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

[unpopular]

Not sure what to think about be quoted followed by a cat picture...

 

[Kerbouchard]

I'm going to agree a bit with the OP. Exposure isn't that complicated. Neither is the exposure triangle, even though most people still think ISO is part of exposure, so maybe it's a bit complicated or perhaps most people don't think about what they say and just keep repeating things other people said.

In any case, exposure is basically the amount of light that falls on a photographic surface. There are three things that effect that. Shutter speed determines how long the sensor is exposed to light. Aperture determines how much light the lens passes through. And the amount of light determines how much light there is.

ISO is not a part of exposure in any normal sense, especially in digital photography. ISO is the amount the signal gathered by the sensor is amplified before it is converted from an analog to digital signal.

In any case, still not all that complicated in the grand scheme of things.

My suggestion to the OP would be if he has mastered how ISO, shutter speed, and aperture work together, he should work on the fourth part that effects how every image he takes will turn out...the lighting. I assure you, lighting will take much longer than 1 month to master.

Also to the OP, there are many other 'effects' that can be manipulated using just ISO, shutter speed, aperture, and the available light. Most of those effects have to do with deliberately using a longer shutter speed than normal...for instance panning, painting with light, silky water effects, etc.

Then, there are also lens choices that impact how the shots turn out. A macro lens might let you see things you've never seen before. A wide angle offers a different perspective than a telephoto and the use of one focal length vs another can completely change the feel of a photo.

Once you open up the world to flash, there are a ton more. Everything from freezing fast action to balancing out photos to truly creating masterpieces.

It's a fun journey and there is a ton to learn, but honestly, if you feel like you know what you need to know to achieve the quality that you want, by all means, stop where you are. Just as with any hobby, everybody has different expectations and is happy with different levels of results.

 

[pgriz]

@ Matrixgravity: After you "master" the exposure triangle, you can start on the emotional triangle of image making: Creating interest, sustaining interest, and touching the viewer's emotions. Without emotion, you don't have art, you have illustration.

Our focus on the mechanics of image-making often misses the obvious - the point of mastering the mechanics is to get them out of the way, so we can focus on the "Wow" and not the "how". What is the story the image is telling us? What is in the image that makes us want to know more (or turn away in shame or disgust)? Is there something in the image that makes us pause and think "why did I not see that before?"?


So the point of mastering the exposure triangle, and then the mechanics of lighting, and then the concepts of composition and design, is to distill all that technique into a delivery vehicle for emotion. Once we walk though that door, we find a new universe to be explored: is the emotional connection closed or open? is it attractive or repelling? Pride or disgust? love or loathing? envy? compassion? anger? hate? or ... indifference?

 

[Destin]

I see. Well, I certainly wish there were more controls implemented to create more intricate photo's. But I guess that they created three for a reason. Needless to say, this always happens to me. I think the reason why I am questioning Photography is because.. Well, before I started learning I would spend so much time admiring photo's and wondering what it would take to be able to make something as good. Now that I have learned, it just feels underwhelming overall. I don't know what it is honestly. I guess I assumed the process would be more intricate I suppose? Quite puzzling.. But I will continue to learn nonetheless..

It's a very intricate process. It takes years to master. Sure the camera settings can be learned in a few weeks. But learning to speak with light, be it natural or artificial, is something that you will NEVER perfect. It's always going to involve at least a little guesswork and some experimentation. If basic photography seems easy, go check out strobist.com. It'll keep you bust trying to learn for years to come.

 

[Dao]

OP. In general, it maybe easy to learn a craft, but master it is a different story.

 

[jake337]

Well, considering the technique you asked about that had the stars in the photo last night being one of thousands of tricks I'd say there is a whole lot you can do and continue to learn.
THen there is the challenge of showing something using only those three controls and composition. How do I suck the viewer in and make this image say exactly what I want it to say? Therein lies the challenge. You only have 3 controls and your knowledge to do that...

