Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Why is exposure so confusing?
Page <<first <prev 11 of 13 next> last>>
Jan 23, 2019 03:03:46   #
kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
 
lonewolf456 wrote:
I'm starting to question my decision to be part of the Hog forum. Seems the technical peeps insist on talking about highly technical preferences which most people don't understand and have little interest or knowledge. I'm into photography for fun, not dissecting the numerous options available with most DLSR cameras. Keep it simple, and you keep me. Otherwise, I'm packing my bags.


There is plenty of room on this forum for both beginners and people with more advanced knowledge and interests. If you can't handle that then I suggest you find the door, with all due respect.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 03:06:34   #
LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America
 
Exposure is basic math with the correct exposure answer being XX amount of light hitting the sensor.

Photography is the art part as acorrect exposure can have many common shutter speeds/apertures/ISO sensitivities.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 03:56:04   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
That is a good question. It was not an easy decision. If we don't respond to personal attacks and bullying, that becomes the controlling factor in discussions and people are intimidated and run off. If we do respond, we run the risk of adding fuel to the fire. I don't know the answer.

Initially I suggested that you "give it a rest" - that you stop responding to every post by Bipod with inflammatory and insulting jibes. Your response was to insult and attack me. I would certainly be happy to call a truce. How about you stop attacking Bipod and I will stop objecting to that? Fair enough?

Mike
That is a good question. It was not an easy decisi... (show quote)


First of all, I don’t respond to all of his posts. (Is he paying you to make things up?) far from it. Since you want peace, why not talk to Bipod first and let him know that lies, and especially condescending posts are not a good way to communicate. How about you tell the bully to stop? You should be able to see by now that Bipod doesn’t have any fans except for you. Maybe you are Bipod.

Reply
 
 
Jan 23, 2019 08:24:52   #
hookedupin2005 Loc: Northwestern New Mexico
 
Bipod wrote:
It time someone talked about WHY exposure is so confusing.

It's because of the way manufacture's label camera settings. They don't apply base 2 logarithms
consistently.

There are two reasonable rules:
1. Each detent on a control (aperture, shutter, ISO, exposure compenstation) must be EXACTLY
twice (or half) the exposure of the previous detent; and
2 Each should be labeled in integers: ... -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3....

If you do this consistantly, you get the Additive Photographic Exposure System (APEX)
which was standardized way back in 1960 (ASA standard ASA PH2.5-1960) and was used
in industry and by the military (where confusion is not OK).

EC knobs (and menus) generally follow both rules: No compensation is labeled "0". Increasing
exposure by one stop is labled "1". Decreasing exposure by one stop is labeled "-1". Anyone
confused by this? Pretty simple, right?

F-numbers follow Rule 1, but not Rule 2. The sequence 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, etc. is a lot more
complicated than 1,2,3,4,5... And you don't need to know the actual f-stop ratio unless you are
building a camera.

Shutter speeds are a mess. They follow neither rule. This sequence makes sense:
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, .... This one doesn't: 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 125, 250, 500, .....
What's the rule for latter sequence, pray tell?

ISO speeds are given in two different sysems: ASA and DIN. Both follow Rule 1, but only DIN
follows Rule 2. The ISO "standard" is to use BOTH! (Sure sign of a gutless committee trying to
please everybody.) The ASA number isn't even logarithmic. And ASA 100 is DIN 21 -- why 21?
"Historical reasons".

Finally, Exposure values follow Rule 1 but not Rule 2 -- again for "historical reasons".
"Historical reasons" is a polite way of saying S.N.A.F.U.

Exposure is confusing because of the silly, stupid, inconsitent way in which cameras controls
are labeled.

Here's the "Sunny 16" rule in the traditional Tower of Babel system:

At approx. EV 15 and f/16, use shutter speed 1/ASA speed
for example:
At approx. EV 15 and f/16 and ASA 100, use 1/100th sec

(which of course, isn't even a detent on the shutter dial-it only has 125.)

Here the general rule in APEX:

TimeValue + ApertureValue = SensitvityValue + Brightness
E.g., at approx. EV 15:
5 + 8 = 5 + 8

Does this math confuse anybody? Dang simple, if you ask me.
So by subtracting SensitivityValue from both sides:

Brightness = TimeValue + ApertureValue - SensitivtyValue
8 = 5 + 8 - 5

As usual, people are willing to update their hardware and software (= buy stuff) but not their thinking.
Picture a cave man holding a Nikon. "Og like take photos. But Og confused by exposure." No wonder!


