# Is there a point of learning Aperture,ISO,Shutter speed?



## Matrixgravity

The only cool looking aesthetic effects you can do with a camera are Depth of field, and Bokeh. Other than that, is there really any point in learning how to use Aperture, ISO, and Shutter Speed? I mean, can't a beginner just purchase an expensive DSLR and just shoot on auto and produce professional looking pictures? I mean, the only reason you would need aperture,ISO, or shutter speed is if you wanted to create depth of field, or bokeh. Other than that, what is the point though? Thats what confuses me..There really doesn't seem like there is much to do with a camera aside from bokeh and depth of field..That is all I ever see..


----------



## MTVision

The whole point of ISO, aperture and shutter speed is to have creative control over how your pictures come out.  There are 6 exposures for every picture and shooting auto doesn't let you control how the picture comes out. 

Why learn about white balance? Or - why learn how to use an editing program?

You can shoot auto all day!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Nope. No point at all.
It's perfectly fine to throw it in auto and let the camera make all the decisions for you!


----------



## e.rose

Matrixgravity said:


> The only cool looking aesthetic effects you can do with a camera are Depth of field, and Bokeh. Other than that, is there really any point in learning how to use Aperture, ISO, and Shutter Speed?



Yes.  You can't obtain proper exposure without knowledge of all 3.



			
				Matrixgravity said:
			
		

> I mean, can't a beginner just purchase an expensive DSLR and just shoot on auto and produce professional looking pictures?



No.  You can produce nice snap shots maybe...



			
				Matrixgravity said:
			
		

> I mean, the only reason you would need aperture,ISO, or shutter speed is if you wanted to create depth of field, or bokeh. Other than that, what is the point though?


 
Proper exposure.



			
				Matrixgravity said:
			
		

> Thats what confuses me..There really doesn't seem like there is much to do with a camera aside from bokeh and depth of field..That is all I ever see..



ISO, Aperture, and shutter speed aren't about creating "effects".  They're about obtaining proper *exposure*.

I can't say it enough times...

You need these for EXPOOOOOSUUUUURE...


----------



## Matrixgravity

MTVision said:


> The whole point of ISO, aperture and shutter speed is to have creative control over how your pictures come out.  There are 6 exposures for every picture and shooting auto doesn't let you control how the picture comes out.
> 
> Why learn about white balance? Or - why learn how to use an editing program?
> 
> You can shoot auto all day!



Yeah.. It's just when I personally shoot with my camera on Auto, it produces some seemingly interesting pictures with little effort. So I'm just wondering is there really a purpose of shooting on Manual and learning all these things about Photography if you achieve some great pictures just by using Auto mode? Maybe there is more to it than that.. But the only reason I would want to shoot on Manual is if I wanted to shoot something with a shallow depth of field, or bokeh..


----------



## EIngerson

Yup, Bokeh and Depth of field. You're in there.


----------



## Matrixgravity

EIngerson said:


> Yup, Bokeh and Depth of field. You're in there.



I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but pardon my ignorance lol. Whenever I see Photography, the only discernible technique I ever see used is a shallow depth of field, or Bokeh. That's all I ever really see..So that leads me to believe that not much can really be achieved then..So wouldn't it be easier to just do Auto then..


----------



## tirediron

e.rose said:


> Matrixgravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only cool looking aesthetic effects you can do with a camera are Depth of field, and Bokeh. Other than that, is there really any point in learning how to use Aperture, ISO, and Shutter Speed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. You can't obtain proper exposure without knowledge of all 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matrixgravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, can't a beginner just purchase an expensive DSLR and just shoot on auto and produce professional looking pictures?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You can produce nice snap shots maybe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matrixgravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, the only reason you would need aperture,ISO, or shutter speed is if you wanted to create depth of field, or bokeh. Other than that, what is the point though?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proper exposure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matrixgravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what confuses me..There really doesn't seem like there is much to do with a camera aside from bokeh and depth of field..That is all I ever see..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISO, Aperture, and shutter speed aren't about creating "effects". They're about obtaining proper *exposure*.
> 
> I can't say it enough times...
> 
> You need these for EXPOOOOOSUUUUURE...
Click to expand...

And if anyone here knows anything about exposure... 

^^  What rose said.


----------



## shootermcgavin

matrix have you been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder?  One day you want to learn those exact three things and the next you think it's pointless.  There's so many different things the three things can do, if you're on auto you have no control over what it does. I won't use easy mode in my camera because it gives me the worst pictures so if for some reason yours gives you the best I would continue to shoot with it.


----------



## tirediron

Matrixgravity said:


> ...Whenever I see Photography, the only discernible technique I ever see used is a shallow depth of field, or Bokeh. That's all I ever really see...


Then, without meaning to be rude, I would submit that you don't really know or understand what you're looking at.


----------



## bogeyguy

OMG!!!!


----------



## MTVision

tirediron said:
			
		

> Then, without meaning to be rude, I would submit that you don't really know or understand what you're looking at.



I would have to agree! ^^^

I thought my photos shot on auto were AMAZING until I learned how to shoot manual and learned about EXPOSURE. Why spend money on an expensive DSLR and lenses when you could've just bought a point and shoot camera?


----------



## Desi

Find someone else's photo that you really like, then try to duplicate it on "auto".  See if you can get the same feeling out of your version done on auto.  

For me (a noob), I get more consistent shots on progam mode (nearly like auto) but they are uninspiring.  When I think about how I want my shot to look first and set up the exposure to give it to me, I get much better pictures.  I also screw up a lot more, but then I am learning.

The best advice I got from a pro was to learn basic rules of picture composition first.  Then start to fuss more over your exposure.

Enjoy.


----------



## TheFantasticG

shootermcgavin said:


> matrix have you been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder?  One day you want to learn those exact three things and the next you think it's pointless.


 
Possible sudden case of Trollaroids?


----------



## Matrixgravity

MTVision said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, without meaning to be rude, I would submit that you don't really know or understand what you're looking at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to agree! ^^^
> 
> I thought my photos shot on auto were AMAZING until I learned how to shoot manual and learned about EXPOSURE. Why spend money on an expensive DSLR and lenses when you could've just bought a point and shoot camera?
Click to expand...


Hmm..Do you happen to have any Before/After pictures of shooting on Auto and shooting on Manual? Because from what I understand, Manual is just used to expose the picture accurately but if Auto can calculate all of that for you, then wouldn't it be the same? Perhaps I am missing something here..


----------



## Matrixgravity

shootermcgavin said:


> matrix have you been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder?  One day you want to learn those exact three things and the next you think it's pointless.  There's so many different things the three things can do, if you're on auto you have no control over what it does. I won't use easy mode in my camera because it gives me the worst pictures so if for some reason yours gives you the best I would continue to shoot with it.



No I have been learning about Photography for a month now. Only recently today did I start questioning the manner of it all..


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Matrixgravity said:


> So wouldn't it be easier to just do Auto then..


 Yes, it is definitely easier!


----------



## MTVision

Matrixgravity said:
			
		

> Hmm..Do you happen to have any Before/After pictures of shooting on Auto and shooting on Manual? Because from what I understand, Manual is just used to expose the picture accurately but if Auto can calculate all of that for you, then wouldn't it be the same? Perhaps I am missing something here..



I do but I'm on my phone so you'll have to wait to see them.


----------



## Matrixgravity

MTVision said:


> Matrixgravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm..Do you happen to have any Before/After pictures of shooting on Auto and shooting on Manual? Because from what I understand, Manual is just used to expose the picture accurately but if Auto can calculate all of that for you, then wouldn't it be the same? Perhaps I am missing something here..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do but I'm on my phone so you'll have to wait to see them.
Click to expand...


Ok cool thank you. I am just trying to clear up confusion..


----------



## Destin

Not only does aperture control depth of field. It controls your flash exposure separately from ambient exposure when using flash. Wanna have a dark sky on a bright sunny day, but a properly exposed subject? Good luck achieving that on auto. 

What if you wanted I create starbursts from bright light points in the photo? That requires a small aperture. Do that on auto. 

What if you're shooting a panorama and require your exposures to remain identical for multiple photos? Can't do that on auto because the meter could read differently on each frame. 

These are just a few examples. I could keep going all night.

Sorry if there are typos, I'm on my iPhone.


----------



## MLeeK

Ok, I am going to swallow this one hook line and sinker... 
Because the camera notoriously makes the wrong decisions. If you are lit with backlight your camera will always underexpose. Your camera doesn't know if you need to have a depth of field of an inch or a mile to get everyone in focus. It also doesn't know that you want that depth of field to stop just after the subjects to blur the crap in the background. Your camera doesn't know that  you need to overexpose slightly when using a high ISO. Your camera doesn't know when  you are shooting a photo of the moon that the sky is SUPPOSED to be black-it will try to make it middle gray every time. Your camera doesn't know that human skin should be anything other than middle gray and if you meter white skin it will underexpose every time.
The only thing your camera knows is that it needs to make middle gray. It doesn't know what you need to be in focus or not. It doesn't know that you need to stop motion of a moving child. It doesn't know JACK ****.


----------



## tirediron

Matrixgravity said:


> from what I understand, Manual is just used to expose the picture accurately but if Auto can calculate all of that for you, then wouldn't it be the same? Perhaps I am missing something here..


 Knowledge of the exposure triangle is used to calculate exposure. While this image is not shot in manual, but rather shutter-priority, it would be virtually impossible to capture in auto, except by pure s**t-house luck.

ETA:  This one is shot in manual... again, NOT going to happen in auto.


----------



## Matrixgravity

Oh ok, so Manual is for accurate exposure. I understand that.. But the one thing that bothers me is that.. There doesn't seem like you can do much with a Camera once you learn how to properly use it.. Like, technique wise. Like I said, from what I understand the two primary techniques you can apply in Manual is using Depth Of Field to create interesting shots, and create Bokeh as well. But is there anything else you can do?..


----------



## e.rose

Matrixgravity said:


> No I have been learning about Photography for a month now.



How 'bout you just KEEP learning photography then?  And eventually you'll be able to answer your own question.

Or don't.

And keep shooting auto 'cause "it's easier" and never improve your images.

We're just going to keep going in circles at this rate. :banghead:


----------



## tirediron

Matrixgravity said:


> Oh ok, so Manual is for accurate exposure. I understand that.. But the one thing that bothers me is that.. There doesn't seem like you can do much with a Camera once you learn how to properly use it.. Like, technique wise. Like I said, from what I understand the two primary techniques you can apply in Manual is using Depth Of Field to create interesting shots, and create Bokeh as well. But is there anything else you can do?..


Look at the examples posted above...


----------



## 480sparky

Try this simple experiment:

Go to any store that sells construction paper, and get some black and some white construction paper.  Take a sheet of black and a sheet of white and lay them out in the sun.  Put your camera on Auto and move it in so the black sheet fills the frame.  Then take a shot of the white sheet.  Now put them up on your computer monitor and see how well they're rendered.

Then you will have learned how much your camera lies to you.


----------



## MLeeK

Well, considering the technique you asked about that had the stars in the photo last night being one of thousands of tricks I'd say there is a whole lot you can do and continue to learn.
THen there is the challenge of showing something using only those three controls and composition. How do I suck the viewer in and make this image say exactly what I want it to say? Therein lies the challenge. You only have 3 controls and your knowledge to do that...


----------



## TheFantasticG

e.rose said:


> We're just going to keep going in circles at this rate. :banghead:


 
Just seems like troll behavior to me.


----------



## e.rose

TheFantasticG said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're just going to keep going in circles at this rate. :banghead:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just seems like troll behavior to me.
Click to expand...


You're probably right.


----------



## tirediron

e.rose said:


> TheFantasticG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're just going to keep going in circles at this rate. :banghead:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just seems like troll behavior to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right.
Click to expand...

Annnnddddddddddddddddddddd... as usual, I'm reeled in, hook, line and sinker!


----------



## Matrixgravity

MLeeK said:


> Well, considering the technique you asked about that had the stars in the photo last night being one of thousands of tricks I'd say there is a whole lot you can do and continue to learn.
> THen there is the challenge of showing something using only those three controls and composition. How do I suck the viewer in and make this image say exactly what I want it to say? Therein lies the challenge. You only have 3 controls and your knowledge to do that...



I see. Well, I certainly wish there were more controls implemented to create more intricate photo's. But I guess that they created three for a reason. Needless to say, this always happens to me. I think the reason why I am questioning Photography is because.. Well, before I started learning I would spend so much time admiring photo's and wondering what it would take to be able to make something as good. Now that I have learned, it just feels underwhelming overall. I don't know what it is honestly. I guess I assumed the process would be more intricate I suppose? Quite puzzling.. But I will continue to learn nonetheless..


----------



## e.rose

tirediron said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheFantasticG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just seems like troll behavior to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Annnnddddddddddddddddddddd... as usual, I'm reeled in, hook, line and sinker!
Click to expand...


It's because you have a good heart.  No one faults you for that. :hug::


----------



## Overread

Wait 3 pages and not one mention? Guys you are slipping in your standards! 

Understanding Exposure - by Bryan Peterson - get it and read it; not only will it help you learn about the exposure triangle, but it also presents a good range of situations where auto will fail as well as examples of how to creatively use the aperture and shutter speed to create photos.


----------



## tirediron

Let us know when you get hired on at NG will'ya' Yousuf?


----------



## MLeeK

Matrixgravity said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, considering the technique you asked about that had the stars in the photo last night being one of thousands of tricks I'd say there is a whole lot you can do and continue to learn.
> THen there is the challenge of showing something using only those three controls and composition. How do I suck the viewer in and make this image say exactly what I want it to say? Therein lies the challenge. You only have 3 controls and your knowledge to do that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Well, I certainly wish there were more controls implemented to create more intricate photo's. But I guess that they created three for a reason. Needless to say, this always happens to me. I think the reason why I am questioning Photography is because.. Well, before I started learning I would spend so much time admiring photo's and wondering what it would take to be able to make something like that. Now that I have learned, it just feels underwhelming overall. I don't know what it is honestly. I guess I assumed the process would be more intricate I suppose? Quite puzzling.. But I will continue to learn nonetheless..
Click to expand...


Seeing how you've learned it all, do  you think you could teach the rest of us? Because after 20+ years I don't have it yet. And that's not even being funny. There is so much I DON'T know that I don't even know where to begin.


----------



## e.rose

Matrixgravity said:


> I think the reason why I am questioning Photography is because.. Well, before I started learning I would spend so much time admiring photo's and wondering what it would take to be able to make something like that. Now that I have learned, it just feels underwhelming overall. I don't know what it is honestly.



Right.  Cause you've OBVIOUSLY learned all there is to photography.

I can see why you're underwhelmed.

Knowing all there is to know... it can't be much more exciting past this point.

I get it.

::nods understandingly::

:roll:


----------



## e.rose

Overread said:


> Wait 3 pages and not one mention? Guys you are slipping in your standards!
> 
> Understanding Exposure - by Bryan Peterson - get it and read it; not only will it help you learn about the exposure triangle, but it also presents a good range of situations where auto will fail as well as examples of how to creatively use the aperture and shutter speed to create photos.



It's because he doesn't need it.

He knows all there is to know.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Matrixgravity said:


> Oh ok, so Manual is for accurate exposure. I understand that.. But the one thing that bothers me is that.. There doesn't seem like you can do much with a Camera once you learn how to properly use it.. Like, technique wise. Like I said, from what I understand the two primary techniques you can apply in Manual is using Depth Of Field to create interesting shots, and create Bokeh as well. But is there anything else you can do?..


 
There is a couple pieces of the puzzle you are missing. Just because you know how to expose things correctly, creatively, or in auto, there is more to making compelling images. Content, composition,  lighting, point of view, interpretation, timing...


----------



## Overread

Bitter - post some darn kitty pics somewhere before Erose gets herself into troubles  The site needs more kitten pics anyway (we've not had any in ages!)


*official mod hat on* Guys try and remain respectful toward each other.


----------



## e.rose

Overread said:


> Bitter - post some darn kitty pics somewhere before Erose gets herself into troubles  The site needs more kitten pics anyway (we've not had any in ages!)



I would NEVER! :bigangel:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

:addpics: :addpics: :addpics: :addpics:


----------



## unpopular

shootermcgavin said:


> matrix have you been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder?



Some one around here might just have bipolar disorder, and resent that you imply that we are a bunch of idiots.

... Anyway ...

Exposure control is much more than a computer program. While a camera can determine the optimal solution pretty well, it can not provide the best solution. How does the camera know what you expect from the scene? Maybe it's appropriate to push the hilights to obtain shadow detail, maybe it'd be better to compromise shadow detail to obtain more hilights, maybe it'd just be better to take more than one exposure, but how much - will it be ±2, or -1, +2?

I am not sure why this forum is so full of snarky one-liners, it's like everyone here is in a competition to who can be the most coy about their answers...


----------



## unpopular

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Nope. No point at all.
> It's perfectly fine to throw it in auto and let the camera make all the decisions for you!



This thread is pointless with comments such as this.


----------



## tirediron

unpopular said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. No point at all.
> It's perfectly fine to throw it in auto and let the camera make all the decisions for you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is pointless with comments such as this.
Click to expand...

Not at all.  There is nothing wrong with shooting in Auto; many camera owners go their whole life doing exactly that.  Additionally, sarcasm can be a valuable teaching tool!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

unpopular said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. No point at all.
> It's perfectly fine to throw it in auto and let the camera make all the decisions for you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is pointless with comments such as this.
Click to expand...


OMG!

I've missed you!

I am sooOOooo glad you're back!


----------



## unpopular

LOL. Sarcasm much?


----------



## mjhoward

Matrixgravity said:


> Well, I certainly wish there were more controls implemented to create more intricate photo's. But I guess that they created three for a reason.



Well what else would you use to control exposure in the camera or lens?  'They' didnt create three, physics did.  BTW, I'm curious to see photos taken by someone who has mastered photography in 1 month.


----------



## TheFantasticG

unpopular said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. No point at all.
> It's perfectly fine to throw it in auto and let the camera make all the decisions for you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is pointless with comments such as this.
Click to expand...

 
It was pointless way before that post.


----------



## Overread

I think I'm going to have to get neon lights for moderator posts since they seem to get overlooked (that or far too many members are replying to threads these days without reading beyond the first post). Guys whilst this thread probably belongs in Beginners not beyond the basics can we please try to retain a polite manner when talking to each other.
It is getting old fast that threads have to be locked every other day to every day at the moment, mostly because people insist upon sarcasm and snide replies as the main form of communication (if it keeps up people are, sadly, going to start getting time-outs).


----------



## unpopular

mjhoward said:


> Well what else would you use to control exposure in the camera or lens?  'They' didnt create three, physics did.  BTW, I'm curious to see photos taken by someone who has mastered photography in 1 month.



It's important to remember that a camera is nothing but an instrument that measures light intensity over a two dimensional matrix. What you do with that is photography, otherwise, it's just as unsexy as any other analytical gear...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

unpopular said:


> LOL. Sarcasm much?


 Not at all! It's refreshing to have you back, critiquing what people say and how they say it. I am so glad you are back to put us all in line again. We haven't had anybody to do that for some time now!


----------



## sm4him

Matrixgravity said:


> Well, before I started learning I would spend so much time admiring photo's and wondering what it would take to be able to make something as good. Now that I have learned, it just feels underwhelming overall. I don't know what it is honestly. I guess I assumed the process would be more intricate I suppose? Quite puzzling.. But I will continue to learn nonetheless..



Okay, honestly, I am not trying to be mean or rude or sarcastic (well, perhaps sarcastic) here, but:
If, after having now learned all there is to know about photography, you find yourself so thoroughly underwhelmed by it all, perhaps you should cut bait now and pursue a more in-depth hobby, one that you can't learn all there is to know about in a month...nuclear physics perhaps...or, possibly you could begin figuring out how to build the next space vehicle.  
Or...just create a clever name and start your Facebook fauxtog biz.

Quite seriously...photography isn't just about technique, it isn't just about those 3 little controls--any more than painting is just about slapping some colors on a canvas with a brush. It's an ART, and what REALLY sets a Photographer apart from some guy with a camera is the passion for his ART...


----------



## GeorgieGirl

If a musician who has learned to read music still feels underwhelmed when they play their instrument, then it just might not be their thing. One has to enjoy what they are doing in order not to feel underwhelmed. Photography is not supposed to be unpleasant or torture, IMHO.


----------



## unpopular

I wish my music endevors could be a little less overwhelming.



Bitter Jeweler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Sarcasm much?
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all! It's refreshing to have you back, critiquing what people say and how they say it. I am so glad you are back to put us all in line again. We haven't had anybody to do that for some time now!
Click to expand...


LMAO. Careful, this might get to my head.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

unpopular said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Sarcasm much?
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all! It's refreshing to have you back, critiquing what people say and how they say it. I am so glad you are back to put us all in line again. We haven't had anybody to do that for some time now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO. Careful, this might get to my head.
Click to expand...


----------



## e.rose

KIIIIIIITTTTTTYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!  :hug:::hug:::hug:::hug:::hug:::heart::heart::heart::heart:


----------



## 480sparky




----------



## KmH

Matrixgravity said:


> Is there a point of learning Aperture,ISO,Shutter speed?


None at all. Unless you want to learn how to do photography.

Yes. the point is making art.

In auto mode, the camera is the artist, not you. 

MTVision mentioned a tenet of Bryan Peterson's book Understanding Exposure. There are many diferent combinations of shutter speed, lens aperture and ISO that will result in a correctly exposed photo. Since there are 3 settings involved there re actually 9 combination s of the exposure triad that will deliver a properly exposed photo. _Only one of those combinations is the correct *'artistic'* exposure._ That's why the human needs to be the one in charge, and not the camera's auto mode.


----------



## manaheim

Gee... three pages.  Shocker.


----------



## EIngerson

Matrixgravity said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Bokeh and Depth of field. You're in there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but pardon my ignorance lol. Whenever I see Photography, the only discernible technique I ever see used is a shallow depth of field, or Bokeh. That's all I ever really see..So that leads me to believe that not much can really be achieved then..So wouldn't it be easier to just do Auto then..
Click to expand...


Yes, I was being very sarcastic. lol.


----------



## unpopular

Not sure what to think about be quoted followed by a cat picture...


----------



## Kerbouchard

I'm going to agree a bit with the OP.  Exposure isn't that complicated.  Neither is the exposure triangle, even though most people still think ISO is part of exposure, so maybe it's a bit complicated or perhaps most people don't think about what they say and just keep repeating things other people said.