I see. Well, I certainly wish there were more controls implemented to create more intricate photo's. But I guess that they created three for a reason. Needless to say, this always happens to me. I think the reason why I am questioning Photography is because.. Well, before I started learning I would spend so much time admiring photo's and wondering what it would take to be able to make something as good. Now that I have learned, it just feels underwhelming overall. I don't know what it is honestly. I guess I assumed the process would be more intricate I suppose? Quite puzzling.. But I will continue to learn nonetheless..

It is underwhelming eh?

Can you describe in detail how these shots where created? I still can't. I could guess.

Do you think they were shot in auto?

Have you used and understand off camera flash and why manual is benificial for it?

The Stig of Saudi Arabia | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

All sizes | Golden Autumn | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Morning Glow - 28/52 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The Infinite Splendor Of Acuatico Resort, Laiya, Batangas, Philippines | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Triumph | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Time for FUN~~~! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


If you fully understand all this let me know, you can be my mentor. I'm sure all the exposures above must have been shot in auto, lol.

 

[MTVision]

It is underwhelming eh?

Can you describe in detail how these shots where created? I still can't. I could guess.

Do you think they were shot in auto?

Have you used and understand off camera flash and why manual is benificial for it?

The Stig of Saudi Arabia | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

All sizes | Golden Autumn | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Morning Glow - 28/52 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The Infinite Splendor Of Acuatico Resort, Laiya, Batangas, Philippines | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Triumph | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Time for FUN~~~! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

If you fully understand all this let me know, you can be my mentor. I'm sure all the exposures above must have been shot in auto, lol.

C'mon - obviously those pictures were all taken on auto!!

 

[gsgary]

Yup, Bokeh and Depth of field. You're in there.

I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but pardon my ignorance lol. Whenever I see Photography, the only discernible technique I ever see used is a shallow depth of field, or Bokeh. That's all I ever really see..So that leads me to believe that not much can really be achieved then..So wouldn't it be easier to just do Auto then..

I think you better give up photography because you will never have a clue

 

[radiorickm]

I would like to ask the OP a question, but the rest of you can play along too

Assuming your theory is right (and it isn't by far), and the only three things involved in photography were the ISO, Shutter and aperture, then I would like to ask you a question.

Please look at these numbers, and tell me what if anything they have in common. They are camera configurations, listing the ISO, the shutter speed, and the aperture.

64---1/15---f64
64---1/30---f32
64---1/60---f16
64---1/125---f11
64---1/250---f8
64---1/500---f5.6
64---1/1000---f4
64---1/2000---f2.8
100---1/4000---f2.8
100---1/2000---f4
100---1/1000---f5.6
100---1/500---f8
100---1/250---f11
100---1/125---f16
100---1/60---f32
100---1/30---f64
200---1/60---f64
200---1/125---f32
200---1/250---f16
200---1/500---f11
200---1/1000---f8
200---1/2000---f5.6
200---1/4000---f4
400---1/4000---f5.6
400---1/2000---f8
400---1/1000---f11
400---1/500---f16
400---1/250---f32
400---1/125---f64
800---1/250---f64
800---1/500---f32
800---1/1000---f16
800---1/2000---f11
800---1/4000---f8
1600---1/4000---f11
1600---1/2000---f16
1600---1/1000---f32
1600---1/500---f64

Can you, the OP, tell me the signifigance of this particular set of numbers????

They may seem like the ramblings of a mad man, and they probably are. But the truth is EACH and EVERY combination listed above will give you the EXACT SAME EXPOSURE on your camera. It will I promise.

This being the case, why would you choose to shoot at 200---1/250---f16 insted of 1600---1/4000---f16.

Truth is there are lots of reasons for choosing a particular set of figures above; More to it than just picking any one of them and taking the picture.


There are many considerations beyond just these three also. I hope you see there is more to it.

 

[margosoriginals]

I'd like to see some of the OP's photo's.

