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

[ghache]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

[Kerbouchard]

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

I should start a new thread and probably will at some point, but will address one more point.

Increasing ISO does not effect the sensitivity of a digital sensor. The sensitivity of the chip is a constant that is determined at the time of manufacturing. The sensor generates electrons based on the photons that hit it. This starts out as an analog signal. ISO is the user ability of controlling how much that signal is amplified. After the amplification, it goes to an analog to digital converter. That digital signal is what is recorded on the memory card.

This is where terms like 'signal to noise' ratio come from.

/soapbox

 

[dots]

..are detrimental

 

[Village Idiot]

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?

You say tomatoe, I say donkey lips.

What he's saying can be interpreted as ISO doesn't affect the amount of light falling on the medium to be exposed, unlike changing the shutter speed or adjusting the aperture. It just changes the sensitivity to differ how much light is needed for the exposure.

It's still a part of the exposure triangle and he's being difficult. And if you can shoot a concert at 100 ISO, I'll trade you my 5D MKII for whatever you're shooting with.

 

[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?

You say tomatoe, I say donkey lips.

What he's saying can be interpreted as ISO doesn't affect the amount of light falling on the medium to be exposed, unlike changing the shutter speed or adjusting the aperture. It just changes the sensitivity to differ how much light is needed for the exposure.

Yeah, I know that... I've always known that... HOWEVER...

It's still a part of the exposure triangle and he's being difficult.

Because it STILL affects the way your exposure comes out!

But you know that.

And if you can shoot a concert at 100 ISO, I'll trade you my 5D MKII for whatever you're shooting with.

NO! IT'S MINE! AND I'M KEEPING IT! :greenpbl:

Wait... what am I talking about?

I mean... SURE! Take it! It's all yours! NO TRADE BACKSIES!!!!!!!

 

[Derrel]

"The Exposure Triangle" is a phrase for an illustration that Bryan Peterson "invented" in his book, Understanding Exposure, as a way to help newbies understand how to get their cameras off of automatic mode...

it is a "new" addition to the photographic lexicon, and has not been widely adopted by other photographic authors or authorities. "Weston Speed", "ASA", "DIN", and ISO---none of those things are mentioned in traditional definitions or formulas that represent "Exposure". Exposure = Intensity X Time is probably the simplest definition of "exposure".

Those arguing against Kerbouchard's position that ISO has no place in the definition of "Exposure" look rather newbish and foolish to me: Let's not not confuse "camera settings" with the term "Exposure" and try and use brute force and group-think to win an argument with an invalid argument based upon a popular yet mistaken notion of what "Exposure" is. And please, do not try and tell others that Bryan Peterson's 2004 book for newbies is the standard for the definition of photographic terms and terminology...it's not....the "Exposure Triangle" is a Bryan Peterson "thing"...

The term Exposure, with a capital E, has long been expressed with ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE TO ISO value in scientific texts about photography and photographic terms...

 

[JMBriggs]

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

What he said!!!

 

[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.


Edit: This, EXACTLY.

Let's not not confuse "camera settings" with the term "Exposure"

 

[Village Idiot]

The term Exposure, with a capital E, has long been expressed with ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE TO ISO value in scientific texts about photography and photographic terms...

And with today's cameras that can easily switch ISO adjustment, you're not going to teach a new photographer anything about using the ISO in reference to creating an exposure?

Traditional techniques can change, especially when the tools or theories in creating something change with techonology.

Did you know they just found out that neutrinos can possibly travel faster than the speed of light, which is recreated and proven to be true basically says that E=MC2 is kind of irrelevant?

 

[Village Idiot]

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.


Edit: This, EXACTLY.

Let's not not confuse "camera settings" with the term "Exposure"

I'd like your **** if I could, but for some reason I can't like anything anymore.

 

[Overread]

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.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I'd like your **** if I could, but for some reason I can't like anything anymore.

I am sure there is a pill for that.

 

[Village Idiot]

I'd like your **** if I could, but for some reason I can't like anything anymore.

I am sure there is a pill for that.

Likexycontin.

My prescription ran out. I need to hold up a pharmacy.

 

[Derrel]

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?

 

[MissCream]

I agree with Derrel and Kerbouchard. Please don't hate me.