This is all vary well and to some it is a delight I'm certain of that.

That said, I have been doing photography for 50 years and looking back I read about EV systems and then studied the EV system back about 35 years ago. Sitting at a desk in the evening after dinner I could understand how it worked and I did grasp what it had to offer.

At the same time I was getting deeper into some rather intellectual pursuits. I revisited an earlier idea that was deeply rooted in science, it was a type of intellectual view on all of the scientific method, in fact it is one of the oldest corner stones to influence the our modern scientific views. Vary old and it's name is Occam's Razor, named for a monk named William of Occam from many hundreds of years ago. Occam's razor can be taken in it's most simplified manner to inform us with a rather simply idea. When confronted by two similar ideas (explanations), the one that is less complex is the better (proffered) explanation.

So, I came to a realization throes many years ago, the rule of 16 was a much better tool for exposure that the EV system offered. This is my own personal evaluation. Perhaps it is because I'm dyslexic and find using math or things involving the use of math rather debilitating when my real purpose was to be creative in my work as a photographic artist. It may just be that I had livid in the practical world of the everyday and I was shown the face of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). Or perhaps it just comes from watching too much popular culture in film form, that devil Clint Eastwood's portrayal of Dirty Harry movies where like the San Francisco Version of an avenging flatermouse, he spoke truth to the world with "A man must know his limitations", minus the 357 Magnum canon he toted. I must have simplicity so as not to be distracted from my main effort and goal, to create important and meaning full creative views with a camera.

So, the Sunny 16 rule was good enough for the past greats like Ansel Adams, Ed Weston, Imogene Cunningham and Weegee, so it should be just as useful to a new generation of image makers.

Another thing, I've been doing images for a life time. I have taught photography in it's most basic manner and have been vary good at it. I use the old term, the sunny 16 rule. I never discuss nor bother with the new stupid 'exposure triangle', what triangle? The two parts are: f stops and shutter speed, that is all. Occam's Razor again or is you like Sgt. Rock, 'Nuff Said!'.

Most of the puffing is about the name Brian Peterson gave it. Forget about the word "exposure" that everyone is hung up on. Call it anything you like, maybe just "Fred". The name is not important.

It's the concept that is important. The spreadsheet already covers everything.

There are actually six variables at play. Shutter speed(1) and aperture(2) define exposure value(3). Then we have filter factor(4) and ISO(5) defining light value(6). That's not a triangle, more like Chinese checkerboard.

The spreadsheet lets you make one of four of those (1, 2, 5, or 6) the final dependent variable.

If someone can't follow this, just leave the camera on Auto.

Yes, I completely understand the relationship between ISO (ASA), Shutter Speed, Aperture, and their number series and why. I've known about the ƒ-numbers being multiples of the square root of 2 or approximately 1.414 and why since shortly after starting to do photography in 1978. The Din exposure system is a German Log-based film speed system of x+3 "DIN" = 2x "ASA". ISO uses both numbers. I learned how to use Exposure meters because I do think in "Stops". I know there are Light Meters that measure Lux, Ft-Candles and all sorts of weird units. On a daily basis I don't need to do more than a little math in my head as my digital cameras have extremely accurate metering systems. Film is harder to work with. I usually shoot close-ups and Macro with full manual Exposure and Focus. For many other uses I will use AE & AF. I thought I would play around with your Spread-sheet for fun and to occasionally check my calculations. As I said before, I think I have it figured out now with you further explanations.