# New exposure concept? Looking for your valued feedback!



## photo1x1.com (Feb 16, 2019)

Hey people, 
I haven´t posted too much in recent months, one reason is that my brain was constantly thinking about a conversation we had a while back. Some of you will probably remember - it was a long winding thread about "exposure" or better "camera exposure", and I noted a lot of what you people said.
I have never been happy with how exposure was explained, particularly the exposure triangle, but this thread got the ball rolling. So I was thinking about how I can come up with a better concept. 
And here I am back again asking you for your feedback on a concept I have been working on for pretty long. I call it exposure bars. I don´t want to talk too much about it, because I´d love to hear your honest opinion without any input from my side, but here is a short note why I think there needs to be a new concept: 
the exposure triangle has two major drawbacks: 

It doesn´t show the relation between the 3 components it mentions

It leaves the most important component of image brightness out of the equation: *scene luminance*. Our settings for aperture, shutter speed, and ISO are only a reaction to scene luminance, so it doesn´t make sense to not incorporate that component in any concept dealing with image brightness.
So any and all of your feedback is welcome and much appreciated. Be harsh, rather than polite .


----------



## Designer (Feb 16, 2019)

photo1x1.com said:


> I have never been happy with how exposure was explained, *particularly the exposure triangle*,


I'm not surprised.  In digital photography, the ISO setting has nothing to do with exposure.  The sensitivity and dynamic range of the sensor does influence exposure, but will vary with each model of sensor. 

So what does ISO do?  The ISO setting is applied gain, which by definition must be applied AFTER the data is captured, therefore does not influence the exposure.  It does inform your firmware how to generate the JPEG image that your camera then displays on the LCD, and naturally includes the imbedded JPEG file that resides within the Raw file.  When you compensate for the ISO setting, what you are seeing is the JPEG result of the setting, so that is why most people assume it has influenced the actual exposure, hence the "triangle" concept.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 16, 2019)

i literally have 1/160 set to my min shutter speed...


----------



## D7K (Feb 16, 2019)

Braineack said:


> i literally have 1/160 set to my min shutter speed...



You never shoot below 1/160?


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 16, 2019)

Designer said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > I have never been happy with how exposure was explained, *particularly the exposure triangle*,
> ...



I know that, that´s why I wanted to come up with something that is better. I hope I was successful.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 16, 2019)

Braineack said:


> i literally have 1/160 set to my min shutter speed...


That wouldn´t help you much with fireworks or night sky shots.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Feb 16, 2019)

We will always try to impose an order or *rationality* in an attempt to gain that understanding of a process but in reality all we are doing is applying labels to fit it within a definition we can understand. It relies on labels and we argue about the definition of those labels because our understanding relies upon the links we make between the words and their meanings.

The biggest loss is when we do this we fail to see outside our definition because our aim is to make sure it stays within that definition. We stop thinking, observing and learning. We fail to see the whole picture and so fail to understand the more abstract connections.

It's simple, the constant is the sensor, the variable the amount of light. In order to make a specific tone the sensor needs to record a specific amount of light in all cases. The job of exposure is to take the varying light and make sure that the same specific amount of light hits the sensor in all cases when you want to produce that specific tone.

For this you have two controls, aperture and shutter speed. They both impact on how the camera abstracts the scene. How they do this varies from one scene to the next. They are all related and those relationships can be more abstract than linear. With digital you have the option of being able to use different combinations of aperture and shutter speed to produce that same tone, ISO. But again the exact relationship is a little more abstract.

You must let go of the rigid framework and instead adopt a loose understanding, one you can adapt and change with experience and observation. It's about and understanding the impact on the finished image, not about finding the lowest common denominator so we can produce a bar graph.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 16, 2019)

photo1x1.com said:


> That wouldn´t help you much with fireworks or night sky shots.



The reason I bring it up is because I don't like the Sunny 16 rule-of-thumb which is basically what the sunny scenario in your chart is.  I simply will never shoot that small of an aperture and I certainly try never to hand-hold a SS that low with 36MP, so I hate seeing it as an example.  I still see references to it all over the place, meanwhile I shoot 5.6 and below in the sun... it's simply not a good starting out point, especially in these crazy times of built in light meters.



photo1x1.com said:


> I know that, that´s why I wanted to come up with something that is better. I hope I was successful.



I like the idea, but I'd remove ISO.

Then I'd show better examples of larger chunks of bars with different scenarios.

for example, a sunny day I'd have the luminance take up 3/4 of the total area, f/16 taking up a very small portion.


then for overcast at f/5.6 I'd make sure that  the total area of the aperture is mathematically proportionate to f/16 -- leaving SS alone.

mathematically, these are accurate:





then I would represent the same scenarios, with changing the apertures, and compensating with the SS.






