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

[ghache]

Terboucharge is actually very correct in regards to what constitutes the clinical definition of "exposure". In the context of this thread, however, and in the act of setting your camera to make your exposure...Kerbouchard cannot disagree that ISO/ASA is indeed a variable that is used to calculate the outcome of your exposure. What he is doing, is exactly like others that claim light from a flash unit is "natural light". It's very specific semantics.

Sorry, but the term "Exposure" pre-dates Bryan Peterson's books by well over 150 years. What we have is a bunch of newbies without ANY scientific background attempting to hijack a basic technical term, and add on additional "meaning" where it is, frankly, impermissible to do so, from the point of scientific accuracy. Sorry, but the people who are losing the battle of semantics are those who are attempting to co-opt an integral term of the science of photography and to dumb it down by piling on **** that has no place in the discussion. This is what happens when people with no education in the history or science of photography need to learn how to get a camera off of automatic mode--people like Bryan Peterson "invent" cool graphics to help newbies understand CAMERA SETTINGS.

Bryan Peterson coined the graphic, a triangle, and in it it had terms like "grain"... grain does not have a fricking THING to do with "Exposure"..sorry, but the "Exposure Triangle" is like Roy GVib...it is a device to help newbies understand camera settings...just as Roy GVib is an aid to helping students memorize the colors of the spectrum...

I cannot agree that in the "context of this thread", the meaning of the term "Exposure" can be changed to fit the understanding of people who learned photography since 2004...

We cannot start defining f/stop as "the light-letting-in-hole", so that newbies understand it better....we cannot start calling Guide Number, "the flash power divided by feet to the subject equals f/number thingy", so that newbies can better grasp what a Guide Number helps do....or can we?

:lmao:

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Terboucharge is actually very correct in regards to what constitutes the clinical definition of "exposure". In the context of this thread, however, and in the act of setting your camera to make your exposure...Kerbouchard cannot disagree that ISO/ASA is indeed a variable that is used to calculate the outcome of your exposure. What he is doing, is exactly like others that claim light from a flash unit is "natural light". It's very specific semantics.

Sorry, but the term "Exposure" pre-dates Bryan Peterson's books by well over 150 years. What we have is a bunch of newbies without ANY scientific background attempting to hijack a basic technical term, and add on additional "meaning" where it is, frankly, impermissible to do so, from the point of scientific accuracy. Sorry, but the people who are losing the battle of semantics are those who are attempting to co-opt an integral term of the science of photography and to dumb it down by piling on **** that has no place in the discussion. This is what happens when people with no education in the history or science of photography need to learn how to get a camera off of automatic mode--people like Bryan Peterson "invent" cool graphics to help newbies understand CAMERA SETTINGS.

Bryan Peterson coined the graphic, a triangle, and in it it had terms like "grain"... grain does not have a fricking THING to do with "Exposure"..sorry, but the "Exposure Triangle" is like Roy GVib...it is a device to help newbies understand camera settings...just as Roy GVib is an aid to helping students memorize the colors of the spectrum...

I cannot agree that in the "context of this thread", the meaning of the term "Exposure" can be changed to fit the understanding of people who learned photography since 2004...

We cannot start defining f/stop as "the light-letting-in-hole", so that newbies understand it better....we cannot start calling Guide Number, "the flash power divided by feet to the subject equals f/number thingy", so that newbies can better grasp what a Guide Number helps do....or can we?

I thought I was basically agreeing with you. *shrug*

In the context of the thread: "Is there a point of learning Aperture,ISO,Shutter speed?"
There is a point to learn all of those, no?


The exposure triangle is a learning aid. Nothings wrong with that. I took it as an equation to set your camera to get a successful exposure.

I even quoted your "Let's not not confuse "camera settings" with the term "Exposure".

 

[Derrel]

Surely the original, older, definitions of exposure must have had a compensation chart or something to relate to the sensitivity of the film - ASA/ISO/etc.. yes it was fixed once the film was in the camera, but it was still variable based on what you put in the camera - and heck if you shot with a removable back you could have it variable at the time.

The older definitions of exposure did not have any notation in relation to the sensitivity of the capture medium; you are trying to apply an understanding of a part of photography that would better be called "proper camera settings for individual situations using light sensitive mediums of different light sensitivities". Exposure is allowing light to hit the film...having the correct camera settings at the time an Exposure is made is pretty helpful; however, if the camera settings are incorrect, we can re-interpret the image and correct DRASTICALLY DARK images in post-processing, by amplifying the data in Photoshop.

