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

[camz]

That isn't good enough - TPF demands more of you!!!

But also did you catch Helen B's post ?

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

I did. By every definition, she was wrong. I have quoted the definitions, sourced the definitions, provided links, went in depth as to how a sensor works. Honestly, I just got tired of arguing. Between the posts by myself and Derrel, there is an abundance of info for people to make up their own mind. Honestly, I just don't care anymore.

I will read the link you provided and will get back to you, just not tonight. If this thread is locked by then, I'll just send you a PM with my response.

Kerbouchard and Over I think what Helen through out there was the definition of "Exposure Value" (Exposure value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) a high level system on including ISO or ASA into the mix similar which is the basis of the exposure triangle. Oppossed to the more lowever level or specific scientific term "Exposure" that we've been discussing...

 

[camz]

This is just an effort to make this the longest running post in forum history...

I'd have to agree with you...which is my last post here...

 

[Derrel]

ISO is something that can be considered and changed for every single exposure taken with a DSLR and should be treated differently than it once was.

Sorry young fella...but with sheet film, the film has been changed with EACH and EVERY shot. You could shoot film from multiple different manufacturers if desired...shoot some Agfa, a few frames of Ilford, a few frames of Kodak film....shoot panchromatic, orthochromatic, and infra-red film as well...

Same with medium format cameras with interchangeable backs...it takes around 5 seconds for me to switch backs on my Bronica, so I can go from a 6x6 aspect ratio camera, to a 6x4.5 aspect ratio shooting "talls", or to 24x36mm, or to 35mm panoramic aspect ratio...

I guess you never considered that changing the entire BRAND OF IMAGING MATERIAL (ie, changing the brand of film, and therefor the image "look") was possible before the big bad d-slr was invented....same with changing the actual CAPTURE ASPECT RATIO of the image--from 8x10, to 5x7 with reducing back, to 4x5 with reducing back, etc....or, use a view camera to shoot roll-film with a rollfilm back...shoot multiple image sizes...6x9, 6x7,6x6,6x4.5...from one camera!

Sorry my young Village Idiot...but the film way actually offers MORE flexibility than the d-slr way: an ancient Deardorf view camera could shoot 8x10 sheet, 5x7 sheet, or 4x5 sheet with reducing backs, as well as roll film. Medium format cameras have had interchangeable backs for over sixty years, allowing both the type of film (color slide, color negative, B&W negative, infrared) to be changed, as well as the aspect ratio (6x7,6x6,645 out of ONE camera---imagine that!) of images made...

And so, YES, back in the dark ages of the 1970's before you were born, it was possible to switch film--for each and every shot...with NO WASTE. Film cameras were so cheap that a fellow could often afford three or four of them, for less than the price of what one "pro" d-slr costs. When you say, "ISO is something that can be considered and changed for every single exposure taken", you might wish to plug in the finishing phrase " with a 1905 view camera made by Deardorf or Burke and James", or "with a 1955 Hasselblad 500" or "with a 1979 Bronica SQ rollfilm camera." And of course, then add on the part about switching film "types", like real infrared, as well as the SIZE of the capture area...

Sorry dude...you're about 120 yeas too late for the argument you're trying to make...your argument loses.

 

[Kerbouchard]

That isn't good enough - TPF demands more of you!!!

But also did you catch Helen B's post ?

I did. By every definition, she was wrong. I have quoted the definitions, sourced the definitions, provided links, went in depth as to how a sensor works. Honestly, I just got tired of arguing. Between the posts by myself and Derrel, there is an abundance of info for people to make up their own mind. Honestly, I just don't care anymore.

I will read the link you provided and will get back to you, just not tonight. If this thread is locked by then, I'll just send you a PM with my response.

Kerbouchard and Over I think what Helen through out there was the definition of "Exposure Value" (Exposure value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) a high level system on including ISO or ASA into the mix similar which is the basis of the exposure triangle. Oppossed to the more lowever level or specific scientific term "Exposure" that we've been discussing...

Yep, I think I was editing my post to add info as you added this...my edit and your post were around a minute apart.

 

[Overread]

In any case, there is also a difference between exposure value and exposure(which I have a feeling is what your link is going to bring up.) 'Exposure Value' is based on ISO 100 and refers to camera settings. Exposure measures photometric exposure.

