I'm confused about iso (Page 21): Yup.... No matter how simple a problem seems at first, it becomes increasingly more complex upon further investigation. Some like to investigate the...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Bill_de wrote:

I really feel sorry for folks who come to UHH to l... (show quote)

Yup....

No matter how simple a problem seems at first,
it becomes increasingly more complex upon further investigation.

Some like to investigate the hell out of things.

The K.I.S.S. theory was coined for a reason.

(BRB - getting more popcorn...)

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Bill_de wrote:

I really feel sorry for folks who come to UHH to l... (show quote)

Hear Hear!!
I would be sorry that I asked the question that started this, but there were a few nuggets of good information scattered about.

Moderator?????

IMO
This has turned into toxic foolishness.
Of course you have the right to think and say what you want but the argument has seriously hijacked the thread.

I make a motion we close this thread down.
Is that possible?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

R.G. wrote:

A standard by any other name would produce the same predictable results. Without the standard you don't have predictability or consistency of outcome.

It’s a chicken and egg proposition. Are the manufacturers following a standard or was the standard written to document what the manufacturers were already doing.

I suggest that it’s the latter. The other way around is not really possible.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

WDCash wrote:

Hear Hear!!
I would be sorry that I asked the question that started this, but there were a few nuggets of good information scattered about.

Moderator?????

IMO
This has turned into toxic foolishness.
Of course you have the right to think and say what you want but the argument has seriously hijacked the thread.

I make a motion we close this thread down.
Is that possible?

The best you can do is <Unwatch>

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

WDCash wrote:

Hear Hear!!
I would be sorry that I asked the question that started this, but there were a few nuggets of good information scattered about.

Moderator?????

IMO
This has turned into toxic foolishness.
Of course you have the right to think and say what you want but the argument has seriously hijacked the thread.

I make a motion we close this thread down.
Is that possible?

And miss the next episode of ISO - The Continuing Saga?

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

So be it

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

srt101fan wrote:

I guess you haven't read all the posts. I'll go with:

"In photography, exposure is the amount of light per unit area reaching a frame of photographic film or the surface of an electronic image sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, lens F-number, and scene luminance." (Wikipedia)

Note that ISO is not mentioned in this definition. So my question to those that insist that ISO is part of exposure is - how do you define exposure?

My take on this is that; just like "rock" and "rock lobster", there is difference in meaning between "exposure" and "exposure triangle".

One speaks about the variables that create amount of light reaching a media and the other is about the variables effect on an output image.

It just so happened that we got accustomed to a misnomer as the real exposure triangle that would fully refer to its base meaning should be aperture/shutter speed/intensity of light.

and something that often gets misunderstood is that a basic photograph is square:

srt101fan

Wallen wrote:

My take on this is that; just like "rock"... (show quote)

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Wallen wrote:

My take on this is that; just like "rock"... (show quote)

This is excellent. I would label the sides, rather than the vertices. Make the top side light intensity, the left and right sides aperture and shutter speed, and the bottom side media sensitivity. That would recognize a flow from the light available through to the media. Source to destination, via controls.

scsdesphotography Loc: Southeastern Michigan

selmslie wrote:

Neither did I. The term "exposure triangle&q... (show quote)

I believe that Bryan Peterson introduced the exposure triangle. He makes a reference to developing the idea in his photography classes in his book "Understanding Exposure."

petrochemist Loc: UK

Wallen wrote:

and something that often gets misunderstood is that a basic photograph is square:

Four variables yes, but a square marked out as you have does not show the relationship (increasing aperture does not reduce light intensity) you need a triangular based pyramid, so you can travel towards any point without changing the ratio of the other variables.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Wallen wrote:

My take on this is that; just like "rock"... (show quote)

But the "triangle" is based on a given light intensity, which is usually a constant.

One could also make it a five sided diagram, add "desired effect"......

Can we add even more sides?

petrochemist Loc: UK

Longshadow wrote:

But the "triangle" is based on a given light intensity, which is usually a constant.

One could also make it a five sided diagram, add "desired effect"......

Can we add even more sides?

Light level a variable that many photographers never play with yet for many photographic subjects lighting is the variable the photographer has most control over. Studio portraits & products for fairly common examples. I think one of my studio flashes has 128 levels of output, quite a few of my lenses only allow 5 stops variation in aperture (some have only one). I don't think many cameras give much more than 10 stops range in shutter speeds...

Desired effect is certainly appropriate, but if your after adding sides we can always include filters

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

petrochemist wrote:

Light level a variable that many photographers nev... (show quote)

Yup, one can analyze the hell out of it and put in all kinds of variables, that will needlessly complicate things.
Which was my point.
K.I.S.S.

It's a triangle.