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

[Destin]

Iso is ABSOLUTELY part of exposure. There's a reason it's called the exposure TRIANGLE.

 

[KmH]

....... 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.

 

[Beglenn]

I'm fairly new to the photography myself but feel that you've missed a few aspects that can be modified by setting your own ISO, Shutter Speed, and Aperture.

Try to capture motion blur on Auto. You may, you may not. It really depends on what your camera's internal light meter is reading and then decides are the best settings to achieve a correct exposure. Did your camera know you wanted to capture motion blur by slowing the shutter speed? Nope. Does it care? Not really, it's doing what it was trained to do: Achieving a correct exposure.

How about tracking a moving subject? Ever notice how car racing, bike racing, or running photos have the subject in sharp focus and everything around them is blurred (no, not bokeh, but blur)? This is done by slowing the shutter speed and panning the camera to track the subject. Once again, the camera will just read the light and adjust the settings. It will never know that you were at a race. It will never know this was Lance Armstrong's last Tour de France and it's failure to read your mind cost you that one, career defining photograph.

Yes, learning these things is very important. More so, however, learning the RELATIONSHIP between them is the most important aspect a beginner of photography can understand.

Want to improve and learn how they relate to one another without the head-scratching scenarios of shooting full manual? Try shooting in Aperture Priority mode, then switch to Shutter Priority mode. This way you can still set 2 of the 3 aspects and still have the crutch of the automatic exposure calculator.

Just something to think about. Hopefully that helped and didn't hurt.





-Glenn


Edit: I'm an idiot and failed to see that there were 5+ pages here. This was probably all covered already. My apologies.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Iso is ABSOLUTELY part of exposure. There's a reason it's called the exposure TRIANGLE.

Ahh, young grasshopper. When will you learn that words actually have established meanings regardless of whether or not you happen to know them?

From Webster: Exposure - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

esposure 2b : the treating of sensitized material (as film) to controlled amounts of radiant energy; also : the amount of such energy or length of such treatment <a 3-second exposure>

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)

In photography, exposure is the total density of light allowed to fall on the photographic medium (photographic film or image sensor) during the process of taking a photograph. Exposure is measured in lux seconds, and can be computed from exposure value (EV) and scene luminance over a specified area.

So, how exactly do you measure ISO in 'lux seconds'?

Just because a vast majority of people misuse a word, does not change the words definition, or at least it hasn't, yet. That applies to e.rose and KmH, although I'm a bit surprised KmH, AKA the word Nazi, is on the wrong side of this one. Where is Derrel when you need him?

As far as the 'exposure triangle', it would be more proper to define those three sides as:
1. shutter speed, controlling how long the medium is exposed to a light source.
2. aperture, controlling how much light the lens allows to be passed through it.
3. amount of light

 

[e.rose]

Iso is ABSOLUTELY part of exposure. There's a reason it's called the exposure TRIANGLE.

Ahh, young grasshopper. When will you learn that words actually have established meanings regardless of whether or not you happen to know them?

From Webster: Exposure - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

esposure 2b : the treating of sensitized material (as film) to controlled amounts of radiant energy; also : the amount of such energy or length of such treatment <a 3-second exposure>

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)

In photography, exposure is the total density of light allowed to fall on the photographic medium (photographic film or image sensor) during the process of taking a photograph. Exposure is measured in lux seconds, and can be computed from exposure value (EV) and scene luminance over a specified area.

So, how exactly do you measure ISO in 'lux seconds'?

Just because a vast majority of people misuse a word, does not change the words definition, or at least it hasn't, yet. That applies to e.rose and KmH, although I'm a bit surprised KmH, AKA the word Nazi, is on the wrong side of this one. Where is Derrel when you need him?

As far as the 'exposure triangle', it would be more proper to define those three sides as:
1. shutter speed, controlling how long the medium is exposed to a light source.
2. aperture, controlling how much light the lens allows to be passed through it.
3. amount of light

OhhhoOOOKAY!

And this whole time I've been at shows increasing my ISO thinking it would help the outcome of my exposure since slowing down my shutter speed to the point where it's bright enough causes nothing but blur and my aperture physically can't open up any wider than f/1.4...

But clearly I'm wrong. Increasing my ISO has been doing nothing to help my exposure come out to more than just a black rectangle... or a bright blurry blob!

NOTED!

 

[Kerbouchard]

Iso is ABSOLUTELY part of exposure. There's a reason it's called the exposure TRIANGLE.

Ahh, young grasshopper. When will you learn that words actually have established meanings regardless of whether or not you happen to know them?

From Webster: Exposure - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)

In photography, exposure is the total density of light allowed to fall on the photographic medium (photographic film or image sensor) during the process of taking a photograph. Exposure is measured in lux seconds, and can be computed from exposure value (EV) and scene luminance over a specified area.

So, how exactly do you measure ISO in 'lux seconds'?

Just because a vast majority of people misuse a word, does not change the words definition, or at least it hasn't, yet. That applies to e.rose and KmH, although I'm a bit surprised KmH, AKA the word Nazi, is on the wrong side of this one. Where is Derrel when you need him?

As far as the 'exposure triangle', it would be more proper to define those three sides as:
1. shutter speed, controlling how long the medium is exposed to a light source.
2. aperture, controlling how much light the lens allows to be passed through it.
3. amount of light

OhhhoOOOKAY!

And this whole time I've been at shows increasing my ISO thinking it would help the outcome of my exposure since slowing down my shutter speed to the point where it's bright enough causes nothing but blur and my aperture physically can't open up any wider than f/1.4...