For reference, here's the basic system, as standardized in 1960.

APEX SYSTEM (per ASA PH2.5-1960)

Note: this may differ from EXIF Version 2.2.

APERTURE

f-number APEX
1 0
1.4 1
2 2
2.8 3
4 4
5.6 5
8 6
11 7
16 8
22 9
etc.

SHUTTER SPEED

The original APEX standard kept the irregular shutter times: 1, 1/2, 1/4,1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125....

In fact, some cameras are already calibrated to 1/16, 1/32, 1/64... Shutters are rarely accurate enough
to tell the difference except at 1/15 <> 1/16.

Nominal Sec. APEX
1 1 0
2 1/2 1
15 1/15 2
30 1/30 3
60 1/60 4
125 1/125 5
250 1/250 6
500 1/500 7
1000 1/1000 8
etc.

FILM/SENSOR SPEED


ASA DIN APEX
100 21 5
200 22 6
400 23 7
800 24 8
1600 25 9
etc.


BRIGHTNESS

Again, the original standard kept the irregular shutter speeds, so it had to have
irregular brightnesses as well.


APEX FOOT LAMBERTS
1 2
2 4
3 8
4 15
5 30
6 60
7 125
8 250
9 500
10 1000
etc.
It time someone talked about WHY exposure is so co... (show quote)


Seems to me you are more worried about the "science" of photography, rather than the "art" of photography. I leave the science to the camera builders, and work on my art side.....

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 08:49:33   #
LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America
 
hookedupin2005 wrote:
Seems to me you are more worried about the "science" of photography, rather than the "art" of photography. I leave the science to the camera builders, and work on my art side.....


If one can’t get a grip on the science of photography, the art of photography becomes limited. Electronics can take up a bit of the slack, but it can’t truly think.

If one can’t get a grip on the art of photography, the science knowledge is largely wasted.

Photography in Latin means writing/drawing with light.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 08:51:55   #
Silverman Loc: Michigan
 
Bipod wrote:
It time someone talked about WHY exposure is so confusing.

It's because of the way manufacture's label camera settings. They don't apply base 2 logarithms
consistently.

There are two reasonable rules:
1. Each detent on a control (aperture, shutter, ISO, exposure compenstation) must be EXACTLY
twice (or half) the exposure of the previous detent; and
2 Each should be labeled in integers: ... -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3....

If you do this consistantly, you get the Additive Photographic Exposure System (APEX)
which was standardized way back in 1960 (ASA standard ASA PH2.5-1960) and was used
in industry and by the military (where confusion is not OK).

EC knobs (and menus) generally follow both rules: No compensation is labeled "0". Increasing
exposure by one stop is labled "1". Decreasing exposure by one stop is labeled "-1". Anyone
confused by this? Pretty simple, right?

F-numbers follow Rule 1, but not Rule 2. The sequence 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, etc. is a lot more
complicated than 1,2,3,4,5... And you don't need to know the actual f-stop ratio unless you are
building a camera.

Shutter speeds are a mess. They follow neither rule. This sequence makes sense:
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, .... This one doesn't: 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 125, 250, 500, .....
What's the rule for latter sequence, pray tell?

ISO speeds are given in two different sysems: ASA and DIN. Both follow Rule 1, but only DIN
follows Rule 2. The ISO "standard" is to use BOTH! (Sure sign of a gutless committee trying to
please everybody.) The ASA number isn't even logarithmic. And ASA 100 is DIN 21 -- why 21?
"Historical reasons".

Finally, Exposure values follow Rule 1 but not Rule 2 -- again for "historical reasons".
"Historical reasons" is a polite way of saying S.N.A.F.U.

Exposure is confusing because of the silly, stupid, inconsitent way in which cameras controls
are labeled.

Here's the "Sunny 16" rule in the traditional Tower of Babel system:

At approx. EV 15 and f/16, use shutter speed 1/ASA speed
for example:
At approx. EV 15 and f/16 and ASA 100, use 1/100th sec

(which of course, isn't even a detent on the shutter dial-it only has 125.)

Here the general rule in APEX:

TimeValue + ApertureValue = SensitvityValue + Brightness
E.g., at approx. EV 15:
5 + 8 = 5 + 8

Does this math confuse anybody? Dang simple, if you ask me.
So by subtracting SensitivityValue from both sides:

Brightness = TimeValue + ApertureValue - SensitivtyValue
8 = 5 + 8 - 5

As usual, people are willing to update their hardware and software (= buy stuff) but not their thinking.
Picture a cave man holding a Nikon. "Og like take photos. But Og confused by exposure." No wonder!


