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

[thereyougo!]

Yep - its agreeing with what I said earlier - that the disagreement in the thread stems from the fact that a few started talking about Exposure in scientific terms on a photography forum where the average person us not a scientist, but a photographer and thus uses the technical term with a slight variation on the meaning.

Ergo no one was disagreeing, just that those with the science background tried to make a statement about a definition of a word without fully expressing that they were not referring to the same word that the average photographer understands.

Whilst getting mixed in there was some crazy stuff about how ISO has only been important since the digital age or since Bryan Peterson wrote a book (which as far as I can tell is a whole red-herring argument).

No, it's not. That post is acknowledging that beginners don't need to know how their camera works and that the actual meanings of words have become corrupted by other newbies and passed down as credible information. I can go to downtown Dallas and listen to all sorts of conversations with idiots who improperly use words but still manage to get their message across. They manage to communicate, but it's not because those words have an actual meaning. It's more because their level of ignorance is equal and they are on the same page. That works for them there. Now, if they were to enter a Board Room, they would be completely out of place.

This is the 'beyond the basics' section. The people who post here should have an understanding beyond the basics. If they don't, they should accept(and welcome) their ideas to get challenged. That goes for the Moderators, too. Like I said earlier, this thread has made it clear why just about every new topic is posted in the beginner's forum. The main 'clique' and most active of the members here seem to belong there.

When you are using words that have an actual definition, you shouldn't attribute a 'new definition' to those terms just because others like you understand what you are saying. It doesn't work that way. Words have a true meaning. On an international forum, it's only fair that you use words in their established way. Like I said, I don't care what you do in the beginner's forum. That has nothing to do with a 'beyond the basics' thread regarding ISO, aperture, and shutter speed.

Photography was invented by scientists. The terms that are used are well defined. Just because you want them to mean something different or don't 'feel' they are well defined, gives you no right to ignore the science that makes photography possible(or the dictionary). As far as ISO not being important, I'm not sure that was ever stated. Of course it's important. Just as much in digital as it was in film. Still doesn't make it part of exposure.

Put simply, a lot of you ended up with egg on your face. There isn't any justifying it. There isn't any way to make all the or the :lmao: look any better. All you end up looking like is .

It's just a bit sad that a moderator decided to take part in the piling on.

I referenced the definitions, I referenced my statements with facts. You decided to attempt to make fun of me saying I was all alone and out on left field. One more person who won't back down to a mob comes along, and the entire dynamic changes...It's actually a bit funny to me. After we got past that, I think a few people actually learned something. So, all in all, IMO, the discussion had merit.

In any case, as I said to Destin, words have a meaning. This is an international forum, people should not choose to ignore the definition of a word from every credible dictionary, encyclopedia, or scientific journal just because the established definition isn't one they agree with. Sounds more like a problem with the individual that shouldn't be forced out as gospel.

Like I said, the fact that the same freaking book is recommended to every single new poster might have something to do with some of the common misconceptions of this forum when in reality, it isn't all that complicated.

Haven't finished reading this thread, but I'm sorry this just comes over as pure snobbery. The capability to take a photograph may or may not have been invented by a scientist, but that doesn't make photography a science, no more than driving a car (ironically the internal combustion engine invention attributed to same person) is science. Photography is an artform, and to make the best of it, you need to know at least the basics of how your camera works and what settings you should use. That is reeally what this thread was about. Your lecturing is off topic and quite unhelpful. I don't really care whether it is a science or not, or who gave it this or that term. I don't need to know who invented what to take a good photo, but then what is a good photograph is highly subjective in any case, which science generally.
I think the tone of your posts is a little patronising. Whether people see themselves as a beginner, or advancing 'beyond the basics' is also highly subjective to that person. I feel there are far too many advanced photos and posts in the beginners section which is making it harder for beginners to get information.

Photography is for all, not just for engineers and scientists. What would it look like if it was left to engineers and scientists? I dread to think!

