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

[tevo]

Not at all! It's refreshing to have you back, critiquing what people say and how they say it. I am so glad you are back to put us all in line again. We haven't had anybody to do that for some time now!

LMAO. Careful, this might get to my head.

 

[tevo]

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.

 

[Kerbouchard]

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.

Yeah, sure... http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...cts/261194-nikon-80-200-f2-8-nikon-d7000.html

You figure out how to operate a lens, yet?

 

[tevo]

Yep, and for what it's worth, it was your uninformed post that set me off. Nicely done.

As far as a hijack, for a subject of learning aperture, shutterspeed, and ISO in a 'beyond the basics' forum, I wouldn't exactly consider it a hijack...unless, again, you are talking about your posts.

I've gotta ask, what's your problem with me?

I still don't agree with you on this, because the meanings of words changes over time. Dictionary's put out new editions on a regular basis for a reason. The dictionary's definition of exposure, off of which you base your argument, is starting to lose its accuracy.

As the use of words in a culture change, so too does the dictionary's definition of them. Exposure, as it applies to modern digital photography, should absolutely contain iso in its definition.

But we clearly need to agree to disagree on this one. I'm just confused as to what I ever did to piss you off. And this goes farther than this thread. Every time I post anything you argue against what I say every time. You seriously just need to quit reading into everything so far, and stop being such a d-bag.

As far as this thread being hijacked, just because we were talking about the exposure triangle (that's gonna piss you off, is it?), we were not even close to on topic as far as answering the OP's question.

You ask me why I seem to disagree with most of what you have to say and then you decide to call me a 'd-bag'. When you can use grown up language, we can continue the discussion.

Unless you plan on shooting snapshots in auto with ideal light / flash for the rest of forever, then YES it is important to learn this. And you forget that the "aesthetic effects" such as bokeh and DoF is meaningless without composition. Composition is everything, and if you don't know how to use your camera 100% then you will not be able to compose a photo in the way that you want to. Go investigate the exposure triangle, rule of thirds, general composition, etc.

I am honestly shocked by this thread, lol

It's a bit silly for you to post this after you just finished asking which button to push on your lens to make it focus. You want to give expert advice, but you don't understand that you can't just push a button on your lens to make it focus? Seriouisly?

There seems to be a disconnect between a majority of the members and reality. All want to come off as experts, but very few of them have any idea what they are talking about. Most are just repeating things they have heard before. It's about time some of you learned to think for yourself.

Jeez, it's like I'm surrounded by morons. Maybe it's time for me to move to a different forum.

I'm not even going to glorify this with a legitimate response, lol.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

I sludged through the 11 pages of this thread.

I side with Kerbouchard as I too have experienced the mob mentality on these boards and how users shamelessly blockade the simple points that someone may be trying to make.

 

[Overread]

Kerbouchard - I'm still confused - mostly because its not Understanding exposure which says that ISO is part of exposure, but every single guide I've ever read concerning photography (some written before UE) - heck I only got the book after learning most of exposure and whilst I keep the copy it didn't give me many revelations.

In the end I'm still coming to the same conclusion that Exposure is a word with (at least) duel meanings - one within the photography world of the average photographer - and another within the scientific based world that photography is founded upon. As such, and since this is a photography forum not a physics forum, it still stands to confuse most when you take the science angle (even in beyond the basics) directed at a majority of the population who are not scientists/physicists.
It's highly likely that a large number of us need to read far more into the physics behind photography in order to appreciate the "error" that you are attempting to correct; but when that "error" in terminology is used throughout the whole of the photography hobby/practice with (as far as I've noticed) no suitable alternative being suggested/used - then it does appear to me to be a duel world meaning situation based on the context of the discussion at hand.

Except that it's not a dual word meaning. Nobody has produced even one link to a credible or recognized source saying ISO is a part of exposure. On the contrary, all of mine, and several of the references have said, that indeed, ISO, is not technically a part of exposure. The scientific definitions don't match how you use it. The dictionary definitions don't match how you use it.

Dude, I don't know what else to say. Just because a bunch of people use a word to mean something other than what it does, doesn't mean it's right. Honestly, I can't argue with your logic. You get your point across to others like you.

IMO, in the next few years, Webster, will probably add another footnote in the definition of 'exposure' to appease people like you. At that point, I won't have a leg to stand on...a bunch of morons will have successfully changed the definition of a word. It won't be the first time that has happened.

Until then, ISO is not a part of Exposure. Period.

P.S., show me one source that explains how to measure ISO in 'Lux Seconds', which is the standard unit of measure for exposure.

*I've not read it all as I'm not 100% familiar with it all but*
Measuring lux with a camera
anywhere close to what youre after?

 

[tevo]

@Kerbouchard, I don't quite understand - being the novice that I am - why you continually say that I am attempting to give "expert advice". Go find one single post where I say I am a professional/expert providing professional/expert advice. And you also enjoy bringing up the fact that I posted a thread inquiring about a lens I purchased the day before, from a man who told me the 3 (focus lock) buttons on the lens were intended to be used as AE-L/AF-L buttons in the sense that you could press the button to trigger Autofocus. And yet, you have not once criticized my "expert advice", only made fun of me for posting a thread about a lens, which somehow means that I do not know how to operate a lens. Would you like to guess what this tells me about you? Because I'm sure that your guess is 200% more educated than mine, and has even more validity.



