I think that will give a better visual representation -- ISO introduces an unnecessary variable and you can address is separately.  I think it's more useful to show how ISO can extend or reduce the over/under exposure to bring the image back to ideal.





but obviously try to make it accurate to scale.  I think this will help convey what affect ISO has on the final output, without suggesting it actually has something to do with the exposure.  You take what has been exposed and amplify artificially after the fact -- like a volume knob, but only for light.  You're not changing how loud the band recorded their record, but you can still manipulate the loudness...





you sub-label for SS is wrong, same as aperture.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 16, 2019)

Braineack said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > That wouldn´t help you much with fireworks or night sky shots.
> ...



Thanks a lot for the time and thoughts you put into this - very much appreciated.
I like the idea of the bigger chunks and giving the scene luminance more significance. I´ll have another try at that.
My first thought was doing it proportional, but the problem is it will not work. Like in your last example of ISO200 - that bar would have to be twice as big, as ISO100, when shutter speed 1/200 is half of 1/100

In regard to leaving out ISO. I too have thought about that, but then I thought many people will be confused, so I thought addressing the issue in the text will be a better. 

I´m absolutely with you on f16. I may reconsider that as it might imply that f16 is a great starting point.

So thanks again for your feedback!!!


----------



## D7K (Feb 16, 2019)

....f/16....f/5.6... Don't we shoot at the required settings for the shot we need?  I sure as S*** don't shoot at f16 because the sun shines, and I'd miss a lot of my shots if I shot at f/5.6 in the sun and daylight then I would never achieve what I want..

F-this / ISO-that / SS-the other... You shoot what you need to shoot to achieve what you want to achieve...no?  Learn these things and apply them to get what you want....?


----------



## Braineack (Feb 16, 2019)

photo1x1.com said:


> My first thought was doing it proportional, but the problem is it will not work. Like in your last example of ISO200 - that bar would have to be twice as big, as ISO100, when shutter speed 1/200 is half of 1/100



easy solution.  ISO 100 should start off as no space whatsoever.  i think you can get it to be close to real scale if you work at it. 

but I like the idea of showing the 3 bars only first to solidify the concept of how SS and f/stops play in a given scene, then to add ISO and over/under into the equation.


Once finalized, I would seriously consider trying to come up with a good infographic on how the built in meter works and how you can use EV.  That's one that I see stumps a lot of beginners, and IMHO a very important one to learn/understand.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 16, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> We will always try to impose an order or *rationality* in an attempt to gain that understanding of a process but in reality all we are doing is applying labels to fit it within a definition we can understand. It relies on labels and we argue about the definition of those labels because our understanding relies upon the links we make between the words and their meanings.
> 
> The biggest loss is when we do this we fail to see outside our definition because our aim is to make sure it stays within that definition. We stop thinking, observing and learning. We fail to see the whole picture and so fail to understand the more abstract connections.
> 
> ...


Absolutely, Tim! But we didn´t start with the knowledge we have now. This isn´t meant to tell people what exact settings to use with which scene luminance. It is meant to show people how these settings correlate, so that they can do exactly what you say.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 16, 2019)

Braineack said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > My first thought was doing it proportional, but the problem is it will not work. Like in your last example of ISO200 - that bar would have to be twice as big, as ISO100, when shutter speed 1/200 is half of 1/100
> ...


Great idea regarding the built in meter. I was planning a video on that, so this might be a good addition.
Regarding the close to real scale, it gets worse, so I´m afraid the real scale isn´t possible. I´ve also thought about other analogies, but the problem is always the scale.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 16, 2019)

D7K said:


> ....f/16....f/5.6... Don't we shoot at the required settings for the shot we need?  I sure as S*** don't shoot at f16 because the sun shines, and I'd miss a lot of my shots if I shot at f/5.6 in the sun and daylight then I would never achieve what I want..
> 
> F-this / ISO-that / SS-the other... You shoot what you need to shoot to achieve what you want to achieve...no?  Learn these things and apply them to get what you want....?


Maybe I should have stated that this cheat sheat isn´t meant for me. It is meant to help beginners understand the correlation between the components that make up image brightness.


----------



## D7K (Feb 16, 2019)

photo1x1.com said:


> D7K said:
> 
> 
> > ....f/16....f/5.6... Don't we shoot at the required settings for the shot we need?  I sure as S*** don't shoot at f16 because the sun shines, and I'd miss a lot of my shots if I shot at f/5.6 in the sun and daylight then I would never achieve what I want..
> ...



Sure, My oversight I guess..


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Feb 16, 2019)

Braineack said:


> mathematically, these are accurate:



Not really, Sunny at f16 is 4x the brightness of Overcast and twice the brightness of Hazy. It's a log scale and will never fit into a linear bar graph.



photo1x1.com said:


> Absolutely, Tim! But we didn´t start with the knowledge we have now. This isn´t meant to tell people what exact settings to use with which scene luminance. It is meant to show people how these settings correlate, so that they can do exactly what you say.



It doesn't address the fundamental point that I had so much trouble with when I had to *un-learn* the false logic of this type of device, that exposure is the *range of intensities of light that falls on the sensor and produce the image*. It's the light that creates the exposure and the image, the camera simply restricts that range of light intensities so the image you want falls within the range that the sensor can record. f16@1/100 is simply the camera setting you use to achieve this.

