Makes me glad to own a Sigma SD9! No option but to save as raw ...
June 6, 2023
189
-
-
Talking about real surfaces I guess ..,. otherwise 100% is possible:
kronometric.org/phot/lighting/lighting%20handbook.pdf page 28
-
Indeed.
-
Please explain what it is that you think that it teaches. As for what would be a 'better visual concept', first you need to decide what it is that the 'concept' is supposed to convey.
-
The exposure triangle's role is purely decorative. I consider it a seductive illustration that impairs learning.
-
We are getting close 0.035%
-
How does it impairs learning? And learning of what?
-
It distracts from real knowledge. The exposure triangle is supposed to teach about exposure.
-
The misconception the exposure triangle teaches is that for a given scene lighting
f/8, 1/200, ISO 400
and
f/8, 1/100s, ISO 200
are the same exposure* when they are clearly not.
They will both output the same image lightness but the ISO 200 shot has only half the exposure* of the ISO 100 shot and so the ISO 200 shot will have more visible noise because of the lower SNR due to the smaller exposure*
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
-
A visual concept might be useful to primary school kids but I don't need a triangle or any other visual concept to understand that for a constant image lightness, not constant exposure*, there is an inverse relationship between any 2 of aperture, shutter speed and ISO.
The misconception the exposure triangle teaches is that for a given scene lighting
f/8, 1/200, ISO 400
and
f/8, 1/100s, ISO 200
are the same exposure* when they are clearly not.
They will both output the same image lightness but the ISO 200 shot has only half the exposure* of the ISO 100 shot and so the ISO 200 shot will have more visible noise because of the lower SNR due to the smaller exposure*
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
-
Where does it say that? All it teaches is that there are three components: shutter speed and aperture which regulate the amount of light hitting a sensor and ISO which regulates sensitivity to the light. By changing one you have to change the other(s) to achieve an image without blown highlights or shadows. Isn't auto-ISO based on this?
-
Q.E.D.
-
For starters, in its very name by naming it an exposure triangle.
There are also many people on the internet preaching that all 3 of aperture, shutter speed and ISO control exposure and incorrectly try to use the triangle to show how.
In manual mode that is total nonsense because I set exposure* first by setting the widest aperture (smallest f-number) that gives my DOF and the slowest shutter speed that meets my blur requirements without considering ISO at all.
The camera can set ISO wherever it likes as long as important highlights are not clipped. I set the final image lightness in post.
If at base ISO there is highlight clipping then obviously I have to compromise on either dof or blur depending on the circumstances and which is least important.
A visual concept might be useful to primary school kids but I don't need a triangle or any other visual concept to understand that for a constant image lightness, not constant exposure*, there is an inverse relationship between any 2 of aperture, shutter speed and ISO.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
-
Setting image lightness in post essentially is the same as changing ISO in camera.
Whether you need it or not does not make it wrong.
If somebody on internet interprets it wrong does not make it wrong.
You said it yourself that there is relationship between aperture, shutter speed and ISO. That is what exposure triangle says.
BTW what word exposure means on the film boxes? I do not think it means amount of light. 😀 -
This is where we disagree.
Yes, for a constant image lightness, not constant exposure*, there is an inverse relationship between any 2 of aperture, shutter speed and ISO.
There are many people on the internet who have the misconception that for a constant exposure there is an inverse relationship between any 2 of aperture, shutter speed and ISO.
I have shown why that is a misconception in my earlier example with the two sets of camera settings for a given scene lighting.
Many people incorrectly use exposure* and image lightness interchangeably as if they mean the same thing when they actually do not mean the same thing as shown, again, in my earlier example with the two sets of camera settings for a given scene lighting.
These exposure triangle believers often go into a head spin when I tell them I can change the image lightness in camera without altering the exposure* at all.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
-
[deleted]
-
I'd add to that - the purpose of a pedagogic aid, such as the 'triangle' is to facilitate mental models which provide understanding of how the components of a system work together. The 'triangle' doesn't do that - it facilitates a mental model which provides misunderstandings.
-
thats correct Danno . adjusting ISO In A,S,P can change exposure.