In any case, exposure is basically the amount of light that falls on a photographic surface.  There are three things that effect that.  Shutter speed determines how long the sensor is exposed to light.  Aperture determines how much light the lens passes through.  And the amount of light determines how much light there is.

ISO is not a part of exposure in any normal sense, especially in digital photography.  ISO is the amount the signal gathered by the sensor is amplified before it is converted from an analog to digital signal.

In any case, still not all that complicated in the grand scheme of things.

My suggestion to the OP would be if he has mastered how ISO, shutter speed, and aperture work together, he should work on the fourth part that effects how every image he takes will turn out...the lighting.  I assure you, lighting will take much longer than 1 month to master.

Also to the OP, there are many other 'effects' that can be manipulated using just ISO, shutter speed, aperture, and the available light.  Most of those effects have to do with deliberately using a longer shutter speed than normal...for instance panning, painting with light, silky water effects, etc.

Then, there are also lens choices that impact how the shots turn out.  A macro lens might let you see things you've never seen before.  A wide angle offers a different perspective than a telephoto and the use of one focal length vs another can completely change the feel of a photo.

Once you open up the world to flash, there are a ton more.  Everything from freezing fast action to balancing out photos to truly creating masterpieces.

It's a fun journey and there is a ton to learn, but honestly, if you feel like you know what you need to know to achieve the quality that you want, by all means, stop where you are.  Just as with any hobby, everybody has different expectations and is happy with different levels of results.


----------



## pgriz

@ Matrixgravity:  After you "master" the exposure triangle, you can start on the emotional triangle of image making:  Creating interest, sustaining interest, and touching the viewer's emotions.  Without emotion, you don't have art, you have illustration.  

Our focus on the mechanics of image-making often misses the obvious - the point of mastering the mechanics is to get them out of the way, so we can focus on the "Wow" and not the "how".   What is the story the image is telling us?  What is in the image that makes us want to know more (or turn away in shame or disgust)?  Is there something in the image that makes us pause and think "why did I not see that before?"?  


So the point of mastering the exposure triangle, and then the mechanics of lighting, and then the concepts of composition and design, is to distill all that technique into a delivery vehicle for emotion.   Once we walk though that door, we find a new universe to be explored:  is the emotional connection closed or open?  is it attractive or repelling?  Pride or disgust?  love or loathing?  envy?  compassion?  anger?  hate? or ...  indifference?


----------



## Destin

Matrixgravity said:
			
		

> I see. Well, I certainly wish there were more controls implemented to create more intricate photo's. But I guess that they created three for a reason. Needless to say, this always happens to me. I think the reason why I am questioning Photography is because.. Well, before I started learning I would spend so much time admiring photo's and wondering what it would take to be able to make something as good. Now that I have learned, it just feels underwhelming overall. I don't know what it is honestly. I guess I assumed the process would be more intricate I suppose? Quite puzzling.. But I will continue to learn nonetheless..



It's a very intricate process. It takes years to master. Sure the camera settings can be learned in a few weeks. But learning to speak with light, be it natural or artificial, is something that you will NEVER perfect. It's always going to involve at least a little guesswork and some experimentation. If basic photography seems easy, go check out strobist.com. It'll keep you bust trying to learn for years to come.


----------



## Dao

OP.  In general, it maybe easy to learn a craft, but master it is a different story.


----------



## jake337

Matrixgravity said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, considering the technique you asked about that had the stars in the photo last night being one of thousands of tricks I'd say there is a whole lot you can do and continue to learn.
> THen there is the challenge of showing something using only those three controls and composition. How do I suck the viewer in and make this image say exactly what I want it to say? Therein lies the challenge. You only have 3 controls and your knowledge to do that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Well, I certainly wish there were more controls implemented to create more intricate photo's. But I guess that they created three for a reason. Needless to say, this always happens to me. I think the reason why I am questioning Photography is because.. Well, before I started learning I would spend so much time admiring photo's and wondering what it would take to be able to make something as good. Now that I have learned, it just feels underwhelming overall. I don't know what it is honestly. I guess I assumed the process would be more intricate I suppose? Quite puzzling.. But I will continue to learn nonetheless..
Click to expand...


It is underwhelming eh?

Can you describe in detail how these shots where created? I still can't. I could guess. 

Do you think they were shot in auto?

Have you used and understand off camera flash and why manual is benificial for it?

The Stig of Saudi Arabia | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

All sizes | Golden Autumn | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Morning Glow - 28/52 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The Infinite Splendor Of Acuatico Resort, Laiya, Batangas, Philippines | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Triumph | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Time for FUN~~~! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


If you fully understand all this let me know, you can be my mentor. I'm sure all the exposures above must have been shot in auto, lol.


----------



## MTVision

jake337 said:
			
		

> It is underwhelming eh?
> 
> Can you describe in detail how these shots where created? I still can't. I could guess.
> 
> Do you think they were shot in auto?
> 
> Have you used and understand off camera flash and why manual is benificial for it?
> 
> The Stig of Saudi Arabia | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> All sizes | Golden Autumn | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> Morning Glow - 28/52 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> The Infinite Splendor Of Acuatico Resort, Laiya, Batangas, Philippines | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> Triumph | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> Time for FUN~~~! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> If you fully understand all this let me know, you can be my mentor. I'm sure all the exposures above must have been shot in auto, lol.



C'mon - obviously those pictures were all taken on auto!!


----------



## gsgary

Matrixgravity said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Bokeh and Depth of field. You're in there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but pardon my ignorance lol. Whenever I see Photography, the only discernible technique I ever see used is a shallow depth of field, or Bokeh. That's all I ever really see..So that leads me to believe that not much can really be achieved then..So wouldn't it be easier to just do Auto then..
Click to expand...


I think you better give up photography because you will never have a clue


----------



## radiorickm

I would like to ask the OP a question, but the rest of you can play along too

Assuming your theory is right (and it isn't by far), and the only three things involved in photography were the ISO, Shutter and aperture, then I would like to ask you a question.

Please look at these numbers, and tell me what if anything they have in common. They are camera configurations, listing the ISO, the shutter speed, and the aperture.

64---1/15---f64
64---1/30---f32
64---1/60---f16
64---1/125---f11
64---1/250---f8
64---1/500---f5.6
64---1/1000---f4
64---1/2000---f2.8
100---1/4000---f2.8
100---1/2000---f4
100---1/1000---f5.6
100---1/500---f8
100---1/250---f11
100---1/125---f16
100---1/60---f32
100---1/30---f64
200---1/60---f64
200---1/125---f32
200---1/250---f16
200---1/500---f11
200---1/1000---f8
200---1/2000---f5.6
200---1/4000---f4
400---1/4000---f5.6
400---1/2000---f8
400---1/1000---f11
400---1/500---f16
400---1/250---f32
400---1/125---f64
800---1/250---f64
800---1/500---f32
800---1/1000---f16
800---1/2000---f11
800---1/4000---f8
1600---1/4000---f11
1600---1/2000---f16
1600---1/1000---f32
1600---1/500---f64

Can you, the OP, tell me the signifigance of this particular set of numbers????

They may seem like the ramblings of a mad man, and they probably are. But the truth is EACH and EVERY combination listed above will give you the EXACT SAME EXPOSURE on your camera. It will I promise.

This being the case, why would you choose to shoot at 200---1/250---f16 insted of 1600---1/4000---f16.

Truth is there are lots of reasons for choosing a particular set of figures above; More to it than just picking any one of them and taking the picture.


There are many considerations beyond just these three also. I hope you see there is more to it.


----------



## margosoriginals

I'd like to see some of the OP's photo's.


----------



## JMBriggs

The OP hasn't said anything for awhile... Did you guys scare him off?!?! Just wait until shwetty shows up Lol. No one seems to have said it yet so I'll toss it put there. Long exposures? Panning shots? Last I checked my camera wasn't out taking those kind of pics without me... (M mode is for meee!) And to the guy who said ISO was no longer part of the exposure triangle... You shouldn't say that because it still is. When I'm in low light and I need to maintain a fast shutter speed with a wide open aperture.... Well I up the ISO! Silly people...


----------



## MLeeK

radiorickm said:


> I would like to ask the OP a question, but the rest of you can play along too
> 
> Assuming your theory is right (and it isn't by far), and the only three things involved in photography were the ISO, Shutter and aperture, then I would like to ask you a question.
> 
> Please look at these numbers, and tell me what if anything they have in common. They are camera configurations, listing the ISO, the shutter speed, and the aperture.
> 
> 64---1/15---f64
> 64---1/30---f32
> 64---1/60---f16
> 64---1/125---f11
> 64---1/250---f8
> 64---1/500---f5.6
> 64---1/1000---f4
> 64---1/2000---f2.8
> 100---1/4000---f2.8
> 100---1/2000---f4
> 100---1/1000---f5.6
> 100---1/500---f8
> 100---1/250---f11
> 100---1/125---f16
> 100---1/60---f32
> 100---1/30---f64
> 200---1/60---f64
> 200---1/125---f32
> 200---1/250---f16
> 200---1/500---f11
> 200---1/1000---f8
> 200---1/2000---f5.6
> 200---1/4000---f4
> 400---1/4000---f5.6
> 400---1/2000---f8
> 400---1/1000---f11
> 400---1/500---f16
> 400---1/250---f32
> 400---1/125---f64
> 800---1/250---f64
> 800---1/500---f32
> 800---1/1000---f16
> 800---1/2000---f11
> 800---1/4000---f8
> 1600---1/4000---f11
> 1600---1/2000---f16
> 1600---1/1000---f32
> 1600---1/500---f64
> 
> Can you, the OP, tell me the signifigance of this particular set of numbers????
> 
> They may seem like the ramblings of a mad man, and they probably are. But the truth is EACH and EVERY combination listed above will give you the EXACT SAME EXPOSURE on your camera. It will I promise.
> 
> This being the case, why would you choose to shoot at 200---1/250---f16 insted of 1600---1/4000---f16.
> 
> Truth is there are lots of reasons for choosing a particular set of figures above; More to it than just picking any one of them and taking the picture.
> 
> 
> There are many considerations beyond just these three also. I hope you see there is more to it.




I KNOW! I KNOW! PICK ME! PICK ME! 
LOL! 

I think he got chased off...


----------



## gwpurvis3

Matrixgravity said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of ISO, aperture and shutter speed is to have creative control over how your pictures come out.  There are 6 exposures for every picture and shooting auto doesn't let you control how the picture comes out.
> 
> Why learn about white balance? Or - why learn how to use an editing program?
> 
> You can shoot auto all day!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.. It's just when I personally shoot with my camera on Auto, it produces some seemingly interesting pictures with little effort. So I'm just wondering is there really a purpose of shooting on Manual and learning all these things about Photography if you achieve some great pictures just by using Auto mode? Maybe there is more to it than that.. But the only reason I would want to shoot on Manual is if I wanted to shoot something with a shallow depth of field, or bokeh..
Click to expand...


just put the camera and step away.


----------



## JMBriggs

gwpurvis3 said:
			
		

> just put the camera and step away.



+1


----------



## Kerbouchard

JMBriggs said:


> The OP hasn't said anything for awhile... Did you guys scare him off?!?! Just wait until shwetty shows up Lol. No one seems to have said it yet so I'll toss it put there. Long exposures? Panning shots? Last I checked my camera wasn't out taking those kind of pics without me... (M mode is for meee!)


I did.


> And to the guy who said ISO was no longer part of the exposure triangle... You shouldn't say that because it still is. When I'm in low light and I need to maintain a fast shutter speed with a wide open aperture.... Well I up the ISO! Silly people...



That was also me, and no, ISO is not part of exposure.  It is how much the analog signal generated by a photographic exposure is amplified before being converted to a digital signal.  It effects the apparent exposure of a shot, but it is not part of exposure.


----------



## Destin

Iso is ABSOLUTELY part of exposure. There's a reason it's called the exposure TRIANGLE.


----------



## KmH

Kerbouchard said:


> ....... ISO is not part of exposure.  It is how much the analog signal generated by a photographic exposure is amplified before being converted to a digital signal.  It effects the apparent exposure of a shot, but it is not part of exposure.


----------



## Beglenn

I'm fairly new to the photography myself but feel that you've missed a few aspects that can be modified by setting your own ISO, Shutter Speed, and Aperture.

Try to capture motion blur on Auto.  You may, you may not.  It really depends on what your camera's internal light meter is reading and then decides are the best settings to achieve a correct exposure.  Did your camera know you wanted to capture motion blur by slowing the shutter speed?  Nope.  Does it care?  Not really, it's doing what it was trained to do: Achieving a correct exposure.

How about tracking a moving subject?  Ever notice how car racing, bike racing, or running photos have the subject in sharp focus and everything around them is blurred (no, not bokeh, but blur)?  This is done by slowing the shutter speed and panning the camera to track the subject.  Once again, the camera will just read the light and adjust the settings.  It will never know that you were at a race.  It will never know this was Lance Armstrong's last Tour de France and it's failure to read your mind cost you that one, career defining photograph.

Yes, learning these things is very important.  More so, however, learning the RELATIONSHIP between them is the most important aspect a beginner of photography can understand.

Want to improve and learn how they relate to one another without the head-scratching scenarios of shooting full manual?  Try shooting in Aperture Priority mode, then switch to Shutter Priority mode.  This way you can still set 2 of the 3 aspects and still have the crutch of the automatic exposure calculator.

Just something to think about.  Hopefully that helped and didn't hurt.





-Glenn


Edit:  I'm an idiot and failed to see that there were 5+ pages here.  This was probably all covered already.  My apologies.


----------



## Kerbouchard

Destin said:


> Iso is ABSOLUTELY part of exposure. There's a reason it's called the exposure TRIANGLE.



Ahh, young grasshopper. When will you learn that words actually have established meanings regardless of whether or not you happen to know them?

From Webster: Exposure - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


> _esposure 2b_ *:* the treating of sensitized material (as film) to controlled amounts of radiant energy; _also_ *:* the amount of such energy or length of such treatment <a 3-second _exposure_>


From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)


> In photography, *exposure* is the total density of light allowed to fall on the photographic medium (photographic film or image sensor) during the process of taking a photograph. Exposure is measured in lux seconds, and can be computed from exposure value (EV) and scene luminance over a specified area.



So, how exactly do you measure ISO in 'lux seconds'? 

Just because a vast majority of people misuse a word, does not change the words definition, or at least it hasn't, yet. That applies to e.rose and KmH, although I'm a bit surprised KmH, AKA the word Nazi, is on the wrong side of this one.  Where is Derrel when you need him?

As far as the 'exposure triangle', it would be more proper to define those three sides as:
1. shutter speed, controlling how long the medium is exposed to a light source.
2. aperture, controlling how much light the lens allows to be passed through it.
3. amount of light


----------



## e.rose

Kerbouchard said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iso is ABSOLUTELY part of exposure. There's a reason it's called the exposure TRIANGLE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, young grasshopper. When will you learn that words actually have established meanings regardless of whether or not you happen to know them?
> 
> From Webster: Exposure - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> _esposure 2b_ *:* the treating of sensitized material (as film) to controlled amounts of radiant energy; _also_ *:* the amount of such energy or length of such treatment <a 3-second _exposure_>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)
> 
> 
> 
> In photography, *exposure* is the total density of light allowed to fall on the photographic medium (photographic film or image sensor) during the process of taking a photograph. Exposure is measured in lux seconds, and can be computed from exposure value (EV) and scene luminance over a specified area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, how exactly do you measure ISO in 'lux seconds'?
> 
> Just because a vast majority of people misuse a word, does not change the words definition, or at least it hasn't, yet. That applies to e.rose and KmH, although I'm a bit surprised KmH, AKA the word Nazi, is on the wrong side of this one.  Where is Derrel when you need him?
> 
> As far as the 'exposure triangle', it would be more proper to define those three sides as:
> 1. shutter speed, controlling how long the medium is exposed to a light source.
> 2. aperture, controlling how much light the lens allows to be passed through it.
> 3. amount of light
Click to expand...


OhhhoOOOKAY!

And this whole time I've been at shows increasing my ISO thinking it would help the outcome of my exposure since slowing down my shutter speed to the point where it's bright enough causes nothing but blur and my aperture physically can't open up any wider than f/1.4...

But clearly I'm wrong.  Increasing my ISO has been doing nothing to help my exposure come out to more than just a black rectangle... or a bright blurry blob!

NOTED!


----------



## Kerbouchard

e.rose said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iso is ABSOLUTELY part of exposure. There's a reason it's called the exposure TRIANGLE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, young grasshopper. When will you learn that words actually have established meanings regardless of whether or not you happen to know them?
> 
> From Webster: Exposure - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)
> 
> 
> 
> In photography, *exposure* is the total density of light allowed to fall on the photographic medium (photographic film or image sensor) during the process of taking a photograph. Exposure is measured in lux seconds, and can be computed from exposure value (EV) and scene luminance over a specified area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, how exactly do you measure ISO in 'lux seconds'?
> 
> Just because a vast majority of people misuse a word, does not change the words definition, or at least it hasn't, yet. That applies to e.rose and KmH, although I'm a bit surprised KmH, AKA the word Nazi, is on the wrong side of this one. Where is Derrel when you need him?
> 
> As far as the 'exposure triangle', it would be more proper to define those three sides as:
> 1. shutter speed, controlling how long the medium is exposed to a light source.
> 2. aperture, controlling how much light the lens allows to be passed through it.
> 3. amount of light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OhhhoOOOKAY!
> 
> And this whole time I've been at shows increasing my ISO thinking it would help the outcome of my exposure since slowing down my shutter speed to the point where it's bright enough causes nothing but blur and my aperture physically can't open up any wider than f/1.4...
> 
> But clearly I'm wrong. Increasing my ISO has been doing nothing to help my exposure come out to more than just a black rectangle... or a bright blurry blob!
> 
> NOTED!
Click to expand...

You are correct, increasing ISO does not "help my exposure come out to more than just a black rectangle... or a bright blurry blob!"

Allowing more light to reach your sensor increases your exposure. Increasing your ISO merely amplifies the analog signal that was created by the exposure before that signal is converted into digital data.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

OMG!


----------



## Overread

We've had this before haven't we = Kerbouchard nobody agrees with your interpretation of ISO. 

In fact you seem to be somewhat out there on your own in considering it not part of the exposure triangle.


----------



## Kerbouchard

Overread said:


> We've had this before haven't we = Kerbouchard nobody agrees with your interpretation of ISO.
> 
> In fact you seem to be somewhat out there on your own in considering it not part of the exposure triangle.


We have, indeed.  As far as me being on my own, I guess I am, unless you count every dictionary, technical, or scientific definition of the terms involved.

I think I'm starting to understand why most of the members here post their threads in the Beginner Section...


----------



## e.rose

Kerbouchard said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, young grasshopper. When will you learn that words actually have established meanings regardless of whether or not you happen to know them?
> 
> From Webster: Exposure - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)
> 
> 
> So, how exactly do you measure ISO in 'lux seconds'?
> 
> Just because a vast majority of people misuse a word, does not change the words definition, or at least it hasn't, yet. That applies to e.rose and KmH, although I'm a bit surprised KmH, AKA the word Nazi, is on the wrong side of this one. Where is Derrel when you need him?
> 
> As far as the 'exposure triangle', it would be more proper to define those three sides as:
> 1. shutter speed, controlling how long the medium is exposed to a light source.
> 2. aperture, controlling how much light the lens allows to be passed through it.
> 3. amount of light
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OhhhoOOOKAY!
> 
> And this whole time I've been at shows increasing my ISO thinking it would help the outcome of my exposure since slowing down my shutter speed to the point where it's bright enough causes nothing but blur and my aperture physically can't open up any wider than f/1.4...
> 
> But clearly I'm wrong. Increasing my ISO has been doing nothing to help my exposure come out to more than just a black rectangle... or a bright blurry blob!
> 
> NOTED!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct, increasing ISO does not "help my exposure come out to more than just a black rectangle... or a bright blurry blob!"
> 
> Allowing more light to reach your sensor increases your exposure. Increasing your ISO merely amplifies the analog signal that was created by the exposure before that signal is converted into digital data.
Click to expand...


  OhhhhhOKAY!!!!


----------



## Overread

Except that your using common dictionary definitions of words for a specific interest area; whereupon you should be referencing a photographic dictionary as there are subtle changes in the definitions of the terms. 


Asides from which you can't argue that increasing the sensitivity of the sensor (or the film) to the light that you are providing isn't affecting the exposure. If it didn't we wouldn't have any ISOs at all and we'd all just be adding more ISO light in the editing phase without cost. But there is a cost and upping the ISO does affect this


----------



## e.rose

Kerbouchard said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've had this before haven't we = Kerbouchard nobody agrees with your interpretation of ISO.
> 
> In fact you seem to be somewhat out there on your own in considering it not part of the exposure triangle.
> 
> 
> 
> We have, indeed.  As far as me being on my own, I guess I am, unless you count every dictionary, technical, or scientific definition of the terms involved.
Click to expand...


I'm curious as to how many photographers spend their time discussing images and exposures with dictionaries as opposed to other photographers.

If I ever get a chance to meet my photographic heros, I'll be sure to mention to them that all these years... all this time that they've been considering ISO as part of their exposure... that they've been wrong.


----------



## e.rose

Overread said:


> Except that your using common dictionary definitions of words for a specific interest area; whereupon you should be referencing a photographic dictionary as there are subtle changes in the definitions of the terms.
> 
> 
> Asides from which you can't argue that increasing the sensitivity of the sensor (or the film) to the light that you are providing isn't affecting the exposure. If it didn't we wouldn't have any ISOs at all and we'd all just be adding more ISO light in the editing phase without cost. But there is a cost and upping the ISO does affect this



No.  I think he's right.

Tonight at the show I'm going to set my shutter speed to 1/100, and my aperture to f/2.8, like I always do at the beginning of the night... but this time I'm going to set my ISO to 100 instead of ISO1600... because it's not going to affect my exposure anyway, right?


----------



## Village Idiot

Kerbouchard said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've had this before haven't we = Kerbouchard nobody agrees with your interpretation of ISO.
> 
> In fact you seem to be somewhat out there on your own in considering it not part of the exposure triangle.
> 
> 
> 
> We have, indeed.  As far as me being on my own, I guess I am, unless you count every dictionary, technical, or scientific definition of the terms involved.
> 
> I think I'm starting to understand why most of the members here post their threads in the Beginner Section...
Click to expand...