Also it's not about *adding* settings but restricting the amount of light and the object of the exercise is to understand how to achieve the same or constant intensity of light at the sensor not how to make it brighter or darker.

This makes far more sense to me, simply understanding the relationship between aperture and shutter speed and how each abstracts the image, then separately the relationship between ISO and available light and how it affects your ability to choose effective camera settings. Nothing more is needed, everything else just confuses:


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 16, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > mathematically, these are accurate:
> ...


Interesting thoughts, Tim, thanks for elaborating. I´ll think about that. 
I don´t think though that changing the aperture bar to go from bright to dark would make it easier to understand when shutter speed does the opposite.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Feb 16, 2019)

photo1x1.com said:


> I don´t think though that changing the aperture bar to go from bright to dark would make it easier to understand when shutter speed does the opposite.



You see this is the problem. You're trying to fit it into your understanding rather than understand what it is you're trying to explain. Exposure is not about controlling the brightness of the image but the brightness of the light that creates the image. It's about consistency of light on the sensor and for that my diagram is the correct way around.

1/4000 @ f1.4 = 1/2000 @ f2.0 = 1/1000 @ f2.8 = 1/500 @ f4 = 1/250 @ f5.6 etc... Is that relationship explained in your diagram or confused?

What happens if I read your chart vertically? F64 @ 1/8000 @ ISO25 for a night shot? F1 @ BULB @ ISO102,400 for bright daylight?

Do the terms Brighter/Darker refer to the image or the light in the scene? How do I know which one refers to which band?

You start with a suggested camera setting for both aperture and shutter speed, it is the one measurement the camera makes against how it displays it. What you need to know is how you can vary that and maintain the suggested exposure, the relationship between aperture and shutter speed against the abstraction that occurs in the image. Then if you can't attain what you want you need to know the relationship of available light to ISO and how that can maintain consistency in your image against the abstraction that occurs with the selection. That's it. There is no diagram that unifies the relationships, they only create mis-understanding.


----------



## Designer (Feb 16, 2019)

photo1x1.com said:


> My first thought was doing it proportional, but the problem is it will not work.
> 
> In regard to leaving out ISO. I too have thought about that, but then I thought many people will be confused,


You might be able to display this graphically, but the relationship is logarithmic, like the scale on a slide rule.

So you teach people the correct relationship, and it confuses them.  Yes, at first it will, but how is continuing to reinforce an incorrect relationship making any progress?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 16, 2019)

You write, "Keep ISO as low as possible for best results".  THAT "advice" is poorly-worded.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 17, 2019)

Derrel said:


> You write, "Keep ISO as low as possible for best results".  THAT "advice" is poorly-worded.


absolutely - thanks for pointing that out!


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 17, 2019)

Designer said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > My first thought was doing it proportional, but the problem is it will not work.
> ...



Thanks again for your input! It really is appreciated.
The problem is: I have a lot of people asking me e.g. what the difference between 1/30sec and 30sec is. Then I explain with apples how a quarter apple is different to 4 apples and yet they still have issues understanding fractions. I´m not making fun of people here, that´s just the way it is. Talking about logarithmic relationships will probably stop them from taking images altogether. Photography is much easier than that.
I try to keep in mind that not all people have the same intellectual capabilities that you have and so in my experience, there is a need for explaining things in a way that people can use it. So far I have really good feedback on my style of teaching. Many people have struggled for months and now seem to really get the hang of it. I do know that feedback is subjective and I am realistic enough that some people will say "wooooow, that´s great" - even if it is the worst thing they ever saw.
I hope that makes at least a bit of sense


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Feb 17, 2019)

Derrel said:


> You write, "Keep ISO as low as possible for best results".  THAT "advice" is poorly-worded.



I’ve heard this before but I don’t understand why it’s not good advice. I would interpret it to mean that as long as the aperture and SS are set correctly to adequately take the picture (meaning DoF is appropriate and desirable, and no motion blur) then what would be the reason to increase the ISO? Why would I intentionally set the ISO higher when I could set it lower and still capture the shot?


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 17, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > I don´t think though that changing the aperture bar to go from bright to dark would make it easier to understand when shutter speed does the opposite.
> ...



Thanks again, Tim. I really appreciate the time you put into this and it definitely keeps me thinking. 
I´m still not convinced on "mirroring" the aperture bar. I have read several abstracts about the human brain. Maybe this is just one example that things that seem logical for one, are the opposite for the other. However, I will try to investigate into that and ask as many people as I can to get some statistical relevant data. I could be wrong on this one, so I´d rather do some more "research".

Good point on the terms Brighter/Darker, thanks!!!

Those suggested camera settings weren´t actually meant like that. I was just going for an example that would create decent image brightness, and would leave room for change. In regard to misunderstanding, I´m afraid I have to disagree. My reply to Designers post above would work here too. To most people a diagram that isn´t scientifically correct explains more than a paragraph of words that are. Some people are visual learners, others are auditory,...


