200, it’s 0.05 lx·s, and so on. That’s the gist of it.

No one here (I think) is saying that it must be ignored. But it can hardly be simultaneously part of exposure and defined in terms of it. (Unless you have a loose definition of “part of exposure”.)

Also, you can process the exact same RAW file at ISO 100 and ISO 400 (by mapping either 0.1 lx·s or 0.025 lx·s to a mid-tone). If you do, does that mean that you somehow managed to capture two exposures at once?

 

[SmilerGrogan]

Zach Sutton knows something you don't—ISO isn't a thing. It's not an element in the image processing chain, or a knob you twirl on your camera, or a slider you push in Photoshop. It's a standard, an agreed-upon system of expectations that was developed over the years to make life easier for people who create images.

As Ken Parulski, project leader for ISO 12232 points out: “the standard enables different products to operate seamlessly with one another.”

The ISO standard defines the base ISO of a camera when shooting JPGs. It does not cover the "ISO" controls on cameras, or shooting raw files.

D Cox, post: 64169211, member: 823824"]

SmilerGrogan, post: 64169211, member: 823824"]

Nobody is suggesting that bad exposures are OK. The point is that the "ISO" setting on a camera does not do what that writer thinks it does.

You are more likely to get good exposures if you understand how the camera works.

Which metering mode do you generally use for studio work ? Do you use continuous light or flash ? Do you save JPGs or raw files or both ? All these things are part of the strategy for getting good exposures.

[/QUOTE]

 

[SmilerGrogan]

What is it about reality that so triggers you?

Standards, from thread pitch on pipes to number of shrimp in a pound, allow people working together to share a common set of terms and expectations. They’re not handcuffs or your mom telling you you’re a bad boy. They’re just ideas on paper that some people find helpful.
And ISO may not be part of your idea of what “exposure” means but that’s because of where you got your definition of the term.

As Ken Parulski, project leader for ISO 12232 points out: “the standard enables different products to operate seamlessly with one another.”

So, speaking of ISO 12232, have you read it? ISO is essentially a way to relate exposure to tone reproduction. Oversimplifying a little, at ISO 100, a mid-tone is 0.1 lx·s. At ISO 200, it’s 0.05 lx·s, and so on. That’s the gist of it.

No one here (I think) is saying that it must be ignored. But it can hardly be simultaneously part of exposure and defined in terms of it. (Unless you have a loose definition of “part of exposure”.)

Also, you can process the exact same RAW file at ISO 100 and ISO 400 (by mapping either 0.1 lx·s or 0.025 lx·s to a mid-tone). If you do, does that mean that you somehow managed to capture two exposures at once?

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

And if ISO is not part of exposure,...

It isn't.

how will I set output levels?

By setting the exposure? By setting the ISO setting? Either one will affect the "output levels", which are the numerical values that define the digital image. But exposure and the ISO setting are two different parameters.

Haven't we been through this a few times with you already? Like maybe a dozen times or so?

When I give instructions to to my assistant to light a portrait with a 2:1 ratio, key at f/8, with a hair light at f/5.6 how is she supposed to set that?

You give very strange instructions to your assistant.

 

[spider-mario]

What is it about reality that so triggers you?

Well, since you ask, those fallacies are what triggers me. “You don’t like sloppy terminology, therefore you don’t like REALITY!”

Not wanting to attribute malignant intentions to you, I hope that that such fallacies are accidental.

Standards, from thread pitch on pipes to number of shrimp in a pound, allow people working together to share a common set of terms and expectations. They’re not handcuffs or your mom telling you you’re a bad boy. They’re just ideas on paper that some people find helpful.

They are more helpful when they are followed. That’s why many of them are accompanied by instructions for conformance testing.

As an example, I and other people have been working on the upcoming ISO 18181. We certainly hope that you and others will find it useful, but if you want to write your own encoder or decoder for it, I would personally request that you please make it compatible.

And ISO may not be part of your idea of what “exposure” means but that’s because of where you got your definition of the term.

Why are you implying that it’s only my definition? It’s the definition used by the standard itself, the definition that those people working together have agreed on. Using that definition, to say that ISO is part of exposure is somewhat similar to saying that a CIPA battery life rating is part of a camera’s power consumption. They are certainly related (the higher the exposure or power consumption, the lower the ISO or the CIPA rating), but to say that the former is part of the latter is kind of a stretch.

But since you appear to object to that definition of exposure, it begs the question: what is yours?

 

[Christof21]

Somewhat surprised to see this on Lensrentals.com

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2020/07/photography-fundamentals-how-aperture-changes-photos/

The ET is an interesting and elegant concept in my opinion, you simply have a different opinion and that's fine.

 

[robert1955]

Somewhat surprised to see this on Lensrentals.com

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2020/07/photography-fundamentals-how-aperture-changes-photos/

The ET is an interesting and elegant concept in my opinion, you simply have a different opinion and that's fine.

It is neither simple nor elegant and it is technically wrong

 

[Iliah Borg]

Somewhat surprised to see this on Lensrentals.com

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2020/07/photography-fundamentals-how-aperture-changes-photos/

The ET is an interesting and elegant concept in my opinion, you simply have a different opinion and that's fine.

He has facts, not "opinions".