 

[osumisan]

Shooting on Auto mode is very easy and takes no thought process. But if you want to shoot indoors, or at night, or in difficult situations, auto mode will fail you more times than not. Also, if you are not interested in learning shutter speed, aperature, or ISO, why not just buy a cheap point and shoot camera instead of wasting money on a DSLR that you wont even need? It's like the old guys who drive a Porche and then only drive 25mph in the slow lane....

 

[tevo]

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.

-_________- more math.

 

[tevo]

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.

Derrel isnt old, he is wise. (;

Wow!!! 212 replies. I thought YES would suffice.

Welcome to TPF!

:lmao:

Yep - its agreeing with what I said earlier - that the disagreement in the thread stems from the fact that a few started talking about Exposure in scientific terms on a photography forum where the average person us not a scientist, but a photographer and thus uses the technical term with a slight variation on the meaning.

Ergo no one was disagreeing, just that those with the science background tried to make a statement about a definition of a word without fully expressing that they were not referring to the same word that the average photographer understands.

Whilst getting mixed in there was some crazy stuff about how ISO has only been important since the digital age or since Bryan Peterson wrote a book (which as far as I can tell is a whole red-herring argument).

No, it's not. That post is acknowledging that beginners don't need to know how their camera works and that the actual meanings of words have become corrupted by other newbies and passed down as credible information. I can go to downtown Dallas and listen to all sorts of conversations with idiots who improperly use words but still manage to get their message across. They manage to communicate, but it's not because those words have an actual meaning. It's more because their level of ignorance is equal and they are on the same page. That works for them there. Now, if they were to enter a Board Room, they would be completely out of place.

This is the 'beyond the basics' section. The people who post here should have an understanding beyond the basics. If they don't, they should accept(and welcome) their ideas to get challenged. That goes for the Moderators, too. Like I said earlier, this thread has made it clear why just about every new topic is posted in the beginner's forum. The main 'clique' and most active of the members here seem to belong there.

When you are using words that have an actual definition, you shouldn't attribute a 'new definition' to those terms just because others like you understand what you are saying. It doesn't work that way. Words have a true meaning. On an international forum, it's only fair that you use words in their established way. Like I said, I don't care what you do in the beginner's forum. That has nothing to do with a 'beyond the basics' thread regarding ISO, aperture, and shutter speed.

Photography was invented by scientists. The terms that are used are well defined. Just because you want them to mean something different or don't 'feel' they are well defined, gives you no right to ignore the science that makes photography possible(or the dictionary). As far as ISO not being important, I'm not sure that was ever stated. Of course it's important. Just as much in digital as it was in film. Still doesn't make it part of exposure.

Put simply, a lot of you ended up with egg on your face. There isn't any justifying it. There isn't any way to make all the or the :lmao: look any better. All you end up looking like is .

It's just a bit sad that a moderator decided to take part in the piling on.

I referenced the definitions, I referenced my statements with facts. You decided to attempt to make fun of me saying I was all alone and out on left field. One more person who won't back down to a mob comes along, and the entire dynamic changes...It's actually a bit funny to me. After we got past that, I think a few people actually learned something. So, all in all, IMO, the discussion had merit.

In any case, as I said to Destin, words have a meaning. This is an international forum, people should not choose to ignore the definition of a word from every credible dictionary, encyclopedia, or scientific journal just because the established definition isn't one they agree with. Sounds more like a problem with the individual that shouldn't be forced out as gospel.

Like I said, the fact that the same freaking book is recommended to every single new poster might have something to do with some of the common misconceptions of this forum when in reality, it isn't all that complicated.

Haven't finished reading this thread, but I'm sorry this just comes over as pure snobbery. The capability to take a photograph may or may not have been invented by a scientist, but that doesn't make photography a science, no more than driving a car (ironically the internal combustion engine invention attributed to same person) is science. Photography is an artform, and to make the best of it, you need to know at least the basics of how your camera works and what settings you should use. That is reeally what this thread was about. Your lecturing is off topic and quite unhelpful. I don't really care whether it is a science or not, or who gave it this or that term. I don't need to know who invented what to take a good photo, but then what is a good photograph is highly subjective in any case, which science generally.
I think the tone of your posts is a little patronising. Whether people see themselves as a beginner, or advancing 'beyond the basics' is also highly subjective to that person. I feel there are far too many advanced photos and posts in the beginners section which is making it harder for beginners to get information.