Eh so photographers are lazy and call exposure value as exposure
As I said somewhere earlier that there was likely a prefix or suffix to "Exposure" for either the original exposure that you've been arguing or the exposure that photographers use to mean the sum of aperture, shutter speed and ISO.

So again its not that exposure has no use of ISO at all, but simply that you were trying to impose the Scientific exposure definition over the common use of the word exposure in photography without accepting that the average photographer is referring to exposure value rather than to exposure in pure science.

Ego no on was wrong - not those that said ISO has no meaning in exposure nor those that said it did; however there was significant confusion because one word was being used to cover two meanings.


(ps if exposure value works only for ISO 100 then I'm sure there might yet even be another exposure terminology for different ISOs, however the term exposure value does ring familiar as a term I've read in some book/resource before)

 

[tevo]

Technology changes and with that new techniques, teachings, and understandings have to come about as well. So, good on you for calling everyone a moron for developing a different understanding of how things work than you did.

NONSENSE. Pure, unadulterated nonsense. The "new technology" of d-slr photography is a shift from film capture to digital sensor. Almost everything else is the same. I can take a 1959 Nikon F 35mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens, and pop it onto a 2011-made Nikon D3100, and shoot pictures with it. I can use a 1980 Vivitar 285HV flash with it. I can reverse-mount a 1938-made 50mm 50mm f/3.5 Leica Elmar lens onto the front of a Nikon or Canon d-slr, and shoot macro shots with a lens made before Hitler rolled into Poland. I own lenses that I bought brand new when I was in college, before you were even BORN, that I still shoot occasionally on my Nikon digital bodies. Still the same old stuff,as always.Crazy things like f/2.5, f/4, f/5.6, and distances in feet and meters. Lens caps that work the same as the new ones, but which were made in the 1970's!!! zOMG!!! Except for the shift from film to digital sensor as the capture medium, there has not been a real tectonic shift in photography since...hmmmm, lemme see....since the flashbulb was invented in 1928. The basics of actual photography have not changed since before WW II.

I'm still trying to get a grasp though on how that light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens thingy works....all those nasty-named "Eff" numbers..even the mere thought of an "eff number" makes me blush!!! It's all so confusing, with the "Eff-sixteen" being a high number, but actually meaning a teensie-tiny light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy, and then we have like, Eff two point eight, which is like a low number value, but represents a big light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy...I just don't have the mathematical or scientific skills to understand how that system works. And I certainly do NOT APPROVE of the use of the "Eff word" or the vulgarity of using the "Eff word", as a way to describe the size of the light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy! We need to re-define that naughty Eff word!

Maybe we can all come together and sing Kumbaya, and then get rid of all those stuffy, scientifically-based, stuffy, outdated technical terms, and modernize the vocab!!! You know, combine Depth of Focus, and Depth of Field! And combine focal plane with focal point! And of course, we simply MUST, must, must stop using that naughty term "eff stop", and refer to it as the light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy. We need to re-define all that oldy-moldy stuff all those scientists and optical experts and eggheads came up with, and you know, kind of dumb-down the terminology so that it fits our modern ways!!!

I durnt have the maff skills to do it either

inb4 picking up trash and being a 13 year old girl

 

[Kerbouchard]

In any case, there is also a difference between exposure value and exposure(which I have a feeling is what your link is going to bring up.) 'Exposure Value' is based on ISO 100 and refers to camera settings. Exposure measures photometric exposure.

Eh so photographers are lazy and call exposure value as exposure
As I said somewhere earlier that there was likely a prefix or suffix to "Exposure" for either the original exposure that you've been arguing or the exposure that photographers use to mean the sum of aperture, shutter speed and ISO.

So again its not that exposure has no use of ISO at all, but simply that you were trying to impose the Scientific exposure definition over the common use of the word exposure in photography without accepting that the average photographer is referring to exposure value rather than to exposure in pure science.

Ego no on was wrong - not those that said ISO has no meaning in exposure nor those that said it did; however there was significant confusion because one word was being used to cover two meanings.


(ps if exposure value works only for ISO 100 then I'm sure there might yet even be another exposure terminology for different ISOs, however the term exposure value does ring familiar as a term I've read in some book/resource before)

EV does not work just on ISO 100. The base charts are based on ISO 100. Of course the base charts are also scalable for any other ISO.

