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

[Kerbouchard]

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.

No, basically, we have a forum full of people who learned photography from one book and who recommend that book to every new photographer who comes on the site...kind of a self-perpetuating concept error.

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.

Primarily because that isn't the way the terms are defined.

As far as why it makes a difference, I would say because ISO does not just amplify the signal generated by the sensor. It also amplifies the noise inherrent in the circuitry.

 

[MLeeK]

This post is getting hilarious!
I understand the concept of what ISO does and the idea that it has no physical control over how much light is hitting the sensor. It is simply determining (in my not so technical terms) how much power is put to that amount t of light. Ok, so it does not physically change the sensor in any outward manner. The sensor is the same sensor no matter what. It always LOOKS exactly the same.
Got it.
However... in my simple little brain, isn't more power also a physical change? Just because we can't SEE electrical current does that mean it is not happening? It is. It is physically amplifying that light regardless of whether we can see the physical change or not.
Back in the day you changed the film from one ASA or ISO to another. It LOOKS like the same cannister of film but in actuality it was a different sensitivity to light. Physically it appeared the same to the naked eye. It was not the same at all.
So, my simple minded deduction of this is that yes it is a part of the exposure triangle regardless of how it changes the image.

 

[camz]

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.

No, basically, we have a forum full of people who learned photography from one book and who recommend that book to every new photographer who comes on the site...kind of a self-perpetuating concept error.

Primarily because that isn't the way the terms are defined.

As far as why it makes a difference, I would say because ISO does not just amplify the signal generated by the sensor. It also amplifies the noise inherrent in the circuitry.

Got stuck in a meeting...

I see where your coming from Kerbouchard and standard definition states that clearly. However looking how the digital processes of a DSLR, that's where the definition becomes questionable for me. Especially since ISO affects the results of the digital image.

I think the OP got his/her popcorn worth

 

[mangtarn]

what happens with this kind of threads is that the OP quits caring after the third page or so, and the discussion drifts off, and i waste 20 minutes reading every post and realizing that the OP is gone so i can't poke fun at him.

 

[Overread]

what happens with this kind of threads is that the OP quits caring after the third page or so, and the discussion drifts off, and i waste 20 minutes reading every post and realizing that the OP is gone so i can't poke fun at him.

Which - all things considered - is probably a good thing when mods are around

 

[tirediron]

what happens with this kind of threads is that the OP quits caring after the third page or so, and the discussion drifts off, and i waste 20 minutes reading every post and realizing that the OP is gone so i can't poke fun at him.

There are 20 minutes of your life you will never get back; about the best thing that can be said for this thread!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

what happens with this kind of threads is that the OP quits caring after the third page or so, and the discussion drifts off, and i waste 20 minutes reading every post and realizing that the OP is gone so i can't poke fun at him.

Poke fun at the mod instead.

 

[MTVision]

No, basically, we have a forum full of people who learned photography from one book and who recommend that book to every new photographer who comes on the site...kind of a self-perpetuating concept error.
.

Ok - I see where everybody is coming from. Maybe Peterson dumbed down his book so newbies could understand camera settings. The book and the "exposure triangle" that was made up does work. So, maybe he didn't define ISO in the proper technical definition but it still works. I don't think it's an error that he made up a diagram to use as a teaching device.

A forum full of people who learned photography from one book can't really be an error if people learned!

Not being a smart ass but maybe you should write a book or recommend a book that teaches beginners the correct way.

I have about 15 books on digital photography that all say pretty much the same thing about exposure. My teacher also taught that ISO is part of exposure (no triangle included). She explained that by raising the ISO you are increasing the sensors sensitivity to light.



"Getting proper exposure requires the right balance of light, lens opening size (aperture), duration of exposure (shutter speed) and while technically not part of "exposure", proper sensor sensitivity (ISO setting) is required. In discussion of exposure, the term f-stop is typically used. A change in exposure of 1 f-stop allows half as much light (if the camera is stopped down - less light) or twice as much light (if the camera is opened up - more light) in the final exposure. "
- http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/Exposure-Basics.aspx

 

[o hey tyler]

Hey guys lets argue about something important rather than the method people use to expose a photograph and whether they include ISO in that method or not.

Kind of stupid to argue about something that if learned either way will lead to the same end result.

I'd expect at least one more multi-paragraph novel from Derell including emphasized words in ALL CAPS and Forum username mocking.

 

[Overread]

what happens with this kind of threads is that the OP quits caring after the third page or so, and the discussion drifts off, and i waste 20 minutes reading every post and realizing that the OP is gone so i can't poke fun at him.

Poke fun at the mod instead.

If only things were so simple

 

[Kerbouchard]

No, basically, we have a forum full of people who learned photography from one book and who recommend that book to every new photographer who comes on the site...kind of a self-perpetuating concept error.
.

Ok - I see where everybody is coming from. Maybe Peterson dumbed down his book so newbies could understand camera settings. The book and the "exposure triangle" that was made up does work. So, maybe he didn't define ISO in the proper technical definition but it still works. I don't think it's an error that he made up a diagram to use as a teaching device.

A forum full of people who learned photography from one book can't really be an error if people learned!

Not being a smart ass but maybe you should write a book or recommend a book that teaches beginners the correct way.

I have about 15 books on digital photography that all say pretty much the same thing about exposure. My teacher also taught that ISO is part of exposure (no triangle included). She explained that by raising the ISO you are increasing the sensors sensitivity to light.