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 17, 2019)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > You write, "Keep ISO as low as possible for best results".  THAT "advice" is poorly-worded.
> ...


Thanks, TreeofLifeStairs, but I think the wording is really sub-par. What are best "results"? *You* interpreted it correctly, but will everybody do? 
For now I have changed it to "Keep ISO on base level whenever possible for best image quality". But then image quality isn´t only noise and dynamic range. I´ll keep thinking  
Thanks again for your input!


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 17, 2019)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > You write, "Keep ISO as low as possible for best results".  THAT "advice" is poorly-worded.
> ...



It leads novices to believe they shouldn't be using ISO 400 or higher.  This causes them to use wider apertures than they'd like, or slower shutter speeds that are too slow for the subject or for the photographer to induce camera blur.  I shudder to think how many great images have been lost due to this poor advice.


----------



## Designer (Feb 17, 2019)

"Photography is much easier than that."

Exactly right.  If people are so dull as to not understand fractions, then why are you bothering to attempt to teach the finer points of photography?  Wouldn't it be much simpler and faster to simply tell them to "put it in green auto and press the button", rather than all that aperture and shutter speed stuff?


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Feb 17, 2019)

I totally get your point about the way we learn, and I totally understand that you need to avoid explaining it in terms of a log scale because that really does confuse beginners. It was noted because it makes it impossible to convert the relationships to a linear scale that makes sense.



photo1x1.com said:


> I was just going for an example that would create decent image brightness



The way I read this I feel that you are still not getting the concept of exposure or how to reduce it to the simplest terms. Your diagram looks at variations in the levels of light and the brightness of the image both as variables but fails to provide any constant or fixed point, the aim or what exposure seeks to achieve.

To simplify talk only about a camera generated jpeg, this removes any PP effects.

In a camera jpeg displayed on your screen or the LCD on the back of the camera the colours and values of light are fixed on the RGB scale from 0-255 and mid grey is 128. This requires a fixed amount of light to fall on the sensor in all cases to produce that tone. It is your constant.

If you're trying to explain the abstract to students then you need to create a fixed point around which everything else moves and this is it. The concept of image brightness itself is an abstract one and not really the function of exposure, exposure and visualisation is about being able to reproduce consistently the tones you want in the image at the brightness you want. If you want a darker image then you need to know how to produce that darker grey, but essentially you are still aiming to produce a fixed and known tone which requires a fixed and known amount of light. So we have two stages, teaching how to convert mid grey in a scene as mid grey on the sensor, then how to vary exposure to produce mid grey as a darker grey.

If you work with mid grey then you reference directly how the meter in your camera works. So we have a mid grey card in bright sunlight and one on a dark night. The aim of exposure is to ensure that the amount of light reflected off the card, through the lens and onto the sensor is exactly the same in both cases. The only information the camera provides through it's meter are the settings for shutter speed, aperture and ISO to achieve this. Again we are at the fixed constant.

We have four variables in this model, the amount of light reflected off the card, the aperture, shutter speed and ISO. So we nw see how they relate if our aim is to produce the same fixed signal at the sensor, mid grey.

You can't explain this in one diagram, it requires two at least. As an abstract why not think in abstract terms? At the moment you are thinking only of the absolute as in the settings themselves and how to make them add to a constant, but they don't. If the constant is the fixed level of light hitting the sensor then why not use a model that shows how to subtract light so what is left is constant? Why are you using absolute scales as the actual settings? If you use abstract scales such as Increase/Decrease you avoid the log scale because you avoid using any defined unit.

Try something like this, but you still need a separate diagram to explain the effects of the selections you make which can now be your original minus the *Scene Luminance* the exact way you had it:


----------



## Braineack (Feb 17, 2019)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> I’ve heard this before but I don’t understand why it’s not good advice. I would interpret it to mean that as long as the aperture and SS are set correctly to adequately take the picture (meaning DoF is appropriate and desirable, and no motion blur) then what would be the reason to increase the ISO? Why would I intentionally set the ISO higher when I could set it lower and still capture the shot?



what if you're using flash and need a good blend of ambient and flash exposure -- shoot at 100 iso and you might end up with bright faces [with 1/1 power] on a pitch black BG.  shoot at iso 800 and you might end up with well blended subjects to the BG.

what if shooting at iso 100 requires a SS that's simply too slow and introduces blur?  But shooting at iso 1600 gives you 4 stops of speed and better results?

not all sensors are iso invariant and it goes both ways; so it's really not a great "rule".

Like I mentioned above, I have a min. shutter speed set at 1/160, last weekend I was shooting in a dark warehouse using a 3.5-5.6 lens in A mode -- for what i considered best results--since I was also in auto-iso--most my shots ended up between 2800-6400iso.

Sure I could have shot at iso 100 and pushed it 5 stops to 3200 in post, but I would have no more latitude after that and really pushing things and the exposure in-camera is a guess since the shot would look pitch black in the preview.  And since the images look identical after pushing in post, how is shooting at 100 giving me better results. it really isn't.