 

[JMBriggs]

The OP hasn't said anything for awhile... Did you guys scare him off?!?! Just wait until shwetty shows up Lol. No one seems to have said it yet so I'll toss it put there. Long exposures? Panning shots? Last I checked my camera wasn't out taking those kind of pics without me... (M mode is for meee!) And to the guy who said ISO was no longer part of the exposure triangle... You shouldn't say that because it still is. When I'm in low light and I need to maintain a fast shutter speed with a wide open aperture.... Well I up the ISO! Silly people...

 

[MLeeK]

I would like to ask the OP a question, but the rest of you can play along too

Assuming your theory is right (and it isn't by far), and the only three things involved in photography were the ISO, Shutter and aperture, then I would like to ask you a question.

Please look at these numbers, and tell me what if anything they have in common. They are camera configurations, listing the ISO, the shutter speed, and the aperture.

64---1/15---f64
64---1/30---f32
64---1/60---f16
64---1/125---f11
64---1/250---f8
64---1/500---f5.6
64---1/1000---f4
64---1/2000---f2.8
100---1/4000---f2.8
100---1/2000---f4
100---1/1000---f5.6
100---1/500---f8
100---1/250---f11
100---1/125---f16
100---1/60---f32
100---1/30---f64
200---1/60---f64
200---1/125---f32
200---1/250---f16
200---1/500---f11
200---1/1000---f8
200---1/2000---f5.6
200---1/4000---f4
400---1/4000---f5.6
400---1/2000---f8
400---1/1000---f11
400---1/500---f16
400---1/250---f32
400---1/125---f64
800---1/250---f64
800---1/500---f32
800---1/1000---f16
800---1/2000---f11
800---1/4000---f8
1600---1/4000---f11
1600---1/2000---f16
1600---1/1000---f32
1600---1/500---f64

Can you, the OP, tell me the signifigance of this particular set of numbers????

They may seem like the ramblings of a mad man, and they probably are. But the truth is EACH and EVERY combination listed above will give you the EXACT SAME EXPOSURE on your camera. It will I promise.

This being the case, why would you choose to shoot at 200---1/250---f16 insted of 1600---1/4000---f16.

Truth is there are lots of reasons for choosing a particular set of figures above; More to it than just picking any one of them and taking the picture.


There are many considerations beyond just these three also. I hope you see there is more to it.

I KNOW! I KNOW! PICK ME! PICK ME!
LOL!

I think he got chased off...

 

[gwpurvis3]

The whole point of ISO, aperture and shutter speed is to have creative control over how your pictures come out. There are 6 exposures for every picture and shooting auto doesn't let you control how the picture comes out.

Why learn about white balance? Or - why learn how to use an editing program?

You can shoot auto all day!

Yeah.. It's just when I personally shoot with my camera on Auto, it produces some seemingly interesting pictures with little effort. So I'm just wondering is there really a purpose of shooting on Manual and learning all these things about Photography if you achieve some great pictures just by using Auto mode? Maybe there is more to it than that.. But the only reason I would want to shoot on Manual is if I wanted to shoot something with a shallow depth of field, or bokeh..

just put the camera and step away.

 

[JMBriggs]

just put the camera and step away.

+1

 

[Kerbouchard]

The OP hasn't said anything for awhile... Did you guys scare him off?!?! Just wait until shwetty shows up Lol. No one seems to have said it yet so I'll toss it put there. Long exposures? Panning shots? Last I checked my camera wasn't out taking those kind of pics without me... (M mode is for meee!)

I did.

And to the guy who said ISO was no longer part of the exposure triangle... You shouldn't say that because it still is. When I'm in low light and I need to maintain a fast shutter speed with a wide open aperture.... Well I up the ISO! Silly people...

That was also me, and no, ISO is not part of exposure. It is how much the analog signal generated by a photographic exposure is amplified before being converted to a digital signal. It effects the apparent exposure of a shot, but it is not part of exposure.