# New fangled technology ruins everything!



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2016)

Ok. Not really. I'll never go back to the darkroom. Like ever.

But I am talking with a third year cinematography student pal of mine, and he doesn't seem to understand a grey card is used for exposure, and not just white balance.

Has automation, such as AE and AF disrupted how we learn about photography to the point that the craft of photography risks being lost forever?


----------



## Overread (Aug 24, 2016)

No
I'm very sure there were people who didn't understand greycards in the film era - and people who didn't know what they were doing and who pointed and clicked and even rifle-shot (I assume that's the old style way of saying machine gunning? ). 

The only difference is the internet now makes you aware of MANY of them; whilst in the past you probably only met a handful at best.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 24, 2016)

A few years ago when I first picked up a D5100 and started taking pictures, well it had all the automated features a newbie might want.

Autofocus, built in light meter, etc, etc , etc...

And yet when I compare what I'm shooting today vrs what I shot back then it's a night and day difference.  My skills have improved quite a bit since back then.

I understand the exposure triangle.  I know how to adjust the settings to get the shot I want.  I know how to frame my shot, and how to control my AF system to get the desired results.

No, I don't manually focus.  But I still setup my cameras AF system to give me the best results based on my situation.  If I'm shooting something relatively big that doesn't move much, single point.  If I'm shooting something smaller that moves but I have a more cluttered background, maybe I go to 9, if I'm shooting at something fast without a cluttered background, maybe I go up even further.  I know from experience what is going to give me the best odds of getting the shot.

So yes that is a different skill set than manual focus, but it's still a skill set.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 24, 2016)

unpopular said:


> Ok. Not really. I'll never go back to the darkroom. Like ever.
> 
> But I am talking with a third year cinematography student pal of mine, and he doesn't seem to understand a grey card is used for exposure, and not just white balance.
> 
> Has automation, such as AE and AF disrupted how we learn about photography to the point that the craft of photography risks being lost forever?


That's because he hasn't gotten to the 4th year of cinematography and leaned the phrase, "You want fry's with that?"


----------



## Overread (Aug 24, 2016)

If anything its actually harder in some ways. AF setups for example can be confusing to work out what the best best option is because it can be very hard to reproduce accurate tests which are not susceptible to user error or random subject motion. 
So some of these more advanced systems can be harder to penetrate the real understanding of and to get into a practised workflow with.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. Not really. I'll never go back to the darkroom. Like ever.
> ...



He already has a career well on way  He's has a good eye, but I am surprised that basic exposure referencing hasn't been part of his education.

He's complained about getting multi-camera setups to work right. If in fact he doesn't know how to use a grey card, that could certainly be part of the issue....


----------



## Overread (Aug 24, 2016)

With experience its possible to land in a job superior to ones skills on paper. A single film done with a single camera in good controlled lighting might well have landed him a job suddenly with multiple cameras and different setups and suddenly the skill set that worked before no longer works and necessitates a deeper understanding.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 24, 2016)

unpopular said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...




Yep, it's gotten pretty bad. Here, watch this:

Fill in the blanks:
Photographic exposure is a function of _________________, ____________________, ________________

Joe

P.S. Just wait awhile and see what we get.
P.S. It's a question from one of the tests I give.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2016)

Time, Aperture, Quantum Yield (film) or Signal Gain (digital) [ie ISO]

Then again, I learned back when teachers required manual-everything. Way back in the late 90s before there was AE, right? :/


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 24, 2016)

unpopular said:


> Time, Aperture, Quantum Yield (film) or Signal Gain (digital) [ie ISO]
> 
> Then again, I learned back when teachers required manual-everything. Way back in the late 90s before there was AE, right? :/






 

Yikes! They've even got you in the triangle.

Joe


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2016)

Uhm. I am afraid so. Intensity can't be part of the correct answer since the exposure is cumulative, and theirfor arbitrary. Development can't be because it occurs after reduction of the halide or conversion of the signal.

Strictly speaking, I can't see how *exposure* can be anything but a function of the quantity of photons at the recording media required to be encoded into information. How this information is decoded is a function of processing, not exposure.