"Exposure" is more akin to the definition of an "ingredient", such as let's say, wheat flour; the exposure triangle is more like a recipe, in which "wheat flour" can be used. We cannot come at this from the back side, from the Bryan Peterson side...the "Exposure Triangle" Bryan Peterson came up with is a modern, graphical representation designed to help newbies understand how to set their cameras...

"The Exposure Triangle" is Bryan Peterson's invention. The word "Exposure" belongs to the field of photography.

 

[Derrel]

I even quoted your "Let's not not confuse "camera settings" with the term "Exposure".

Please, do not be so presumptuous as to assume that my reply was directed only toward your comments...my post was not intended solely as a rebuttal to your comments...I put that out there for others...

 

[Destin]

I would just like to point out, that The exposure triangle predates Brian peterson. My photography teacher in high school was taught the exposure triangle when he learned photography in college. And he graduated from college in the early 70's...

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

The internets are so hard.

 

[Overread]

Ok so basically we are arguing about ISO based on two different interpretations of the word "Exposure" by which some are using the scientific meaning of exposure being linked to light and time (ie the aperture and shutter speed) whilst others are linking exposure to (what is being presented/considered) a more modern understanding of the exposure being the result of light and time as linked to a sensitivity to the light itself (ie your aperture, shutter speed and ISO).


So as far as I can tell one group are arguing about Exposure in a scientific term, outside of the relation toward its application in photography - whilst others are arguing that ISO is part of exposure within the field of photography.

 

[camz]

Increasing your ISO merely amplifies the analog signal that was created by the exposure before that signal is converted into digital data.

Kerbouchard question for you. Light conversion or interpretation of the sensor will initially use all analog sensors prior to converting them digitally using analog to digital converters within the processor's circuitry as you know. As mentioned, f-stop will will control the simultaneous amount of light passing through, and shutter will control the duration of the sensor's exposure. This light will have to go through an analog to digital converter regardless of ISO settings. A wider f-stop will increase the analog signal received by the processor; a longer shutter will also increase the analog signal received by the processor. ISO will enable a function at the processor to amplify the analog signal it's received. So regardless all three(ISO,f-stop,shutter) will have some type of analog control. The only difference I see is that ISO's analog control will directly be at the processor without any influence from the camera, where f-stop and shutter's analog control is outside the processor scope. However all three controls end up in the analog to digital converter of the processor.

So my question is why is the analog control limited to just ISO and therefore ruled out as exposure? I mean the whole process stream itself is all digitally converted from analog.

I know basis of argument here as a user only sees the end result, and ISO does affect the end result exposure of the digitally converted image. Correct me if I’m wrong, I just don’t understand why ISO wouldn’t be included as an exposure variable in the digital age.

 

[Derrel]

http://jfletcherphoto.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/untitled-2.jpg?w=450&h=307


http://www.better-digital-photo-tips.com/images/ExposureTriangle2.jpg


http://www.digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/exposure-triangle.jpg


exposure_triangle_copyright.jpg

Once again, "The Exposure Triangle" is Bryan Peterson's invention. The word "Exposure" belongs to the field of photography.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

So, if Bryan called it more appropriately, the Camera Setting Triangle, we'd all be good here, right?

 

[camz]

I see that Derrel and appreciate those definitions, but from an electronic standpoint I don't see the exclusion.

 

[Overread]

So, if Bryan called it more appropriately, the Camera Setting Triangle, we'd all be good here, right?

Maybe, but I'd still be left wondering why ISO is on my lightmeter which is older than Understanding Exposure by a long way - if the idea of ISO being part of the photographic exposure is a new "modern" "digital" thing.

 

[Village Idiot]

Everyone tape over your ISO buttons! They're no longer relevant!

 

[Noxire]

 

[kundalini]

Once again, "The Exposure Triangle" is Bryan Peterson's invention. The word "Exposure" belongs to the field of photography.

Bryan Peterson is to photography as Alan Freed is to music.

I'm not convinced that invention is the correct term here. I would be more comfortable with "coined the phrase". Regardless, you have to give Peterson props at marketing though, just as much as Rockwell for that matter. Both have made money hand over fist with their exploits. Unfortunately, times were much different in the 50's for Freed though.