Or I could have shot at 100 and dropped the shutter to something like 1/6sec, but then all my shots would have been blurry --- is that best results?


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 17, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> ...... It's a log scale and will never fit into a linear bar graph............



Explain slide rules then.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 17, 2019)

Designer said:


> "Photography is much easier than that."
> 
> Exactly right.  If people are so dull as to not understand fractions, then why are you bothering to attempt to teach the finer points of photography?  Wouldn't it be much simpler and faster to simply tell them to "put it in green auto and press the button", rather than all that aperture and shutter speed stuff?


With all due respect, I feel that is an unsuitable reply. Be greatful for the brainpower you have. 
People that find it hard to understand certain things are much more greatful for help than most others.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Feb 17, 2019)

480sparky said:


> Tim Tucker 2 said:
> 
> 
> > ...... It's a log scale and will never fit into a linear bar graph............
> ...



Slide rules use log scales and not linear bar graphs?


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 17, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Tim Tucker 2 said:
> ...



What's the difference?  Cannot one create a log bar graph and use it instead of a scale?


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 17, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> I totally get your point about the way we learn, and I totally understand that you need to avoid explaining it in terms of a log scale because that really does confuse beginners. It was noted because it makes it impossible to convert the relationships to a linear scale that makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks again, Tim. I know I´m trying to exchange something that is not correct with somthing that isn´t perfect either. But I´m afraid your approach would confuse most people. In my experience there is little knowledge of even the basic things most learned at school, 5 years after they left school. So of course I could create a scientifically correct chart with all the info starting with photons and going all the way to A/D  conversion. But that´s exactly what is intimidating so many people when it comes to photography. I want to show them how easy it is to create great images. Yet many people have issues understanding what causes image brightness. I want to pave their way to easier get there rather than being scientifically correct.
I know I was asking for harsh ctitique - and I absolutely appreciate all of the comments and the thoughts and time that went into your answers. It helped me improve certain points, but I´m afraid incorporating your approach would make the chart not usable for most people new to photography.
I hope for your understanding.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 17, 2019)

Just teach EV; that wont be complicated 

I like showing the exposure triangle in a bar graph.  and i like how you added in scene brightness.

Starting with this will teach a reader that working with available light means you have to make changes to the f/stop and SS to achieve an "ideal" exposure.  This actually sneaks in the idea of EV and will be useful later on if you teach about light metering.

I would then introduce the concept of over/under exposure to the above.

once that concept is grasped, you can introduce ISO to the bar graph, to convey how it can amplify the brightness of a scene and the results of the final output.

I'm personally not a fan of the charts you made on iso, ss, and aperture.  To me they are confusing and hard to grasp since each has a few affects over the final output. I would would like to see a little more elaboration on each.

SS -- The total exposure time.  We need to express that it's two-fold. First a longer shutter can increase the exposure, but it also introduces blur since you're capturing an image over time.  I think it's important to not only talk about the movement of the subject, but the movement of the shooter themselves.

A -- The total amount of light.  Again, we need to express two things: the total amount of light you're letting in over the SS time, but also the affects on DOF.  But then it's important to note that in a dark setting, you may want to use f/2.8 to get more light, but then have a paper-thin DOF, so in order to gain back DOF, you have to make a change to SS and/or ISO to compensate from what we learned above.  Because if we simply increase the SS, then we might end up with completely blurry images.

ISO -- The volume knob.  Really I like this analogy.  Just as in stereo, the more you pump it, the more noise you can hear/see.

II'd rather these be more infographic like with more explanation, than the charts.  I've seen those charts all over the internet and frankly I don't find them helpful.  IMHO if you do the above, from top to bottom the reader should come away with a greater understanding.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Feb 17, 2019)

Braineack said:


> TreeofLifeStairs said:
> 
> 
> > I’ve heard this before but I don’t understand why it’s not good advice. I would interpret it to mean that as long as the aperture and SS are set correctly to adequately take the picture (meaning DoF is appropriate and desirable, and no motion blur) then what would be the reason to increase the ISO? Why would I intentionally set the ISO higher when I could set it lower and still capture the shot?
> ...



I’m not sure you read my whole post. I had said that if the shot was correct the way you intended it to be, why would you then increase the ISO? So no motion blur, and lit the way you wanted it? On your dark warehouse, why didn’t you increase your ISO twice as much and allow you SS to be twice as fast? 

I would never say that ISO should be lowered to the point of sacrificing the shot but I think that saying lower is better is still accurate.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Feb 17, 2019)

photo1x1.com said:


> Thanks again, Tim. I know I´m trying to exchange something that is not correct with somthing that isn´t perfect either. But I´m afraid your approach would confuse most people. In my experience there is little knowledge of even the basic things most learned at school, 5 years after they left school. So of course I could create a scientifically correct chart with all the info starting with photons and going all the way to A/D  conversion. But that´s exactly what is intimidating so many people when it comes to photography. I want to show them how easy it is to create great images. Yet many people have issues understanding what causes image brightness. I want to pave their way to easier get there rather than being scientifically correct.
> I know I was asking for harsh ctitique - and I absolutely appreciate all of the comments and the thoughts and time that went into your answers. It helped me improve certain points, but I´m afraid incorporating your approach would make the chart not usable for most people new to photography.
> I hope for your understanding.



