Exposure Triangle

Just to add some confusion: in film photography term "perfect exposure" does not exist. There is only an approximation of an exposure.
Why, thanks for adding more confusion. :mrgreen:

Why does perfect exposure not exist ? Its when the brightest pixel is almost at its maximum. I would have thought thats a quite well defined state.



Sure, Buckster. Everyone thinks of the numerical designations for apertures as the denominator of a fraction, ESPECIALLY newbies. Denominators, for reference, are dumb and go backwards. Bigger numbers mean smaller fractions, as you so wisely point out. Thanks for backing me up.

Wow. Haha. This has to be one of the greatest things I have heard someone say on here in a long time.

Denominators are dumb lmfao!

They don't go backwards.
Do you really need to have fractions explained to you?

Newbies don't think like that? Is everyone new to photography in 1st grade?
Um.

ISO is 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, ... (and sometimes ISO 50)

Aperture is f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, ...

Shutter Speed is 1/15 sec, 1/30 sec, 1/60 sec, 1/125 sec, 1/250 sec, 1/500 sec, 1/1000 sec, ... (and of course also 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30 sec and Bulb mode)

Why is it not obvious that these numbers may look very confusing to a newbie ?

I just hope, just one day, someone stops reading into my posts and just reads the words.
Go back and re-read my post, and show me how any of this was even the point I argued.
 
Sure, Buckster. Everyone thinks of the numerical designations for apertures as the denominator of a fraction, ESPECIALLY newbies. Denominators, for reference, are dumb and go backwards. Bigger numbers mean smaller fractions, as you so wisely point out. Thanks for backing me up.

Wow. Haha. This has to be one of the greatest things I have heard someone say on here in a long time.

Denominators are dumb lmfao!

They don't go backwards.
Do you really need to have fractions explained to you?

Newbies don't think like that? Is everyone new to photography in 1st grade?

You give people too much credit.

No I don't, I just know that there are people who are able to understand how a fraction works before they pick up a camera. Like I did.
 
Oh, smaller numbers don't mean a bigger hose?
Correct.

So f/2.8 lets in LESS light then f/5.6?
No, the smaller number, f/5.6, lets in less light than the larger number, f/2.8.

Shoot, this is all new stuff. Let me take notes.
Good idea. Write this one down:

f/5.6 is smaller than f/2.8, just as 1/5 is smaller than 1/2.

Aperture = ratio

as in 1:5.6, 1:2.8, 1:11

Gary
 
Im still a beginner, and when I'm trying to understand exposure and such, that triangle ALWAYS shows up! and honestly i've stared at it for so long and never understand it. I guess its just a tool that really doesnt click with me.
 
Im still a beginner, and when I'm trying to understand exposure and such, that triangle ALWAYS shows up! and honestly i've stared at it for so long and never understand it. I guess its just a tool that really doesnt click with me.

The triangle is just a reminder that there are three principal components to exposure and each component is connected to the other.

Gary
 
Im still a beginner, and when I'm trying to understand exposure and such, that triangle ALWAYS shows up! and honestly i've stared at it for so long and never understand it. I guess its just a tool that really doesnt click with me.

The triangle is just a reminder that there are three principal components to exposure and each component is connected to the other.

Gary

oh wow thanks! I always thought there was so much more too it
 
I think I'm beginning to understand this. You are saying that small apertures let in less light than larger apertures, but that small f-numbers let in more light than larger f-numbers.
 
Well, you see Helen, f/22 is actually a smaller number than f/1.8, that's because they are ratios not integers, and f/22 doesn't let in 1/22 the light that f/1 does, but rather much, much less light because of the logarithmic scale which they represent. Here at TPF we like to over complicate matters unnecessarily, so your simple, concise, clear and accurate explanations reached from education an years of actual experience is not welcome around here.
 
Oh, smaller numbers don't mean a bigger hose?
Correct.

No, the smaller number, f/5.6, lets in less light than the larger number, f/2.8.

Shoot, this is all new stuff. Let me take notes.
Good idea. Write this one down:

f/5.6 is smaller than f/2.8, just as 1/5 is smaller than 1/2.

Aperture = ratio

as in 1:5.6, 1:2.8, 1:11

Gary

This is not accurate. It shoudl be as in f/5.6, 5/2.8, f/11 where f=focal length. Thus, a 50mm lens at f/5.6 has an entrance [iirc] opening of about 8.9mm (50/5.6=8.9). This is why we have f-stops, that way the diameter of the aperture is relative to the exposure value, not the focal length.
 
I think I'm beginning to understand this. You are saying that small apertures let in less light than larger apertures, but that small f-numbers let in more light than larger f-numbers.

As Clairee Belcher said in Steele Magnolias.... "Spoken like a true smart a$$.":lol: :thumbup:
 
Im still a beginner, and when I'm trying to understand exposure and such, that triangle ALWAYS shows up! and honestly i've stared at it for so long and never understand it. I guess its just a tool that really doesnt click with me.

The triangle is just a reminder that there are three principal components to exposure and each component is connected to the other.

Gary

oh wow thanks! I always thought there was so much more too it

Thank you for proving my opinion as to what a waste of band width this whole discussion has been, with the exception of your understanding now of what the "photo triangle" is.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top