ISO has become even more of a part of the exposure. I know what you're trying to say in that changing the ISO doesn't change the amount of light that hits the medium that creates the image, but increases the sensitivity of the medium so that more light or less light has to hit it to expose it to what we judge as proper. However, unlike in the film days, ISO is now something that can be changed every shot and with a button press, a spin of a wheel, and one more click of a button. It's not like it used to be where you had to shoot an entire roll at a certain exposure or sacrifice a roll of film after one or two shots because you chose the wrong ISO. With it becoming an option that can be as easily adjusted as shutter speed or aperture, then it needs to be considered in a person's exposure more than it use to. If you're shooting in a place where you're forced to use high ISO, you may end up changing it several times so that you're using the highest you can get away with without degrading image quality. Like at concerts.

Oh, and Google "exposure triangle" and try and find one link that doesn't use shutter speed, aperture, and ISO.


----------



## dots

These kinds of threads. You know..


----------



## ghache

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


----------



## Kerbouchard

Overread said:


> Except that your using common dictionary definitions of words for a specific interest area; whereupon you should be referencing a photographic dictionary as there are subtle changes in the definitions of the terms.
> 
> 
> Asides from which you can't argue that increasing the sensitivity of the sensor (or the film) to the light that you are providing isn't affecting the exposure. If it didn't we wouldn't have any ISOs at all and we'd all just be adding more ISO light in the editing phase without cost. But there is a cost and upping the ISO does affect this


I should start a new thread and probably will at some point, but will address one more point.

Increasing ISO does not effect the sensitivity of a digital sensor.  The sensitivity of the chip is a constant that is determined at the time of manufacturing.  The sensor generates electrons based on the photons that hit it.  This starts out as an analog signal.  ISO is the user ability of controlling how much that signal is amplified.  After the amplification, it goes to an analog to digital converter.  That digital signal is what is recorded on the memory card.

This is where terms like 'signal to noise' ratio come from.  

/soapbox


----------



## dots

..are detrimental


----------



## Village Idiot

e.rose said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that your using common dictionary definitions of words for a specific interest area; whereupon you should be referencing a photographic dictionary as there are subtle changes in the definitions of the terms.
> 
> 
> Asides from which you can't argue that increasing the sensitivity of the sensor (or the film) to the light that you are providing isn't affecting the exposure. If it didn't we wouldn't have any ISOs at all and we'd all just be adding more ISO light in the editing phase without cost. But there is a cost and upping the ISO does affect this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I think he's right.
> 
> Tonight at the show I'm going to set my shutter speed to 1/100, and my aperture to f/2.8, like I always do at the beginning of the night... but this time I'm going to set my ISO to 100 instead of ISO1600... because it's not going to affect my exposure anyway, right?
Click to expand...


You say tomatoe, I say donkey lips. 

What he's saying can be interpreted as ISO doesn't affect the amount of light falling on the medium to be exposed, unlike changing the shutter speed or adjusting the aperture. It just changes the sensitivity to differ how much light is needed for the exposure.

It's still a part of the exposure triangle and he's being difficult. And if you can shoot a concert at 100 ISO, I'll trade you my 5D MKII for whatever you're shooting with.


----------



## e.rose

Village Idiot said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that your using common dictionary definitions of words for a specific interest area; whereupon you should be referencing a photographic dictionary as there are subtle changes in the definitions of the terms.
> 
> 
> Asides from which you can't argue that increasing the sensitivity of the sensor (or the film) to the light that you are providing isn't affecting the exposure. If it didn't we wouldn't have any ISOs at all and we'd all just be adding more ISO light in the editing phase without cost. But there is a cost and upping the ISO does affect this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I think he's right.
> 
> Tonight at the show I'm going to set my shutter speed to 1/100, and my aperture to f/2.8, like I always do at the beginning of the night... but this time I'm going to set my ISO to 100 instead of ISO1600... because it's not going to affect my exposure anyway, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say tomatoe, I say donkey lips.
> 
> What he's saying can be interpreted as ISO doesn't affect the amount of light falling on the medium to be exposed, unlike changing the shutter speed or adjusting the aperture. It just changes the sensitivity to differ how much light is needed for the exposure.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know that... I've always known that... HOWEVER...



> It's still a part of the exposure triangle and he's being difficult.


 
Because it STILL affects the way your exposure comes out! 

But you know that.



> And if you can shoot a concert at 100 ISO, I'll trade you my 5D MKII for whatever you're shooting with.



*NO!  IT'S MINE!  AND I'M KEEPING IT! *:greenpbl:

Wait... what am I talking about?

I mean... SURE!  Take it!  It's all yours!  *NO TRADE BACKSIES!!!!!!!*


----------



## Derrel

"The Exposure Triangle" is a phrase for an illustration that Bryan Peterson "invented" in his book, Understanding Exposure, as a way to help newbies understand how to get their cameras off of automatic mode...

it is a "new" addition to the photographic lexicon, and has not been widely adopted by other photographic authors or authorities. "Weston Speed", "ASA", "DIN", and ISO---none of those things are mentioned in traditional definitions or formulas that represent  "Exposure". Exposure = Intensity X Time is probably the simplest definition of "exposure".

Those arguing against Kerbouchard's position that ISO has no place in the definition of "Exposure" look rather newbish and foolish to me: Let's not not confuse "camera settings" with the term "Exposure" and try and use brute force and group-think to win an argument with an invalid argument based upon a popular yet mistaken notion of what "Exposure" is. And please, do not try and tell others that Bryan Peterson's 2004 book for newbies is the standard for the definition of photographic terms and terminology...it's not....the "Exposure Triangle" is a Bryan Peterson "thing"...

The term Exposure, with a capital E, has long been expressed with ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE TO ISO value in scientific texts about photography and photographic terms...


----------



## JMBriggs

Village Idiot said:


> Oh, and Google "exposure triangle" and try and find one link that doesn't use shutter speed, aperture, and ISO.



What he said!!!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Terboucharge is actually very correct in regards to what constitutes the clinical definition of "exposure". In the context of this thread, however, and in the act of setting your camera to make your exposure...Kerbouchard cannot disagree that ISO/ASA is indeed a variable that is used to calculate the outcome of your exposure. What he is doing, is exactly like others that claim light from a flash unit is "natural light". It's very specific semantics.


Edit: This, EXACTLY.



Derrel said:


> Let's not not confuse "camera settings" with the term "Exposure"


----------



## Village Idiot

Derrel said:


> The term Exposure, with a capital E, has long been expressed with ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE TO ISO value in scientific texts about photography and photographic terms...



And with today's cameras that can easily switch ISO adjustment, you're not going to teach a new photographer anything about using the ISO in reference to creating an exposure?

Traditional techniques can change, especially when the tools or theories in creating something change with techonology.

Did you know they just found out that neutrinos can possibly travel faster than the speed of light, which is recreated and proven to be true basically says that E=MC2 is kind of irrelevant?


----------



## Village Idiot

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Terboucharge is actually very correct in regards to what constitutes the clinical definition of "exposure". In the context of this thread, however, and in the act of setting your camera to make your exposure...Kerbouchard cannot disagree that ISO/ASA is indeed a variable that is used to calculate the outcome of your exposure. What he is doing, is exactly like others that claim light from a flash unit is "natural light". It's very specific semantics.
> 
> 
> Edit: This, EXACTLY.
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not not confuse "camera settings" with the term "Exposure"
Click to expand...


I'd like your **** if I could, but for some reason I can't like anything anymore.


----------



## Overread

Surely the original, older, definitions of exposure must have had a compensation chart or something to relate to the sensitivity of the film - ASA/ISO/etc.. yes it was fixed once the film was in the camera, but it was still variable based on what you put in the camera - and heck if you shot with a removable back you could have it variable at the time.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Village Idiot said:


> I'd like your **** if I could, but for some reason I can't like anything anymore.



I am sure there is a pill for that.


----------



## Village Idiot

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like your **** if I could, but for some reason I can't like anything anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure there is a pill for that.
Click to expand...


Likexycontin.

My prescription ran out. I need to hold up a pharmacy.


----------



## Derrel

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Terboucharge is actually very correct in regards to what constitutes the clinical definition of "exposure". In the context of this thread, however, and in the act of setting your camera to make your exposure...Kerbouchard cannot disagree that ISO/ASA is indeed a variable that is used to calculate the outcome of your exposure. What he is doing, is exactly like others that claim light from a flash unit is "natural light". It's very specific semantics.



Sorry, but the term "Exposure" pre-dates Bryan Peterson's books by well over 150 years. What we have is a bunch of newbies without ANY scientific background attempting to hijack a basic technical term, and add on additional "meaning" where it is, frankly, impermissible to do so, from the point of scientific accuracy. Sorry, but the people who are losing the battle of semantics are those who are attempting to co-opt an integral term of the science of photography and to dumb it down by piling on **** that has no place in the discussion. This is what happens when people with no education in the history or science of photography need to learn how to get a camera off of automatic mode--people like Bryan Peterson "invent" cool graphics to help newbies understand CAMERA SETTINGS.

Bryan Peterson coined the graphic, a triangle, and in it it had terms like "grain"... grain does not have a fricking THING to do with "Exposure"..sorry, but the "Exposure Triangle" is like Roy GVib...it is a device to help newbies understand camera settings...just as Roy GVib is an aid to helping students memorize the colors of the spectrum...

I cannot agree that in the "context of this thread", the meaning of the term "Exposure" can be changed to fit the understanding of people who learned photography since 2004...

We cannot start defining f/stop as "the light-letting-in-hole", so that newbies understand it better....we cannot start calling Guide Number, "the flash power divided by feet to the subject equals f/number thingy", so that newbies can better grasp what a Guide Number helps do....or can we?


----------



## MissCream

I agree with Derrel and Kerbouchard. Please don't hate me.


----------



## ghache

Derrel said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terboucharge is actually very correct in regards to what constitutes the clinical definition of "exposure". In the context of this thread, however, and in the act of setting your camera to make your exposure...Kerbouchard cannot disagree that ISO/ASA is indeed a variable that is used to calculate the outcome of your exposure. What he is doing, is exactly like others that claim light from a flash unit is "natural light". It's very specific semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the term "Exposure" pre-dates Bryan Peterson's books by well over 150 years. What we have is a bunch of newbies without ANY scientific background attempting to hijack a basic technical term, and add on additional "meaning" where it is, frankly, impermissible to do so, from the point of scientific accuracy. Sorry, but the people who are losing the battle of semantics are those who are attempting to co-opt an integral term of the science of photography and to dumb it down by piling on **** that has no place in the discussion. This is what happens when people with no education in the history or science of photography need to learn how to get a camera off of automatic mode--people like Bryan Peterson "invent" cool graphics to help newbies understand CAMERA SETTINGS.
> 
> Bryan Peterson coined the graphic, a triangle, and in it it had terms like "grain"... grain does not have a fricking THING to do with "Exposure"..sorry, but the "Exposure Triangle" is like Roy GVib...it is a device to help newbies understand camera settings...just as Roy GVib is an aid to helping students memorize the colors of the spectrum...
> 
> I cannot agree that in the "context of this thread", the meaning of the term "Exposure" can be changed to fit the understanding of people who learned photography since 2004...
> 
> We cannot start defining f/stop as "the light-letting-in-hole", so that newbies understand it better....we cannot start calling Guide Number, "the flash power divided by feet to the subject equals f/number thingy", so that newbies can better grasp what a Guide Number helps do....or can we?
Click to expand...



:lmao:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

Derrel said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terboucharge is actually very correct in regards to what constitutes the clinical definition of "exposure". In the context of this thread, however, and in the act of setting your camera to make your exposure...Kerbouchard cannot disagree that ISO/ASA is indeed a variable that is used to calculate the outcome of your exposure. What he is doing, is exactly like others that claim light from a flash unit is "natural light". It's very specific semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the term "Exposure" pre-dates Bryan Peterson's books by well over 150 years. What we have is a bunch of newbies without ANY scientific background attempting to hijack a basic technical term, and add on additional "meaning" where it is, frankly, impermissible to do so, from the point of scientific accuracy. Sorry, but the people who are losing the battle of semantics are those who are attempting to co-opt an integral term of the science of photography and to dumb it down by piling on **** that has no place in the discussion. This is what happens when people with no education in the history or science of photography need to learn how to get a camera off of automatic mode--people like Bryan Peterson "invent" cool graphics to help newbies understand CAMERA SETTINGS.
> 
> Bryan Peterson coined the graphic, a triangle, and in it it had terms like "grain"... grain does not have a fricking THING to do with "Exposure"..sorry, but the "Exposure Triangle" is like Roy GVib...it is a device to help newbies understand camera settings...just as Roy GVib is an aid to helping students memorize the colors of the spectrum...
> 
> I cannot agree that in the "context of this thread", the meaning of the term "Exposure" can be changed to fit the understanding of people who learned photography since 2004...
> 
> We cannot start defining f/stop as "the light-letting-in-hole", so that newbies understand it better....we cannot start calling Guide Number, "the flash power divided by feet to the subject equals f/number thingy", so that newbies can better grasp what a Guide Number helps do....or can we?
Click to expand...


I thought I was basically agreeing with you. *shrug*

In the context of the thread: "Is there a point of learning Aperture,ISO,Shutter speed?"
There is a point to learn all of those, no?


The exposure triangle is a learning aid. Nothings wrong with that. I took it as an equation to set your camera to get a successful exposure.

I even quoted your "Let's not not confuse "camera settings" with the term "Exposure".


----------



## Derrel

Overread said:


> Surely the original, older, definitions of exposure must have had a compensation chart or something to relate to the sensitivity of the film - ASA/ISO/etc.. yes it was fixed once the film was in the camera, but it was still variable based on what you put in the camera - and heck if you shot with a removable back you could have it variable at the time.



The older definitions of exposure did not have any notation in relation to the sensitivity of the capture medium; you are trying to apply an understanding of a part of photography that would better be called "proper camera settings for individual situations using light sensitive mediums of different light sensitivities". Exposure is allowing light to hit the film...having the correct camera settings at the time an Exposure is made is pretty helpful; however, if the camera settings are incorrect, we can re-interpret the image and correct DRASTICALLY DARK images in post-processing, by amplifying the data in Photoshop.

"Exposure" is more akin to the definition of an "ingredient", such as let's say, wheat flour; the exposure triangle is more like a recipe, in which "wheat flour" can be used. We cannot come at this from the back side, from the Bryan Peterson side...the "Exposure Triangle" Bryan Peterson came up with is a modern, graphical representation designed to help newbies understand how to set their cameras...

"The Exposure Triangle" is Bryan Peterson's invention. The word "Exposure" belongs to the field of photography.


----------



## Derrel

Bitter Jeweler said:
			
		

> I even quoted your "Let's not not confuse "camera settings" with the term "Exposure".



Please, do not be so presumptuous as to assume that my reply was directed only toward your comments...my post was not intended solely as a rebuttal to your comments...I put that out there for others...


----------



## Destin

I would just like to point out, that The exposure triangle predates Brian peterson. My photography teacher in high school was taught the exposure triangle when he learned photography in college. And he graduated from college in the early 70's...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

The internets are so hard.


----------



## Overread

Ok so basically we are arguing about ISO based on two different interpretations of the word "Exposure" by which some are using the scientific meaning of exposure being linked to light and time (ie the aperture and shutter speed) whilst others are linking exposure to (what is being presented/considered) a more modern understanding of the exposure being the result of light and time as linked to a sensitivity to the light itself (ie your aperture, shutter speed and ISO).


So as far as I can tell one group are arguing about Exposure in a scientific term, outside of the relation toward its application in photography - whilst others are arguing that ISO is part of exposure within the field of photography.


----------



## camz

Kerbouchard said:


> Increasing your ISO merely amplifies the analog signal that was created by the exposure before that signal is converted into digital data.



Kerbouchard question for you. Light conversion or interpretation of the sensor will initially use all analog sensors prior to converting them digitally using analog to digital converters within the processor's circuitry as you know. As mentioned, f-stop will will control the simultaneous amount of light passing through, and shutter will control the duration of the sensor's exposure. This light will have to go through an analog to digital converter regardless of ISO settings. A wider f-stop will increase the analog signal received by the processor; a longer shutter will also increase the analog signal received by the processor. ISO will enable a function at the processor to amplify the analog signal it's received. So regardless all three(ISO,f-stop,shutter) will have some type of analog control. The only difference I see is that ISO's analog control will directly be at the processor without any influence from the camera, where f-stop and shutter's analog control is outside the processor scope. However all three controls end up in the analog to digital converter of the processor.

So my question is why is the analog control limited to just ISO and therefore ruled out as exposure? I mean the whole process stream itself is all digitally converted from analog.

I know basis of argument here as a user only sees the end result, and ISO does affect the end result exposure of the digitally converted image. Correct me if I&#8217;m wrong, I just don&#8217;t understand why ISO wouldn&#8217;t be included as an exposure variable in the digital age.


----------



## Derrel

http://jfletcherphoto.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/untitled-2.jpg?w=450&h=307


http://www.better-digital-photo-tips.com/images/ExposureTriangle2.jpg


http://www.digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/exposure-triangle.jpg


exposure_triangle_copyright.jpg

*Once again, "The Exposure Triangle" is Bryan Peterson's invention. The word "Exposure" belongs to the field of photography.*


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

So, if Bryan called it more appropriately, the Camera Setting Triangle, we'd all be good here, right?


----------



## camz

I see that Derrel and appreciate those definitions, but from an electronic standpoint I don't see the exclusion.


----------



## Overread

Bitter Jeweler said:


> So, if Bryan called it more appropriately, the Camera Setting Triangle, we'd all be good here, right?



Maybe, but I'd still be left wondering why ISO is on my lightmeter which is older than Understanding Exposure by a long way - if the idea of ISO being part of the photographic exposure is a new "modern" "digital" thing.


----------



## Village Idiot

Everyone tape over your ISO buttons! They're no longer relevant!


----------



## Noxire




----------



## kundalini

Derrel said:


> *Once again, "The Exposure Triangle" is Bryan Peterson's invention. The word "Exposure" belongs to the field of photography.*



Bryan Peterson is to photography as Alan Freed is to music.

I'm not convinced that invention is the correct term here. I would be more comfortable with "coined the phrase". Regardless, you have to give Peterson props at marketing though, just as much as Rockwell for that matter. Both have made money hand over fist with their exploits. Unfortunately, times were much different in the 50's for Freed though.


----------



## Kerbouchard

Overread said:


> Ok so basically we are arguing about ISO based on two different interpretations of the word "Exposure" by which some are using the scientific meaning of exposure being linked to light and time (ie the aperture and shutter speed) whilst others are linking exposure to (what is being presented/considered) a more modern understanding of the exposure being the result of light and time as linked to a sensitivity to the light itself (ie your aperture, shutter speed and ISO).
> So as far as I can tell one group are arguing about Exposure in a scientific term, outside of the relation toward its application in photography - whilst others are arguing that ISO is part of exposure within the field of photography.



No, basically, we have a forum full of people who learned photography from one book and who recommend that book to every new photographer who comes on the site...kind of a self-perpetuating concept error.



camz said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing your ISO merely amplifies the analog signal that was created by the exposure before that signal is converted into digital data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerbouchard question for you. Light conversion or interpretation of the sensor will initially use all analog sensors prior to converting them digitally using analog to digital converters within the processor's circuitry as you know. As mentioned, f-stop will will control the simultaneous amount of light passing through, and shutter will control the duration of the sensor's exposure. This light will have to go through an analog to digital converter regardless of ISO settings. A wider f-stop will increase the analog signal received by the processor; a longer shutter will also increase the analog signal received by the processor. ISO will enable a function at the processor to amplify the analog signal it's received. So regardless all three(ISO,f-stop,shutter) will have some type of analog control. The only difference I see is that ISO's analog control will directly be at the processor without any influence from the camera, where f-stop and shutter's analog control is outside the processor scope. However all three controls end up in the analog to digital converter of the processor.
> 
> So my question is why is the analog control limited to just ISO and therefore ruled out as exposure? I mean the whole process stream itself is all digitally converted from analog.
> 
> I know basis of argument here as a user only sees the end result, and ISO does affect the end result exposure of the digitally converted image. Correct me if I&#8217;m wrong, I just don&#8217;t understand why ISO wouldn&#8217;t be included as an exposure variable in the digital age.
Click to expand...

Primarily because that isn't the way the terms are defined.

As far as why it makes a difference, I would say because ISO does not just amplify the signal generated by the sensor.  It also amplifies the noise inherrent in the circuitry.


----------



## MLeeK

This post is getting hilarious! 
I understand the concept of what ISO does and the idea that it has no physical control over how much light is hitting the sensor. It is simply determining (in my not so technical terms) how much power is put to that amount t of light. Ok, so it does not physically change the sensor in any outward manner. The sensor is the same sensor no matter what. It always LOOKS exactly the same. 
Got it. 
However... in my simple little brain, isn't more power also a physical change? Just because we can't SEE electrical current does that mean it is not happening? It is. It is physically amplifying that light regardless of whether we can see the physical change or not. 
Back in the day you changed the film from one ASA or ISO to another. It LOOKS like the same cannister of film but in actuality it was a different sensitivity to light. Physically it appeared the same to the naked eye. It was not the same at all. 
So, my simple minded deduction of this is that yes it is a part of the exposure triangle regardless of how it changes the image.


----------



## camz

Kerbouchard said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so basically we are arguing about ISO based on two different interpretations of the word "Exposure" by which some are using the scientific meaning of exposure being linked to light and time (ie the aperture and shutter speed) whilst others are linking exposure to (what is being presented/considered) a more modern understanding of the exposure being the result of light and time as linked to a sensitivity to the light itself (ie your aperture, shutter speed and ISO).
> So as far as I can tell one group are arguing about Exposure in a scientific term, outside of the relation toward its application in photography - whilst others are arguing that ISO is part of exposure within the field of photography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, basically, we have a forum full of people who learned photography from one book and who recommend that book to every new photographer who comes on the site...kind of a self-perpetuating concept error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Primarily because that isn't the way the terms are defined.
> 
> As far as why it makes a difference, I would say because ISO does not just amplify the signal generated by the sensor. It also amplifies the noise inherrent in the circuitry.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Got stuck in a meeting...

I see where your coming from Kerbouchard and standard definition states that clearly. However looking how the digital processes of a DSLR, that's where the definition becomes questionable for me. Especially since ISO affects the results of the digital image.

I think the OP got his/her popcorn worth


----------



## mangtarn

what happens with this kind of threads is that the OP quits caring after the third page or so, and the discussion drifts off, and i waste 20 minutes reading every post and realizing that the OP is gone so i can't poke fun at him.