There is a PS. to this and it requires that you ask yourself what it is that you are trying to achieve.

Are you trying to illustrate an abstract concept in a way that your student finds easier to understand or are you trying to nail an abstract concept into absolute values so you can form an understanding?

If it's the former then you must be vague because it is only then that the student will question and learn. If you force your own absolute version then you deny them the ability to work it out for themselves, you suppress thought and learning, you simply provide your rigid idea.

The use of a rigid language with strict definition is a device that's been used for centuries by Authoritarian Bodies to suppress free thought and control bodies of people. Take *subversive* or *suppressive person* as examples, once the label is applied then the exact nature of the person and your behaviour towards them is defined and demanded. There is no room for your personal judgement.

When teaching you must remember this and allow the student room to make their own connections and understanding. You have to trust and encourage them to question and think, not do it for them. I find your original confused and fairly incomprehensible. As I said it bulldozes through abstract connections and concepts in a way I found difficult to *un-learn*.

Image brightness is a fairly abstract concept as the output space, (monitor) has a fixed range of brightness. You can control it better with the brightness knob that you can with the camera shutter speed, and neither will allow you to reproduce consistent and neutral skin tones in print. Less exposure (absolute light on sensor) = darker image/more light = brighter image is simply an incorrect and misleading concept. What it translates to in reality the inability to achieve consistent colour in images.

So lets consider another output space for images which similarly has a fixed back and a fixed white, the brightness of which you can't vary, (just like a print or computer monitor). Take a white piece of paper and a graphite pencil. Now explain to your student, who's advanced a little and is eager to learn more, how to create bright and dark images.

Take the two images below, one looks like it is taken in bright sunlight and the other in darker diffuse light. Yet both have exactly the same range of brightness on your screen, in fact the lower one has the greatest proportion of lighter tones, it's actually brighter:











You're trying fit everything into your understanding, you trying to squeeze it so it fits into your incomplete logic. And in doing this you deny your student the tools to progress beyond you, they will always be limited by what you don't understand. It's another abstract concept but one you must accept. The aim of teaching is in getting others to progress beyond you, not limit them.

By far the biggest problem and limitation I find on forum and Internet based learning is people trying to force photography into the logic of *left brain* thought. I can't stress what a handicap this is for those who wish to pursue a more creative *right brain* approach. You basically imprison them within the confines of your own self imposed pigeon holes, the logical structure you impose so you can understand. But by teaching that rigid logic you deny them the opportunity to understand and make the abstract connections that are essential to creativity. To take an obvious one, how many photographers understand that texture is the memory of touch and not the visual reality contained in reflected light? Does your teaching allow the student the possibility of making that connection themselves?

Exposure is about being able to produce consistent and repeatable tones on light sensitive media. What you do with them afterwards is another essay, but start with the ability to do this.

I'm sorry for the essay, and it's not all on your shoulders.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 17, 2019)

Braineack said:


> Just teach EV; that wont be complicated
> 
> I like showing the exposure triangle in a bar graph.  and i like how you added in scene brightness.
> 
> ...


Thanks again!!! I have noted most of your points in the text, but I planned a backside or second page, with examples (probably real images).
In the beginning I wanted to show EV below the scene luminance, but I deleted it because it might be confusing since all the others are EV too.
Thanks for all the thoughts it really helps me improve this!


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 17, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks again, Tim. I know I´m trying to exchange something that is not correct with somthing that isn´t perfect either. But I´m afraid your approach would confuse most people. In my experience there is little knowledge of even the basic things most learned at school, 5 years after they left school. So of course I could create a scientifically correct chart with all the info starting with photons and going all the way to A/D  conversion. But that´s exactly what is intimidating so many people when it comes to photography. I want to show them how easy it is to create great images. Yet many people have issues understanding what causes image brightness. I want to pave their way to easier get there rather than being scientifically correct.
> ...


No worries, Tim. I do get your point. But for me, this is somewhat philosophical.
Do you rather like the approach to enable a minority of probably highly intellectual people to easier progress beyond what they learn in the beginning?
Or do you see that as intimidating a majority that likes to dive into photography, learn how to take decent pics and "understand" the basics in a way that they can easily create images with a correct brightness? I´m trying to avoid exposure as much as I can, but since it is such a well-established term, I have to use it at times.
The afore mentioned minority sure is clever enough to easily unlearn some parts - or add additional info. Most of these people also don´t usually need any sort of cheat sheets. They comprehend faster and don´t need any kind of mnemonics to keep what they learn.
My approach is to make many people enjoy photography and delivering info that paves their path to becoming better pretty quick.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 17, 2019)

Braineack said:


> Just teach EV; that wont be complicated



WINNER! Problem solved using advanced early 20th century technology!