Afraid this must be a trick question.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 24, 2016)

unpopular said:


> Uhm. I am afraid so. Intensity can't be part of the correct answer since the exposure is cumulative. Development can't be because it occurs after reduction.
> 
> Afraid this must be a trick question.



The definition in Wiki is right: "In photography, *exposure* is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance."

I believe you have a Fuji XE-1 correct?

Camera on full manual, set the shutter speed to 1/60 sec. and the lens aperture to f/8. In a location with constant illumination trip the shutter and you expose the sensor. Now change the camera's ISO -- raise it by a factor of 4, and trip the shutter again. Did your 2nd exposure place more, less or the same amount of light on the sensor?

Your mind has been polluted by Bryan Peterson 

 -- may heaven have mercy on your soul.

Joe


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2016)

Oh god. Don't say that! I cannot tell you how much I HATE Peterson!

However, I disagree that QY/QE should be excluded; and I recognize that the accepted definition disagrees. And I am OK with that.

As another example. Take two sensors, one with a base equivalent ISO of 800 and another with an equivalent ISO of 200. Now, we set these two sensors and expose the same quantity of light to both. Without attenuation, will both sensors result in the same measured data?

While it is arguable that the ISO 800 sensor is more efficient, wasting fewer electrons than the ISO 200 sensor, and likewise more accurate to the actual quantity of photons, because without the higher sensitive sensor we'd have no means to account for them, thus making it irrelevant. Likewise without a sensor with 100% QE, the task of knowing the exact number of photons (and thus the exact number of photons lost) in any given space (using the output of the sensor alone) would be impossible!

Excluding the photo- chemical/electric properties of the medium doesn't really make sense to me. Exposure without a medium is like calling light traveling through a vacuum an exposure. At any given plane within this space there is some quantity of light, but we have no idea what that quantity is until there is something for the light to interact with. The knowledge that there is a quantity of light itself has no meaning.

Perhaps gain could be excluded since this is a process of feeding current back through an amplifier and has nothing to do with the photoelectric reaction, though this is splitting hairs.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 24, 2016)

unpopular said:


> Oh god. Don't say that! I cannot tell you how much I HATE Peterson!
> 
> However, I disagree that QY/QE should be excluded; and I recognize that the accepted definition disagrees. And I am OK with that.
> 
> ...



We don't exclude the sensitivity of the medium we put it where it belongs. Obviously the sensitivity of a film/sensor enters into an equation for determining a "correct" or shall we say serviceable result from said medium but that's a different horse and we want to be careful to keep a grip on which horse is which. Otherwise the next thing you know you're reading Understanding Exposure and thinking you've finally got it.

The definition of photographic exposure was set and accepted by our discipline long before either of us were born. It is correctly stated in that Wiki definition. It's clear and makes perfect sense and once we understand what it is and how to manipulate it we can move on to manipulating it to achieve a serviceable result from one film/sensor or another of different sensitivity.

Peterson's Exposure Triangle that includes ISO such that armies of photogs now think of ISO as an exposure control has caused massive misunderstanding that eventually gets photogs into trouble. I couldn't count how many photogs I've met now that think ISO plays an equally interchangeable role with shutter and f/stop as far as determining exposure. 

 

I don't think I have to explain to you why it doesn't.

Joe


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2016)

No. You certainly don't. Naturally, ISO is a set it and forget it parameter as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I don't even like calling it "ISO" with digital, because it's not the same thing as in film at all; in fact, last I knew the ISO hasn't even set standards for digital photography. Maybe they have by now?

I suppose it makes some degree of sense to exclude sensitivity. For one, we really don't have that much control over it (and in the case of digital, we don't have any control at all). But the term "exposure" kind of sets me back a bit, this implies that there is some kind of reaction happening or at least, a state in which that reaction occurs.

This latter bit might be the solution: according to Google Dictionary, exposure is defined as "the state of being exposed to contact with something", and the fact that contact is made says nothing of the effect that this contact makes. My first clue should have been that "exposure" is a noun, not a verb. 