As far as Exposure Value = Exposure, well, it doesn't. Exposure has a certain meaning. So does Exposure Value. Both take into effect different considerations and both have a place in photographic lingo, not just scientific lingo. When talking about ETTR, noise, dynamic range, etc, exposure is more important than Exposure Value. When talking about getting an image out of your camera that is at an appropriate brightness, Exposure Value is more important.

Like I said to young Destin, words have a specific meaning...especially when a technology or science has been around for over a hundred years. We don't just change those definitions on a whim to fit what new photographers think they should mean.

 

[Overread]

Like I said to young Destin, words have a specific meaning...especially when a technology or science has been around for over a hundred years. We don't just change those definitions on a whim to fit what new photographers think they should mean.

I'm not disagreeing - but at some point you have to accept that most photographers are not scientists and drop "Exposure Value" and just use "Exposure" when chatting about exposure. Without clearly splitting the two in your earlier post you confused many because you pulled exposure away to explain it, but didn't drop in the Exposure Value term to replace it with - ergo the debate and confusion that followed (not least fuelled by the fact that many guides/books do use Exposure rather than Exposure Value - a mistake on their part indeed; but also a reaction I suspect to the fact that the authors were photographers not scientists).

 

[Kerbouchard]

Like I said to young Destin, words have a specific meaning...especially when a technology or science has been around for over a hundred years. We don't just change those definitions on a whim to fit what new photographers think they should mean.

I'm not disagreeing - but at some point you have to accept that most photographers are not scientists and drop "Exposure Value" and just use "Exposure" when chatting about exposure. Without clearly splitting the two in your earlier post you confused many because you pulled exposure away to explain it, but didn't drop in the Exposure Value term to replace it with - ergo the debate and confusion that followed (not least fuelled by the fact that many guides/books do use Exposure rather than Exposure Value - a mistake on their part indeed; but also a reaction I suspect to the fact that the authors were photographers not scientists).

Sorry for the confusion. Again, this was posted in the Beyond the Basics section of this forum. Perhaps, I should not assume that the people that are posting here have a knowledge beyond the basics. My apologies. I will try to use smaller words in my future posts.

Again, my background is in Engineering. Heck, my degree is in Nuclear Engineering. I like to know how things work, and I tend to be exact in my words and my meanings.

In any case, ISO is still not part of Exposure.

 

[kundalini]

But also did you catch Helen B's post ?

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

I did, and she was incorrect.

I'd be careful about that George. Helen may have you for lunch.

 

[Kerbouchard]

But also did you catch Helen B's post ?

I did, and she was incorrect.

I'd be careful about that George. Helen may have you for lunch.

I doubt it... For all the reasons that were included in the parts of my post that you *snipped*.

But, as always, I welcome the debate and discussion.

 

[Helen B]

That isn't good enough - TPF demands more of you!!!

But also did you catch Helen B's post ?

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

I did, and she was incorrect.

N aperture
t is the exposure time in seconds

In any case, there is also a difference between exposure value and exposure(which I have a feeling is what your link is going to bring up.) 'Exposure Value' is based on ISO 100 and refers to camera settings. Exposure measures photometric exposure.

I have quoted the definitions, sourced the definitions, provided links, went in depth as to how a sensor works. Honestly, I just got tired of arguing. Between the posts by myself and Derrel, there is an abundance of info for people to make up their own mind. Honestly, I just don't care anymore.

I will read the link you provided and will get back to you, just not tonight. If this thread is locked by then, I'll just send you a PM with my response.

Two things struck me straight away: Ev is not based on ISO 100, and your formula is incomplete. It is a partial rewrite of the formula I quoted, and I'm surprised that you didn't see that straight away. Ev was laid out in an ASA Standard long before it was misunderstood by people who think it is based on ISO 100.

I'm fully aware of two of the definitions of exposure being the photometric (lm.s/m2) or radiometric (W.s/m2) ones and I use them frequently, but in my opinion, the more general definition that includes scene luminance and medium sensitivity is a more useful concept that has been used in the description and calculation of exposure for many decades. The key 'exposure formula' does not simply refer to shutter speed and aperture (and scene luminance if you wish) but also medium sensitivity. Describing an exposure as '4 seconds at f/4 at ISO 200' seems to be an accepted, informative and practical usage. Describing an exposure in lm.s/m2 or W.s/m2 can be just as practical, but in a different circumstances.

I would be interested to read which parts of my previous post were incorrect, in your opinion.