For reference, here's the basic system, as standardized in 1960.

APEX SYSTEM (per ASA PH2.5-1960)

Note: this may differ from EXIF Version 2.2.

APERTURE

f-number APEX
1 0
1.4 1
2 2
2.8 3
4 4
5.6 5
8 6
11 7
16 8
22 9
etc.

SHUTTER SPEED

The original APEX standard kept the irregular shutter times: 1, 1/2, 1/4,1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125....

In fact, some cameras are already calibrated to 1/16, 1/32, 1/64... Shutters are rarely accurate enough
to tell the difference except at 1/15 <> 1/16.

Nominal Sec. APEX
1 1 0
2 1/2 1
15 1/15 2
30 1/30 3
60 1/60 4
125 1/125 5
250 1/250 6
500 1/500 7
1000 1/1000 8
etc.

FILM/SENSOR SPEED


ASA DIN APEX
100 21 5
200 22 6
400 23 7
800 24 8
1600 25 9
etc.


BRIGHTNESS

Again, the original standard kept the irregular shutter speeds, so it had to have
irregular brightnesses as well.


APEX FOOT LAMBERTS
1 2
2 4
3 8
4 15
5 30
6 60
7 125
8 250
9 500
10 1000
etc.
It time someone talked about WHY exposure is so co... (show quote)


T.M.I. for a beginner, quite confusing info.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 09:25:08   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
LWW wrote:
If one can’t get a grip on the science of photography, the art of photography becomes limited. Electronics can take up a bit of the slack, but it can’t truly think.

If one can’t get a grip on the art of photography, the science knowledge is largely wasted. ...



Reply
 
 
Jan 23, 2019 12:41:04   #
lonewolf456
 
Totally agree. This back and forth with opinions is destroying my faith, and reason to be a Hog. Keep the questions, and answers simple or else I'm out of here.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 12:46:59   #
BebuLamar
 
lonewolf456 wrote:
Totally agree. This back and forth with opinions is destroying my faith, and reason to be a Hog. Keep the questions, and answers simple or else I'm out of here.


Good Bye!

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 13:27:30   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
lonewolf456 wrote:
Totally agree. This back and forth with opinions is destroying my faith, and reason to be a Hog. Keep the questions, and answers simple or else I'm out of here.


If I read correctly:

In 2014 you posted that you bought a digital camera. In 2018 you said you were new to digital photography and named same camera. In almost five years you made a total of around fifty posts.

If you do decide to leave, please let us know. Otherwise I'm not sure anyone will notice.

On the other hand you could post something constructive in a thread that interests you, or start your own. Joining in may make UHH more palatable.

---

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 13:39:07   #
Red in Colorado
 
sloscheider wrote:
When you get the above common sense changes to take place your next assignment is to get us Yanks to move on over to the metric system! I’ll support your political party, just say the word. It’s only the US, Burma and Liberia left to go metric...


I don't want to learn metric again (we studied it in elementary school). Therefore, the rest of the world needs to escape the tyranny of base 10. Lol. We practically already have switched. My sons speak metric.

Reply
 
 
Jan 23, 2019 14:03:08   #
BebuLamar
 
Red in Colorado wrote:
I don't want to learn metric again (we studied it in elementary school). Therefore, the rest of the world needs to escape the tyranny of base 10. Lol. We practically already have switched. My sons speak metric.


It's irony that the US customary measurement system is in fraction with factor of 2 which is the same for exposure.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 14:05:59   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
lonewolf456 wrote:
Totally agree. This back and forth with opinions is destroying my faith, and reason to be a Hog. Keep the questions, and answers simple or else I'm out of here.

Five years here and you are still a newbie? No progress? Maybe you need to buy a book.

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 14:09:38   #
BebuLamar
 
selmslie wrote:
Five years here and you are still a newbie? No progress? Maybe you need to buy a book.


How do you know he doesn't have books? Could it be that the books he has confused him?

Reply
Jan 23, 2019 14:13:15   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
BebuLamar wrote:
How do you know he doesn't have books? Could it be that the books he has confused him?

Or that his just an extremely slow learner. You have to wonder why he still considers himself a newbie.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 11 of 13 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.