----------



## Overread

mangtarn said:


> what happens with this kind of threads is that the OP quits caring after the third page or so, and the discussion drifts off, and i waste 20 minutes reading every post and realizing that the OP is gone so i can't poke fun at him.



Which - all things considered - is probably a good thing when mods are around


----------



## tirediron

mangtarn said:


> what happens with this kind of threads is that the OP quits caring after the third page or so, and the discussion drifts off, and i waste 20 minutes reading every post and realizing that the OP is gone so i can't poke fun at him.


There are 20 minutes of your life you will never get back; about the best thing that can be said for this thread!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

mangtarn said:


> what happens with this kind of threads is that the OP quits caring after the third page or so, and the discussion drifts off, and i waste 20 minutes reading every post and realizing that the OP is gone so i can't poke fun at him.


 
Poke fun at the mod instead.


----------



## MTVision

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> No, basically, we have a forum full of people who learned photography from one book and who recommend that book to every new photographer who comes on the site...kind of a self-perpetuating concept error.
> .



Ok - I see where everybody is coming from. Maybe Peterson dumbed down his book so newbies could understand camera settings. The book and the "exposure triangle" that was made up does work. So, maybe he didn't define ISO in the proper technical definition but it  still works. I don't think it's an error that he made up a diagram to use as a teaching device. 

A forum full of people who learned photography from one book can't really be an error if people learned! 

Not being a smart ass but maybe you should write a book or recommend a book that teaches beginners the correct way. 

I have about 15 books on digital photography that all say pretty much the same thing about exposure. My teacher also taught that ISO is part of exposure (no triangle included). She explained that by raising the ISO you are increasing the sensors sensitivity to light. 



"Getting proper exposure requires the right balance of light, lens opening size (aperture), duration of exposure (shutter speed) and while technically not part of "exposure", proper sensor sensitivity (ISO setting) is required. In discussion of exposure, the term f-stop is typically used. A change in exposure of 1 f-stop allows half as much light (if the camera is stopped down - less light) or twice as much light (if the camera is opened up - more light) in the final exposure. "
- http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/Exposure-Basics.aspx


----------



## o hey tyler

Hey guys lets argue about something important rather than the method people use to expose a photograph and whether they include ISO in that method or not. 

Kind of stupid to argue about something that if learned either way will lead to the same end result. 

I'd expect at least one more multi-paragraph novel from Derell including emphasized words in ALL CAPS and Forum username mocking.


----------



## Overread

Bitter Jeweler said:


> mangtarn said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happens with this kind of threads is that the OP quits caring after the third page or so, and the discussion drifts off, and i waste 20 minutes reading every post and realizing that the OP is gone so i can't poke fun at him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poke fun at the mod instead.
Click to expand...


If only things were so simple


----------



## Kerbouchard

MTVision said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, basically, we have a forum full of people who learned photography from one book and who recommend that book to every new photographer who comes on the site...kind of a self-perpetuating concept error.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok - I see where everybody is coming from. Maybe Peterson dumbed down his book so newbies could understand camera settings. The book and the "exposure triangle" that was made up does work. So, maybe he didn't define ISO in the proper technical definition but it  still works. I don't think it's an error that he made up a diagram to use as a teaching device.
> 
> A forum full of people who learned photography from one book can't really be an error if people learned!
> 
> Not being a smart ass but maybe you should write a book or recommend a book that teaches beginners the correct way.
> 
> I have about 15 books on digital photography that all say pretty much the same thing about exposure. My teacher also taught that ISO is part of exposure (no triangle included). She explained that by raising the ISO you are increasing the sensors sensitivity to light.
> 
> 
> 
> "Getting proper exposure requires the right balance of light, lens opening size (aperture), duration of exposure (shutter speed) and while technically not part of "exposure", proper sensor sensitivity (ISO setting) is required. In discussion of exposure, the term f-stop is typically used. A change in exposure of 1 f-stop allows half as much light (if the camera is stopped down - less light) or twice as much light (if the camera is opened up - more light) in the final exposure. "
> - Exposure Basics
Click to expand...


Honestly, the only reason I brought this up in this thread is you have a ton of members in the 'Beyond the Basics' section, ragging on a beginner who is wondering if it's important to understand aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, and it turns out, 98% of the 'experienced members' can't explain it themselves.  I happen to explain how it actually works, and the 'mob' decides to turn on me.  The 'mob' mentality bugs me, as well as the 'smug' attitudes presented by people who don't understand the basics of how their camera works.

Truth be told, none of it really matters.  You don't need to know how a camera works to take great pictures, just as you don't need to know how a combustion engine works in order to drive a car.  My background is engineering...I prefer to know the how's and the what's.  That's just my makeup.  As far as beginners thinking ISO adds exposure or thinking it increases the sensitivity of their camera, I don't really care.  It all works out the same in the end.  

Honestly, I just expected more out of some of our 'know it alls'.  Surprised me a bit at how little some of our more experienced members understand how their camera works.


----------



## Trever1t

Seems I showed up late and missed the show, again!


----------



## MTVision

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> This thread was posted in the "Beyond the Basics" subsection of this forum.  Honestly, a beginner doesn't need to know how the camera does what it does, or what ISO is actually doing.  Most people get it wrong, thanks to people like Peterson...for instance, your teacher seems to have explained to you that raising the ISO increases the sesnor sensitivity to light.  This isn't true.  It is a concept error made by somebody who doesn't know how a camera works.  That's fine, your teacher was teaching beginners.  The quote that you gave is also incorrect.  Sensor sensitivity is a constant and is determined at the time of manufacture.
> 
> Honestly, the only reason I brought this up in this thread is you have a ton of members in the 'Beyond the Basics' section, ragging on a beginner who is wondering if it's important to understand aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, and it turns out, 98% of the 'experienced members' can't explain it themselves.  I happen to explain how it actually works, and the 'mob' decides to turn on me.  The 'mob' mentality bugs me, as well as the 'smug' attitudes presented by people who don't understand the basics of how their camera works.
> 
> Truth be told, none of it really matters.  You don't need to know how a camera works to take great pictures, just as you don't need to know how a combustion engine works in order to drive a car.  My background is engineering...I prefer to know the how's and the what's.  That's just my makeup.  As far as beginners thinking ISO adds exposure or thinking it increases the sensitivity of their camera, I don't really care.  It all works out the same in the end.
> 
> Honestly, I just expected more out of some of our 'know it alls'.  Surprised me a bit at how little some of our more experienced members understand how their camera works.



I do see what you mean. I honestly thought that ISO was part of exposure but then again I've only had a camera for a few months and I don't really know much! I just threw the quote in there because it did say ISO wasn't technically part of exposure. I guess it's more research for me!


----------



## Kerbouchard

MTVision said:


> I do see what you mean. I honestly thought that ISO was part of exposure but then again I've only had a camera for a few months and I don't really know much! I just threw the quote in there because it did say ISO wasn't technically part of exposure. I guess it's more research for me!



I don't want to confuse anybody, so let me take a step back one more time.

Exposure is a scientific term that describes the amount of light that is falling on a photographic surface over a given amount of time.  It's measured in Lux Seconds, also a scientific term.

In general use, most photographers also use the word exposure(improperly) to describe how an image looks in print or on their screen...as in, "That photo is underexposed".  With digital, and post processing software, the terms have sort of merged, because you can 'underexpose' in photoshop or have actually not exposed the photo well at the time of capture.  Both would have a similar appearance.  ISO does have a huge impact on how an image will appear on print or on a screen.  It is the amount the original signal was amplified, so it is, in effect, 'adding' to the signal generated by the exposure and will effect how the image appears.

As far as the true definitions, that really comes into play when discussing noise, dynamic range, and getting the most out of your sensor.  For instance, when shooting at High ISO's, getting the 'proper exposure' is critical to a low noise shot.  That is based on the actual exosure, as in, the amount of light hitting the sensor(through amount of light available, aperture, and shutter speed).  Lets say you have signal A and signal B.  Signal A is the exposure and Signal B is the noise inherrent in all circuitry.  For easy comparison, we'll say signal A is 20 and signal B is 1.  With a 20:1 signal to noise ratio, any apparent noise will be relatively small.  Let's say we decrease the exposure to get a faster shutter speed and Signal A becomes 5.  Now we have a 5:1 signal to noise ratio.  20% of the signal is noise and will seriously degrade the picture quality.

When discussing signal to noise ratio, it makes no sense to use ISO as a part of exposure, because it is not just amplifying the signal, it's also amplifying the noise.  Dynamic range is a similar discussion.  

To really get the most out of your camera, you should have a basic understanding of how it works.  It's a good example of why experienced photographers can get cleaner images at ISO 1600-3200 than newbies do at ISO 800.

Clear as mud?


----------



## Overread

Yep - its agreeing with what I said earlier - that the disagreement in the thread stems from the fact that a few started talking about Exposure in scientific terms on a photography forum where the average person us not a scientist, but a photographer and thus uses the technical term with a slight variation on the meaning.

Ergo no one was disagreeing, just that those with the science background tried to make a statement about a definition of a word without fully expressing that they were not referring to the same word that the average photographer understands.

Whilst getting mixed in there was some crazy stuff about how ISO has only been important since the digital age or since Bryan Peterson wrote a book (which as far as I can tell is a whole red-herring argument).


----------



## Kerbouchard

Overread said:


> Yep - its agreeing with what I said earlier - that the disagreement in the thread stems from the fact that a few started talking about Exposure in scientific terms on a photography forum where the average person us not a scientist, but a photographer and thus uses the technical term with a slight variation on the meaning.
> 
> Ergo no one was disagreeing, just that those with the science background tried to make a statement about a definition of a word without fully expressing that they were not referring to the same word that the average photographer understands.
> 
> Whilst getting mixed in there was some crazy stuff about how ISO has only been important since the digital age or since Bryan Peterson wrote a book (which as far as I can tell is a whole red-herring argument).



No, it's not.  That post is acknowledging that beginners don't need to know how their camera works and that the actual meanings of words have become corrupted by other newbies and passed down as credible information.  I can go to downtown Dallas and listen to all sorts of conversations with idiots who improperly use words but still manage to get their message across.  They manage to communicate, but it's not because those words have an actual meaning.  It's more because their level of ignorance is equal and they are on the same page.  That works for them there.  Now, if they were to enter a Board Room, they would be completely out of place.

This is the 'beyond the basics' section.  The people who post here should have an understanding beyond the basics.  If they don't, they should accept(and welcome) their ideas to get challenged.  That goes for the Moderators, too.  Like I said earlier, this thread has made it clear why just about every new topic is posted in the beginner's forum.  The main 'clique' and most active of the members here seem to belong there.

When you are using words that have an actual definition, you shouldn't attribute a 'new definition' to those terms just because others like you understand what you are saying.  It doesn't work that way.  Words have a true meaning.  On an international forum, it's only fair that you use words in their established way.  Like I said, I don't care what you do in the beginner's forum.  That has nothing to do with a 'beyond the basics' thread regarding ISO, aperture, and shutter speed.

Photography was invented by scientists.  The terms that are used are well defined.  Just because you want them to mean something different or don't 'feel' they are well defined, gives you no right to ignore the science that makes photography possible(or the dictionary).  As far as ISO not being important, I'm not sure that was ever stated.  Of course it's important.  Just as much in digital as it was in film.  Still doesn't make it part of exposure.

Put simply, a lot of you ended up with egg on your face.  There isn't any justifying it.  There isn't any way to make all the  or the :lmao: look any better.  All you end up looking like is .

It's just a bit sad that a moderator decided to take part in the piling on.

I referenced the definitions, I referenced my statements with facts.  You decided to attempt to make fun of me saying I was all alone and out on left field.  One more person who won't back down to a mob comes along, and the entire dynamic changes...It's actually a bit funny to me.  After we got past that, I think a few people actually learned something.  So, all in all, IMO, the discussion had merit.

In any case, as I said to Destin, words have a meaning.  This is an international forum, people should not choose to ignore the definition of a word from every credible dictionary, encyclopedia, or scientific journal just because the established definition isn't one they agree with.  Sounds more like a problem with the individual that shouldn't be forced out as gospel.

Like I said, the fact that the same freaking book is recommended to every single new poster might have something to do with some of the common misconceptions of this forum when in reality, it isn't all that complicated.


----------



## Destin

This was the ULTIMATE hijack of a thread. Lol


----------



## Kerbouchard

Destin said:


> This was the ULTIMATE hijack of a thread. Lol



Yep, and for what it's worth, it was your uninformed post that set me off.  Nicely done.

As far as a hijack, for a subject of learning aperture, shutterspeed, and ISO in a 'beyond the basics' forum, I wouldn't exactly consider it a hijack...unless, again, you are talking about your posts.


----------



## kundalini

Respect George.  This has been one of the better discussions on the boards for a while.  I know you don't need it nor necessarily want it, but   :thumbsup:


----------



## Destin

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> Yep, and for what it's worth, it was your uninformed post that set me off.  Nicely done.
> 
> As far as a hijack, for a subject of learning aperture, shutterspeed, and ISO in a 'beyond the basics' forum, I wouldn't exactly consider it a hijack...unless, again, you are talking about your posts.



I've gotta ask, what's your problem with me? 

I still don't agree with you on this, because  the meanings of words changes over time. Dictionary's put out new editions on a regular basis for a reason. The dictionary's definition of exposure, off of which you base your argument, is starting to lose its accuracy. 

As the use of words in a culture change, so too does the dictionary's definition of them. Exposure, as it applies to modern digital photography, should absolutely contain iso in its definition. 

But we clearly need to agree to disagree on this one. I'm just confused as to what I ever did to piss you off. And this goes farther than this thread. Every time I post anything you argue against what I say every time. You seriously just need to quit reading into everything so far, and stop being such a d-bag. 

As far as this thread being hijacked, just because we were talking about the exposure triangle (that's gonna piss you off, is it?), we were not even close to on topic as far as answering the OP's question.


----------



## tevo

Unless you plan on shooting snapshots in auto with ideal light / flash for the rest of forever, then YES it is important to learn this. And you forget that the "aesthetic effects" such as bokeh and DoF is meaningless without composition. Composition is everything, and if you don't know how to use your camera 100% then you will not be able to compose a photo in the way that you want to. Go investigate the exposure triangle, rule of thirds, general composition, etc.

I am honestly shocked by this thread, lol


----------



## tevo

Matrixgravity said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Bokeh and Depth of field. You're in there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but pardon my ignorance lol. Whenever I see Photography, the only discernible technique I ever see used is a shallow depth of field, or Bokeh. That's all I ever really see..So that leads me to believe that not much can really be achieved then..So wouldn't it be easier to just do Auto then..
Click to expand...


The technique you see is composition. Bokeh is just DoF, and DoF is used to highlight the center of interest, among other things. If you knew what composition was, the answer to your OP would be very clear, lol.


----------



## Kerbouchard

Destin said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and for what it's worth, it was your uninformed post that set me off.  Nicely done.
> 
> As far as a hijack, for a subject of learning aperture, shutterspeed, and ISO in a 'beyond the basics' forum, I wouldn't exactly consider it a hijack...unless, again, you are talking about your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've gotta ask, what's your problem with me?
> 
> I still don't agree with you on this, because  the meanings of words changes over time. Dictionary's put out new editions on a regular basis for a reason. The dictionary's definition of exposure, off of which you base your argument, is starting to lose its accuracy.
> 
> As the use of words in a culture change, so too does the dictionary's definition of them. Exposure, as it applies to modern digital photography, should absolutely contain iso in its definition.
> 
> But we clearly need to agree to disagree on this one. I'm just confused as to what I ever did to piss you off. And this goes farther than this thread. Every time I post anything you argue against what I say every time. You seriously just need to quit reading into everything so far, and stop being such a d-bag.
> 
> As far as this thread being hijacked, just because we were talking about the exposure triangle (that's gonna piss you off, is it?), we were not even close to on topic as far as answering the OP's question.
Click to expand...


You ask me why I seem to disagree with most of what you have to say and then you decide to call me a 'd-bag'.  When you can use grown up language, we can continue the discussion.



tevo said:


> Unless you plan on shooting snapshots in auto with ideal light / flash for the rest of forever, then YES it is important to learn this. And you forget that the "aesthetic effects" such as bokeh and DoF is meaningless without composition. Composition is everything, and if you don't know how to use your camera 100% then you will not be able to compose a photo in the way that you want to. Go investigate the exposure triangle, rule of thirds, general composition, etc.
> 
> I am honestly shocked by this thread, lol



It's a bit silly for you to post this after you just finished asking which button to push on your lens to make it focus.  You want to give expert advice, but you don't understand that you can't just push a button on your lens to make it focus?  Seriouisly?

There seems to be a disconnect between a majority of the members and reality.  All want to come off as experts, but very few of them have any idea what they are talking about.  Most are just repeating things they have heard before.  It's about time some of you learned to think for yourself.

Jeez, it's like I'm surrounded by morons.  Maybe it's time for me to move to a different forum.


----------



## tevo

Matrixgravity said:


> Oh ok, so Manual is for accurate exposure. I understand that.. But the one thing that bothers me is that.. There doesn't seem like you can do much with a Camera once you learn how to properly use it.. Like, technique wise. Like I said, from what I understand the two primary techniques you can apply in Manual is using Depth Of Field to create interesting shots, and create Bokeh as well. But is there anything else you can do?..



No, manual is for you to have complete control over what your camera is doing. Meaning YOU set the shutter speed (exposure), based off the matrix that the meter reads, and YOU set the aperture, and YOU set the whitebalance. Not the camera. Seeing as though generations of photographers shot film, and still produced great images, WITH NO AUTO MODE, then why would it not be important to know the exposure triangle? Manual is just like shooting a film SLR (with some improvements, obviously), but on a digital camera.


----------



## Overread

Kerbouchard - I'm still confused - mostly because its not Understanding exposure which says that ISO is part of exposure, but every single guide I've ever read concerning photography (some written before UE) - heck I only got the book after learning most of exposure and whilst I keep the copy it didn't give me many revelations. 

In the end I'm still coming to the same conclusion that Exposure is a word with (at least) duel meanings - one within the photography world of the average photographer - and another within the scientific based world that photography is founded upon. As such, and since this is a photography forum not a physics forum, it still stands to confuse most when you take the science angle (even in beyond the basics) directed at a majority of the population who are not scientists/physicists.
It's highly likely that a large number of us need to read far more into the physics behind photography in order to appreciate the "error" that you are attempting to correct; but when that "error" in terminology is used throughout  the whole of the photography hobby/practice with (as far as I've noticed) no suitable alternative being suggested/used - then it does appear to me to be a duel world meaning situation based on the context of the discussion at hand.


----------



## Kerbouchard

tevo said:


> Matrixgravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok, so Manual is for accurate exposure. I understand that.. But the one thing that bothers me is that.. There doesn't seem like you can do much with a Camera once you learn how to properly use it.. Like, technique wise. Like I said, from what I understand the two primary techniques you can apply in Manual is using Depth Of Field to create interesting shots, and create Bokeh as well. But is there anything else you can do?..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, manual is for you to have complete control over what your camera is doing. Meaning YOU set the shutter speed (exposure), based off the matrix that the meter reads, and YOU set the aperture, and YOU set the whitebalance. Not the camera. Seeing as though generations of photographers shot film, and still produced great images, WITH NO AUTO MODE, then why would it not be important to know the exposure triangle? Manual is just like shooting a film SLR (with some improvements, obviously), but on a digital camera.
Click to expand...


See the post above as to why you are unqualified to make the statements you are making.  A few hours ago, you were trying to figure out which button on your lens to push to make it focus and how to assign those 'buttons' to 'AF-ON'...LOL


----------



## MissCream

WARNING: The following maybe an incredibly face palming thing to say.


Doesn't ISO control the sensitivity of the light that is exposed to the sensor? I see it as two different things :S


----------



## Kerbouchard

Overread said:


> Kerbouchard - I'm still confused - mostly because its not Understanding exposure which says that ISO is part of exposure, but every single guide I've ever read concerning photography (some written before UE) - heck I only got the book after learning most of exposure and whilst I keep the copy it didn't give me many revelations.
> 
> In the end I'm still coming to the same conclusion that Exposure is a word with (at least) duel meanings - one within the photography world of the average photographer - and another within the scientific based world that photography is founded upon. As such, and since this is a photography forum not a physics forum, it still stands to confuse most when you take the science angle (even in beyond the basics) directed at a majority of the population who are not scientists/physicists.
> It's highly likely that a large number of us need to read far more into the physics behind photography in order to appreciate the "error" that you are attempting to correct; but when that "error" in terminology is used throughout  the whole of the photography hobby/practice with (as far as I've noticed) no suitable alternative being suggested/used - then it does appear to me to be a duel world meaning situation based on the context of the discussion at hand.



Except that it's not a dual word meaning.  Nobody has produced even one link to a credible or recognized source saying ISO is a part of exposure.  On the contrary, all of mine, and several of the references have said, that indeed, ISO, is not technically a part of exposure.  The scientific definitions don't match how you use it.  The dictionary definitions don't match how you use it.

Dude, I don't know what else to say.  Just because a bunch of people use a word to mean something other than what it does, doesn't mean it's right.  Honestly, I can't argue with your logic.  You get your point across to others like you.

IMO, in the next few years, Webster, will probably add another footnote in the definition of 'exposure' to appease people like you.  At that point, I won't have a leg to stand on...a bunch of morons will have successfully changed the definition of a word.  It won't be the first time that has happened.  

Until then, ISO is not a part of Exposure.  Period.

P.S., show me one source that explains how to measure ISO in 'Lux Seconds', which is the standard unit of measure for exposure.


----------



## kundalini

...... and now we digress, yet again.    :sad:


----------



## Kerbouchard

MissCream said:


> WARNING: The following maybe an incredibly face palming thing to say.
> 
> 
> Doesn't ISO control the sensitivity of the light that is exposed to the sensor? I see it as two different things :S


 
No, ISO controls the amount the analog signal generated by the sensor is amplified before being converted to a digital signal in the analog to digital converter. The sensitivity of the sensor remains constant. The only way to change those items are through manufacturing a better chip, using a larger aperture, a longer shutter speed, or adding more light.


