For the Umpteenth Time (Page 3): f/stop = infinity: no aperture, no exposure...

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

rmalarz wrote:

... The same would be true if there was no aperture, or f-stop=0. No exposure...

f/stop = infinity: no aperture, no exposure

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Not quite. If the diameter value approaches 0 there would be no aperture. As the focal length approaches 0 the f-stop approaches infinity. But, division by 0 is undefined so the focal length cannot equal 0. In either case, the amount of light coming through that theoretical lens would amount to none.
--Bob

DirtFarmer wrote:

f/stop = infinity: no aperture, no exposure

MsLala Loc: Kingston, NY

rmalarz wrote:

Lee, now you're on to something. I was about to re... (show quote)

Bob,
I not sure if you remember me, it's been awhile, but I wanted to say I absolutely get it. I like you're analogy of the triangle. Your explanation makes more sense than how all the books, articles and web sites I've read have tried to explain it. For some reason I either get confused by the wording or hung up on how it's presented, and I don't consider myself to be that ignorant about photography. I'm glad I happened to stumble upon this post. Thanks again.
Laura

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

rmalarz wrote:

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

Of course. We are in total agreement.

Dennis

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Hi, Laura. Yes, I do remember you from a while back. Thanks for reading the post and commenting.
--Bob

MsLala wrote:

Bob,
I not sure if you remember me, it's been awhile, but I wanted to say I absolutely get it. I like you're analogy of the triangle. Your explanation makes more sense than how all the books, articles and web sites I've read have tried to explain it. For some reason I either get confused by the wording or hung up on how it's presented, and I don't consider myself to be that ignorant about photography. I'm glad I happened to stumble upon this post. Thanks again.
Laura

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

--Bob

dennis2146 wrote:

Of course. We are in total agreement.

Dennis

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Basic thinking by advanced writers using graph based explanations...more auto mode minded...Iso 3200 on an evening scene...idono, maybe but there are better solutions.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

rmalarz wrote:

Another article on The Exposure Triangle

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/25/exposure-triangle-making-sense-aperture-shutter-speed-iso/

Though, in my opinion, I think the triangle is not the best way to approach this subject.
--Bob

I wish someone would come up with something new.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Jerry, I did. It's on page 2 of this thread.
--Bob

jerryc41 wrote:

I wish someone would come up with something new.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

rmalarz wrote:

Jerry, I did. It's on page 2 of this thread.
--Bob

Thanks!

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Linda From Maine wrote:

Just a handy visual aid, and for beginners a way to help remember the properties of each (dof, motion etc). Certainly better than some advice I've seen on UHH: just play with the settings

I've always perceived the triangle's purpose was simply this that you write. I believe that once we learn the techniques of taking pictures, we can throw the triangle away. But, today's 10-year old wanting to learn photography might find the concept handy in accelerating their understanding.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Thanks, Bruce. That was my intent. The guys who have been shooting for years don't need the triangle. The newbies need something that is simple and gets them started. Throwing all of the other DOF and stopping motion in at the same time confuses the issue, as we've well seen on this very site.

I appreciate your taking a look and the time to comment.
--Bob

brucewells wrote:

I've always perceived the triangle's purpose was simply this that you write. I believe that once we learn the techniques of taking pictures, we can throw the triangle away. But, today's 10-year old wanting to learn photography might find the concept handy in accelerating their understanding.