 

There's a reason intelligent people 100 or so years ago decided it was advantageous to make shutter speed scales and lens aperture scales both alter the exposure buy the same unit value. In that table above the number 14 is: 

1/4000 sec f/2
1/2000 sec f/2.8
1/1000 sec f/4
1/500 sec f/5.6
1/250 sec f/8
1/125 sec f/11
1/60 sec f/16
1/30 sec f/22

I'm glad I learned photography back when it was easy 

Joe


----------



## Designer (Feb 17, 2019)

photo1x1.com said:


> In my experience there is little knowledge of even the basic things most learned at school, 5 years after they left school. So of course I could create a scientifically correct chart with all the info starting with photons and going all the way to A/D  conversion. But that´s exactly what is intimidating so many people when it comes to photography. I want to show them how easy it is to create great images. Yet many people have issues understanding what causes image brightness. I want to pave their way to easier get there rather than being scientifically correct.


I applaud your initiative and effort at trying to make photography more easily accessible to everyone, and I do agree that some aspects of the technology are quite complicated, therefore any new approach that succeeds in breaking it down and making it more understandable is to be sincerely appreciated.  

You may consider me rather slow, but I don't understand what you're trying to make easier.  Is it the "exposure triangle" concept ?, or perhaps simply trying to introduce some new rules of thumb?, or are you trying to teach the relationship of aperture and shutter speed to something that is yet to be introduced?

You don't like my suggestion to show them how to use the fantastic technology that they hold in their hands, but for some reason you think you have to make it more complicated.  Who really wants/needs it to be more complicated?  How is making it more complicated going to help newbies create great photography?  How is learning the relationships between the mechanical/electronic controls of the camera going to help a novice out in the real world?


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 17, 2019)

photo1x1.com said:


> It leaves the most important component of image brightness out of the equation: *scene luminance*. Our settings for aperture, shutter speed, and ISO are only a reaction to scene luminance, so it doesn´t make sense to not incorporate that component in any concept dealing with image brightness.



I see the term "scene luminescence" tossed around as a generic term to describe the overall brightness, but it leads to a false understanding of the actual term. _Luminance_ is a photometric measure of the luminous intensity per unit area of light travelling in a given direction. It describes the amount of light that passes through, *is emitted or reflected from a particular area,* and falls within a given solid angle. Yet your chart seems to reflect that it is function only of the ambient light, and there's no mention of adjustment based on reflectivity of individual elements within the scene. 



Every thing in the scene has a luminescence value that is not necessarily related to the ambient light source, but does require an exposure adjustment to properly expose. IE:  a white object reflects more light then a black object. Setting your exposure based on the ambient light will result in an over exposed white object or and underexposed black object. Or, a more practical example is if you're shooting a snow scene.  I can agree with you on the importance of the luminescence of the scene in adjusting the exposure, but if this is something designed to help beginners then you might need to address this further.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 17, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> ......... IE:  a white object reflects more light then a black object. Setting your exposure based on the ambient light will result in an over exposed white object or and underexposed black object. Or, a more practical example is if you're shooting a snow scene. ..........



But isn't that the whole idea?  White subjects should be brighter in the image, and black subjects should be darker.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Feb 17, 2019)

photo1x1.com said:


> No worries, Tim. I do get your point. But for me, this is somewhat philosophical.
> Do you rather like the approach to enable a minority of probably highly intellectual people to easier progress beyond what they learn in the beginning?
> Or do you see that as intimidating a majority that likes to dive into photography, learn how to take decent pics and "understand" the basics in a way that they can easily create images with a correct brightness? I´m trying to avoid exposure as much as I can, but since it is such a well-established term, I have to use it at times.
> The afore mentioned minority sure is clever enough to easily unlearn some parts - or add additional info. Most of these people also don´t usually need any sort of cheat sheets. They comprehend faster and don´t need any kind of mnemonics to keep what they learn.
> My approach is to make many people enjoy photography and delivering info that paves their path to becoming better pretty quick.



I don't see the conflict between the two, seriously. Neither do I see a distinction between minority/majority and intellectual/average.

The point I'm continually making is that exposure is about producing consistent tones on the image (correct brightness). If you reduce it to it's simplest then that is what it is. Like an artist learns to make consistent marks on paper so a photographer does it on their media.

Exposure is about controlling light coming into the camera so it's consistent on the sensor. The whole camera and it's metering system is calibrated and geared around mid grey and reproducing that tone accurately. I don't see why you have to invent another system that doesn't explain this. It is the one constant that's known and displayed as the *exposure setting*. Once you understand the base anchor point the effects of variation are easier to understand. You don't need to explain it in terms of mid grey, you can substitute *suggested exposure*, *correct brightness*, or many similar terms if you like.

Cameras are so highly automated these days that you can rely on them to produce consistent images. You don't need a diagram of how to do this, the camera does it for you. All the beginner needs to be able to visualise is the relationship between shutter speed and aperture and how each abstracts the image, (as per your diagram), and separately how the level of ambient light affects this choice and how ISO compensates and allows you different combinations of shutter speed and aperture. Let the beginner form their own system of logic to explain it, it's essentially how they gain understanding.