"Getting proper exposure requires the right balance of light, lens opening size (aperture), duration of exposure (shutter speed) and while technically not part of "exposure", proper sensor sensitivity (ISO setting) is required. In discussion of exposure, the term f-stop is typically used. A change in exposure of 1 f-stop allows half as much light (if the camera is stopped down - less light) or twice as much light (if the camera is opened up - more light) in the final exposure. "
- Exposure Basics

Honestly, the only reason I brought this up in this thread is you have a ton of members in the 'Beyond the Basics' section, ragging on a beginner who is wondering if it's important to understand aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, and it turns out, 98% of the 'experienced members' can't explain it themselves. I happen to explain how it actually works, and the 'mob' decides to turn on me. The 'mob' mentality bugs me, as well as the 'smug' attitudes presented by people who don't understand the basics of how their camera works.

Truth be told, none of it really matters. You don't need to know how a camera works to take great pictures, just as you don't need to know how a combustion engine works in order to drive a car. My background is engineering...I prefer to know the how's and the what's. That's just my makeup. As far as beginners thinking ISO adds exposure or thinking it increases the sensitivity of their camera, I don't really care. It all works out the same in the end.

Honestly, I just expected more out of some of our 'know it alls'. Surprised me a bit at how little some of our more experienced members understand how their camera works.

 

[Trever1t]

Seems I showed up late and missed the show, again!

 

[MTVision]

This thread was posted in the "Beyond the Basics" subsection of this forum. Honestly, a beginner doesn't need to know how the camera does what it does, or what ISO is actually doing. Most people get it wrong, thanks to people like Peterson...for instance, your teacher seems to have explained to you that raising the ISO increases the sesnor sensitivity to light. This isn't true. It is a concept error made by somebody who doesn't know how a camera works. That's fine, your teacher was teaching beginners. The quote that you gave is also incorrect. Sensor sensitivity is a constant and is determined at the time of manufacture.

Honestly, the only reason I brought this up in this thread is you have a ton of members in the 'Beyond the Basics' section, ragging on a beginner who is wondering if it's important to understand aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, and it turns out, 98% of the 'experienced members' can't explain it themselves. I happen to explain how it actually works, and the 'mob' decides to turn on me. The 'mob' mentality bugs me, as well as the 'smug' attitudes presented by people who don't understand the basics of how their camera works.

Truth be told, none of it really matters. You don't need to know how a camera works to take great pictures, just as you don't need to know how a combustion engine works in order to drive a car. My background is engineering...I prefer to know the how's and the what's. That's just my makeup. As far as beginners thinking ISO adds exposure or thinking it increases the sensitivity of their camera, I don't really care. It all works out the same in the end.

Honestly, I just expected more out of some of our 'know it alls'. Surprised me a bit at how little some of our more experienced members understand how their camera works.

I do see what you mean. I honestly thought that ISO was part of exposure but then again I've only had a camera for a few months and I don't really know much! I just threw the quote in there because it did say ISO wasn't technically part of exposure. I guess it's more research for me!

 

[Kerbouchard]

I do see what you mean. I honestly thought that ISO was part of exposure but then again I've only had a camera for a few months and I don't really know much! I just threw the quote in there because it did say ISO wasn't technically part of exposure. I guess it's more research for me!

I don't want to confuse anybody, so let me take a step back one more time.

Exposure is a scientific term that describes the amount of light that is falling on a photographic surface over a given amount of time. It's measured in Lux Seconds, also a scientific term.

In general use, most photographers also use the word exposure(improperly) to describe how an image looks in print or on their screen...as in, "That photo is underexposed". With digital, and post processing software, the terms have sort of merged, because you can 'underexpose' in photoshop or have actually not exposed the photo well at the time of capture. Both would have a similar appearance. ISO does have a huge impact on how an image will appear on print or on a screen. It is the amount the original signal was amplified, so it is, in effect, 'adding' to the signal generated by the exposure and will effect how the image appears.

As far as the true definitions, that really comes into play when discussing noise, dynamic range, and getting the most out of your sensor. For instance, when shooting at High ISO's, getting the 'proper exposure' is critical to a low noise shot. That is based on the actual exosure, as in, the amount of light hitting the sensor(through amount of light available, aperture, and shutter speed). Lets say you have signal A and signal B. Signal A is the exposure and Signal B is the noise inherrent in all circuitry. For easy comparison, we'll say signal A is 20 and signal B is 1. With a 20:1 signal to noise ratio, any apparent noise will be relatively small. Let's say we decrease the exposure to get a faster shutter speed and Signal A becomes 5. Now we have a 5:1 signal to noise ratio. 20% of the signal is noise and will seriously degrade the picture quality.

When discussing signal to noise ratio, it makes no sense to use ISO as a part of exposure, because it is not just amplifying the signal, it's also amplifying the noise. Dynamic range is a similar discussion.

To really get the most out of your camera, you should have a basic understanding of how it works. It's a good example of why experienced photographers can get cleaner images at ISO 1600-3200 than newbies do at ISO 800.

Clear as mud?

 

[Overread]

Yep - its agreeing with what I said earlier - that the disagreement in the thread stems from the fact that a few started talking about Exposure in scientific terms on a photography forum where the average person us not a scientist, but a photographer and thus uses the technical term with a slight variation on the meaning.

Ergo no one was disagreeing, just that those with the science background tried to make a statement about a definition of a word without fully expressing that they were not referring to the same word that the average photographer understands.

Whilst getting mixed in there was some crazy stuff about how ISO has only been important since the digital age or since Bryan Peterson wrote a book (which as far as I can tell is a whole red-herring argument).