----------



## tevo

Bitter Jeweler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all! It's refreshing to have you back, critiquing what people say and how they say it. I am so glad you are back to put us all in line again. We haven't had anybody to do that for some time now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Careful, this might get to my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## tevo

radiorickm said:


> I would like to ask the OP a question, but the rest of you can play along too
> 
> Assuming your theory is right (and it isn't by far), and the only three things involved in photography were the ISO, Shutter and aperture, then I would like to ask you a question.
> 
> Please look at these numbers, and tell me what if anything they have in common. They are camera configurations, listing the ISO, the shutter speed, and the aperture.
> 
> 64---1/15---f64
> 64---1/30---f32
> 64---1/60---f16
> 64---1/125---f11
> 64---1/250---f8
> 64---1/500---f5.6
> 64---1/1000---f4
> 64---1/2000---f2.8
> 100---1/4000---f2.8
> 100---1/2000---f4
> 100---1/1000---f5.6
> 100---1/500---f8
> 100---1/250---f11
> 100---1/125---f16
> 100---1/60---f32
> 100---1/30---f64
> 200---1/60---f64
> 200---1/125---f32
> 200---1/250---f16
> 200---1/500---f11
> 200---1/1000---f8
> 200---1/2000---f5.6
> 200---1/4000---f4
> 400---1/4000---f5.6
> 400---1/2000---f8
> 400---1/1000---f11
> 400---1/500---f16
> 400---1/250---f32
> 400---1/125---f64
> 800---1/250---f64
> 800---1/500---f32
> 800---1/1000---f16
> 800---1/2000---f11
> 800---1/4000---f8
> 1600---1/4000---f11
> 1600---1/2000---f16
> 1600---1/1000---f32
> 1600---1/500---f64
> 
> Can you, the OP, tell me the signifigance of this particular set of numbers????
> 
> They may seem like the ramblings of a mad man, and they probably are. But the truth is EACH and EVERY combination listed above will give you the EXACT SAME EXPOSURE on your camera. It will I promise.
> 
> This being the case, why would you choose to shoot at 200---1/250---f16 insted of 1600---1/4000---f16.
> 
> Truth is there are lots of reasons for choosing a particular set of figures above; More to it than just picking any one of them and taking the picture.
> 
> 
> There are many considerations beyond just these three also. I hope you see there is more to it.


----------



## Kerbouchard

tevo said:


> radiorickm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to ask the OP a question, but the rest of you can play along too
> 
> Assuming your theory is right (and it isn't by far), and the only three things involved in photography were the ISO, Shutter and aperture, then I would like to ask you a question.
> 
> Please look at these numbers, and tell me what if anything they have in common. They are camera configurations, listing the ISO, the shutter speed, and the aperture.
> 
> 64---1/15---f64
> 64---1/30---f32
> 64---1/60---f16
> 64---1/125---f11
> 64---1/250---f8
> 64---1/500---f5.6
> 64---1/1000---f4
> 64---1/2000---f2.8
> 100---1/4000---f2.8
> 100---1/2000---f4
> 100---1/1000---f5.6
> 100---1/500---f8
> 100---1/250---f11
> 100---1/125---f16
> 100---1/60---f32
> 100---1/30---f64
> 200---1/60---f64
> 200---1/125---f32
> 200---1/250---f16
> 200---1/500---f11
> 200---1/1000---f8
> 200---1/2000---f5.6
> 200---1/4000---f4
> 400---1/4000---f5.6
> 400---1/2000---f8
> 400---1/1000---f11
> 400---1/500---f16
> 400---1/250---f32
> 400---1/125---f64
> 800---1/250---f64
> 800---1/500---f32
> 800---1/1000---f16
> 800---1/2000---f11
> 800---1/4000---f8
> 1600---1/4000---f11
> 1600---1/2000---f16
> 1600---1/1000---f32
> 1600---1/500---f64
> 
> Can you, the OP, tell me the signifigance of this particular set of numbers????
> 
> They may seem like the ramblings of a mad man, and they probably are. But the truth is EACH and EVERY combination listed above will give you the EXACT SAME EXPOSURE on your camera. It will I promise.
> 
> This being the case, why would you choose to shoot at 200---1/250---f16 insted of 1600---1/4000---f16.
> 
> Truth is there are lots of reasons for choosing a particular set of figures above; More to it than just picking any one of them and taking the picture.
> 
> 
> There are many considerations beyond just these three also. I hope you see there is more to it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure... http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...cts/261194-nikon-80-200-f2-8-nikon-d7000.html

You figure out how to operate a lens, yet?


----------



## tevo

Kerbouchard said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and for what it's worth, it was your uninformed post that set me off.  Nicely done.
> 
> As far as a hijack, for a subject of learning aperture, shutterspeed, and ISO in a 'beyond the basics' forum, I wouldn't exactly consider it a hijack...unless, again, you are talking about your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've gotta ask, what's your problem with me?
> 
> I still don't agree with you on this, because  the meanings of words changes over time. Dictionary's put out new editions on a regular basis for a reason. The dictionary's definition of exposure, off of which you base your argument, is starting to lose its accuracy.
> 
> As the use of words in a culture change, so too does the dictionary's definition of them. Exposure, as it applies to modern digital photography, should absolutely contain iso in its definition.
> 
> But we clearly need to agree to disagree on this one. I'm just confused as to what I ever did to piss you off. And this goes farther than this thread. Every time I post anything you argue against what I say every time. You seriously just need to quit reading into everything so far, and stop being such a d-bag.
> 
> As far as this thread being hijacked, just because we were talking about the exposure triangle (that's gonna piss you off, is it?), we were not even close to on topic as far as answering the OP's question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ask me why I seem to disagree with most of what you have to say and then you decide to call me a 'd-bag'.  When you can use grown up language, we can continue the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> tevo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you plan on shooting snapshots in auto with ideal light / flash for the rest of forever, then YES it is important to learn this. And you forget that the "aesthetic effects" such as bokeh and DoF is meaningless without composition. Composition is everything, and if you don't know how to use your camera 100% then you will not be able to compose a photo in the way that you want to. Go investigate the exposure triangle, rule of thirds, general composition, etc.
> 
> I am honestly shocked by this thread, lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a bit silly for you to post this after you just finished asking which button to push on your lens to make it focus.  You want to give expert advice, but you don't understand that you can't just push a button on your lens to make it focus?  Seriouisly?
> 
> There seems to be a disconnect between a majority of the members and reality.  All want to come off as experts, but very few of them have any idea what they are talking about.  Most are just repeating things they have heard before.  It's about time some of you learned to think for yourself.
> 
> Jeez, it's like I'm surrounded by morons.  Maybe it's time for me to move to a different forum.
Click to expand...




I'm not even going to glorify this with a legitimate response, lol.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan

I sludged through the 11 pages of this thread.

I side with Kerbouchard as I too have experienced the mob mentality on these boards and how users shamelessly blockade the simple points that someone may be trying to make.


----------



## Overread

Kerbouchard said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kerbouchard - I'm still confused - mostly because its not Understanding exposure which says that ISO is part of exposure, but every single guide I've ever read concerning photography (some written before UE) - heck I only got the book after learning most of exposure and whilst I keep the copy it didn't give me many revelations.
> 
> In the end I'm still coming to the same conclusion that Exposure is a word with (at least) duel meanings - one within the photography world of the average photographer - and another within the scientific based world that photography is founded upon. As such, and since this is a photography forum not a physics forum, it still stands to confuse most when you take the science angle (even in beyond the basics) directed at a majority of the population who are not scientists/physicists.
> It's highly likely that a large number of us need to read far more into the physics behind photography in order to appreciate the "error" that you are attempting to correct; but when that "error" in terminology is used throughout  the whole of the photography hobby/practice with (as far as I've noticed) no suitable alternative being suggested/used - then it does appear to me to be a duel world meaning situation based on the context of the discussion at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it's not a dual word meaning.  Nobody has produced even one link to a credible or recognized source saying ISO is a part of exposure.  On the contrary, all of mine, and several of the references have said, that indeed, ISO, is not technically a part of exposure.  The scientific definitions don't match how you use it.  The dictionary definitions don't match how you use it.
> 
> Dude, I don't know what else to say.  Just because a bunch of people use a word to mean something other than what it does, doesn't mean it's right.  Honestly, I can't argue with your logic.  You get your point across to others like you.
> 
> IMO, in the next few years, Webster, will probably add another footnote in the definition of 'exposure' to appease people like you.  At that point, I won't have a leg to stand on...a bunch of morons will have successfully changed the definition of a word.  It won't be the first time that has happened.
> 
> Until then, ISO is not a part of Exposure.  Period.
> 
> P.S., show me one source that explains how to measure ISO in 'Lux Seconds', which is the standard unit of measure for exposure.
Click to expand...


*I've not read it all as I'm not 100% familiar with it all but*
Measuring lux with a camera
anywhere close to what youre after?


----------



## tevo

@Kerbouchard, I don't quite understand - being the novice that I am - why you continually say that I am attempting to give "expert advice". Go find one single post where I say I am a professional/expert providing professional/expert advice. And you also enjoy bringing up the fact that I posted a thread inquiring about a lens I purchased the day before, from a man who told me the 3 (focus lock) buttons on the lens were intended to be used as AE-L/AF-L buttons in the sense that you could press the button to trigger Autofocus. And yet, you have not once criticized my "expert advice", only made fun of me for posting a thread about a lens, which somehow means that I do not know how to operate a lens. Would you like to guess what this tells me about you? Because I'm sure that your guess is 200% more educated than mine, and has even more validity.



































There, I think I left sufficient room for your ego / overwhelming a**hole-ness to think of a clever / a**hole-ish response to my question. But here is my answer. What this tells me about you, Mr. Kerbouchard, is that you feel the need to express exactly how superior/tough/intelligent you are to other people on the internet. Just about every post I have ever seen by you belittles someone else, uses some form of sarcasm, and generally just builds you up at the expense of others. I wont start in on how I expect you to be in real life, but I will say this - if you do have a woman who was stupid enough to hang around, I sure hope the s3x is good, because if you are anything like you are on this forum in real life, I dont see much other reason to stick around with somebody like you. But you know what? It's okay. Keep doing what your doing. The demeanor of your posts on this forum makes everybody look nicer. And I am not taking shots at your intelligence - I respect your knowledge, and I think you are a very useful tool to us. Unfortunately, thats all you are. A tool.


Oh and I apologize for being off topic. But I feel this needed to be said


----------



## Kerbouchard

Overread said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kerbouchard - I'm still confused - mostly because its not Understanding exposure which says that ISO is part of exposure, but every single guide I've ever read concerning photography (some written before UE) - heck I only got the book after learning most of exposure and whilst I keep the copy it didn't give me many revelations.
> 
> In the end I'm still coming to the same conclusion that Exposure is a word with (at least) duel meanings - one within the photography world of the average photographer - and another within the scientific based world that photography is founded upon. As such, and since this is a photography forum not a physics forum, it still stands to confuse most when you take the science angle (even in beyond the basics) directed at a majority of the population who are not scientists/physicists.
> It's highly likely that a large number of us need to read far more into the physics behind photography in order to appreciate the "error" that you are attempting to correct; but when that "error" in terminology is used throughout  the whole of the photography hobby/practice with (as far as I've noticed) no suitable alternative being suggested/used - then it does appear to me to be a duel world meaning situation based on the context of the discussion at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it's not a dual word meaning.  Nobody has produced even one link to a credible or recognized source saying ISO is a part of exposure.  On the contrary, all of mine, and several of the references have said, that indeed, ISO, is not technically a part of exposure.  The scientific definitions don't match how you use it.  The dictionary definitions don't match how you use it.
> 
> Dude, I don't know what else to say.  Just because a bunch of people use a word to mean something other than what it does, doesn't mean it's right.  Honestly, I can't argue with your logic.  You get your point across to others like you.
> 
> IMO, in the next few years, Webster, will probably add another footnote in the definition of 'exposure' to appease people like you.  At that point, I won't have a leg to stand on...a bunch of morons will have successfully changed the definition of a word.  It won't be the first time that has happened.
> 
> Until then, ISO is not a part of Exposure.  Period.
> 
> P.S., show me one source that explains how to measure ISO in 'Lux Seconds', which is the standard unit of measure for exposure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've not read it all as I'm not 100% familiar with it all but*
> Measuring lux with a camera
> anywhere close to what youre after?
Click to expand...


About to walk out the door to shoot a wedding.  I'll read it when I get back and let you know...


----------



## Overread

Google threw up a series of other references so the details might still be out there - but like I said I don't know enough of the science to really cast judgement. 

I did try and read the wiki (yeah I know not always the best) Exposure (photography) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which appears to support that ISO isn't part of the process by way of not really mentioning it; however it does bring up a whole host of different types of exposure. Furthermore, myself, I fail to understand how, in photography, exposure can be worth mentioning without the addition of consideration of the receptiveness of the recording medium to the exposure it gets from the light itself. So its probable that - somewhere out there is a proper term "eg "Photographic Exposure"" which is the correct scientific name; but that in common parlance it gets dropped to just Exposure when its all photographers talking.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

Nope. No point at all.

That's why I only use instamatic cameras in my half million dollar studio...

You are either the most stupid member of this forum I've read since last week or you are just trying to start the longest running thread based on abuse. Because, although I have no intention of reading all posts, they have to be mostly abuse thrown at you.

I tend to believe you are number 2. In search of attention.

I'm sorry.


----------



## MLeeK

I am shocked that this hasn't been stopped yet. 
And here I was wondering why there was so many snippy replies on this forum. It's the norm!


----------



## tevo

MLeeK said:


> I am shocked that this hasn't been stopped yet.
> And here I was wondering why there was so many snippy replies on this forum. It's the norm!




And here comes Overread with his ring of keys..


----------



## Overread

Nope I'm already involved with the thread so specific moderation is being dealt with by the other mods (as/when they appear). My only contribution mod wise is possibly splitting the thread to take the ISO discussion out into a separate thread - however I'll wait and see what action is taken with regard to the rest of this thread first.


----------



## Helen B

Exposure is determined by a combination of sensitivity (ISO) and scene brightness. Fairly simple, isn't it? The formula for exposure value (Ev) is this:

Ev = Tv + Av = Bv + Sv

ie exposure is a combination of shutter speed and aperture and also a combination of scene brightness and sensitivity.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Compaq

It saddens me to see so many respected contributors in this community trying to win the argument with ad hoc arguments and hypotheses.

I agree with Kerbouchard (not sure if that's correct spelling, LOL). Also, I'd like to be so bold as to claim that the term "exposure triangle" isn't so a nifty a term as to believe no one before Mr. Peterson's days were able to think of it.


----------



## JimCoventry

Matrixgravity said:


> The only cool looking aesthetic effects you can do with a camera are Depth of field, and Bokeh. Other than that, is there really any point in learning how to use Aperture, ISO, and Shutter Speed? I mean, can't a beginner just purchase an expensive DSLR and just shoot on auto and produce professional looking pictures? I mean, the only reason you would need aperture,ISO, or shutter speed is if you wanted to create depth of field, or bokeh. Other than that, what is the point though? Thats what confuses me..There really doesn't seem like there is much to do with a camera aside from bokeh and depth of field..That is all I ever see..



Go ahead. Use AUTO. Try this one though. Let your subject have a bright background - that you want to show, and use AUTO. Watch your results of the subject.


----------



## KmH

I've never liked the analogy of exposure to a triangle, because there is no relationship in exposure like the trigonometric relationship the sides of a triangle have to each other - SOHCAHTOA.


----------



## scottsdaleriots

I think there is a point to learning aperture, ISO, shutter speed. Like 12 months ago I didn't think there were that important (as I too thought my photos taken in auto/program looked alright). I'm trying to master using manual - as people have pointed out it gives you creative control and allows you to do what you may - if you've got you're techique and camera operation down pat. I think that if you're shooting in manual and know the exact 'look' nof how you want and what you want your photo to look like then you would use manual. But in saying that I believe that auto works with some situations and it's ok to shoot in program or auto mode.

And I think it also depends on what you're shooting


----------



## LightSpeed

Seriously, I'd just put the camera in program mode and shoot away.
Forget about everything else.
That's how i ROLL BABY.


----------



## rambler

You can certainly take "wow" photos using Auto.  Professionals use Auto sometimes, too.  But, learning about the other options will help you improve the composition and presentation of your images which improve your chances of getting more "wow" photos.  One pro carries a point and shoot for close-ups (macro).

From a page of one of Scott Kelby's book on digital photography he answers the question, "Which Mode to Shoot in?"  In brief:  
Aperture Priority --- for control over your background both in portrait and landscapes
Shutter Priority: -- shooting sports and moving subjects
Manual:  in studio with strobes
Program:  point and shoot to capture a quick moment
   Kelby is a professional Photographer, author, editor, teacher, Photoshop expert

One image can have as many as six correct exposures.  The results are all slightly different.  Auto mode captures one.  You might prefer one or more of the other choices which would be the result of a different aperture, shutter speed, or ISO from the one choice that Auto used.

Examples:  Suppose you took a photo of a beautiful flower, but in the background was the partial image of a passer-by.  Use of a different aperture would have blurred out the distracting background.
 Suppose you took a picture of a cute child on a swing, but alas, it came out all blurry.  Taken at a faster shutter speed, you could have stopped the action and had a smiling faces clearly in focus.  Or, if your subject was a surfer riding a wave, a higher ISO setting would give you a faster shutter speed option for freezing the action.
 Suppose you took a winter photo, but the sun washed out the snow.  Changing the exposure from Auto would capture the scene.

Different apertures and where you focus can effect whether an image in the foreground of a distant landscape will be in or out of focus.

In short, using different camera settings for the same photo can produce very different results.  Shooting Auto gives you only one option.  Sometimes that might be the best option, but often one of the other alternatives gives the shot you were hoping for.

PS  With the DSLR you can change lenses.  Each lens has an aperture where the image will be the sharpest.  Auto might miss it.
      Take a photo of falling water at Auto, then the same scene with f/stop at 16 or 22, then the same scene at f/4 or 5.6.    The water will look very different, but each exposure correct and you can decide which image you like best.

Even for an amateur like me knowing something about aperture, shutter speed and ISO has improved my skills, image results, and enjoyment of photography.


----------



## Compaq

It's not just about getting more control. It's about you as a person. Either you're a slob that doesn't care to do things properly, or you are willing to sit down, read and experiment and actually learn what the heck you're doing. You get to choose which one you want to be. If you choose #1, you will not be respected in the field. Do you want to get into photography for real, then you must learn to use your tool.

How many of the famous photographers that you've looked at do you think regularly shoots in auto mode? Please give an honest answer and reflect upon that.


----------



## Kerbouchard

Compaq said:


> How many of the famous photographers that you've looked at do you think regularly shoots in auto mode? Please give an honest answer and reflect upon that.



Most professional photographers don't have an 'auto' mode on their camera.  They do, however have a Programmed Auto, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, and Manual.  As far as how many use an automated mode on a routine basis, I would say, on the low end, probably 80%.

For instance, I shot a wedding last night.  Never took the camera off manual, but for the majority of the reception, I was using bounced flash in TTL.  Very much an automated mode.  Did some shots at the fair last weekend...I believe I used Aperture Priority for a lot of it because it worked well in the conditions I was in.

I'm not scared to give the camera some control over how my shots turn out, as long as I know how it's controlling what and can anticipate the results.  Just my .02


----------



## rambler

In above post did mean Program or Manual Mode instead of Auto when refering to professional use.
Just came across this article:
Switch to Manual Mode


----------



## Compaq

Kerbouchard said:


> Compaq said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of the famous photographers that you've looked at do you think regularly shoots in auto mode? Please give an honest answer and reflect upon that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most professional photographers don't have an 'auto' mode on their camera.  They do, however have a Programmed Auto, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, and Manual.  As far as how many use an automated mode on a routine basis, I would say, on the low end, probably 80%.
> 
> For instance, I shot a wedding last night.  Never took the camera off manual, but for the majority of the reception, I was using bounced flash in TTL.  Very much an automated mode.  Did some shots at the fair last weekend...I believe I used Aperture Priority for a lot of it because it worked well in constantly changing conditions.
> 
> I'm not scared to give the camera some control over how my shots turn out, as long as I know how it's controlling what and can anticipate the results.  Just my .02
Click to expand...


Probably should have written "full auto". Or better yet, rephrased to "how many famous photographers have no idea how their camera work".


----------



## pen

Why do race car drivers what to change gears when they could be driving an automatic with the cruse control on?

Answer, they are looking to go faster then the car can drive itself.


----------



## e.rose

Is this STILL going?!  After this whole weekend and this thread is still growing?

TL;DR


----------



## Iron Flatline

I haven't read all the parts of this thread. BUT: You don't have to learn all that stuff to take pictures. However, you need to learn it if you want to be a photographer.


----------



## Terry Leach

e.rose said:
			
		

> Is this STILL going?!  After this whole weekend and this thread is still growing?
> 
> TL;DR



I don't know which amazes me more, that this thread is still growing or that I just sat and read all 12 pages of it.


----------



## BuS_RiDeR

ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture... The holy trinity of photography. 

Nope, not important at all. :lmao:

EDIT: Woops... didn't notice the date on this thread... sorry.


----------



## Dao

Iron Flatline said:


> I haven't read all the parts of this thread. BUT: You don't have to learn all that stuff to take pictures. However, you need to learn it if you want to be a photographer.



Welcome back IRON. haven't seen you for a long while since that strange new (new back then) forum policy.


----------



## Village Idiot

e.rose said:


> Is this STILL going?!  After this whole weekend and this thread is still growing?
> 
> TL;DR



WTF. It appears to be back on topic. :er:


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Blah, no point in learning aperture, ISO and shutter speed. Put the cam knob on the big green spot and set flashes to TTL and fire away


----------



## Village Idiot

Kerbouchard said:


> Until then, ISO is not a part of Exposure.  Period.
> 
> P.S., show me one source that explains how to measure ISO in 'Lux Seconds', which is the standard unit of measure for exposure.



But ISO is immensely important in considering for the exposure of the final image. If not, we would not have different sensitivity levels of what ever the light collection medium we're using at the time. You'd have 1 type of film sensitivity and a sensor without ISO adjustments, not film with different sensitivities to light or a sensor where you could control how sensitive it is to light reception. And with the ability to change ISO at a whim as opposed to only being able to change it when you change a roll of film, it's important that it's taught how it affects the image and the final exposure.

There may be a time when you have to shoot wide open and you still can't get a fast enough shutter speed, so you have to boost ISO, but you of course need to be aware of how much noise will be added to the final image. Your next image may be in a bright situation and you may want a wide open aperture, so drop the ISO back down. Or you can use ISO to help with an under powered flash, while shooting in an low or non ambient lighting condition, by boosting up the over all exposure of the scene and allowing the flash to have to work as hard.

Technology changes and with that new techniques, teachings, and understandings have to come about as well. So, good on you for calling everyone a moron for developing a different understanding of how things work than you did.


