Is there a point of learning Aperture,ISO,Shutter speed?

Village Idiot · Oct 31, 2011

e.rose said:
Is this STILL going?! After this whole weekend and this thread is still growing?

TL;DR

WTF. It appears to be back on topic. :er:

2WheelPhoto · Oct 31, 2011

Blah, no point in learning aperture, ISO and shutter speed. Put the cam knob on the big green spot and set flashes to TTL and fire away

Village Idiot · Oct 31, 2011

Kerbouchard said:
Until then, ISO is not a part of Exposure. Period.

P.S., show me one source that explains how to measure ISO in 'Lux Seconds', which is the standard unit of measure for exposure.

But ISO is immensely important in considering for the exposure of the final image. If not, we would not have different sensitivity levels of what ever the light collection medium we're using at the time. You'd have 1 type of film sensitivity and a sensor without ISO adjustments, not film with different sensitivities to light or a sensor where you could control how sensitive it is to light reception. And with the ability to change ISO at a whim as opposed to only being able to change it when you change a roll of film, it's important that it's taught how it affects the image and the final exposure.

There may be a time when you have to shoot wide open and you still can't get a fast enough shutter speed, so you have to boost ISO, but you of course need to be aware of how much noise will be added to the final image. Your next image may be in a bright situation and you may want a wide open aperture, so drop the ISO back down. Or you can use ISO to help with an under powered flash, while shooting in an low or non ambient lighting condition, by boosting up the over all exposure of the scene and allowing the flash to have to work as hard.

Technology changes and with that new techniques, teachings, and understandings have to come about as well. So, good on you for calling everyone a moron for developing a different understanding of how things work than you did.

Derrel · Oct 31, 2011

Village Idiot said:
Technology changes and with that new techniques, teachings, and understandings have to come about as well. So, good on you for calling everyone a moron for developing a different understanding of how things work than you did.

NONSENSE. Pure, unadulterated nonsense. The "new technology" of d-slr photography is a shift from film capture to digital sensor. Almost everything else is the same. I can take a 1959 Nikon F 35mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens, and pop it onto a 2011-made Nikon D3100, and shoot pictures with it. I can use a 1980 Vivitar 285HV flash with it. I can reverse-mount a 1938-made 50mm 50mm f/3.5 Leica Elmar lens onto the front of a Nikon or Canon d-slr, and shoot macro shots with a lens made before Hitler rolled into Poland. I own lenses that I bought brand new when I was in college, before you were even BORN, that I still shoot occasionally on my Nikon digital bodies. Still the same old stuff,as always.Crazy things like f/2.5, f/4, f/5.6, and distances in feet and meters. Lens caps that work the same as the new ones, but which were made in the 1970's!!! zOMG!!! Except for the shift from film to digital sensor as the capture medium, there has not been a real tectonic shift in photography since...hmmmm, lemme see....since the flashbulb was invented in 1928. The basics of actual photography have not changed since before WW II.

I'm still trying to get a grasp though on how that light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens thingy works....all those nasty-named "Eff" numbers..even the mere thought of an "eff number" makes me blush!!! It's all so confusing, with the "Eff-sixteen" being a high number, but actually meaning a teensie-tiny light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy, and then we have like, Eff two point eight, which is like a low number value, but represents a big light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy...I just don't have the mathematical or scientific skills to understand how that system works. And I certainly do NOT APPROVE of the use of the "Eff word" or the vulgarity of using the "Eff word", as a way to describe the size of the light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy! We need to re-define that naughty Eff word!

Maybe we can all come together and sing Kumbaya, and then get rid of all those stuffy, scientifically-based, stuffy, outdated technical terms, and modernize the vocab!!! You know, combine Depth of Focus, and Depth of Field! And combine focal plane with focal point! And of course, we simply MUST, must, must stop using that naughty term "eff stop", and refer to it as the light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy. We need to re-define all that oldy-moldy stuff all those scientists and optical experts and eggheads came up with, and you know, kind of dumb-down the terminology so that it fits our modern ways!!!

mjhoward · Oct 31, 2011

I'm pretty sure VI's point was that, yes ISO doesn't actually expose the sensor to more or less light, however it does greatly effect how much you want to expose your sensor to light, and in that regard it is part of exposure. You can't set your exposure without knowing the sensitivity of your sensor or film.

