Exposure Triangle

[amolitor]

Film technology resembles buckets for collecting light in.. basically no way whatsoever.

Changing the ISO of the sensor does not change the physical characteristics of the bucket that is collection light, it does change the effective electrical characteristics, to the point that the bucket "becomes full" sooner. You may choose to view this as "the bucket does not changes size, but we're putting bigger photons in it" or whatever else you like. I happen to think that a bucket which fills up faster is usefully considered as "smaller".

EDIT: why are you picking at miniscule trivialities like this? "you didn't invent it" and "the buckets don't REALLY get smaller" are you in sixth grade or something?

 

[Jaemie]

Exposure Wiener Dogs.

There. I've solved the matter.



Wiener dog #1 is named Mei-Ling. She controls shutter speed. Poke her gently and she bites the tail of...

Wiener dog #2, named Isolde. She used to control ASA, but now just works with ISO. Petting her soft black coat causes her to nudge...

Wiener dog #3, whose name is Effie. Of course, Effie manages f-stop. But you knew that already.

Sometimes these three adorable hot dogs play in other ways (e.g., Isolde with Effie, or Mei-Ling by herself), but they always know what the other is doing, such is their mutual love and affection.

 

[unpopular]

EDIT: why are you picking at miniscule trivialities like this? "you didn't invent it" and "the buckets don't REALLY get smaller" are you in sixth grade or something?

Bad mood. Sorry.

 

[manaheim]

You (everyone who likes) should, of course, feel free to use my word (picture) as you see fit. I think it's pretty decent myself!

You sorta skipped over my other point though...

You know, I'm starting to notice a certain behavior pattern around a few more recent members here.

Anyone else seeing this?

 

[manaheim]

Exposure Wiener Dogs.

There. I've solved the matter.

Wiener dog #1 is named Mei-Ling. She controls shutter speed. Poke her gently and she bites the tail of...

Wiener dog #2, named Isolde. She used to control ASA, but now just works with ISO. Petting her soft black coat causes her to nudge...

Wiener dog #3, whose name is Effie. Of course, Effie manages f-stop. But you knew that already.

Sometimes these three adorable hot dogs play in other ways (e.g., Isolde with Effie, or Mei-Ling by herself), but they always know what the other is doing, such is their mutual love and affection.

My name is manaheim and I support this method.

 

[480sparky]

 

[tirediron]

Exposure Wiener Dogs.

There. I've solved the matter.



Wiener dog #1 is named Mei-Ling. She controls shutter speed. Poke her gently and she bites the tail of...

Wiener dog #2, named Isolde. She used to control ASA, but now just works with ISO. Petting her soft black coat causes her to nudge...

Wiener dog #3, whose name is Effie. Of course, Effie manages f-stop. But you knew that already.

Sometimes these three adorable hot dogs play in other ways (e.g., Isolde with Effie, or Mei-Ling by herself), but they always know what the other is doing, such is their mutual love and affection.

If you're going to have Isolde, than you have to change Effie's name to Tristan!!!!

 

[SCraig]

... It was introduced with the advent of digital photo to deal with the new digital facility to alter ISO frame to frame. ...

No, it wasn't. I first read about it back in the 1960's, long before digital photography became commonplace. It was just as pertinent then with film as it is today with digital exposures.

 

[amolitor]

Bad mood. Sorry.

I hear ya, we've all been there. Apology accepted, of course.

 

[amolitor]

You sorta skipped over my other point though...

You are free to assume that if I didn't respond to it, I either agree with it, or don't feel that my disagreement with it is worth discussing. I thought I implicitly acknowledged your point when I referred to my bucket description as a "word (picture)", in any case.

 

[Derrel]

amolitor asked, "What is UP with this "exposure triangle" idiom? Every beginner's guide to photography web site seems to have picked this thing up, but it makes no sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I understand exposure just fine, thanks. It's the use of the triangle that's a mystery to me. At best it seems to capture the idea that "ISO, shutter speed, aperture are interconnected" which I can accomplish with the sentence "ISO, shutter speed, and aperture are interconnected" or with any number of graphical representations."

Yes, I agree with your thoughts on this subject. I have been "into photography" since around 1973. I studied it in junior high school, high school, and university and later community college classes, as well as having read several hundred photography books covering many sub-types of photography. I can not recall ever ONCE hearing the term "exposure triangle" in literally decades. MY first recollection was that I first heard about it here on TPF a few years back. I think it was designed as a shorthand way to help newbies come to grips with how to set up their new-fangled digital cameras. Older texts always assumed that film speed was "a given"...the idea that the exposure triangle is an old concept that goes back to the film days is, I think, erroneous. In older texts, again, the FILM SPEED, stated in ASA, or DIN most often was considered "a given".

The idea that the sensitivity value (ASA/DIN/the later ISO) of the capture medium could be changed on a shot-to-shot-to-shot basis is something that ONLY became common once digital became good, and prevalent. We used to have to use sheet film, or a MF rollfilm system with interchangeable backs if we wanted to adjust exposure via ASA/DIN/ISO sensitivity. Either that, or PAY EXTRA for push- or pull processing! Older discussions about exposure did NOT encompass the idea that "exposure" was a "triangle"---that idea,and that specific phrase,exposure triangle is in my opinion, a digital-era paradigm shift that has become part and parcel of digital photography; the exposure triangle idiom is something "new" in the world of photographic terminology and conceptualization of photo methods/principles.

"Exposure triangle" is, uh, kind of like the hip-hop music that Gershwin used to write, ya' know...

 

[manaheim]

You sorta skipped over my other point though...

You are free to assume that if I didn't respond to it, I either agree with it, or don't feel that my disagreement with it is worth discussing. I thought I implicitly acknowledged your point when I referred to my bucket description as a "word (picture)", in any case.

Ah. No, that wasn't clear. Sorry. Lots of qurkiness around here lately. I'm starting to think there are boogeymen in every closet.

 

[Buckster]

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.

 

[amolitor]

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.

 

[o hey tyler]

I use a bucket analogy:

You want to fill a bucket with light. Aperture is hose size, shutter speed is how long to stand there filling, and ISO is how big the bucket is.

The meter tells you how to fill the bucket up halfway. If you want it less full, that's the same thing as darker. If you want it more full, that's lighter.

Aperture is dumb and goes backwards, smaller numbers mean a bigger hose.

DONE.

Words. They work.

This is the worst and most convoluted analogy I've ever heard regarding exposure.