----------



## Derrel

Village Idiot said:
			
		

> Technology changes and with that new techniques, teachings, and understandings have to come about as well. So, good on you for calling everyone a moron for developing a different understanding of how things work than you did.



NONSENSE. Pure, unadulterated nonsense. The "new technology" of d-slr photography is a shift from film capture to digital sensor. Almost everything else is the same. I can take a 1959 Nikon F 35mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens, and pop it onto a 2011-made Nikon D3100, and shoot pictures with it. I can use a 1980 Vivitar 285HV flash with it. I can reverse-mount a 1938-made 50mm 50mm f/3.5 Leica Elmar lens onto the front of a Nikon or Canon d-slr, and shoot macro shots with a lens made before Hitler rolled into Poland. I own lenses that I bought brand new when I was in college, before you were even BORN, that I still shoot occasionally on my Nikon digital bodies. Still the same old stuff,as always.Crazy things like f/2.5, f/4, f/5.6, and distances in feet and meters. Lens caps that work the same as the new ones, but which were made in the 1970's!!! zOMG!!! Except for the shift from film to digital sensor as the capture medium, there has not been a real tectonic shift in photography since...hmmmm, lemme see....since the flashbulb was invented in 1928. The basics of actual photography have not changed since before WW II.

I'm still trying to get a grasp though on how that light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens thingy works....all those nasty-named "Eff" numbers..even the mere thought of an "eff number" makes me blush!!! It's all so confusing, with the "Eff-sixteen" being a high number, but actually meaning a teensie-tiny light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy, and then we have like, Eff two point eight, which is like a low number value, but represents a big light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy...I just don't have the mathematical or scientific skills to understand how that system works. And I certainly do NOT APPROVE of the use of the "Eff word" or the vulgarity of using the "Eff word", as a way to describe the size of the light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy! We need to re-define that naughty Eff word!

Maybe we can all come together and sing Kumbaya, and then get rid of all those stuffy, scientifically-based, stuffy, outdated technical terms, and modernize the vocab!!! You know, combine Depth of Focus, and Depth of Field! And combine focal plane with focal point! And of course, we simply MUST, must, must stop using that naughty term "eff stop", and refer to it as the light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy. We need to re-define all that oldy-moldy stuff all those scientists and optical experts and eggheads came up with, and you know, kind of dumb-down the terminology so that it fits our modern ways!!!


----------



## mjhoward

I'm pretty sure VI's point was that, yes ISO doesn't actually expose the sensor to more or less light, however it does greatly effect how much you want to expose your sensor to light, and in that regard it is part of exposure.  You can't set your exposure without knowing the sensitivity of your sensor or film.


----------



## Village Idiot

Derrel said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technology changes and with that new techniques, teachings, and understandings have to come about as well. So, good on you for calling everyone a moron for developing a different understanding of how things work than you did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NONSENSE. Pure, unadulterated nonsense. The "new technology" of d-slr photography is a shift from film capture to digital sensor. Almost everything else is the same. I can take a 1959 Nikon F 35mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens, and pop it onto a 2011-made Nikon D3100, and shoot pictures with it. I can use a 1980 Vivitar 285HV flash with it. I can reverse-mount a 1938-made 50mm 50mm f/3.5 Leica Elmar lens onto the front of a Nikon or Canon d-slr, and shoot macro shots with a lens made before Hitler rolled into Poland. I own lenses that I bought brand new when I was in college, before you were even BORN, that I still shoot occasionally on my Nikon digital bodies. Still the same old stuff,as always.Crazy things like f/2.5, f/4, f/5.6, and distances in feet and meters. Lens caps that work the same as the new ones, but which were made in the 1970's!!! zOMG!!! Except for the shift from film to digital sensor as the capture medium, there has not been a real tectonic shift in photography since...hmmmm, lemme see....since the flashbulb was invented in 1928. The basics of actual photography have not changed since before WW II.
> 
> I'm still trying to get a grasp though on how that light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens thingy works....all those nasty-named "Eff" numbers..even the mere thought of an "eff number" makes me blush!!! It's all so confusing, with the "Eff-sixteen" being a high number, but actually meaning a teensie-tiny light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy, and then we have like, Eff two point eight, which is like a low number value, but represents a big light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy...I just don't have the mathematical or scientific skills to understand how that system works. And I certainly do NOT APPROVE of the use of the "Eff word" or the vulgarity of using the "Eff word", as a way to describe the size of the light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy! We need to re-define that naughty Eff word!
> 
> Maybe we can all come together and sing Kumbaya, and then get rid of all those stuffy, scientifically-based, stuffy, outdated technical terms, and modernize the vocab!!! You know, combine Depth of Focus, and Depth of Field! And combine focal plane with focal point! And of course, we simply MUST, must, must stop using that naughty term "eff stop", and refer to it as the light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy. We need to re-define all that oldy-moldy stuff all those scientists and optical experts and eggheads came up with, and you know, kind of dumb-down the terminology so that it fits our modern ways!!!
Click to expand...


Just wanted to go on a random rant or something?

Just because technology changes doesn't means you have to dumb things down, but instead you have to consider things differently because of access to new features and way of doing thing.  So you're saying in 1975, you could switch the ISO in about 2 seconds between 5 different shots without wasting 23 exposures of 35mm film?

And you're also going to tell me back then, if you were in an environment with constantly changing lighting conditions, you also had the ability to change from 50 ISO to 25,600 at any time you wanted for no cost at all and with no waste?

It's plain and simple. ISO is something that can be considered and changed for every single exposure taken with a DSLR and should be treated differently than it once was. I'm guessing you don't set you ISO for 24-36 shots and change it once after that for another 24-36 shots.


----------



## Iron Flatline

@Dao

Hi   Not sure I'm sticking around. Threads like this make think I'm too serious about photography. I also have my gear and technique questions sorted, so it's really about creativity for me at this point... and an online forum is often the wrong platform for that. To be determined. I always liked it here and have made good friends, but the amount of time I used to commit to TPF is not commensurate with the return. I've answered so many questions so many times already... Let's see what happens.


----------



## o hey tyler

Village Idiot said:


> ]It's plain and simple. ISO is something that can be considered and changed for every single exposure taken with a DSLR and should be treated differently than it once was. I'm guessing you don't set you ISO for 24-36 shots and change it once after that for another 24-36 shots.



I do. And I only use 50 256 mb memory cards that I carry on me at all times.


----------



## bentcountershaft

So, I skimmed.  I raised an eyebrow or two.  I giggled some.  But over all the thread didn't move very well and left me thinking it was a rehashed version of the "what is tone" argument on a guitar forum without being quite as fulfilling.  Two and a half stars.


----------



## Overread

Gah you changed your ava - now I don't know who you are anymore  

Also Kerb you read that link yet?


----------



## dots

bentcountershaft said:


> So, I skimmed.  I raised an eyebrow or two.  I giggled some.  But over all the thread didn't move very well and left me thinking it was a rehashed version of the "what is tone" argument on a guitar forum without being quite as fulfilling.  Two and a half stars.



Top post mate lolol:thumbup:


----------



## Kerbouchard

Overread said:


> Gah you changed your ava - now I don't know who you are anymore
> 
> Also Kerb you read that link yet?



Not yet...Wedding on Saturday, Sunday was full of sleep and football, and trick or treating with my daughter tonight...Plus Monday Night Football.  Been a bit busy.


----------



## Overread

That isn't good enough - TPF demands more of you!!!  

But also did you catch Helen B's post ? 



Helen B said:


> Exposure is determined by a combination of sensitivity (ISO) and scene brightness. Fairly simple, isn't it? The formula for exposure value (Ev) is this:
> 
> Ev = Tv + Av = Bv + Sv
> 
> ie exposure is a combination of shutter speed and aperture and also a combination of scene brightness and sensitivity.
> 
> Best,
> Helen


----------



## Kerbouchard

Overread said:


> That isn't good enough - TPF demands more of you!!!
> 
> But also did you catch Helen B's post ?
> 
> 
> 
> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exposure is determined by a combination of sensitivity (ISO) and scene brightness. Fairly simple, isn't it? The formula for exposure value (Ev) is this:
> 
> Ev = Tv + Av = Bv + Sv
> 
> ie exposure is a combination of shutter speed and aperture and also a combination of scene brightness and sensitivity.
> 
> Best,
> Helen
Click to expand...


I did, and she was incorrect.





_N_ aperture
_t_ is the exposure time in seconds

In any case, there is also a difference between exposure value and exposure(which I have a feeling is what your link is going to bring up.)  'Exposure Value' is based on ISO 100 and refers to camera settings.  Exposure measures photometric exposure.

I have quoted the definitions, sourced the definitions, provided links, went in depth as to how a sensor works.  Honestly, I just got tired of arguing.  Between the posts by myself and Derrel, there is an abundance of info for people to make up their own mind.  Honestly, I just don't care anymore.

I will read the link you provided and will get back to you, just not tonight.  If this thread is locked by then, I'll just send you a PM with my response.


----------



## MLeeK

This is just an effort to make this the longest running post in forum history...


----------



## camz

Kerbouchard said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't good enough - TPF demands more of you!!!
> 
> But also did you catch Helen B's post ?
> 
> 
> 
> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exposure is determined by a combination of sensitivity (ISO) and scene brightness. Fairly simple, isn't it? The formula for exposure value (Ev) is this:
> 
> Ev = Tv + Av = Bv + Sv
> 
> ie exposure is a combination of shutter speed and aperture and also a combination of scene brightness and sensitivity.
> 
> Best,
> Helen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. By every definition, she was wrong. I have quoted the definitions, sourced the definitions, provided links, went in depth as to how a sensor works. Honestly, I just got tired of arguing. Between the posts by myself and Derrel, there is an abundance of info for people to make up their own mind. Honestly, I just don't care anymore.
> 
> I will read the link you provided and will get back to you, just not tonight. If this thread is locked by then, I'll just send you a PM with my response.
Click to expand...


Kerbouchard and Over I think what Helen through out there was the definition of "Exposure Value" (Exposure value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) a high level system on including ISO or ASA into the mix similar which is the basis of the exposure triangle.  Oppossed to the more lowever level or specific scientific term "Exposure" that we've been discussing...


----------



## camz

MLeeK said:


> This is just an effort to make this the longest running post in forum history...



I'd have to agree with you...which is my last post here...


----------



## Derrel

Village Idiot said:
			
		

> ISO is something that can be considered and changed for every single exposure taken with a DSLR and should be treated differently than it once was.



Sorry young fella...but with sheet film, the film has been changed with EACH and EVERY shot. You could shoot film from multiple different manufacturers if desired...shoot some Agfa, a few frames of Ilford, a few frames of Kodak film....shoot panchromatic, orthochromatic, and infra-red film as well...

Same with medium format cameras with interchangeable backs...it takes around 5 seconds for me to switch backs on my Bronica, so I can go from a 6x6 aspect ratio camera, to a 6x4.5 aspect ratio shooting "talls", or to 24x36mm, or to 35mm panoramic aspect ratio...

I guess you never considered that changing the entire BRAND OF IMAGING MATERIAL (ie, changing the brand of film, and therefor the image "look") was possible before the big bad d-slr was invented....same with changing the actual CAPTURE ASPECT RATIO of the image--from 8x10, to 5x7 with reducing back, to 4x5 with reducing back, etc....or, use a view camera to shoot roll-film with a rollfilm back...shoot multiple image sizes...6x9, 6x7,6x6,6x4.5...from one camera!

Sorry my young Village Idiot...but the film way actually offers MORE flexibility than the d-slr way: an ancient Deardorf view camera could shoot 8x10 sheet, 5x7 sheet, or 4x5 sheet with reducing backs, as well as roll film. Medium format cameras have had interchangeable backs for over sixty years, allowing both the type of film (color slide, color negative, B&W negative, infrared) to be changed, as well as the aspect ratio (6x7,6x6,645 out of ONE camera---imagine that!) of images made...

And so, YES, back in the dark ages of the 1970's before you were born, it was possible to switch film--for each and every shot...with NO WASTE. Film cameras were so cheap that a fellow could often afford three or four of them, for less than the price of what one "pro" d-slr costs. When you say, "ISO is something that can be considered and changed for every single exposure taken", you might wish to plug in the finishing phrase " with a 1905 view camera made by Deardorf or Burke and James", or "with a 1955 Hasselblad 500" or "with a 1979 Bronica SQ rollfilm camera." And of course, then add on the part about switching film "types", like real infrared, as well as the SIZE of the capture area...

Sorry dude...you're about 120 yeas too late for the argument you're trying to make...your argument loses.


----------



## Kerbouchard

camz said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't good enough - TPF demands more of you!!!
> 
> But also did you catch Helen B's post ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did. By every definition, she was wrong. I have quoted the definitions, sourced the definitions, provided links, went in depth as to how a sensor works. Honestly, I just got tired of arguing. Between the posts by myself and Derrel, there is an abundance of info for people to make up their own mind. Honestly, I just don't care anymore.
> 
> I will read the link you provided and will get back to you, just not tonight. If this thread is locked by then, I'll just send you a PM with my response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kerbouchard and Over I think what Helen through out there was the definition of "Exposure Value" (Exposure value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) a high level system on including ISO or ASA into the mix similar which is the basis of the exposure triangle.  Oppossed to the more lowever level or specific scientific term "Exposure" that we've been discussing...
Click to expand...

Yep, I think I was editing my post to add info as you added this...my edit and your post were around a minute apart.


----------



## Overread

Kerbouchard said:


> In any case, there is also a difference between exposure value and exposure(which I have a feeling is what your link is going to bring up.)  'Exposure Value' is based on ISO 100 and refers to camera settings.  Exposure measures photometric exposure.



Eh so photographers are lazy and call exposure value as exposure  
As I said somewhere earlier that there was likely a prefix or suffix to "Exposure" for either the original exposure that you've been arguing or the exposure that photographers use to mean the sum of aperture, shutter speed and ISO. 

So again its not that exposure has no use of ISO at all, but simply that you were trying to impose the Scientific exposure definition over the common use of the word exposure in photography without accepting that the average photographer is referring to exposure value rather than to exposure in pure science. 

Ego no on was wrong - not those that said ISO has no meaning in exposure nor those that said it did; however there was significant confusion because one word was being used to cover two meanings. 


(ps if exposure value works only for ISO 100 then I'm sure there might yet even be another exposure terminology for different ISOs, however the term exposure value does ring familiar as a term I've read in some book/resource before)


----------



## tevo

Derrel said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technology changes and with that new techniques, teachings, and understandings have to come about as well. So, good on you for calling everyone a moron for developing a different understanding of how things work than you did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NONSENSE. Pure, unadulterated nonsense. The "new technology" of d-slr photography is a shift from film capture to digital sensor. Almost everything else is the same. I can take a 1959 Nikon F 35mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens, and pop it onto a 2011-made Nikon D3100, and shoot pictures with it. I can use a 1980 Vivitar 285HV flash with it. I can reverse-mount a 1938-made 50mm 50mm f/3.5 Leica Elmar lens onto the front of a Nikon or Canon d-slr, and shoot macro shots with a lens made before Hitler rolled into Poland. I own lenses that I bought brand new when I was in college, before you were even BORN, that I still shoot occasionally on my Nikon digital bodies. Still the same old stuff,as always.Crazy things like f/2.5, f/4, f/5.6, and distances in feet and meters. Lens caps that work the same as the new ones, but which were made in the 1970's!!! zOMG!!! Except for the shift from film to digital sensor as the capture medium, there has not been a real tectonic shift in photography since...hmmmm, lemme see....since the flashbulb was invented in 1928. The basics of actual photography have not changed since before WW II.
> 
> I'm still trying to get a grasp though on how that light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens thingy works....all those nasty-named "Eff" numbers..even the mere thought of an "eff number" makes me blush!!! It's all so confusing, with the "Eff-sixteen" being a high number, but actually meaning a teensie-tiny light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy, and then we have like, Eff two point eight, which is like a low number value, but represents a big light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy...I just don't have the mathematical or scientific skills to understand how that system works. And I certainly do NOT APPROVE of the use of the "Eff word" or the vulgarity of using the "Eff word", as a way to describe the size of the light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy! We need to re-define that naughty Eff word!
> 
> Maybe we can all come together and sing Kumbaya, and then get rid of all those stuffy, scientifically-based, stuffy, outdated technical terms, and modernize the vocab!!! You know, combine Depth of Focus, and Depth of Field! And combine focal plane with focal point! And of course, we simply MUST, must, must stop using that naughty term "eff stop", and refer to it as the light-admitting-hole-inside-the-lens-thingy. We need to re-define all that oldy-moldy stuff all those scientists and optical experts and eggheads came up with, and you know, kind of dumb-down the terminology so that it fits our modern ways!!!
Click to expand...



I durnt have the maff skills to do it either

inb4 picking up trash and being a 13 year old girl


----------



## Kerbouchard

Overread said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, there is also a difference between exposure value and exposure(which I have a feeling is what your link is going to bring up.)  'Exposure Value' is based on ISO 100 and refers to camera settings.  Exposure measures photometric exposure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh so photographers are lazy and call exposure value as exposure
> As I said somewhere earlier that there was likely a prefix or suffix to "Exposure" for either the original exposure that you've been arguing or the exposure that photographers use to mean the sum of aperture, shutter speed and ISO.
> 
> So again its not that exposure has no use of ISO at all, but simply that you were trying to impose the Scientific exposure definition over the common use of the word exposure in photography without accepting that the average photographer is referring to exposure value rather than to exposure in pure science.
> 
> Ego no on was wrong - not those that said ISO has no meaning in exposure nor those that said it did; however there was significant confusion because one word was being used to cover two meanings.
> 
> 
> (ps if exposure value works only for ISO 100 then I'm sure there might yet even be another exposure terminology for different ISOs, however the term exposure value does ring familiar as a term I've read in some book/resource before)
Click to expand...

EV does not work just on ISO 100.  The base charts are based on ISO 100.  Of course the base charts are also scalable for any other ISO.

As far as Exposure Value = Exposure, well, it doesn't.  Exposure has a certain meaning.  So does Exposure Value.  Both take into effect different considerations and both have a place in photographic lingo, not just scientific lingo.  When talking about ETTR, noise, dynamic range, etc, exposure is more important than Exposure Value.  When talking about getting an image out of your camera that is at an appropriate brightness, Exposure Value is more important.

Like I said to young Destin, words have a specific meaning...especially when a technology or science has been around for over a hundred years.  We don't just change those definitions on a whim to fit what new photographers think they should mean.


----------



## Overread

Kerbouchard said:


> Like I said to young Destin, words have a specific meaning...especially when a technology or science has been around for over a hundred years.  We don't just change those definitions on a whim to fit what new photographers think they should mean.



I'm not disagreeing - but at some point you have to accept that most photographers are not scientists and drop "Exposure Value" and just use "Exposure" when chatting about exposure. Without clearly splitting the two in your earlier post you confused many because you pulled exposure away to explain it, but didn't drop in the Exposure Value term to replace it with - ergo the debate and confusion that followed (not least fuelled by the fact that many guides/books do use Exposure rather than Exposure Value - a mistake on their part indeed; but also a reaction I suspect to the fact that the authors were photographers not scientists).


----------



## Kerbouchard

Overread said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said to young Destin, words have a specific meaning...especially when a technology or science has been around for over a hundred years.  We don't just change those definitions on a whim to fit what new photographers think they should mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not disagreeing - but at some point you have to accept that most photographers are not scientists and drop "Exposure Value" and just use "Exposure" when chatting about exposure. Without clearly splitting the two in your earlier post you confused many because you pulled exposure away to explain it, but didn't drop in the Exposure Value term to replace it with - ergo the debate and confusion that followed (not least fuelled by the fact that many guides/books do use Exposure rather than Exposure Value - a mistake on their part indeed; but also a reaction I suspect to the fact that the authors were photographers not scientists).
Click to expand...


Sorry for the confusion.  Again, this was posted in the Beyond the Basics section of this forum.  Perhaps, I should not assume that the people that are posting here have a knowledge beyond the basics.  My apologies.  I will try to use smaller words in my future posts.  

Again, my background is in Engineering.  Heck, my degree is in Nuclear Engineering.  I like to know how things work, and I tend to be exact in my words and my meanings.

In any case, ISO is still not part of Exposure.


----------



## kundalini

Kerbouchard said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> But also did you catch Helen B's post ?
> 
> 
> 
> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exposure is determined by a combination of sensitivity (ISO) and scene brightness. Fairly simple, isn't it? The formula for exposure value (Ev) is this:
> 
> Ev = Tv + Av = Bv + Sv
> 
> ie exposure is a combination of shutter speed and aperture and also a combination of scene brightness and sensitivity.
> 
> Best,
> Helen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did, and she was incorrect.
Click to expand...

I'd be careful about that George.  Helen may have you for lunch.


----------



## Kerbouchard

kundalini said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> But also did you catch Helen B's post ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did, and she was incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd be careful about that George.  Helen may have you for lunch.
Click to expand...

I doubt it...  For all the reasons that were included in the parts of my post that you *snipped*.

But, as always, I welcome the debate and discussion.


----------



## Helen B

Kerbouchard said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't good enough - TPF demands more of you!!!
> 
> But also did you catch Helen B's post ?
> 
> 
> 
> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exposure is determined by a combination of sensitivity (ISO) and scene brightness. Fairly simple, isn't it? The formula for exposure value (Ev) is this:
> 
> Ev = Tv + Av = Bv + Sv
> 
> ie exposure is a combination of shutter speed and aperture and also a combination of scene brightness and sensitivity.
> 
> Best,
> Helen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did, and she was incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _N_ aperture
> _t_ is the exposure time in seconds
> 
> In any case, there is also a difference between exposure value and exposure(which I have a feeling is what your link is going to bring up.)  'Exposure Value' is based on ISO 100 and refers to camera settings.  Exposure measures photometric exposure.
> 
> I have quoted the definitions, sourced the definitions, provided links, went in depth as to how a sensor works.  Honestly, I just got tired of arguing.  Between the posts by myself and Derrel, there is an abundance of info for people to make up their own mind.  Honestly, I just don't care anymore.
> 
> I will read the link you provided and will get back to you, just not tonight.  If this thread is locked by then, I'll just send you a PM with my response.
Click to expand...


Two things struck me straight away: Ev is not based on ISO 100, and your formula is incomplete. It is a partial rewrite of the formula I quoted, and I'm surprised that you didn't see that straight away. Ev was laid out in an ASA Standard long before it was misunderstood by people who think it is based on ISO 100. 