Village Idiot · Oct 31, 2011

Derrel said:
Village Idiot said:

Technology changes and with that new techniques, teachings, and understandings have to come about as well. So, good on you for calling everyone a moron for developing a different understanding of how things work than you did.

Click to expand...

NONSENSE. Pure, unadulterated nonsense. The "new technology" of d-slr photography is a shift from film capture to digital sensor. Almost everything else is the same. I can take a 1959 Nikon F 35mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens, and pop it onto a 2011-made Nikon D3100, and shoot pictures with it. I can use a 1980 Vivitar 285HV flash with it. I can reverse-mount a 1938-made 50mm 50mm f/3.5 Leica Elmar lens onto the front of a Nikon or Canon d-slr, and shoot macro shots with a lens made before Hitler rolled into Poland. I own lenses that I bought brand new when I was in college, before you were even BORN, that I still shoot occasionally on my Nikon digital bodies. Still the same old stuff,as always.Crazy things like f/2.5, f/4, f/5.6, and distances in feet and meters. Lens caps that work the same as the new ones, but which were made in the 1970's!!! zOMG!!! Except for the shift from film to digital sensor as the capture medium, there has not been a real tectonic shift in photography since...hmmmm, lemme see....since the flashbulb was invented in 1928. The basics of actual photography have not changed since before WW II.

I'm still trying to get a grasp though on how that light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens thingy works....all those nasty-named "Eff" numbers..even the mere thought of an "eff number" makes me blush!!! It's all so confusing, with the "Eff-sixteen" being a high number, but actually meaning a teensie-tiny light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy, and then we have like, Eff two point eight, which is like a low number value, but represents a big light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy...I just don't have the mathematical or scientific skills to understand how that system works. And I certainly do NOT APPROVE of the use of the "Eff word" or the vulgarity of using the "Eff word", as a way to describe the size of the light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy! We need to re-define that naughty Eff word!

Maybe we can all come together and sing Kumbaya, and then get rid of all those stuffy, scientifically-based, stuffy, outdated technical terms, and modernize the vocab!!! You know, combine Depth of Focus, and Depth of Field! And combine focal plane with focal point! And of course, we simply MUST, must, must stop using that naughty term "eff stop", and refer to it as the light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy. We need to re-define all that oldy-moldy stuff all those scientists and optical experts and eggheads came up with, and you know, kind of dumb-down the terminology so that it fits our modern ways!!!

Just wanted to go on a random rant or something?

Just because technology changes doesn't means you have to dumb things down, but instead you have to consider things differently because of access to new features and way of doing thing. So you're saying in 1975, you could switch the ISO in about 2 seconds between 5 different shots without wasting 23 exposures of 35mm film?

And you're also going to tell me back then, if you were in an environment with constantly changing lighting conditions, you also had the ability to change from 50 ISO to 25,600 at any time you wanted for no cost at all and with no waste?

It's plain and simple. ISO is something that can be considered and changed for every single exposure taken with a DSLR and should be treated differently than it once was. I'm guessing you don't set you ISO for 24-36 shots and change it once after that for another 24-36 shots.

Iron Flatline · Oct 31, 2011

@Dao

Hi

Not sure I'm sticking around. Threads like this make think I'm too serious about photography. I also have my gear and technique questions sorted, so it's really about creativity for me at this point... and an online forum is often the wrong platform for that. To be determined. I always liked it here and have made good friends, but the amount of time I used to commit to TPF is not commensurate with the return. I've answered so many questions so many times already... Let's see what happens.

o hey tyler · Oct 31, 2011

Village Idiot said:
]It's plain and simple. ISO is something that can be considered and changed for every single exposure taken with a DSLR and should be treated differently than it once was. I'm guessing you don't set you ISO for 24-36 shots and change it once after that for another 24-36 shots.

I do. And I only use 50 256 mb memory cards that I carry on me at all times.

bentcountershaft · Oct 31, 2011

So, I skimmed. I raised an eyebrow or two. I giggled some. But over all the thread didn't move very well and left me thinking it was a rehashed version of the "what is tone" argument on a guitar forum without being quite as fulfilling. Two and a half stars.

Overread · Oct 31, 2011

Gah you changed your ava - now I don't know who you are anymore

Also Kerb you read that link yet?

dots · Oct 31, 2011

bentcountershaft said:
So, I skimmed. I raised an eyebrow or two. I giggled some. But over all the thread didn't move very well and left me thinking it was a rehashed version of the "what is tone" argument on a guitar forum without being quite as fulfilling. Two and a half stars.