There is no single simplified diagram that expresses the relationships in any *absolute* form, (references exact camera settings), or fully explains the simple relationships between them. Your problem is not that you don't illustrate the effects well but that you try to unify them into a single diagram. You must mis-represent the relationships to achieve your diagram, so what point is the diagram other than to mislead. And so beginners spend hours arguing over insignificant definitions of words on DPreview rather than actually getting out and taking photographs with a simple understanding of the basics. How they form their own understanding of the relationships will be far more stable with this experience. 

What you will end up with teaching the relationships is a logical construct that they will find hard to relate to the actual photographs they take because it never fitted perfectly into your diagram in the first place.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Feb 17, 2019)

In the digital world these are interesting discussions but I think there are two obvious facts. 1. Each of us has a different perception of light and color. 2. What the camera captures has little to do with what can be done with post processing. 

Certainly, knowing the effect of the triangle on the exposure is important but not everyone's has the same ideas as to what makes the perfect picture.


----------



## Designer (Feb 17, 2019)

Next week we tackle composition.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 18, 2019)

Designer said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > In my experience there is little knowledge of even the basic things most learned at school, 5 years after they left school. So of course I could create a scientifically correct chart with all the info starting with photons and going all the way to A/D  conversion. But that´s exactly what is intimidating so many people when it comes to photography. I want to show them how easy it is to create great images. Yet many people have issues understanding what causes image brightness. I want to pave their way to easier get there rather than being scientifically correct.
> ...


Thanks, Designer. 
I´m doing this because I see that people are having difficulties. I read a lot in facebook groups and have people send me questions and ask me questions in person. It is rather easy for people to get the hang of what shutter speed and aperture do to their image in regard to freeze/blur motion and increase/decrease depth of focus. But only when they view at it individually. Yet they often ask: why are my images so noisy, or why are they blurred when I was shooting with a smaller aperture to have more of the scene in focus. Sometimes people refer them to the exposure triangle and then I read many comments below that people are not understanding the exposure triangle.
Well, the exposure triangle isn´t something that can be understood - it just lists three components that can change the brightness of an image - but it doesn´t show the correlation between them and wouldn´t answer any of the above questions.
I am a big fan of mnemonics. So I long thought about a model that could help people understand. But because of the logarithmic nature of these components, it is not really easy. 
I don´t want to leave out ISO of the equation, even though it is not part of exposure, because so many people have difficulties understanding that and I think nobody can deny that there is a correlation between image brightness and ISO - I mentioned that ISO is technically not part of exposure more than once in my infograph. And I know that I could call the headline camera exposure bars rather than exposure bars. Maybe I even should.
I did have quite some success explaining the thing to people the way I did in the infograph. I also asked some beginners that keep asking me questions for their true feedback and showed them the infograph. So far the feedback was amazing. I am aware though that many people just want to be polite. That´s why I was posting here. I know that people here give great honest feedback - which I do highly value.
Maybe that sheds a bit of light on the reason why I seem a bit stubborn.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Feb 18, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> photo1x1.com said:
> 
> 
> > No worries, Tim. I do get your point. But for me, this is somewhat philosophical.
> ...


I know I have to seem quite stubborn (see my reply above). 
I promise I highly value all your inputs. I will try to evaluate your feedbacks and see how people will react when I try to explain it "your way". In the end what I want is make people understand. I don´t really care what way I have to go.
So thanks again .


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Feb 18, 2019)

photo1x1.com said:


> I know I have to seem quite stubborn (see my reply above).
> I promise I highly value all your inputs. I will try to evaluate your feedbacks and see how people will react when I try to explain it "your way". In the end what I want is make people understand. I don´t really care what way I have to go.
> So thanks again .



No worries, and you don't seem that stubborn really. What I'm seeing is something different and I'll try and explain it. There is normally a block on our learning and it's caused by an idea or assumption that we just can't see beyond. You are trying to explain exposure in a way that makes sense to you. You assume that I'm doing the same, that I'm trying to give you the model that makes sense to me. I'm not.

As John Sloan said: "I don't want to teach you my opinions, but if you could get hold of my point of view I don't think it will hurt you."

What I see here: You are trying to construct a simple visual model of logic so people can understand exposure. But what you're doing is satisfying your own *left brain* need for there to be a simple logical model.
Your students are asking you *why?*.
In asking *why?* they learn, in trying to avoid the question you prevent that learning.

My image is too dark, I look at the chart and see I need to increase the length of my bar in the chart. But by how much? How does the auto exposure that my camera tells me to use relate to the length of this bar? Why is it sometimes wrong?

Your desire for there to be a simple diagram is your *left brain* logic. As I said before, allow them to create their own that suits the way they think, not leave them to adapt to the way you think. Just a simple key, one constant fixed point that links the brightness of the scene to the brightness of the image. Not a map of variables in constant motion that add up to a variable total they can neither see nor relate to.


----------

