New exposure concept? Looking for your valued feedback!

[photo1x1.com]

Hey people,
I haven´t posted too much in recent months, one reason is that my brain was constantly thinking about a conversation we had a while back. Some of you will probably remember - it was a long winding thread about "exposure" or better "camera exposure", and I noted a lot of what you people said.
I have never been happy with how exposure was explained, particularly the exposure triangle, but this thread got the ball rolling. So I was thinking about how I can come up with a better concept.
And here I am back again asking you for your feedback on a concept I have been working on for pretty long. I call it exposure bars. I don´t want to talk too much about it, because I´d love to hear your honest opinion without any input from my side, but here is a short note why I think there needs to be a new concept:
the exposure triangle has two major drawbacks:

1. It doesn´t show the relation between the 3 components it mentions
   
2. It leaves the most important component of image brightness out of the equation: scene luminance. Our settings for aperture, shutter speed, and ISO are only a reaction to scene luminance, so it doesn´t make sense to not incorporate that component in any concept dealing with image brightness.

So any and all of your feedback is welcome and much appreciated. Be harsh, rather than polite .

 

[Designer]

I have never been happy with how exposure was explained, particularly the exposure triangle,

I'm not surprised. In digital photography, the ISO setting has nothing to do with exposure. The sensitivity and dynamic range of the sensor does influence exposure, but will vary with each model of sensor.

So what does ISO do? The ISO setting is applied gain, which by definition must be applied AFTER the data is captured, therefore does not influence the exposure. It does inform your firmware how to generate the JPEG image that your camera then displays on the LCD, and naturally includes the imbedded JPEG file that resides within the Raw file. When you compensate for the ISO setting, what you are seeing is the JPEG result of the setting, so that is why most people assume it has influenced the actual exposure, hence the "triangle" concept.

 

[Braineack]

i literally have 1/160 set to my min shutter speed...

 

[D7K]

i literally have 1/160 set to my min shutter speed...

You never shoot below 1/160?

 

[photo1x1.com]

I have never been happy with how exposure was explained, particularly the exposure triangle,

I'm not surprised. In digital photography, the ISO setting has nothing to do with exposure. The sensitivity and dynamic range of the sensor does influence exposure, but will vary with each model of sensor.

So what does ISO do? The ISO setting is applied gain, which by definition must be applied AFTER the data is captured, therefore does not influence the exposure. It does inform your firmware how to generate the JPEG image that your camera then displays on the LCD, and naturally includes the imbedded JPEG file that resides within the Raw file. When you compensate for the ISO setting, what you are seeing is the JPEG result of the setting, so that is why most people assume it has influenced the actual exposure, hence the "triangle" concept.

I know that, that´s why I wanted to come up with something that is better. I hope I was successful.

 

[photo1x1.com]

i literally have 1/160 set to my min shutter speed...

That wouldn´t help you much with fireworks or night sky shots.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

We will always try to impose an order or *rationality* in an attempt to gain that understanding of a process but in reality all we are doing is applying labels to fit it within a definition we can understand. It relies on labels and we argue about the definition of those labels because our understanding relies upon the links we make between the words and their meanings.

The biggest loss is when we do this we fail to see outside our definition because our aim is to make sure it stays within that definition. We stop thinking, observing and learning. We fail to see the whole picture and so fail to understand the more abstract connections.

It's simple, the constant is the sensor, the variable the amount of light. In order to make a specific tone the sensor needs to record a specific amount of light in all cases. The job of exposure is to take the varying light and make sure that the same specific amount of light hits the sensor in all cases when you want to produce that specific tone.

For this you have two controls, aperture and shutter speed. They both impact on how the camera abstracts the scene. How they do this varies from one scene to the next. They are all related and those relationships can be more abstract than linear. With digital you have the option of being able to use different combinations of aperture and shutter speed to produce that same tone, ISO. But again the exact relationship is a little more abstract.

You must let go of the rigid framework and instead adopt a loose understanding, one you can adapt and change with experience and observation. It's about and understanding the impact on the finished image, not about finding the lowest common denominator so we can produce a bar graph.

 

[Braineack]

That wouldn´t help you much with fireworks or night sky shots.

The reason I bring it up is because I don't like the Sunny 16 rule-of-thumb which is basically what the sunny scenario in your chart is. I simply will never shoot that small of an aperture and I certainly try never to hand-hold a SS that low with 36MP, so I hate seeing it as an example. I still see references to it all over the place, meanwhile I shoot 5.6 and below in the sun... it's simply not a good starting out point, especially in these crazy times of built in light meters.

I know that, that´s why I wanted to come up with something that is better. I hope I was successful.

I like the idea, but I'd remove ISO.

Then I'd show better examples of larger chunks of bars with different scenarios.

for example, a sunny day I'd have the luminance take up 3/4 of the total area, f/16 taking up a very small portion.


then for overcast at f/5.6 I'd make sure that the total area of the aperture is mathematically proportionate to f/16 -- leaving SS alone.

mathematically, these are accurate:

then I would represent the same scenarios, with changing the apertures, and compensating with the SS.

I think that will give a better visual representation -- ISO introduces an unnecessary variable and you can address is separately. I think it's more useful to show how ISO can extend or reduce the over/under exposure to bring the image back to ideal.

but obviously try to make it accurate to scale. I think this will help convey what affect ISO has on the final output, without suggesting it actually has something to do with the exposure. You take what has been exposed and amplify artificially after the fact -- like a volume knob, but only for light. You're not changing how loud the band recorded their record, but you can still manipulate the loudness...





you sub-label for SS is wrong, same as aperture.

 

[photo1x1.com]

That wouldn´t help you much with fireworks or night sky shots.

The reason I bring it up is because I don't like the Sunny 16 rule-of-thumb which is basically what the sunny scenario in your chart is. I simply will never shoot that small of an aperture and I certainly try never to hand-hold a SS that low with 36MP, so I hate seeing it as an example. I still see references to it all over the place, meanwhile I shoot 5.6 and below in the sun... it's simply not a good starting out point, especially in these crazy times of built in light meters.

I know that, that´s why I wanted to come up with something that is better. I hope I was successful.

I like the idea, but I'd remove ISO.

Then I'd show better examples of larger chunks of bars with different scenarios.

for example, a sunny day I'd have the luminance take up 3/4 of the total area, f/16 taking up a very small portion.


then for overcast at f/5.6 I'd make sure that the total area of the aperture is mathematically proportionate to f/16 -- leaving SS alone.

mathematically, these are accurate:

View attachment 169271

then I would represent the same scenarios, with changing the apertures, and compensating with the SS.

View attachment 169273


I think that will give a better visual representation -- ISO introduces an unnecessary variable and you can address is separately. I think it's more useful to show how ISO can extend or reduce the over/under exposure to bring the image back to ideal.

View attachment 169276

but obviously try to make it accurate to scale.





you sub-label for SS is wrong, same as aperture.

Thanks a lot for the time and thoughts you put into this - very much appreciated.
I like the idea of the bigger chunks and giving the scene luminance more significance. I´ll have another try at that.
My first thought was doing it proportional, but the problem is it will not work. Like in your last example of ISO200 - that bar would have to be twice as big, as ISO100, when shutter speed 1/200 is half of 1/100

In regard to leaving out ISO. I too have thought about that, but then I thought many people will be confused, so I thought addressing the issue in the text will be a better.

I´m absolutely with you on f16. I may reconsider that as it might imply that f16 is a great starting point.

So thanks again for your feedback!!!

 

[D7K]

....f/16....f/5.6... Don't we shoot at the required settings for the shot we need? I sure as S*** don't shoot at f16 because the sun shines, and I'd miss a lot of my shots if I shot at f/5.6 in the sun and daylight then I would never achieve what I want..

F-this / ISO-that / SS-the other... You shoot what you need to shoot to achieve what you want to achieve...no? Learn these things and apply them to get what you want....?