Exposure to a sensor is the same regardless of how sensitive, or even if the material is capable of making direct measurement at all for that matter; like you said, the light doesn't change.

So really, encoding could be defined as a function of exposure and quantum yield/efficiency (i.e. sensitivity), whilst decoding could be defined as a function of processing.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 24, 2016)

THAT SAID. I do reject the scene luminance parameter. I do not think that scene luminance has anything to do with this (and certainly not if we're excluding sensitivity), as I've said already, exposure is cumulative. Scene luminance determines time and aperture. It's the amount of light at the medium that determines exposure, not the amount of light in the scene.


----------



## Gary A. (Aug 24, 2016)

I say yes.  Camera makers, vis-a-vis Matrix/Evaluative meter modes and Live View/EVF's, are attempting to remove the importance of knowing the basics of exposure.  For old timers like myself, the lack of understanding exposure and how a meter works, is a significant deficiency for a photographer.  I shoot Fuji and adjust my settings to what the scene that is reflected in my EVF sans active metering.  Between Live/EVF and ultra sensitive/ISO-less sensors, I see a future where meters become vestigial.

Has your student heard of the Sunny 16 rule?


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 24, 2016)

unpopular said:


> No. You certainly don't. Naturally, ISO is a set it and forget it parameter as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I don't even like calling it "ISO" with digital, because it's not the same thing as in film at all; in fact, last I knew the ISO hasn't even set standards for digital photography. Maybe they have by now?



They have but there are multiple options and you get to pick the one you like. Most camera manufacturers are going with a definition based on a brightness value measured in the camera generated JPEG -- in other words what they want.



unpopular said:


> I suppose it makes some degree of sense to exclude sensitivity. For one, we really don't have that much control over it (and in the case of digital, we don't have any control at all). But the term "exposure" kind of sets me back a bit, this implies that there is some kind of reaction happening or at least, a state in which that reaction occurs.
> 
> This latter bit might be the solution: according to Google Dictionary, exposure is defined as "the state of being exposed to contact with something", and the fact that contact is made says nothing of the effect that this contact makes. My first clue should have been that "exposure" is a noun, not a verb.



Exposure is a noun and I was careful to write "photographic exposure" -- the noun as we use it in the discipline.

Joe



unpopular said:


> Exposure to a sensor is the same regardless of how sensitive, or even if the material is capable of making direct measurement at all for that matter; like you said, the light doesn't change.
> 
> So really, encoding could be defined as a function of exposure and quantum yield/efficiency (i.e. sensitivity), whilst decoding could be defined as a function of processing.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 24, 2016)

unpopular said:


> THAT SAID. I do reject the scene luminance parameter. I do not think that scene luminance has anything to do with this (and certainly not if we're excluding sensitivity), as I've said already, exposure is cumulative. Scene luminance determines time and aperture. It's the amount of light at the medium that determines exposure, not the amount of light in the scene.



Illumination outside the camera is a necessary condition for an "amount of light at the medium" and as the scene illumination changes so does "the amount of light at the medium" -- exposure. That's the key to the definition; what can cause a change in "amount of light at the medium."

I've seen definitions that identify only shutter speed and f/stop as exposure determinants, the scene illumination being assumed in the definition. The definition that includes all three is the most common, widely accepted, and long standing and as I noted it long predates both of us.

Joe


----------



## BananaRepublic (Aug 25, 2016)

unpopular said:


> Ok. Not really. I'll never go back to the darkroom. Like ever.
> 
> But I am talking with a third year cinematography student pal of mine, and he doesn't seem to understand a grey card is used for exposure, and not just white balance.
> 
> Has automation, such as AE and AF disrupted how we learn about photography to the point that the craft of photography risks being lost forever?



Isn't a grey card what you get when you turn 65.


----------



## unpopular (Aug 25, 2016)

> The definition that includes all three is the most common, widely accepted, and long standing and as I noted it long predates both of us.



This doesn't really concern me much, honestly. For the majority of film's history we had very little understanding about how it worked, atomic theory wasn't even discovered until 1914. So a historic definition really doesn't hold much weight IMO.

