SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

The triangle IS gospel!
It's not a graph or a ratio, it's simply a graphic broken down to the primary number of exposure as it is found on a camera.

To read more into it than that is just a personal attemp to reinvent the triangle in a more complex way.
The only other addition would be to put the photographer in the middle of it representing the knowledge that manipulates the triangle to apply the exposure needed to create any given photographic exposure outcome.

The best minds in photography and elsewhere have seen it and left it alone for a reason.
To add noise and movement is just one persons attempt to illustrate cause and affect but still says nothing to actual ratios.
We can flog that triangle ALL we want and at the end of the day it still has only three simple points!
SS

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Why downplay the simple logic of the exposure triangle?? It turned the Light bulb on for me when I first discovered photography. With this knowledge no type of capture is out of my reach. Please share with us the Simpler explanation for Proper Exposure. Unscrew my light bulb and then screw it back in...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Seems like a slow Sunday.

Linda is on the money 100%. Bob, you need a hobby, a girlfriend, a car that needs fixing, but leave the damn triangle alone. It works, most photographers understand what it represents, and furthermore they understand that it is nothing more than a symbol that shows that three elements of exposure are related to one another, and not to be taken literally. It is not intended to be used to show numerical relationships. It's a diagram - nothing more, nothing less. Every other approach is far more complicated for the new photographer to wrap their heads around. Don't confuse them.

I think this is the article some are referring to:

https://petapixel.com/2016/07/18/never-teach-exposure-triangle-beginners/

Written by someone who also needs a hobby. . . Just sayin'

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Lee, now you're on to something. I was about to reply to Linda's request for elaboration. I've always explained making an image in this manner. I liken it to a balance scale. There are three values that come into play. They are Aperture, Shutter Speed, and Sensitivity.

First off, exposure has nothing to do with ISO. Exposure = Intensity x Time

Intensity is how bright, time is how long. That is pretty simple. We have the luminance of the scene and the length of time the shutter is open. That’s it. We can regulate the intensity through the use of an iris, or f-stop. We can regulate duration using shutter speed.

Aperture and shutter speed are far more frequently adjusted than ISO through the picture taking process. So, on one side of the scale we place weights labeled aperture and duration, f-stop and shutter speed. On the other we place a weight called ISO. At this point, we have a set of values for aperture and shutter speed which balance perfectly with the ISO on the other side of the scale. If we replace the exposure weight with one that is less, faster shutter speed, we have to increase the aperture weight to once again have the scale balanced. Any change in either shutter speed or aperture will result in the need to change the other accordingly.

If, for some reason, we do change the ISO weight, we'll need to change either or both the weights representing aperture and shutter speed to bring the scale into balance again.

That explains how to regulate the amount of light passing through the lens to work with the ISO set on the camera to produce an image.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Not necessarily the gospel. It seems to confuse quite a few newbies and there is a simpler way to explain making the appropriate choices and the relationship of those choices. The intent here is to present something easy to understand that those not quite acquainted with photographic processes might gain a bit better foundation that leads to better photographs more often.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Your reply did elicit a big grin and a bit of a chuckle. Thanks, Gene.
--Bob

Bill_de Loc: US

Well put.

It's a tool that works.

--

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Well, I don't think I'm a new photographer and I've certainly heard of the exposure triangle but never really looked into it. Thinking about it a bit I don't really understand it. Of course I'm familiar with the interaction between shutter, aperture, and ISO, but I don't see how you get what you need to use out of a triangle. Suppose I set the aperture and ISO. That gives me two points on different sides of the triangle. How do I set the shutter speed? I have to know how much light there is in there. Where does that fit in the triangle? I have only looked at a couple links referenced above but it doesn't make much sense to me.

The only thing I got was from https://petapixel.com/2016/07/18/never-teach-exposure-triangle-beginners/ , 'The problem with the phrase “exposure triangle” is that the relationship between these three factors does not actually share any of the properties of a triangle other than “threeness”.'

I think I'll continue to use my autoexposure and correct problems with exposure compensation or postprocessing.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Now your talking about making some kind of calculator/computer out of it. I'm willing to listen to anything that may suggest that it could be better or simpler etc.
But the triangle that we are familiar with is little more than a graphic showing that the 3 corners are connected.
Say each corner represents 1, for a total of 3, the total of the corners, and will always be 3.
Make one corner 0 and any other corner must become 2 to =3.
Or any combination thereof.
Add 1 anywhere without subtracting elsewhere and overexposure is the result. Subtract on anywhere without adding that same amount elsewhere and you have underexposure.
Can't get simpler or more absolute than that!!
SS

Bill_de Loc: US

All it explains is that to maintain the "same" exposure, any change in one item needs to be compensated for with one or both of the other two. It doesn't help establish a correct exposure. In film days we were taught more about the relationship between shutter speed and aperture, because we couldn't change ISO without changing the film.

--

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Did you read my reply to Lee and Linda? Apparently not, as there was no calculations involved in any of it.
--Bob

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Playing devil's advocate, can any one corner truly be 0? There has to be something there or no photo is possible, is it. The rest of what you is true and is simple common sense.

Dennis

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Yes, a corner, if one wishes to call it that, can be zero. For example on can have a shutter speed of 0. Since Exposure = Intensity x Duration, the exposure would be 0. Possible, but not practical.
--Bob

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

But if the shutter speed is 0 I take that to mean the shutter never opened therefore no light at all comes to the film or sensor. No picture.

Dennis

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Technically, no exposure. The results if there is film or sensor there no picture. The same would be true if there was no aperture, or f-stop=0. No exposure. Again, theoretically possible, but not practical. This is all theoretical, though. Since f-stop=focal length / diameter. Diameter can approach but never equal 0 as then the equation becomes undefined. Also a lens of focal length 0 is pretty much impossible, as well.
--Bob