I'm fully aware of two of the definitions of exposure being the photometric (lm.s/m2) or radiometric (W.s/m2) ones and I use them frequently, but _in my opinion_, the more general definition that includes scene luminance and medium sensitivity is a more useful concept that has been used in the description and calculation of exposure for many decades. The key 'exposure formula' does not simply refer to shutter speed and aperture (and scene luminance if you wish) but also medium sensitivity. Describing an exposure as '4 seconds at f/4 at ISO 200' seems to be an accepted, informative and practical usage. Describing an exposure in lm.s/m2 or W.s/m2 can be just as practical, but in a different circumstances.

I would be interested to read which parts of my previous post were incorrect, in your opinion.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Tiberius47

Matrixgravity said:


> The only cool looking aesthetic effects you can do with a camera are Depth of field, and Bokeh. Other than that, is there really any point in learning how to use Aperture, ISO, and Shutter Speed? I mean, can't a beginner just purchase an expensive DSLR and just shoot on auto and produce professional looking pictures? I mean, the only reason you would need aperture,ISO, or shutter speed is if you wanted to create depth of field, or bokeh. Other than that, what is the point though? Thats what confuses me..There really doesn't seem like there is much to do with a camera aside from bokeh and depth of field..That is all I ever see..


 
Depth of field is controlled by aperture, so if you want to use depth of field effects, you'll need to learn how to use aperture.

And what about showing movement in your shots?  Although, by the tones of this post, panning the camera is beyond you.


----------



## Village Idiot

Derrel said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ISO is something that can be considered and changed for every single exposure taken with a DSLR and should be treated differently than it once was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry young fella...but with sheet film, the film has been changed with EACH and EVERY shot. You could shoot film from multiple different manufacturers if desired...shoot some Agfa, a few frames of Ilford, a few frames of Kodak film....shoot panchromatic, orthochromatic, and infra-red film as well...
> 
> Same with medium format cameras with interchangeable backs...it takes around 5 seconds for me to switch backs on my Bronica, so I can go from a 6x6 aspect ratio camera, to a 6x4.5 aspect ratio shooting "talls", or to 24x36mm, or to 35mm panoramic aspect ratio...
> 
> I guess you never considered that changing the entire BRAND OF IMAGING MATERIAL (ie, changing the brand of film, and therefor the image "look") was possible before the big bad d-slr was invented....same with changing the actual CAPTURE ASPECT RATIO of the image--from 8x10, to 5x7 with reducing back, to 4x5 with reducing back, etc....or, use a view camera to shoot roll-film with a rollfilm back...shoot multiple image sizes...6x9, 6x7,6x6,6x4.5...from one camera!
> 
> Sorry my young Village Idiot...but the film way actually offers MORE flexibility than the d-slr way: an ancient Deardorf view camera could shoot 8x10 sheet, 5x7 sheet, or 4x5 sheet with reducing backs, as well as roll film. Medium format cameras have had interchangeable backs for over sixty years, allowing both the type of film (color slide, color negative, B&W negative, infrared) to be changed, as well as the aspect ratio (6x7,6x6,645 out of ONE camera---imagine that!) of images made...
> 
> And so, YES, back in the dark ages of the 1970's before you were born, it was possible to switch film--for each and every shot...with NO WASTE. Film cameras were so cheap that a fellow could often afford three or four of them, for less than the price of what one "pro" d-slr costs. When you say, "ISO is something that can be considered and changed for every single exposure taken", you might wish to plug in the finishing phrase " with a 1905 view camera made by Deardorf or Burke and James", or "with a 1955 Hasselblad 500" or "with a 1979 Bronica SQ rollfilm camera." And of course, then add on the part about switching film "types", like real infrared, as well as the SIZE of the capture area...
> 
> Sorry dude...you're about 120 yeas too late for the argument you're trying to make...your argument loses.
Click to expand...


Awesome, you quote one line from my entire post and try and skew it to favor whatever you want to rant about. You kind of forgot the part of my post where I mention 35mm film and nothing of sheet film and such. And sure, you can carry around 10 different camera with 10 different types of film. Some people just have GAS like that. But I'm pretty sure in the 5 seconds you're switching backs and cameras and keeping things straight with your 20 different types of film with 10 bodies and switching out lenses between then, I've already fired off multiple shots at multiple ISO settings.

Switching the ISO is simpler and easier than it's ever been. It's something a person can do with their eye still to the view finder and without having 20 extra pieces of gear. If you wanted to do a shoot walking around somewhere with all that gear, how many assistants would you need? I know I can fit a camera with two lenses, a flash, and some triggers into a 5MDH and walk around DC with myself and a model and not have to carry extra bodies, extra film, or whatever else you would need for your menagerie.

Old people can be stubborn and resist change, but regardless of what they do, technology will keep moving forward and techniques will continue to evolve. You can be stuck in your precious film days all you want, but a lot of use like embracing new technology with the ability to give us a one up on the competition and those that refuse to change.


----------



## dots

Hey Will.. I enjoy reading "Slough Roast". I remember looking at it a while ago. Pleased that you carry on with it. :thumbup:


----------



## paul85224

Matrixgravity said:


> The only cool looking aesthetic effects you can do with a camera are Depth of field, and Bokeh. Other than that, is there really any point in learning how to use Aperture, ISO, and Shutter Speed? *I mean, can't a beginner just purchase an expensive DSLR and just shoot on auto and produce professional looking pictures?* I mean, the only reason you would need aperture,ISO, or shutter speed is if you wanted to create depth of field, or bokeh. Other than that, what is the point though? Thats what confuses me..There really doesn't seem like there is much to do with a camera aside from bokeh and depth of field..That is all I ever see..



The short answer to that would be, no.  There is a misconception that buying an expensive DSLR makes you a better photographer.  Well, it doesn't.  Being able to understand shutter speed, apeture, ISO, white balance, depth of field, rule of thirds, composition, exposure, lighting and so on, will make you a much better photographer.  Personally, I would advocate buying a used DSLR somewhere and taking some classes to learn the basics.


----------



## dxqcanada

Well, you could just shoot everything in Auto ... and you can get some great images ... the problem is the predictability of obtaining those images.

Understanding the controls provides the photographer tools to manipulate how the image appears to the viewer in a more consistent manner.

Now, I will say that I do use Auto ... when I know the Auto algorithm will set the exposure to what I wanted.


----------



## Village Idiot

dots said:


> Hey Will.. I enjoy reading "Slough Roast". I remember looking at it a while ago. Pleased that you carry on with it. :thumbup:



Thanks. I started doing reviews for a travel and food site too, which has turned out to be a blast as well as profitable.


----------



## jake337

Wow!!! 212 replies.  I thought YES would suffice.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

jake337 said:


> Wow!!! 212 replies.  I thought YES would suffice.



That may have excluded the *drama* factor


----------



## Proteus617

Not sure why I am bothering, but the definition of exposure is:

Exposure=Intensity x Time or E = I x t

Next, some handy tools for the photographer (just a few of many):

The Sunny16 rule
The Exposure Triangle
Ansel Adams' Exposure Formula

Those are handy tools and mental shortcuts for the field, not technical definitions.  If you want to know why those tools work and are useful, refer to the technical definition of the terms.


----------



## Helen B

Proteus617 said:


> Not sure why I am bothering, but the definition of exposure is:
> 
> Exposure=Intensity x Time or E = I x t
> 
> Next, some handy tools for the photographer (just a few of many):
> 
> The Sunny16 rule
> The Exposure Triangle
> Ansel Adams' Exposure Formula
> 
> Those are handy tools and mental shortcuts for the field, not technical definitions.  If you want to know why those tools work and are useful, refer to the technical definition of the terms.



Why not read the thread and engage in meaningful discussion - you know, debate specific points instead of reiterating what other people have already said, without giving reasoned arguments? Everything you wrote has already been covered. 'Exposure' has more than one meaning, and more than one technical, Standardised definition.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Proteus617

Point taken.


----------



## Helen B

I do what I accused you of all the time, I think. Your contributions are always valuable, so I wanted more!


----------



## Raian-san




----------



## dots

...ooops   

posted in the wrong thread gaahhhh


----------



## RacePhoto

I suppose the number of replies should send a message. 

My camera hasn't been on A for Auto since the day I unpacked it. Even worse I probably shoot more on Manual than any other settings. We pay for all that electronics and fancy little computers in the camera and then I don't use it? LOL That's all I can add. 

The answer that there are six settings for any shot is true and the most basic starting point, explaining why Auto is fine for snapshots and nothing else.


----------



## kami

Very interesting thread! I actually read thru the 15 pages, 200+ posts front and back! Its a little comedic as the tension seems to escalate, midway thru the 10th page Tevo responds back to the OP's original post then a slew of posters apparently unaware of the drama unfolding follow in Tevo's footsteps! haha! In fairness, I've learned a lot from things I was never aware of. Thanks Derrel and Kerbouchard for that informative session.


----------



## Kerbouchard

Drama?  I didn't notice any drama...


----------



## Snyder

Don't learn shutter speed, aperature, and ISO I like having job security, lol


----------



## thereyougo!

Kerbouchard said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep - its agreeing with what I said earlier - that the disagreement in the thread stems from the fact that a few started talking about Exposure in scientific terms on a photography forum where the average person us not a scientist, but a photographer and thus uses the technical term with a slight variation on the meaning.
> 
> Ergo no one was disagreeing, just that those with the science background tried to make a statement about a definition of a word without fully expressing that they were not referring to the same word that the average photographer understands.
> 
> Whilst getting mixed in there was some crazy stuff about how ISO has only been important since the digital age or since Bryan Peterson wrote a book (which as far as I can tell is a whole red-herring argument).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  That post is acknowledging that beginners don't need to know how their camera works and that the actual meanings of words have become corrupted by other newbies and passed down as credible information.  I can go to downtown Dallas and listen to all sorts of conversations with idiots who improperly use words but still manage to get their message across.  They manage to communicate, but it's not because those words have an actual meaning.  It's more because their level of ignorance is equal and they are on the same page.  That works for them there.  Now, if they were to enter a Board Room, they would be completely out of place.
> 
> This is the 'beyond the basics' section.  The people who post here should have an understanding beyond the basics.  If they don't, they should accept(and welcome) their ideas to get challenged.  That goes for the Moderators, too.  Like I said earlier, this thread has made it clear why just about every new topic is posted in the beginner's forum.  The main 'clique' and most active of the members here seem to belong there.
> 
> When you are using words that have an actual definition, you shouldn't attribute a 'new definition' to those terms just because others like you understand what you are saying.  It doesn't work that way.  Words have a true meaning.  On an international forum, it's only fair that you use words in their established way.  Like I said, I don't care what you do in the beginner's forum.  That has nothing to do with a 'beyond the basics' thread regarding ISO, aperture, and shutter speed.
> 
> Photography was invented by scientists.  The terms that are used are well defined.  Just because you want them to mean something different or don't 'feel' they are well defined, gives you no right to ignore the science that makes photography possible(or the dictionary).  As far as ISO not being important, I'm not sure that was ever stated.  Of course it's important.  Just as much in digital as it was in film.  Still doesn't make it part of exposure.
> 
> Put simply, a lot of you ended up with egg on your face.  There isn't any justifying it.  There isn't any way to make all the  or the :lmao: look any better.  All you end up looking like is .
> 
> It's just a bit sad that a moderator decided to take part in the piling on.
> 
> I referenced the definitions, I referenced my statements with facts.  You decided to attempt to make fun of me saying I was all alone and out on left field.  One more person who won't back down to a mob comes along, and the entire dynamic changes...It's actually a bit funny to me.  After we got past that, I think a few people actually learned something.  So, all in all, IMO, the discussion had merit.
> 
> In any case, as I said to Destin, words have a meaning.  This is an international forum, people should not choose to ignore the definition of a word from every credible dictionary, encyclopedia, or scientific journal just because the established definition isn't one they agree with.  Sounds more like a problem with the individual that shouldn't be forced out as gospel.
> 
> Like I said, the fact that the same freaking book is recommended to every single new poster might have something to do with some of the common misconceptions of this forum when in reality, it isn't all that complicated.
Click to expand...


Haven't finished reading this thread, but I'm sorry this just comes over as pure snobbery.  The capability to take a photograph may or may not have been invented by a scientist, but that doesn't make photography a science, no more than driving a car (ironically the internal combustion engine invention attributed to same person) is science.  Photography is an artform, and to make the best of it, you need to know at least the basics of how your camera works and what settings you should use.  That is reeally what this thread was about.  Your lecturing is off topic and quite unhelpful.  I don't really care whether it is a science or not, or who gave it this or that term.  I don't need to know who invented what to take a good photo, but then what is a good photograph is highly subjective in any case, which science generally.
I think the tone of your posts is a little patronising.  Whether people see themselves as a beginner, or advancing 'beyond the basics' is also highly subjective to that person.  I feel there are far too many advanced photos and posts in the beginners section which is making it harder for beginners to get information.  

Photography is for all, not just for engineers and scientists.  What would it look like if it was left to engineers and scientists?  I dread to think!


----------



## osumisan

Shooting on Auto mode is very easy and takes no thought process.  But if you want to shoot indoors, or at night, or in difficult situations, auto mode will fail you more times than not.  Also, if you are not interested in learning shutter speed, aperature, or ISO, why not just buy a cheap point and shoot camera instead of wasting money on a DSLR that you wont even need?  It's like the old guys who drive a Porche and then only drive 25mph in the slow lane....


----------



## tevo

Kerbouchard said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't good enough - TPF demands more of you!!!
> 
> But also did you catch Helen B's post ?
> 
> 
> 
> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exposure is determined by a combination of sensitivity (ISO) and scene brightness. Fairly simple, isn't it? The formula for exposure value (Ev) is this:
> 
> Ev = Tv + Av = Bv + Sv
> 
> ie exposure is a combination of shutter speed and aperture and also a combination of scene brightness and sensitivity.
> 
> Best,
> Helen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did, and she was incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _N_ aperture
> _t_ is the exposure time in seconds
> 
> In any case, there is also a difference between exposure value and exposure(which I have a feeling is what your link is going to bring up.)  'Exposure Value' is based on ISO 100 and refers to camera settings.  Exposure measures photometric exposure.
> 
> I have quoted the definitions, sourced the definitions, provided links, went in depth as to how a sensor works.  Honestly, I just got tired of arguing.  Between the posts by myself and Derrel, there is an abundance of info for people to make up their own mind.  Honestly, I just don't care anymore.
> 
> I will read the link you provided and will get back to you, just not tonight.  If this thread is locked by then, I'll just send you a PM with my response.
Click to expand...



-_________- more math.


----------



## tevo

Village Idiot said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ISO is something that can be considered and changed for every single exposure taken with a DSLR and should be treated differently than it once was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry young fella...but with sheet film, the film has been changed with EACH and EVERY shot. You could shoot film from multiple different manufacturers if desired...shoot some Agfa, a few frames of Ilford, a few frames of Kodak film....shoot panchromatic, orthochromatic, and infra-red film as well...
> 
> Same with medium format cameras with interchangeable backs...it takes around 5 seconds for me to switch backs on my Bronica, so I can go from a 6x6 aspect ratio camera, to a 6x4.5 aspect ratio shooting "talls", or to 24x36mm, or to 35mm panoramic aspect ratio...
> 
> I guess you never considered that changing the entire BRAND OF IMAGING MATERIAL (ie, changing the brand of film, and therefor the image "look") was possible before the big bad d-slr was invented....same with changing the actual CAPTURE ASPECT RATIO of the image--from 8x10, to 5x7 with reducing back, to 4x5 with reducing back, etc....or, use a view camera to shoot roll-film with a rollfilm back...shoot multiple image sizes...6x9, 6x7,6x6,6x4.5...from one camera!
> 
> Sorry my young Village Idiot...but the film way actually offers MORE flexibility than the d-slr way: an ancient Deardorf view camera could shoot 8x10 sheet, 5x7 sheet, or 4x5 sheet with reducing backs, as well as roll film. Medium format cameras have had interchangeable backs for over sixty years, allowing both the type of film (color slide, color negative, B&W negative, infrared) to be changed, as well as the aspect ratio (6x7,6x6,645 out of ONE camera---imagine that!) of images made...
> 
> And so, YES, back in the dark ages of the 1970's before you were born, it was possible to switch film--for each and every shot...with NO WASTE. Film cameras were so cheap that a fellow could often afford three or four of them, for less than the price of what one "pro" d-slr costs. When you say, "ISO is something that can be considered and changed for every single exposure taken", you might wish to plug in the finishing phrase " with a 1905 view camera made by Deardorf or Burke and James", or "with a 1955 Hasselblad 500" or "with a 1979 Bronica SQ rollfilm camera." And of course, then add on the part about switching film "types", like real infrared, as well as the SIZE of the capture area...
> 
> Sorry dude...you're about 120 yeas too late for the argument you're trying to make...your argument loses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome, you quote one line from my entire post and try and skew it to favor whatever you want to rant about. You kind of forgot the part of my post where I mention 35mm film and nothing of sheet film and such. And sure, you can carry around 10 different camera with 10 different types of film. Some people just have GAS like that. But I'm pretty sure in the 5 seconds you're switching backs and cameras and keeping things straight with your 20 different types of film with 10 bodies and switching out lenses between then, I've already fired off multiple shots at multiple ISO settings.
> 
> Switching the ISO is simpler and easier than it's ever been. It's something a person can do with their eye still to the view finder and without having 20 extra pieces of gear. If you wanted to do a shoot walking around somewhere with all that gear, how many assistants would you need? I know I can fit a camera with two lenses, a flash, and some triggers into a 5MDH and walk around DC with myself and a model and not have to carry extra bodies, extra film, or whatever else you would need for your menagerie.
> 
> Old people can be stubborn and resist change, but regardless of what they do, technology will keep moving forward and techniques will continue to evolve. You can be stuck in your precious film days all you want, but a lot of use like embracing new technology with the ability to give us a one up on the competition and those that refuse to change.
Click to expand...


Derrel isnt _old,_ he is _wise_. (;   



jake337 said:


> Wow!!! 212 replies.  I thought YES would suffice.



Welcome to TPF!



Raian-san said:


>



:lmao:



thereyougo! said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep - its agreeing with what I said earlier - that the disagreement in the thread stems from the fact that a few started talking about Exposure in scientific terms on a photography forum where the average person us not a scientist, but a photographer and thus uses the technical term with a slight variation on the meaning.
> 
> Ergo no one was disagreeing, just that those with the science background tried to make a statement about a definition of a word without fully expressing that they were not referring to the same word that the average photographer understands.
> 
> Whilst getting mixed in there was some crazy stuff about how ISO has only been important since the digital age or since Bryan Peterson wrote a book (which as far as I can tell is a whole red-herring argument).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  That post is acknowledging that beginners don't need to know how their camera works and that the actual meanings of words have become corrupted by other newbies and passed down as credible information.  I can go to downtown Dallas and listen to all sorts of conversations with idiots who improperly use words but still manage to get their message across.  They manage to communicate, but it's not because those words have an actual meaning.  It's more because their level of ignorance is equal and they are on the same page.  That works for them there.  Now, if they were to enter a Board Room, they would be completely out of place.
> 
> This is the 'beyond the basics' section.  The people who post here should have an understanding beyond the basics.  If they don't, they should accept(and welcome) their ideas to get challenged.  That goes for the Moderators, too.  Like I said earlier, this thread has made it clear why just about every new topic is posted in the beginner's forum.  The main 'clique' and most active of the members here seem to belong there.
> 
> When you are using words that have an actual definition, you shouldn't attribute a 'new definition' to those terms just because others like you understand what you are saying.  It doesn't work that way.  Words have a true meaning.  On an international forum, it's only fair that you use words in their established way.  Like I said, I don't care what you do in the beginner's forum.  That has nothing to do with a 'beyond the basics' thread regarding ISO, aperture, and shutter speed.
> 
> Photography was invented by scientists.  The terms that are used are well defined.  Just because you want them to mean something different or don't 'feel' they are well defined, gives you no right to ignore the science that makes photography possible(or the dictionary).  As far as ISO not being important, I'm not sure that was ever stated.  Of course it's important.  Just as much in digital as it was in film.  Still doesn't make it part of exposure.
> 
> Put simply, a lot of you ended up with egg on your face.  There isn't any justifying it.  There isn't any way to make all the  or the :lmao: look any better.  All you end up looking like is .
> 
> It's just a bit sad that a moderator decided to take part in the piling on.
> 
> I referenced the definitions, I referenced my statements with facts.  You decided to attempt to make fun of me saying I was all alone and out on left field.  One more person who won't back down to a mob comes along, and the entire dynamic changes...It's actually a bit funny to me.  After we got past that, I think a few people actually learned something.  So, all in all, IMO, the discussion had merit.
> 
> In any case, as I said to Destin, words have a meaning.  This is an international forum, people should not choose to ignore the definition of a word from every credible dictionary, encyclopedia, or scientific journal just because the established definition isn't one they agree with.  Sounds more like a problem with the individual that shouldn't be forced out as gospel.
> 
> Like I said, the fact that the same freaking book is recommended to every single new poster might have something to do with some of the common misconceptions of this forum when in reality, it isn't all that complicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't finished reading this thread, but I'm sorry this just comes over as pure snobbery.  The capability to take a photograph may or may not have been invented by a scientist, but that doesn't make photography a science, no more than driving a car (ironically the internal combustion engine invention attributed to same person) is science.  Photography is an artform, and to make the best of it, you need to know at least the basics of how your camera works and what settings you should use.  That is reeally what this thread was about.  Your lecturing is off topic and quite unhelpful.  I don't really care whether it is a science or not, or who gave it this or that term.  I don't need to know who invented what to take a good photo, but then what is a good photograph is highly subjective in any case, which science generally.
> I think the tone of your posts is a little patronising.  Whether people see themselves as a beginner, or advancing 'beyond the basics' is also highly subjective to that person.  I feel there are far too many advanced photos and posts in the beginners section which is making it harder for beginners to get information.
> 
> Photography is for all, not just for engineers and scientists.  What would it look like if it was left to engineers and scientists?  I dread to think!
Click to expand...



thereyougo!, meet George!  George, thereyougo!


----------



## unpopular

You know, Derrel, I might only be 30, but I've had plenty of time with the view camera. Plenty of time in the dark with little green LEDs doing inspection development. I've compounded my own b/w developers. I've shot lots of chrome. I too owned and used a Bronica S-series. I've owned and used cameras that were in prouction before YOU were born. SO I am not sure what the issue is.

