It's funny. Of all the pictures that my Mom took of me (she was "the one" that got me into photography) from birth on, she never took a picture of my favorite bicycle or my first car. I'd always wished that I had both, but...
Long story short, I ran across this (taken from the internet) not too long ago and it was like seeing an old friend. On my limited budget I was able to buy some "Port-O-Walls" (from J.C. Whitney") and I always had "pine tree" deodorizers hanging from the rear view mirror. This is identical to mine right down to the "not very shiny" grill. Stick six and three on the tree and it didn't burn much oil. I had the skirts, but liked it better without. Fun times!!

Robert; Burtzy said it right! YouTube can be very confusing, that's why I avoid it mostly, and I have been in this magical pastime for more than a half-century! If you want something that will help with a basic knowledge of photography, if you are into a little "book larnin' ", I would suggest "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson.
He advocates shooting in MANUAL mode, but that can be ignored until you become comfortable with your equipment. In my never-humble opinion, the 3rd edition is the best of the series. That and one of the "Dummies" series of books for your personal camera will always be there for a reference, unless you wear yours out, like I did mine. They are most likely available on AMAZON.
Also, take a basic photography class. A local school district may have evening classes. You'll meet some very nice folks.
Most important, as was mentioned, take pictures...indoors, outdoors, whatever. The more we shoot, the better we get!
AVOID anyone who will bad mouth your equipment, whatever it may be, and "experts" who will say you "need" this camera or that lens (mostly more Expen$ive) to do "good" photography. BALDERDASH!
Even basic cameras are capable of excellent work.
And...if you never wish to advance beyond P or AUTO modes, SO What? Photography should be enjoyable, not a constant struggle! It toook me years to figure that out! Be well!

Bright one sunshiny morning --it was either a Monday or a Tuesday-- I applied for the #2 mule position with Carleton Watkins. The position had suddenly come open as a result of a tragic mishap deep in the Sierra Mountains during which I'd pushed the previous #2 mule off a cliff, but we won't go further into that here. That was in the winter of 1853 (or maybe it was '54; I've never been good with dates or years or even the time of day, per se, but what mule is?), but apparently, none of my braying and balking held any sway with Watkins, so he didn't hire me.

Not long afterward, I applied for similar positions (team mule to haul wagon festooned with camera & darkroom apparatus) first for Tim O'Sullivan then later for Matthew Brady, but neither of them hired me either. Which I felt was their loss more than it was mine, because I could haul a wagon like nobody's business in my younger days, and their photographic output would've been SO much better if I'd been there to advise 'em in the artful ways of hauling glass plates and noxious chemicals and what-not.

Some might've called these above referenced job refusals setbacks, but not me. Some years later, after listing my accomplishments and experience and CV on-line via the somewhat trendy (for its day) --though admittedly niche-- 'Photo Mules For Hire' app, I got contacted by Alfred Stieglitz. He didn't need a mule, per se, but he did find the melodic braying of a mule soothing to his ear, so I relocated East and became thusly employed. My lengthy association with him --I believe it was almost eight days-- provided me with many contacts and opened many doors, and before long I got a position with Paul Strand. Shortly after I got that gig, I died (of either fixer or selenium fumes, I've never been sure which it was), and got melted down for glue.

My first camera was a Polaroid Swinger. I didn't buy it; it was gifted to me.

I am a pretty strong advocate for understanding the technical aspects of photography as completely as possible. The intricacies and implications of trying to apply explanations of the sensitivity and response of an analog film emulsion process to a digital photography process are an exception to that.

There are some parallels between the way film and developing chemicals behave to the way sensors and processing behaves. Some are pretty good, and some fail miserably. Three that work are these:

There are hard physical limits for the minimum amount of light that both film and a semiconductor sensor can "see,"

There are hard limits between what a negative or camera CPU can output as representing "total dark" and "brightest light. "

There are hard limits on what a specific medium can render to represent "pure black" and "pure white."

Utilizing these limits (and the values between those limits) is generally governed by pretty fixed rules of physics and chemistry. There really isn't much mystery or unknown around them. Moving between them is where the difficulties of photography lie. These are also the areas where things really just work the way they work because they were made to work that way. It's kind of like mathematics...except for a good part of trigonometry and some of geometry, it's pretty much all made up. For most, the value is understanding that and understand how to make it work. Don't sweat the details.

Anyway...given that there are some absolute limits, the important fact is that we cannot do one thing about the extremes. We can only manage tradeoffs when different aspects are of higher importance.

Maximizing sensitivity is always going to impact dynamic range. That's important. It's why I almost never choose to "float" ISO. It's why there are three ways to increase response for a given amount of light.

This is a case where the internal mechanics of exposure are of lower importance. Understanding enough of the impacts of the three adjustment choices to produce the correct response is all that is necessary. That generally does not involve things like photon mechanics or chemical valences and energy levels.

Summary: Most of what is presented here is of much more value to the self-esteem of the writer or speaker than to the reader or listener. Some of it is just wrong. Worry less. Shoot more. Try things. Discover what happens that matters to your photography