Best,
Helen

 

[Tiberius47]

The only cool looking aesthetic effects you can do with a camera are Depth of field, and Bokeh. Other than that, is there really any point in learning how to use Aperture, ISO, and Shutter Speed? I mean, can't a beginner just purchase an expensive DSLR and just shoot on auto and produce professional looking pictures? I mean, the only reason you would need aperture,ISO, or shutter speed is if you wanted to create depth of field, or bokeh. Other than that, what is the point though? Thats what confuses me..There really doesn't seem like there is much to do with a camera aside from bokeh and depth of field..That is all I ever see..

Depth of field is controlled by aperture, so if you want to use depth of field effects, you'll need to learn how to use aperture.

And what about showing movement in your shots? Although, by the tones of this post, panning the camera is beyond you.

 

[Village Idiot]

ISO is something that can be considered and changed for every single exposure taken with a DSLR and should be treated differently than it once was.

Sorry young fella...but with sheet film, the film has been changed with EACH and EVERY shot. You could shoot film from multiple different manufacturers if desired...shoot some Agfa, a few frames of Ilford, a few frames of Kodak film....shoot panchromatic, orthochromatic, and infra-red film as well...

Same with medium format cameras with interchangeable backs...it takes around 5 seconds for me to switch backs on my Bronica, so I can go from a 6x6 aspect ratio camera, to a 6x4.5 aspect ratio shooting "talls", or to 24x36mm, or to 35mm panoramic aspect ratio...

I guess you never considered that changing the entire BRAND OF IMAGING MATERIAL (ie, changing the brand of film, and therefor the image "look") was possible before the big bad d-slr was invented....same with changing the actual CAPTURE ASPECT RATIO of the image--from 8x10, to 5x7 with reducing back, to 4x5 with reducing back, etc....or, use a view camera to shoot roll-film with a rollfilm back...shoot multiple image sizes...6x9, 6x7,6x6,6x4.5...from one camera!

Sorry my young Village Idiot...but the film way actually offers MORE flexibility than the d-slr way: an ancient Deardorf view camera could shoot 8x10 sheet, 5x7 sheet, or 4x5 sheet with reducing backs, as well as roll film. Medium format cameras have had interchangeable backs for over sixty years, allowing both the type of film (color slide, color negative, B&W negative, infrared) to be changed, as well as the aspect ratio (6x7,6x6,645 out of ONE camera---imagine that!) of images made...

And so, YES, back in the dark ages of the 1970's before you were born, it was possible to switch film--for each and every shot...with NO WASTE. Film cameras were so cheap that a fellow could often afford three or four of them, for less than the price of what one "pro" d-slr costs. When you say, "ISO is something that can be considered and changed for every single exposure taken", you might wish to plug in the finishing phrase " with a 1905 view camera made by Deardorf or Burke and James", or "with a 1955 Hasselblad 500" or "with a 1979 Bronica SQ rollfilm camera." And of course, then add on the part about switching film "types", like real infrared, as well as the SIZE of the capture area...

Sorry dude...you're about 120 yeas too late for the argument you're trying to make...your argument loses.

Awesome, you quote one line from my entire post and try and skew it to favor whatever you want to rant about. You kind of forgot the part of my post where I mention 35mm film and nothing of sheet film and such. And sure, you can carry around 10 different camera with 10 different types of film. Some people just have GAS like that. But I'm pretty sure in the 5 seconds you're switching backs and cameras and keeping things straight with your 20 different types of film with 10 bodies and switching out lenses between then, I've already fired off multiple shots at multiple ISO settings.

Switching the ISO is simpler and easier than it's ever been. It's something a person can do with their eye still to the view finder and without having 20 extra pieces of gear. If you wanted to do a shoot walking around somewhere with all that gear, how many assistants would you need? I know I can fit a camera with two lenses, a flash, and some triggers into a 5MDH and walk around DC with myself and a model and not have to carry extra bodies, extra film, or whatever else you would need for your menagerie.

Old people can be stubborn and resist change, but regardless of what they do, technology will keep moving forward and techniques will continue to evolve. You can be stuck in your precious film days all you want, but a lot of use like embracing new technology with the ability to give us a one up on the competition and those that refuse to change.

 

[dots]

Hey Will.. I enjoy reading "Slough Roast". I remember looking at it a while ago. Pleased that you carry on with it. :thumbup: