New exposure concept? Looking for your valued feedback!

[photo1x1.com]

"Photography is much easier than that."

Exactly right. If people are so dull as to not understand fractions, then why are you bothering to attempt to teach the finer points of photography? Wouldn't it be much simpler and faster to simply tell them to "put it in green auto and press the button", rather than all that aperture and shutter speed stuff?

With all due respect, I feel that is an unsuitable reply. Be greatful for the brainpower you have.
People that find it hard to understand certain things are much more greatful for help than most others.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

...... It's a log scale and will never fit into a linear bar graph............

Explain slide rules then.

Slide rules use log scales and not linear bar graphs?

 

[480sparky39 38]

...... It's a log scale and will never fit into a linear bar graph............

Explain slide rules then.

Slide rules use log scales and not linear bar graphs?

What's the difference? Cannot one create a log bar graph and use it instead of a scale?

 

[photo1x1.com]

I totally get your point about the way we learn, and I totally understand that you need to avoid explaining it in terms of a log scale because that really does confuse beginners. It was noted because it makes it impossible to convert the relationships to a linear scale that makes sense.

I was just going for an example that would create decent image brightness

The way I read this I feel that you are still not getting the concept of exposure or how to reduce it to the simplest terms. Your diagram looks at variations in the levels of light and the brightness of the image both as variables but fails to provide any constant or fixed point, the aim or what exposure seeks to achieve.

To simplify talk only about a camera generated jpeg, this removes any PP effects.

In a camera jpeg displayed on your screen or the LCD on the back of the camera the colours and values of light are fixed on the RGB scale from 0-255 and mid grey is 128. This requires a fixed amount of light to fall on the sensor in all cases to produce that tone. It is your constant.

If you're trying to explain the abstract to students then you need to create a fixed point around which everything else moves and this is it. The concept of image brightness itself is an abstract one and not really the function of exposure, exposure and visualisation is about being able to reproduce consistently the tones you want in the image at the brightness you want. If you want a darker image then you need to know how to produce that darker grey, but essentially you are still aiming to produce a fixed and known tone which requires a fixed and known amount of light. So we have two stages, teaching how to convert mid grey in a scene as mid grey on the sensor, then how to vary exposure to produce mid grey as a darker grey.

If you work with mid grey then you reference directly how the meter in your camera works. So we have a mid grey card in bright sunlight and one on a dark night. The aim of exposure is to ensure that the amount of light reflected off the card, through the lens and onto the sensor is exactly the same in both cases. The only information the camera provides through it's meter are the settings for shutter speed, aperture and ISO to achieve this. Again we are at the fixed constant.

We have four variables in this model, the amount of light reflected off the card, the aperture, shutter speed and ISO. So we nw see how they relate if our aim is to produce the same fixed signal at the sensor, mid grey.

You can't explain this in one diagram, it requires two at least. As an abstract why not think in abstract terms? At the moment you are thinking only of the absolute as in the settings themselves and how to make them add to a constant, but they don't. If the constant is the fixed level of light hitting the sensor then why not use a model that shows how to subtract light so what is left is constant? Why are you using absolute scales as the actual settings? If you use abstract scales such as Increase/Decrease you avoid the log scale because you avoid using any defined unit.

Try something like this, but you still need a separate diagram to explain the effects of the selections you make which can now be your original minus the *Scene Luminance* the exact way you had it:

View attachment 169309

Thanks again, Tim. I know I´m trying to exchange something that is not correct with somthing that isn´t perfect either. But I´m afraid your approach would confuse most people. In my experience there is little knowledge of even the basic things most learned at school, 5 years after they left school. So of course I could create a scientifically correct chart with all the info starting with photons and going all the way to A/D conversion. But that´s exactly what is intimidating so many people when it comes to photography. I want to show them how easy it is to create great images. Yet many people have issues understanding what causes image brightness. I want to pave their way to easier get there rather than being scientifically correct.
I know I was asking for harsh ctitique - and I absolutely appreciate all of the comments and the thoughts and time that went into your answers. It helped me improve certain points, but I´m afraid incorporating your approach would make the chart not usable for most people new to photography.
I hope for your understanding.

 

[Braineack]

Just teach EV; that wont be complicated

I like showing the exposure triangle in a bar graph. and i like how you added in scene brightness.

Starting with this will teach a reader that working with available light means you have to make changes to the f/stop and SS to achieve an "ideal" exposure. This actually sneaks in the idea of EV and will be useful later on if you teach about light metering.

I would then introduce the concept of over/under exposure to the above.

once that concept is grasped, you can introduce ISO to the bar graph, to convey how it can amplify the brightness of a scene and the results of the final output.

I'm personally not a fan of the charts you made on iso, ss, and aperture. To me they are confusing and hard to grasp since each has a few affects over the final output. I would would like to see a little more elaboration on each.

SS -- The total exposure time. We need to express that it's two-fold. First a longer shutter can increase the exposure, but it also introduces blur since you're capturing an image over time. I think it's important to not only talk about the movement of the subject, but the movement of the shooter themselves.

A -- The total amount of light. Again, we need to express two things: the total amount of light you're letting in over the SS time, but also the affects on DOF. But then it's important to note that in a dark setting, you may want to use f/2.8 to get more light, but then have a paper-thin DOF, so in order to gain back DOF, you have to make a change to SS and/or ISO to compensate from what we learned above. Because if we simply increase the SS, then we might end up with completely blurry images.

ISO -- The volume knob. Really I like this analogy. Just as in stereo, the more you pump it, the more noise you can hear/see.

II'd rather these be more infographic like with more explanation, than the charts. I've seen those charts all over the internet and frankly I don't find them helpful. IMHO if you do the above, from top to bottom the reader should come away with a greater understanding.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

I’ve heard this before but I don’t understand why it’s not good advice. I would interpret it to mean that as long as the aperture and SS are set correctly to adequately take the picture (meaning DoF is appropriate and desirable, and no motion blur) then what would be the reason to increase the ISO? Why would I intentionally set the ISO higher when I could set it lower and still capture the shot?

what if you're using flash and need a good blend of ambient and flash exposure -- shoot at 100 iso and you might end up with bright faces [with 1/1 power] on a pitch black BG. shoot at iso 800 and you might end up with well blended subjects to the BG.

what if shooting at iso 100 requires a SS that's simply too slow and introduces blur? But shooting at iso 1600 gives you 4 stops of speed and better results?

not all sensors are iso invariant and it goes both ways; so it's really not a great "rule".

Like I mentioned above, I have a min. shutter speed set at 1/160, last weekend I was shooting in a dark warehouse using a 3.5-5.6 lens in A mode -- for what i considered best results--since I was also in auto-iso--most my shots ended up between 2800-6400iso.

Sure I could have shot at iso 100 and pushed it 5 stops to 3200 in post, but I would have no more latitude after that and really pushing things and the exposure in-camera is a guess since the shot would look pitch black in the preview. And since the images look identical after pushing in post, how is shooting at 100 giving me better results. it really isn't.

Or I could have shot at 100 and dropped the shutter to something like 1/6sec, but then all my shots would have been blurry --- is that best results?

I’m not sure you read my whole post. I had said that if the shot was correct the way you intended it to be, why would you then increase the ISO? So no motion blur, and lit the way you wanted it? On your dark warehouse, why didn’t you increase your ISO twice as much and allow you SS to be twice as fast?

I would never say that ISO should be lowered to the point of sacrificing the shot but I think that saying lower is better is still accurate.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Thanks again, Tim. I know I´m trying to exchange something that is not correct with somthing that isn´t perfect either. But I´m afraid your approach would confuse most people. In my experience there is little knowledge of even the basic things most learned at school, 5 years after they left school. So of course I could create a scientifically correct chart with all the info starting with photons and going all the way to A/D conversion. But that´s exactly what is intimidating so many people when it comes to photography. I want to show them how easy it is to create great images. Yet many people have issues understanding what causes image brightness. I want to pave their way to easier get there rather than being scientifically correct.
I know I was asking for harsh ctitique - and I absolutely appreciate all of the comments and the thoughts and time that went into your answers. It helped me improve certain points, but I´m afraid incorporating your approach would make the chart not usable for most people new to photography.
I hope for your understanding.

There is a PS. to this and it requires that you ask yourself what it is that you are trying to achieve.

Are you trying to illustrate an abstract concept in a way that your student finds easier to understand or are you trying to nail an abstract concept into absolute values so you can form an understanding?

If it's the former then you must be vague because it is only then that the student will question and learn. If you force your own absolute version then you deny them the ability to work it out for themselves, you suppress thought and learning, you simply provide your rigid idea.

The use of a rigid language with strict definition is a device that's been used for centuries by Authoritarian Bodies to suppress free thought and control bodies of people. Take *subversive* or *suppressive person* as examples, once the label is applied then the exact nature of the person and your behaviour towards them is defined and demanded. There is no room for your personal judgement.

When teaching you must remember this and allow the student room to make their own connections and understanding. You have to trust and encourage them to question and think, not do it for them. I find your original confused and fairly incomprehensible. As I said it bulldozes through abstract connections and concepts in a way I found difficult to *un-learn*.

Image brightness is a fairly abstract concept as the output space, (monitor) has a fixed range of brightness. You can control it better with the brightness knob that you can with the camera shutter speed, and neither will allow you to reproduce consistent and neutral skin tones in print. Less exposure (absolute light on sensor) = darker image/more light = brighter image is simply an incorrect and misleading concept. What it translates to in reality the inability to achieve consistent colour in images.

So lets consider another output space for images which similarly has a fixed back and a fixed white, the brightness of which you can't vary, (just like a print or computer monitor). Take a white piece of paper and a graphite pencil. Now explain to your student, who's advanced a little and is eager to learn more, how to create bright and dark images.

Take the two images below, one looks like it is taken in bright sunlight and the other in darker diffuse light. Yet both have exactly the same range of brightness on your screen, in fact the lower one has the greatest proportion of lighter tones, it's actually brighter:

You're trying fit everything into your understanding, you trying to squeeze it so it fits into your incomplete logic. And in doing this you deny your student the tools to progress beyond you, they will always be limited by what you don't understand. It's another abstract concept but one you must accept. The aim of teaching is in getting others to progress beyond you, not limit them.

By far the biggest problem and limitation I find on forum and Internet based learning is people trying to force photography into the logic of *left brain* thought. I can't stress what a handicap this is for those who wish to pursue a more creative *right brain* approach. You basically imprison them within the confines of your own self imposed pigeon holes, the logical structure you impose so you can understand. But by teaching that rigid logic you deny them the opportunity to understand and make the abstract connections that are essential to creativity. To take an obvious one, how many photographers understand that texture is the memory of touch and not the visual reality contained in reflected light? Does your teaching allow the student the possibility of making that connection themselves?

Exposure is about being able to produce consistent and repeatable tones on light sensitive media. What you do with them afterwards is another essay, but start with the ability to do this.

I'm sorry for the essay, and it's not all on your shoulders.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Just teach EV; that wont be complicated

I like showing the exposure triangle in a bar graph. and i like how you added in scene brightness.

Starting with this will teach a reader that working with available light means you have to make changes to the f/stop and SS to achieve an "ideal" exposure. This actually sneaks in the idea of EV and will be useful later on if you teach about light metering.

I would then introduce the concept of over/under exposure to the above.

once that concept is grasped, you can introduce ISO to the bar graph, to convey how it can amplify the brightness of a scene and the results of the final output.

I'm personally not a fan of the charts you made on iso, ss, and aperture. To me they are confusing and hard to grasp since each has a few affects over the final output. I would would like to see a little more elaboration on each.

SS -- The total exposure time. We need to express that it's two-fold. First a longer shutter can increase the exposure, but it also introduces blur since you're capturing an image over time. I think it's important to not only talk about the movement of the subject, but the movement of the shooter themselves.

A -- The total amount of light. Again, we need to express two things: the total amount of light you're letting in over the SS time, but also the affects on DOF. But then it's important to note that in a dark setting, you may want to use f/2.8 to get more light, but then have a paper-thin DOF, so in order to gain back DOF, you have to make a change to SS and/or ISO to compensate from what we learned above. Because if we simply increase the SS, then we might end up with completely blurry images.

ISO -- The volume knob. Really I like this analogy. Just as in stereo, the more you pump it, the more noise you can hear/see.

II'd rather these be more infographic like with more explanation, than the charts. I've seen those charts all over the internet and frankly I don't find them helpful. IMHO if you do the above, from top to bottom the reader should come away with a greater understanding.

Thanks again!!! I have noted most of your points in the text, but I planned a backside or second page, with examples (probably real images).
In the beginning I wanted to show EV below the scene luminance, but I deleted it because it might be confusing since all the others are EV too.
Thanks for all the thoughts it really helps me improve this!

 

[photo1x1.com]

Thanks again, Tim. I know I´m trying to exchange something that is not correct with somthing that isn´t perfect either. But I´m afraid your approach would confuse most people. In my experience there is little knowledge of even the basic things most learned at school, 5 years after they left school. So of course I could create a scientifically correct chart with all the info starting with photons and going all the way to A/D conversion. But that´s exactly what is intimidating so many people when it comes to photography. I want to show them how easy it is to create great images. Yet many people have issues understanding what causes image brightness. I want to pave their way to easier get there rather than being scientifically correct.
I know I was asking for harsh ctitique - and I absolutely appreciate all of the comments and the thoughts and time that went into your answers. It helped me improve certain points, but I´m afraid incorporating your approach would make the chart not usable for most people new to photography.
I hope for your understanding.

There is a PS. to this and it requires that you ask yourself what it is that you are trying to achieve.

Are you trying to illustrate an abstract concept in a way that your student finds easier to understand or are you trying to nail an abstract concept into absolute values so you can form an understanding?

If it's the former then you must be vague because it is only then that the student will question and learn. If you force your own absolute version then you deny them the ability to work it out for themselves, you suppress thought and learning, you simply provide your rigid idea.

The use of a rigid language with strict definition is a device that's been used for centuries by Authoritarian Bodies to suppress free thought and control bodies of people. Take *subversive* or *suppressive person* as examples, once the label is applied then the exact nature of the person and your behaviour towards them is defined and demanded. There is no room for your personal judgement.

When teaching you must remember this and allow the student room to make their own connections and understanding. You have to trust and encourage them to question and think, not do it for them. I find your original confused and fairly incomprehensible. As I said it bulldozes through abstract connections and concepts in a way I found difficult to *un-learn*.

Image brightness is a fairly abstract concept as the output space, (monitor) has a fixed range of brightness. You can control it better with the brightness knob that you can with the camera shutter speed, and neither will allow you to reproduce consistent and neutral skin tones in print. Less exposure (absolute light on sensor) = darker image/more light = brighter image is simply an incorrect and misleading concept. What it translates to in reality the inability to achieve consistent colour in images.

So lets consider another output space for images which similarly has a fixed back and a fixed white, the brightness of which you can't vary, (just like a print or computer monitor). Take a white piece of paper and a graphite pencil. Now explain to your student, who's advanced a little and is eager to learn more, how to create bright and dark images.

Take the two images below, one looks like it is taken in bright sunlight and the other in darker diffuse light. Yet both have exactly the same range of brightness on your screen, in fact the lower one has the greatest proportion of lighter tones, it's actually brighter:

View attachment 169325


View attachment 169326

You're trying fit everything into your understanding, you trying to squeeze it so it fits into your incomplete logic. And in doing this you deny your student the tools to progress beyond you, they will always be limited by what you don't understand. It's another abstract concept but one you must accept. The aim of teaching is in getting others to progress beyond you, not limit them.

By far the biggest problem and limitation I find on forum and Internet based learning is people trying to force photography into the logic of *left brain* thought. I can't stress what a handicap this is for those who wish to pursue a more creative *right brain* approach. You basically imprison them within the confines of your own self imposed pigeon holes, the logical structure you impose so you can understand. But by teaching that rigid logic you deny them the opportunity to understand and make the abstract connections that are essential to creativity. To take an obvious one, how many photographers understand that texture is the memory of touch and not the visual reality contained in reflected light? Does your teaching allow the student the possibility of making that connection themselves?

Exposure is about being able to produce consistent and repeatable tones on light sensitive media. What you do with them afterwards is another essay, but start with the ability to do this.

I'm sorry for the essay, and it's not all on your shoulders.

No worries, Tim. I do get your point. But for me, this is somewhat philosophical.
Do you rather like the approach to enable a minority of probably highly intellectual people to easier progress beyond what they learn in the beginning?
Or do you see that as intimidating a majority that likes to dive into photography, learn how to take decent pics and "understand" the basics in a way that they can easily create images with a correct brightness? I´m trying to avoid exposure as much as I can, but since it is such a well-established term, I have to use it at times.
The afore mentioned minority sure is clever enough to easily unlearn some parts - or add additional info. Most of these people also don´t usually need any sort of cheat sheets. They comprehend faster and don´t need any kind of mnemonics to keep what they learn.
My approach is to make many people enjoy photography and delivering info that paves their path to becoming better pretty quick.

 

[Ysarex84 78]

Just teach EV; that wont be complicated

WINNER! Problem solved using advanced early 20th century technology!

There's a reason intelligent people 100 or so years ago decided it was advantageous to make shutter speed scales and lens aperture scales both alter the exposure buy the same unit value. In that table above the number 14 is:

1/4000 sec f/2
1/2000 sec f/2.8
1/1000 sec f/4
1/500 sec f/5.6
1/250 sec f/8
1/125 sec f/11
1/60 sec f/16
1/30 sec f/22

I'm glad I learned photography back when it was easy

Joe

 

[Designer]

In my experience there is little knowledge of even the basic things most learned at school, 5 years after they left school. So of course I could create a scientifically correct chart with all the info starting with photons and going all the way to A/D conversion. But that´s exactly what is intimidating so many people when it comes to photography. I want to show them how easy it is to create great images. Yet many people have issues understanding what causes image brightness. I want to pave their way to easier get there rather than being scientifically correct.

I applaud your initiative and effort at trying to make photography more easily accessible to everyone, and I do agree that some aspects of the technology are quite complicated, therefore any new approach that succeeds in breaking it down and making it more understandable is to be sincerely appreciated.

You may consider me rather slow, but I don't understand what you're trying to make easier. Is it the "exposure triangle" concept ?, or perhaps simply trying to introduce some new rules of thumb?, or are you trying to teach the relationship of aperture and shutter speed to something that is yet to be introduced?

You don't like my suggestion to show them how to use the fantastic technology that they hold in their hands, but for some reason you think you have to make it more complicated. Who really wants/needs it to be more complicated? How is making it more complicated going to help newbies create great photography? How is learning the relationships between the mechanical/electronic controls of the camera going to help a novice out in the real world?

 

[smoke665]

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.

I see the term "scene luminescence" tossed around as a generic term to describe the overall brightness, but it leads to a false understanding of the actual term. Luminance is a photometric measure of the luminous intensity per unit area of light travelling in a given direction. It describes the amount of light that passes through, is emitted or reflected from a particular area, and falls within a given solid angle. Yet your chart seems to reflect that it is function only of the ambient light, and there's no mention of adjustment based on reflectivity of individual elements within the scene.

Every thing in the scene has a luminescence value that is not necessarily related to the ambient light source, but does require an exposure adjustment to properly expose. IE: a white object reflects more light then a black object. Setting your exposure based on the ambient light will result in an over exposed white object or and underexposed black object. Or, a more practical example is if you're shooting a snow scene. I can agree with you on the importance of the luminescence of the scene in adjusting the exposure, but if this is something designed to help beginners then you might need to address this further.

 

[480sparky39 38]

......... IE: a white object reflects more light then a black object. Setting your exposure based on the ambient light will result in an over exposed white object or and underexposed black object. Or, a more practical example is if you're shooting a snow scene. ..........

But isn't that the whole idea? White subjects should be brighter in the image, and black subjects should be darker.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

No worries, Tim. I do get your point. But for me, this is somewhat philosophical.
Do you rather like the approach to enable a minority of probably highly intellectual people to easier progress beyond what they learn in the beginning?
Or do you see that as intimidating a majority that likes to dive into photography, learn how to take decent pics and "understand" the basics in a way that they can easily create images with a correct brightness? I´m trying to avoid exposure as much as I can, but since it is such a well-established term, I have to use it at times.
The afore mentioned minority sure is clever enough to easily unlearn some parts - or add additional info. Most of these people also don´t usually need any sort of cheat sheets. They comprehend faster and don´t need any kind of mnemonics to keep what they learn.
My approach is to make many people enjoy photography and delivering info that paves their path to becoming better pretty quick.

I don't see the conflict between the two, seriously. Neither do I see a distinction between minority/majority and intellectual/average.

The point I'm continually making is that exposure is about producing consistent tones on the image (correct brightness). If you reduce it to it's simplest then that is what it is. Like an artist learns to make consistent marks on paper so a photographer does it on their media.

Exposure is about controlling light coming into the camera so it's consistent on the sensor. The whole camera and it's metering system is calibrated and geared around mid grey and reproducing that tone accurately. I don't see why you have to invent another system that doesn't explain this. It is the one constant that's known and displayed as the *exposure setting*. Once you understand the base anchor point the effects of variation are easier to understand. You don't need to explain it in terms of mid grey, you can substitute *suggested exposure*, *correct brightness*, or many similar terms if you like.

Cameras are so highly automated these days that you can rely on them to produce consistent images. You don't need a diagram of how to do this, the camera does it for you. All the beginner needs to be able to visualise is the relationship between shutter speed and aperture and how each abstracts the image, (as per your diagram), and separately how the level of ambient light affects this choice and how ISO compensates and allows you different combinations of shutter speed and aperture. Let the beginner form their own system of logic to explain it, it's essentially how they gain understanding.

There is no single simplified diagram that expresses the relationships in any *absolute* form, (references exact camera settings), or fully explains the simple relationships between them. Your problem is not that you don't illustrate the effects well but that you try to unify them into a single diagram. You must mis-represent the relationships to achieve your diagram, so what point is the diagram other than to mislead. And so beginners spend hours arguing over insignificant definitions of words on DPreview rather than actually getting out and taking photographs with a simple understanding of the basics. How they form their own understanding of the relationships will be far more stable with this experience.

What you will end up with teaching the relationships is a logical construct that they will find hard to relate to the actual photographs they take because it never fitted perfectly into your diagram in the first place.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

In the digital world these are interesting discussions but I think there are two obvious facts. 1. Each of us has a different perception of light and color. 2. What the camera captures has little to do with what can be done with post processing.

Certainly, knowing the effect of the triangle on the exposure is important but not everyone's has the same ideas as to what makes the perfect picture.