Photography is for all, not just for engineers and scientists. What would it look like if it was left to engineers and scientists? I dread to think!

thereyougo!, meet George! George, thereyougo!

 

[unpopular]

You know, Derrel, I might only be 30, but I've had plenty of time with the view camera. Plenty of time in the dark with little green LEDs doing inspection development. I've compounded my own b/w developers. I've shot lots of chrome. I too owned and used a Bronica S-series. I've owned and used cameras that were in prouction before YOU were born. SO I am not sure what the issue is.

Even with all the advantages of film, in particular b/w film, you can't possibly be suggesting that the darkroom is more "flexible". Yeah, you had a choice of various films and formats, but all of those films can be simulated in the digital darkroom and the highest end of systems are aproaching at least the practical resolution of medium format, if not larger. All those reduction backs are doing is cropping. That's all.

If you're *more* limited by the capture of a quality digital camera over film, it's not the camera that is limiting - it's the digital darkroom skills you possess.

So. While you have very nicely illustrated argumentum ad verecundiam, I for one am not terribly impressed with this post, nor any other which you had authored. Though this particular post which I am referring is just obnoxious and truely shows your arrogance and lack of technical understanding in the matter.

 

[Kerbouchard]

You know, Derrel, I might only be 30, but I've had plenty of time with the view camera. Plenty of in the dark with little green LEDs doing inspection development. I've compounded my own b/w developers. I've shot lots of chrome. I too owned and used a Bronica S-series. I've owned and used cameras that were in prouction before YOU were born. SO I am not sure what the issue is.

Even with all the advantages of film, in particular b/w film, you can't possibly be suggesting that the darkroom is more "flexible". Yeah, you had a choice of various films and formats, but all of those films can be simulated in the digital darkroom and teh highest end of systems are aproaching at least the practical resolution of medium format, if not larger. If you're more limited by the capture of a quality digital camera over film, it's not the camera that is limiting - it's the digital darkroom skills you posess.

So. While you have very nicely illustrated argumentum ad verecundiam, I for one am not terribly impressed with this post, nor any other which you had authored. Though this particular post which I am refering is just obnoxious and truely shows your arrogance and lack of technical understanding in the matter.

Argumentum ad hominem?

 

[unpopular]

^^ me? how?

or

him? If so, definitely. But, that one is over used

Though, perhaps not argumentum ad vercundiam - can you be the authority within your own fallacy?

ETA:

So. While you have very nicely illustrated argumentum ad verecundiam, I for one am not terribly impressed with this post, nor any other which you had authored. Though this particular post which I am refering is just obnoxious and truely shows your arrogance and lack of technical understanding in the matter.

yeah, maybe. lol.

 

[MLeeK]

Dear Lord, will this post never DIE???

 

[dots]

How's work? Been shooting?

Dear Lord, will this post never DIE???

 

[MLeeK]

How's work? Been shooting?

Dear Lord, will this post never DIE???

LOL! Yep, been shooting a LOT! I have some stuff to post as soon as I get it uploaded!
how about you, been shooting much? Anything good??? Fun??

 

[Sammie_Lou]

I sure hope there's a point to learning it all...otherwise, I've been wasting a LOT of time lately.

 

[dots]

Learning about editing in L*A*B :thumbup:

How's work? Been shooting?

Dear Lord, will this post never DIE???

LOL! Yep, been shooting a LOT! I have some stuff to post as soon as I get it uploaded!
how about you, been shooting much? Anything good??? Fun??

 

[dots]

Got lots of NEF/TIf/JPEG to sort out and edit down (and down and down)..from the about the last 2 months or so. Decided what to do.

 

[dots]

Deciding*


cheers,

 

[tevo]

What has happened to this thread