But clearly I'm wrong. Increasing my ISO has been doing nothing to help my exposure come out to more than just a black rectangle... or a bright blurry blob!

NOTED!

You are correct, increasing ISO does not "help my exposure come out to more than just a black rectangle... or a bright blurry blob!"

Allowing more light to reach your sensor increases your exposure. Increasing your ISO merely amplifies the analog signal that was created by the exposure before that signal is converted into digital data.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

OMG!

 

[Overread]

We've had this before haven't we = Kerbouchard nobody agrees with your interpretation of ISO.

In fact you seem to be somewhat out there on your own in considering it not part of the exposure triangle.

 

[Kerbouchard]

We've had this before haven't we = Kerbouchard nobody agrees with your interpretation of ISO.

In fact you seem to be somewhat out there on your own in considering it not part of the exposure triangle.

We have, indeed. As far as me being on my own, I guess I am, unless you count every dictionary, technical, or scientific definition of the terms involved.

I think I'm starting to understand why most of the members here post their threads in the Beginner Section...

 

[e.rose]

Ahh, young grasshopper. When will you learn that words actually have established meanings regardless of whether or not you happen to know them?

From Webster: Exposure - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)


So, how exactly do you measure ISO in 'lux seconds'?

Just because a vast majority of people misuse a word, does not change the words definition, or at least it hasn't, yet. That applies to e.rose and KmH, although I'm a bit surprised KmH, AKA the word Nazi, is on the wrong side of this one. Where is Derrel when you need him?

As far as the 'exposure triangle', it would be more proper to define those three sides as:
1. shutter speed, controlling how long the medium is exposed to a light source.
2. aperture, controlling how much light the lens allows to be passed through it.
3. amount of light

OhhhoOOOKAY!

And this whole time I've been at shows increasing my ISO thinking it would help the outcome of my exposure since slowing down my shutter speed to the point where it's bright enough causes nothing but blur and my aperture physically can't open up any wider than f/1.4...

But clearly I'm wrong. Increasing my ISO has been doing nothing to help my exposure come out to more than just a black rectangle... or a bright blurry blob!

NOTED!

You are correct, increasing ISO does not "help my exposure come out to more than just a black rectangle... or a bright blurry blob!"

Allowing more light to reach your sensor increases your exposure. Increasing your ISO merely amplifies the analog signal that was created by the exposure before that signal is converted into digital data.

OhhhhhOKAY!!!!

 

[Overread]

Except that your using common dictionary definitions of words for a specific interest area; whereupon you should be referencing a photographic dictionary as there are subtle changes in the definitions of the terms.


Asides from which you can't argue that increasing the sensitivity of the sensor (or the film) to the light that you are providing isn't affecting the exposure. If it didn't we wouldn't have any ISOs at all and we'd all just be adding more ISO light in the editing phase without cost. But there is a cost and upping the ISO does affect this

 

[e.rose]

We've had this before haven't we = Kerbouchard nobody agrees with your interpretation of ISO.

In fact you seem to be somewhat out there on your own in considering it not part of the exposure triangle.

We have, indeed. As far as me being on my own, I guess I am, unless you count every dictionary, technical, or scientific definition of the terms involved.

I'm curious as to how many photographers spend their time discussing images and exposures with dictionaries as opposed to other photographers.

If I ever get a chance to meet my photographic heros, I'll be sure to mention to them that all these years... all this time that they've been considering ISO as part of their exposure... that they've been wrong.

 

[e.rose]

Except that your using common dictionary definitions of words for a specific interest area; whereupon you should be referencing a photographic dictionary as there are subtle changes in the definitions of the terms.


Asides from which you can't argue that increasing the sensitivity of the sensor (or the film) to the light that you are providing isn't affecting the exposure. If it didn't we wouldn't have any ISOs at all and we'd all just be adding more ISO light in the editing phase without cost. But there is a cost and upping the ISO does affect this

No. I think he's right.

Tonight at the show I'm going to set my shutter speed to 1/100, and my aperture to f/2.8, like I always do at the beginning of the night... but this time I'm going to set my ISO to 100 instead of ISO1600... because it's not going to affect my exposure anyway, right?

 

[Village Idiot]

We've had this before haven't we = Kerbouchard nobody agrees with your interpretation of ISO.

In fact you seem to be somewhat out there on your own in considering it not part of the exposure triangle.

We have, indeed. As far as me being on my own, I guess I am, unless you count every dictionary, technical, or scientific definition of the terms involved.

I think I'm starting to understand why most of the members here post their threads in the Beginner Section...

ISO has become even more of a part of the exposure. I know what you're trying to say in that changing the ISO doesn't change the amount of light that hits the medium that creates the image, but increases the sensitivity of the medium so that more light or less light has to hit it to expose it to what we judge as proper. However, unlike in the film days, ISO is now something that can be changed every shot and with a button press, a spin of a wheel, and one more click of a button. It's not like it used to be where you had to shoot an entire roll at a certain exposure or sacrifice a roll of film after one or two shots because you chose the wrong ISO. With it becoming an option that can be as easily adjusted as shutter speed or aperture, then it needs to be considered in a person's exposure more than it use to. If you're shooting in a place where you're forced to use high ISO, you may end up changing it several times so that you're using the highest you can get away with without degrading image quality. Like at concerts.

Oh, and Google "exposure triangle" and try and find one link that doesn't use shutter speed, aperture, and ISO.

 

[dots]

These kinds of threads. You know..