 

[Braineack]

My first thought was doing it proportional, but the problem is it will not work. Like in your last example of ISO200 - that bar would have to be twice as big, as ISO100, when shutter speed 1/200 is half of 1/100

easy solution. ISO 100 should start off as no space whatsoever. i think you can get it to be close to real scale if you work at it.

but I like the idea of showing the 3 bars only first to solidify the concept of how SS and f/stops play in a given scene, then to add ISO and over/under into the equation.


Once finalized, I would seriously consider trying to come up with a good infographic on how the built in meter works and how you can use EV. That's one that I see stumps a lot of beginners, and IMHO a very important one to learn/understand.

 

[photo1x1.com]

We will always try to impose an order or *rationality* in an attempt to gain that understanding of a process but in reality all we are doing is applying labels to fit it within a definition we can understand. It relies on labels and we argue about the definition of those labels because our understanding relies upon the links we make between the words and their meanings.

The biggest loss is when we do this we fail to see outside our definition because our aim is to make sure it stays within that definition. We stop thinking, observing and learning. We fail to see the whole picture and so fail to understand the more abstract connections.

It's simple, the constant is the sensor, the variable the amount of light. In order to make a specific tone the sensor needs to record a specific amount of light in all cases. The job of exposure is to take the varying light and make sure that the same specific amount of light hits the sensor in all cases when you want to produce that specific tone.

For this you have two controls, aperture and shutter speed. They both impact on how the camera abstracts the scene. How they do this varies from one scene to the next. They are all related and those relationships can be more abstract than linear. With digital you have the option of being able to use different combinations of aperture and shutter speed to produce that same tone, ISO. But again the exact relationship is a little more abstract.

You must let go of the rigid framework and instead adopt a loose understanding, one you can adapt and change with experience and observation. It's about and understanding the impact on the finished image, not about finding the lowest common denominator so we can produce a bar graph.

Absolutely, Tim! But we didn´t start with the knowledge we have now. This isn´t meant to tell people what exact settings to use with which scene luminance. It is meant to show people how these settings correlate, so that they can do exactly what you say.

 

[photo1x1.com]

My first thought was doing it proportional, but the problem is it will not work. Like in your last example of ISO200 - that bar would have to be twice as big, as ISO100, when shutter speed 1/200 is half of 1/100

easy solution. ISO 100 should start off as no space whatsoever. i think you can get it to be close to real scale if you work at it.

but I like the idea of showing the 3 bars only first to solidify the concept of how SS and f/stops play in a given scene, then to add ISO and over/under into the equation.


Once finalized, I would seriously consider trying to come up with a good infographic on how the built in meter works and how you can use EV. That's one that I see stumps a lot of beginners, and IMHO a very important one to learn/understand.

Great idea regarding the built in meter. I was planning a video on that, so this might be a good addition.
Regarding the close to real scale, it gets worse, so I´m afraid the real scale isn´t possible. I´ve also thought about other analogies, but the problem is always the scale.

 

[photo1x1.com]

....f/16....f/5.6... Don't we shoot at the required settings for the shot we need? I sure as S*** don't shoot at f16 because the sun shines, and I'd miss a lot of my shots if I shot at f/5.6 in the sun and daylight then I would never achieve what I want..

F-this / ISO-that / SS-the other... You shoot what you need to shoot to achieve what you want to achieve...no? Learn these things and apply them to get what you want....?

Maybe I should have stated that this cheat sheat isn´t meant for me. It is meant to help beginners understand the correlation between the components that make up image brightness.

 

[D7K]

....f/16....f/5.6... Don't we shoot at the required settings for the shot we need? I sure as S*** don't shoot at f16 because the sun shines, and I'd miss a lot of my shots if I shot at f/5.6 in the sun and daylight then I would never achieve what I want..

F-this / ISO-that / SS-the other... You shoot what you need to shoot to achieve what you want to achieve...no? Learn these things and apply them to get what you want....?

Maybe I should have stated that this cheat sheat isn´t meant for me. It is meant to help beginners understand the correlation between the components that make up image brightness.

Sure, My oversight I guess..