The scene illuminance should not be considered a part of exposure because it only determines the *maximum* amount of energy available over any arbitrary time, not the actual accumulation of light at the medium over the duration of the time specified. Because time and attenuation are arbitrary variables not dependent on illumination, and if sensitivity is a factor of serviceable exposure, then likewise illuminations must be considered separately.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 25, 2016)

Is there going to be a test??!!?

Good thing I learned this young so now it seems second nature and I don't seem to have to think about it much, I just do it. What's so hard about getting the needle lined up where it needs to be?

I think it seems like exposure is often the thing that people don't understand and prevents them from getting decent pictures. And seems to be the reason they might be editing a lot because the exposure was off.

And I don't think the craft of photography is totally lost, there are some of us using early photography technology; but I do think the 'newfangled technology' can be great sometimes but isn't always the most effective way to do something. Not just in photography - relying too much on a device to do whatever for you without keeping tabs on what said device is doing, isn't necessarily the best way to go about something.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 25, 2016)

unpopular said:


> > The definition that includes all three is the most common, widely accepted, and long standing and as I noted it long predates both of us.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Without illuminance no exposure is possible. Consider this definition from the Ilford Manual of Photography which bares an original publication date of 1890, although this is copied from the 6th (1970) edition:

_*"Exposure*

When a photograph is taken, light from the various areas of the subject falls on corresponding areas of the film for a set time. The effect produced on the emulsion is, within limits, proportional to the product of the illuminance E and the exposure time t. We express this by the equation

H = Et 

Before international standardization of symbols, the equation was E = It (E was exposure, I was illuminance) and this usage is sometimes still found. The SI unit for illuminance is the lux (lx). Hence the exposure is measured in lux seconds (lxs)."_

They don't mention attenuation through the lens in their definition: Exposure is accumulated illuminance over time. They're not concerned in the definition with the camera control factors. So we have this distinction between the hard definition (lxs) and then the functions when taking a photo that produce exposure.

Back to the Wiki definition: "In photography, *exposure* is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance."

Parse the sentence carefully and you get exposure defined as amount of light per unit area (illuminance times the exposure time). That's the same as the Ilford Photo Manual definition.  In the second half of the sentence the Wiki definition provides a list of the three practical functions that can control or alter exposure -- a subtle distinction.

I think we're just dancing around a lack of clarity over that distinction. I'm guilty for mixing the term "definition" up with the practical control functions. My original question did ask for those control functions as opposed to the hard definition:

"Fill in the blanks:
Photographic exposure is a function of _________________, ____________________, ________________"

The hard definition requires illuminance.

In any case it's all good as long as we keep this guy from mucking it up: 




Medium sensitivity does not belong to either the hard definition or the list of practical control functions that determine exposure.

Joe


----------



## unpopular (Aug 25, 2016)

The issue though is that there is no unit of area without an image plane. Illumination is always that of the image plane, not that of the scene; and the image plane illumination is always attenuated. Attenuation must be considered, otherwise exposure has no meaning at all.

It does not matter what the illumination of the scene is, provided that illumination exists. Specifically, how bright the scene is plays no role in the measured value. All we can say definitively is that a brighter scene will have a greater effect on the exposed than a darker one in any specific time period at any specific aperture. But we cannot say that a brighter scene will yield any specific effect, greater or less, at any arbitrary aperture and time period.

As for Peterson, I'm glad I'm not alone. His advocacy of "correct" exposure masquerading as "artistic control" is super bothersome. To add technical fault on top is only insult to injury at this point.


----------



## Deleted member 215987 (Aug 25, 2016)

I think the main problem with digital is that people feel they don't need to learn the basics because, "I can fix it in Photoshop"!


----------



## unpopular (Aug 25, 2016)

Yes. I think there is a misplaced sense of the roll of post processing, though on the other hand, negatives, in particular b/w negatives were probably even more forgiving than digital, only that most people didn't have a darkroom. This is especially so when you start taking into account reducers, toners, etc.

I think that this might be an initial attitude, but it is quickly realized to be a faulty one (just as the darkroom techniques are).


----------