There, I think I left sufficient room for your ego / overwhelming a**hole-ness to think of a clever / a**hole-ish response to my question. But here is my answer. What this tells me about you, Mr. Kerbouchard, is that you feel the need to express exactly how superior/tough/intelligent you are to other people on the internet. Just about every post I have ever seen by you belittles someone else, uses some form of sarcasm, and generally just builds you up at the expense of others. I wont start in on how I expect you to be in real life, but I will say this - if you do have a woman who was stupid enough to hang around, I sure hope the s3x is good, because if you are anything like you are on this forum in real life, I dont see much other reason to stick around with somebody like you. But you know what? It's okay. Keep doing what your doing. The demeanor of your posts on this forum makes everybody look nicer. And I am not taking shots at your intelligence - I respect your knowledge, and I think you are a very useful tool to us. Unfortunately, thats all you are. A tool.


Oh and I apologize for being off topic. But I feel this needed to be said

 

[Kerbouchard]

Kerbouchard - I'm still confused - mostly because its not Understanding exposure which says that ISO is part of exposure, but every single guide I've ever read concerning photography (some written before UE) - heck I only got the book after learning most of exposure and whilst I keep the copy it didn't give me many revelations.

In the end I'm still coming to the same conclusion that Exposure is a word with (at least) duel meanings - one within the photography world of the average photographer - and another within the scientific based world that photography is founded upon. As such, and since this is a photography forum not a physics forum, it still stands to confuse most when you take the science angle (even in beyond the basics) directed at a majority of the population who are not scientists/physicists.
It's highly likely that a large number of us need to read far more into the physics behind photography in order to appreciate the "error" that you are attempting to correct; but when that "error" in terminology is used throughout the whole of the photography hobby/practice with (as far as I've noticed) no suitable alternative being suggested/used - then it does appear to me to be a duel world meaning situation based on the context of the discussion at hand.

Except that it's not a dual word meaning. Nobody has produced even one link to a credible or recognized source saying ISO is a part of exposure. On the contrary, all of mine, and several of the references have said, that indeed, ISO, is not technically a part of exposure. The scientific definitions don't match how you use it. The dictionary definitions don't match how you use it.

Dude, I don't know what else to say. Just because a bunch of people use a word to mean something other than what it does, doesn't mean it's right. Honestly, I can't argue with your logic. You get your point across to others like you.

IMO, in the next few years, Webster, will probably add another footnote in the definition of 'exposure' to appease people like you. At that point, I won't have a leg to stand on...a bunch of morons will have successfully changed the definition of a word. It won't be the first time that has happened.

Until then, ISO is not a part of Exposure. Period.

P.S., show me one source that explains how to measure ISO in 'Lux Seconds', which is the standard unit of measure for exposure.

*I've not read it all as I'm not 100% familiar with it all but*
Measuring lux with a camera
anywhere close to what youre after?

About to walk out the door to shoot a wedding. I'll read it when I get back and let you know...

 

[Overread]

Google threw up a series of other references so the details might still be out there - but like I said I don't know enough of the science to really cast judgement.

I did try and read the wiki (yeah I know not always the best) Exposure (photography) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which appears to support that ISO isn't part of the process by way of not really mentioning it; however it does bring up a whole host of different types of exposure. Furthermore, myself, I fail to understand how, in photography, exposure can be worth mentioning without the addition of consideration of the receptiveness of the recording medium to the exposure it gets from the light itself. So its probable that - somewhere out there is a proper term "eg "Photographic Exposure"" which is the correct scientific name; but that in common parlance it gets dropped to just Exposure when its all photographers talking.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Nope. No point at all.

That's why I only use instamatic cameras in my half million dollar studio...

You are either the most stupid member of this forum I've read since last week or you are just trying to start the longest running thread based on abuse. Because, although I have no intention of reading all posts, they have to be mostly abuse thrown at you.

I tend to believe you are number 2. In search of attention.

I'm sorry.

 

[MLeeK]

I am shocked that this hasn't been stopped yet.
And here I was wondering why there was so many snippy replies on this forum. It's the norm!

 

[tevo]

I am shocked that this hasn't been stopped yet.
And here I was wondering why there was so many snippy replies on this forum. It's the norm!

And here comes Overread with his ring of keys..

 

[Overread]

Nope I'm already involved with the thread so specific moderation is being dealt with by the other mods (as/when they appear). My only contribution mod wise is possibly splitting the thread to take the ISO discussion out into a separate thread - however I'll wait and see what action is taken with regard to the rest of this thread first.

 

[Helen B]

Exposure is determined by a combination of sensitivity (ISO) and scene brightness. Fairly simple, isn't it? The formula for exposure value (Ev) is this:

Ev = Tv + Av = Bv + Sv

ie exposure is a combination of shutter speed and aperture and also a combination of scene brightness and sensitivity.

Best,
Helen

 

[Compaq]

It saddens me to see so many respected contributors in this community trying to win the argument with ad hoc arguments and hypotheses.

I agree with Kerbouchard (not sure if that's correct spelling, LOL). Also, I'd like to be so bold as to claim that the term "exposure triangle" isn't so a nifty a term as to believe no one before Mr. Peterson's days were able to think of it.