Even with all the advantages of film, in particular b/w film, you can't possibly be suggesting that the darkroom is more "flexible". Yeah, you had a choice of various films and formats, but all of those films can be simulated in the digital darkroom and the highest end of systems are aproaching at least the practical resolution of medium format, if not larger. All those reduction backs are doing is cropping. That's all. 

If you're *more* limited by the capture of a quality digital camera over film, it's not the camera that is limiting - it's the digital darkroom skills you possess.

So. While you have very nicely illustrated _argumentum ad verecundiam_, I for one am not terribly impressed with this post, nor any other which you had authored. Though this particular post which I am referring is just obnoxious and truely shows your arrogance and lack of technical understanding in the matter.


----------



## Kerbouchard

unpopular said:


> You know, Derrel, I might only be 30, but I've had plenty of time with the view camera. Plenty of in the dark with little green LEDs doing inspection development. I've compounded my own b/w developers. I've shot lots of chrome. I too owned and used a Bronica S-series. I've owned and used cameras that were in prouction before YOU were born. SO I am not sure what the issue is.
> 
> Even with all the advantages of film, in particular b/w film, you can't possibly be suggesting that the darkroom is more "flexible". Yeah, you had a choice of various films and formats, but all of those films can be simulated in the digital darkroom and teh highest end of systems are aproaching at least the practical resolution of medium format, if not larger. If you're more limited by the capture of a quality digital camera over film, it's not the camera that is limiting - it's the digital darkroom skills you posess.
> 
> So. While you have very nicely illustrated _argumentum ad verecundiam_, I for one am not terribly impressed with this post, nor any other which you had authored. Though this particular post which I am refering is just obnoxious and truely shows your arrogance and lack of technical understanding in the matter.


_Argumentum ad hominem?_


----------



## unpopular

^^ me? how? 

or

him? If so, definitely. But, that one is over used 

Though, perhaps not argumentum ad vercundiam - can you be the authority within your own fallacy?

ETA:



> So. While you have very nicely illustrated _argumentum ad verecundiam_, I for one am not terribly impressed with this post, nor any other which you had authored. Though this particular post which I am refering is just obnoxious and truely shows your arrogance and lack of technical understanding in the matter.



yeah, maybe. lol.


----------



## MLeeK

Dear Lord, will this post never DIE???


----------



## dots

How's work? Been shooting?



MLeeK said:


> Dear Lord, will this post never DIE???


----------



## MLeeK

dots said:


> How's work? Been shooting?
> 
> 
> 
> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Lord, will this post never DIE???
Click to expand...


LOL! Yep, been shooting a LOT! I have some stuff to post as soon as I get it uploaded! 
how about you, been shooting much? Anything good??? Fun??


----------



## Sammie_Lou

I sure hope there's a point to learning it all...otherwise, I've been wasting a LOT of time lately.


----------



## dots

Learning about editing in L*A*B :thumbup:



MLeeK said:


> dots said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's work? Been shooting?
> 
> 
> 
> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Lord, will this post never DIE???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! Yep, been shooting a LOT! I have some stuff to post as soon as I get it uploaded!
> how about you, been shooting much? Anything good??? Fun??
Click to expand...


----------



## dots

Got lots of NEF/TIf/JPEG to sort out and edit down (and down and down)..from the about the last 2 months or so. Decided what to do.


----------



## dots

Deciding*


cheers,


----------



## tevo

What has happened to this thread


----------



## unpopular

^^ you know. the best part is that we all agree that, yes, learning how to use a camera is important if you want to be a photographer.

Yet, we still find something to argue about.


----------



## cvbikeguy

LOL best thread this month.


----------



## Futurelight

The simple way forp me to describe this is:- Try shooting a wet street at night (everybodies favourite) using auto. Then, go back and do it all agin varying the iso and F-stop. You will see the results immediately. you may be new to the game but pay attention to the people here who have been giving positive advice. You will see that it makes sense. ISO, aperture and shutter speed are so much more than just important. Start thinking about your camera as a film camera (where every single shot counts) instead of as a digi. Go back to the basics and see your own photos improve


----------



## memento

wait a minute... so what you're saying is i should have set in to 400deg?

now i get it!


----------



## MLeeK

Just making sure we keep this post going... forever...


----------



## tevo

MLeeK said:
			
		

> Just making sure we keep this post going... forever...



and ever...

 and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever 





			
				MLeeK said:
			
		

> Just making sure we keep this post going... forever...



and ever...

 and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever 





			
				MLeeK said:
			
		

> Just making sure we keep this post going... forever...



and ever...

 and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever


----------



## o hey tyler

This is so sad.


----------



## tevo

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> This is so sad.



oh lawdy

we have a prophet


----------



## o hey tyler

[insert appropriate meme or youtube video]


----------



## Derrel

*Just shoot EVERYTHING at ISO 400!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## tevo

Derrel said:
			
		

> Just shoot EVERYTHING at ISO 400!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Making fun of me?


extreme-sad


----------



## Kerbouchard

Derrel said:


> *Just shoot EVERYTHING at ISO 400!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



f/8 and be there...that's my philosophy.


----------



## tevo

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> f/8 and be there...that's my philosophy.



Agreed.


----------



## Sammie_Lou

Ok, so I'm setting my camera to ISO 400 and f/8 permanently...what should I set my shutter speed at for the rest of the life of the camera?? Just wanna get this whole setting the controls thing over with now so I can start taking some epic shots.


----------



## Overread

Best shutter speed is one OVER NINE-THOUSAND!


----------



## Derrel

tevo said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just shoot EVERYTHING at ISO 400!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Making fun of me?
> 
> 
> extreme-sad
Click to expand...


No, not at all. Personally, I think shooting at ISO 400 is the single biggest "tip" any newbie can be given. I shot Tri-X for nearly two decades, at ISO 250,320,0r MOSTLY, at 400. My comment was not even directed at or toward "you" Tevo...was just putting out there my feeling about ISO level for beginners who do not understand exposure. For them, my advice is, "*Just shoot EVERYTHING at ISO 400!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*"

ISO 400 keeps the lens at the sweet spot longer. Keeps the shutter in the safe zone. Allows you to have an extra stop or two of DOF to cover focusing inaccuracies. Keeps subject motion blur from accidentally spoiling many frames. When I wrote *Just shoot EVERYTHING at ISO 400!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*, I was not kidding. In any way. I was being 100 percent, deadly, totally serious. No humor, no snark, no joke, no fooling.

Foreget dicking around with ISO 100 to "prevent noise". Get the picture.


----------



## tevo

Sammie_Lou said:


> Ok, so I'm setting my camera to ISO 400 and f/8 permanently...what should I set my shutter speed at for the rest of the life of the camera?? Just wanna get this whole setting the controls thing over with now so I can start taking some epic shots.



Okay, at least try to answer your own questions before posting them on this forum. If you ACTUALLY read the thread, you would know that the proper shutter for your camera at all times ever is camel.


----------



## MLeeK

Actually... shooting at ISO 400 makes total sense to me and I agree with Darrel for newbies or inexperienced shooters. It prevents a LOT of mistakes in good light. 
If your camera has a problem with high noise at ISO 400 it's either more than 6 or 7 years old or you aren't exposing properly. 
Today's cameras at ISO 400 perform beautifully. 
The whole shoot at 100 (canon) and 200 (nikon) thing is great, but totally not absolutely necessary. Know when to break the rules. Or just plain when to throw them away. ISO 400 is low by today's standards. 
The new 1DX shoots at 204,800. I USE the images shot at 12800 on my 50D and 7D on an every day basis. Get over the whole ISO thing, ladies and gentlemen! 


Now back to our regularly scheduled epic length post....


----------



## MTVision

MLeeK said:
			
		

> Actually... shooting at ISO 400 makes total sense to me and I agree with Darrel for newbies or inexperienced shooters. It prevents a LOT of mistakes in good light.
> If your camera has a problem with high noise at ISO 400 it's either more than 6 or 7 years old or you aren't exposing properly.
> Today's cameras at ISO 400 perform beautifully.
> The whole shoot at 100 (canon) and 200 (nikon) thing is great, but totally not absolutely necessary. Know when to break the rules. Or just plain when to throw them away. ISO 400 is low by today's standards.
> The new 1DX shoots at 204,800. I USE the images shot at 12800 on my 50D and 7D on an every day basis. Get over the whole ISO thing, ladies and gentlemen!
> 
> Now back to our regularly scheduled epic length post....



Glad to know! I'm always boosting my ISO. I have some shots that are at ridiculously high ISO's!


----------



## ann

Goodness, been gone since the 31st and this thread is still going on.:lmao:

Oh, many times I used IS0 400, and what ever else it took to get the job done. A few times even in program mode and frankly if my camera would have given me an auto options I might have given that a try.


----------



## TMuhammad

Why would you even by a DSLR if you just shoot Auto? And learning about those things make you a better photographer. You can't light-paint on Auto. Or any other long-exposure/low-light shooting techniques. This is part of my dislike towards digital film. No creativity(I know it's not true for everyone)


----------



## camz

Ok so out of curiosity I looked at the OP's last activity hoping that he was absorbing all this...his last visit was on 10/27/2011.  LOL

I think we've done our jobs here in TPF eh??!


----------



## tevo

WHY
*stab*
WONT
*stab*
THIS
*stab*
THREAD
*stab*
DIEEEE
*stab, then twist*


----------



## momo3boys

Just so you know tevo, my husband made me explain to him why I was laughing and then I let him read your post. He wants to know if he can use that picture on his favorite forum.


----------



## unpopular

Someone, quick! Say something controversial or idiotic! DON'T LET THIS ONE DIE!


----------



## tevo

momo3boys said:


> Just so you know tevo, my husband made me explain to him why I was laughing and then I let him read your post. He wants to know if he can use that picture on his favorite forum.



Hahaha ^^

Tell him to go for it!


----------



## zcar21

Matrixgravity said:


> The only cool looking aesthetic effects you can do with a camera are Depth of field, and Bokeh. Other than that, is there really any point in learning how to use Aperture, ISO, and Shutter Speed? I mean, can't a beginner just purchase an expensive DSLR and just shoot on auto and produce professional looking pictures? I mean, the only reason you would need aperture,ISO, or shutter speed is if you wanted to create depth of field, or bokeh. Other than that, what is the point though? Thats what confuses me..There really doesn't seem like there is much to do with a camera aside from bokeh and depth of field..That is all I ever see..



Isn't the use of depth of field enough reason? You forgot to mention freezing or adding movement. Learning how to use aperture and shutter speed is not that difficult anyways.
Edit: Also, there are other effects that can be created with the camera besides exposure.


----------



## MLeeK

camz said:


> Ok so out of curiosity I looked at the OP's last activity hoping that he was absorbing all this...his last visit was on 10/27/2011.  LOL
> 
> I think we've done our jobs here in TPF eh??!


Yeah, but we have to keep this going just because... well... because we can!


----------



## kundalini

Overread said:


> Best shutter speed is one OVER NINE-THOUSAND!


I prefer the


----------



## unpopular

Woot! So now we're doing references to the number nine?


----------



## rsbones

The funny thing is that sensor and software technology is advancing so much that there are now cameras that can be treated basically ISO-less. Their read noise curves are so flat that there is NO ADVANTAGE gained by shooting at higher ISO compared with just shooting at base ISO (usually 100 or 200) and then just boosting the image "exposure" on the computer later. And there is an advantage to doing it on the computer because you can both lighten the image to reveal shadow detail and preserve the highlights, too (whereas shooting at higher iso on the camera would have permanently clipped the highlights, never to be recovered).

So if whoever it was who joked rhetorically about shooting a concert at ISO 100 owned a Nikon D7000 or any of the other "isoless" cameras, he could have done just that and once he developed the image on the computer, no one would have know the difference. With this kind of camera, one is (within a quite wide step range) free to choose aperture based on the dof he wants, shutter speed based on the motion stop/blur he wants, and then worry about the resulting image brightness later when he "develops" the images with his raw converter. The only downside is the jpg produced for your camera lcd will be too dark to see! (manufacturers could easily fix this by treating the Iso as meta data only: i.e. it'd be in the jpg so the preview image on camera would show you something viewable, but once you download to the computer it wouldn't be a permanent part of the raw data).

As this type of sensor becomes more common, there will need to be a new edition of "Understanding Exposure"!


----------



## unpopular

^^ I think in 15 years, people will be looking at this sentiment as ironic. I think that ISO-less is a huge exaggeration, that is likely where we are heading - imagine a a camera that records an effective HDR image at 32-bit in one exposure with ISO in the six digits with a SNR similar to today's ISO 100 - but I don't think that's where we're at.

Significant noise - albeit less than previous digital cameras and even film always starts around ISO 3200, and if I were to guess, ISO 3200 has similar SNR as ISO 400 film - which is suitable for some applications, but not all applications. When cameras can perform equally well at ISOs in six digits, as they do at their native ISO, then maybe.

However, when cameras do perform in such a way that sensitivity can provide adjustment in any any lighting circumstance and does not affect image quality, it will change how we think of exposure time as something which is only responsible for capturing or freezing movement, similar to how we normally think of aperture controlling depth of field and the perception of space.

Now, one question - is ISO set at time of capture or time of conversion? Is there any analog amplification in-camera, or is ISO determined by the software in a similar fashion as the "exposure slider"?


----------



## rsbones

ISO is part of "processing". It has always been so, even with film. Setting a film camera at iso 800 instead of iso 100 (without changing aperture or shutter speed) did not in any way alter what the camera did or the way the image was captured on the film. That's why it really shouldn't be consider as part of the "exposure". However, in digital cameras currently this "processing" is done as default by the cameras before it puts the image into a format that can be read/displayed by computers. So altering the iso setting of the camera does permanently alter the image.

It really shouldn't, and in the near future perhaps it will not and we will be able to set the iso at whatever we want, the camera will spit out jpgs that match that setting, but the camera will not alter the raw file and will simply allow the raw file to capture the full amount of light available at the given aperture and shutter speed setting (without clipping anything out like it currently does) and leave it up to us to determine how bright we want the image to be and what we want to appear in the dynamic range available, with no noise penalty!


----------



## memento

:energizerbunnygif:


----------



## unpopular

rsbones said:


> ISO is part of "processing". It has always been so, even with film. Setting a film camera at iso 800 instead of iso 100 (without changing aperture or shutter speed) did not in any way alter what the camera did or the way the image was captured on the film. That's why it really shouldn't be consider as part of the "exposure".



RE film, that is not at all accurate. ISO is set by the character of the film, primarily the size of the grain determines the sensitivity of the film. Setting the ISO calibrates the meter to the film, but you process higher ISO film similarly to lower ISO film, and, provided what you are sayings is accurate, digital ISO increases are more like push processing (yikes!). In film it wasn't considered a part of exposure because it was constant.

Because camera sensors measure one pixel at a time in either axis (right?) it seems you could place an analog amplifier at the outputs. I have no idea if this would produce a better noise profile than arrhythmically doing it in the post processor. My guess would be that this would produce more noise since you are not only amplifying the noise from the sensor itself, but also introducing noise from the amplifier.

But now that I think of it, that does make sense since sensitivity is determined by the physical properties of the capacitor array at the front of the ccd. The only way to change sensitivity would be to either permit the user to switch the CCD out for one that is more sensitive, or to somehow change the physical qualities of the sensor with an electric charge.

ETA:

However, Wikipedia says otherwise:



> For digital photo cameras ("digital still cameras"), an exposure index (EI) rating&mdash;commonly called ISO setting&mdash;is specified by the manufacturer such that the sRGB image files produced by the camera will have a lightness similar to what would be obtained with film of the same EI rating at the same exposure. The usual design is that the camera's parameters for interpreting the sensor data values into sRGB values are fixed, and a number of different *EI choices are accommodated by varying the sensor's signal gain in the analog realm, prior to conversion to digital*



If this is the case, then improved ISO relates to lower noise in analog amplification. Being that sensor chemistry is pretty fixed to what technologies are available (a ccd device can only "hold" as many electrons as its physical capabilities permit), making less noisy gain output would be much more practical for sensor manufacturers to accomplish.


----------



## mknittle

Matrixgravity said:


> Oh ok, so Manual is for accurate exposure. I understand that.. But the one thing that bothers me is that.. There doesn't seem like you can do much with a Camera once you learn how to properly use it.. Like, technique wise. Like I said, from what I understand the two primary techniques you can apply in Manual is using Depth Of Field to create interesting shots, and create Bokeh as well. But is there anything else you can do?..


 are you for real? this is not philosophy.


----------



## unpopular

mknittle said:
			
		

> are you for real? this is not philosophy.



Is there anything less philosophic than communicating ones own world view ... I think if anything this guy could use a little philosophy. He seems to be approaching photography like its a jigsaw puzzle.


----------



## xnoirox

On auto setting the camera doesn't always give you the right exposure. For ex. it might expose your subject but over-expose other elements of your photo. So if you want to tone down the brightness on your background elements, throw it in manual and adjust accordingly. I prefer manual a lot of the time for practice, and I seem to get better exposures a majority of the time.


----------



## ann

The OP ever come back and review any of this


----------



## KmH

According to their profile, the OP was last on active on the forum 2 days after starting the thread:
Last Activity - 10-27-2011 07:45 PM

That does not preclude the OP from lurking.


----------



## tevo

KmH said:


> According to their profile, the OP was last on active on the forum 2 days after starting the thread:
> Last Activity - 10-27-2011 07:45 PM
> 
> That does not preclude the OP from lurking.




WHY WOULD YOU BUMP THIS THREAD. WHY.


----------



## ann

My fault, It is amazing that this has been going on so long and the OP has never checked back, but a lot of us seem to have had a great time anyway.


----------



## BlairWright

nope, no point at all.

The best advice I can give you is this.. Grab a point n shoot, register your business and start shooting weddings immediately! 

ok... I had to add to this 19 page thread *check*


----------



## Overread

tevo said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to their profile, the OP was last on active on the forum 2 days after starting the thread:
> Last Activity - 10-27-2011 07:45 PM
> 
> That does not preclude the OP from lurking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY WOULD YOU BUMP THIS THREAD. WHY.
Click to expand...


Sometimes I think you guys are out to try and run me out of padlocks  

What's more shocking is how many people fail to read the last few pages to find out where we are


----------



## ann

Isn't that the truth :thumbup:


----------



## unpopular

First one to reach the 20th page wins!


----------



## dots

Troll thread.



mknittle said:


> Matrixgravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok, so Manual is for accurate exposure. I understand that.. But the one thing that bothers me is that.. There doesn't seem like you can do much with a Camera once you learn how to properly use it.. Like, technique wise. Like I said, from what I understand the two primary techniques you can apply in Manual is using Depth Of Field to create interesting shots, and create Bokeh as well. But is there anything else you can do?..
> 
> 
> 
> are you for real? this is not philosophy.
Click to expand...


----------



## tevo

unpopular said:


> First one to reach the 20th page wins!




i will destroy you


----------



## MLeeK

Well, then... by all means let me help you guys keep this one going!


----------



## unpopular

tevo said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> First one to reach the 20th page wins!
> 
> 
> 
> i will destroy you
Click to expand...

I won? but when I posted that, it was still page 19... Does that count? Oh well, it was my contest to start with... I WON THE INTERNETS!!!!!


----------



## tevo

unpopular said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> First one to reach the 20th page wins!
> 
> 
> 
> i will destroy you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won? but when I posted that, it was still page 19... Does that count? Oh well, it was my contest to start with... I WON THE INTERNETS!!!!!
Click to expand...


STOP BUMPING THIS GOD FORSAKEN THREAD


----------



## MLeeK

I think the funniest thing about this never ending thread is even though most of us have long ago abandoned the original debate, there are still one or two every day who haven't bothered to read what's going on and actually answer it!!!


----------



## tevo

MLeeK said:


> I think the funniest thing about this never ending thread is even though most of us have long ago abandoned the original debate, there are still one or two every day who haven't bothered to read what's going on and actually answer it!!!





Post first picture in your pictures folder. GO!


----------



## MLeeK

I have NOTHING in my pictures folder. I store nothing on my computer!!!


----------



## tevo

MLeeK said:


> I have NOTHING in my pictures folder. I store nothing on my computer!!!



Sample Photos


----------



## MLeeK

Nope. No sample pictures.


----------



## MLeeK

OK... first image on the first file in the first file on the currently attached hard drive...


----------



## tevo

MLeeK said:


> OK... first image on the first file in the first file on the currently attached hard drive...




CROOOOOOOKED HORIZON.


----------



## MLeeK

You didn't say first GOOD picture. Yours is all nostril and blow out face! :greenpbl:

You've had wayyyy too much sprite for one night. Off to bed with you, son.


----------



## tevo

MLeeK said:


> You didn't say first GOOD picture. Yours is all nostril and blow out face! :greenpbl:



http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/263259-c-c-game.html#post2398485 Post that here.


----------



## unpopular

Lol. I went to post the first pic in my folder but forgot that I was on my wifes iPad and was thoroughly confused when nothing looked quite right.


----------



## unpopular

Woot page 21!


----------



## MLeeK

I must be set up completely differently than everyone else. I at page 11. You all lose.


----------



## Kerbouchard

MLeeK said:


> I must be set up completely differently than everyone else. I at page 11. You all lose.


Also on page 11...


----------



## unpopular

lol. That's weird.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

It's a setting.

I prefer as many posts (30) viewable on a page load.
The only downside is the slower load time on pic heavy threads via mobile devices...

Choose your poison.


----------



## KmH

Arthur C. Clarke said - 





> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.



It's amazing this thread is still active.


----------



## tevo

KmH said:


> Arthur C. Clarke said -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's amazing this thread is still active.*
Click to expand...


----------



## unpopular

oh tevo - you know you love it. :hug::


----------



## MLeeK

So now we have to get to the REAL 21!


----------



## tevo

unpopular said:


> oh tevo - you know you love it. :hug::








yeah.... of course i do.... yeah..........


----------



## unpopular

MLeeK said:


> So now we have to get to the REAL 21!



By that point I'll be pushing for page 100 just to see if tevo will pull the trigger.


----------



## tevo

unpopular said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have to get to the REAL 21!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that point I'll be pushing for page 100 just to see if tevo will pull the trigger.
Click to expand...


----------



## ann

You all h ave too much free time on your hands, go take pictures!


ps. i know , i am still hanging around :er:


----------



## tevo

Just a small town girl..


----------



## unpopular

You're such a liar! San Jose is the second or third largest city in CA.


----------



## tevo

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...417-should-i-quit-photography-internship.html

The Photography Genius started another thread... o lawdy


----------

