They weren't addressed to 'the layman', they were addressed to the article's author who if she was a layman shouldn't have been writing the article.
June 6, 2023
189
-
Photographers do not have university level inteligents. thats the problem, why you guys cant break the pattern of teaching exposure.
-
There is no doubt in your case but to extrapolate that to mean it must apply to all photographers is just plain stupid and not true.
-
Difficulty reading between the lines
Taking things literally
A strong sense of justice -
A very wise person once told me "Say what you mean and mean what you say".
I can go only by what you actually say, not what you might want to twist it into meaning after having been caught out out posting BS :-D
-
That's has nothing to do with it.
The problem is that you are confusing two different things. One is teaching willing learners. That task is approached one way, on the assumption of a willingness to learn. The second is debating with people who wrongly consider themselves to already been expert. That is a completely different process. In the first you present people with the knowledge, packaged in a clear and consistent way which enables them to learn. In the latter you have first to challenge the mislearning, often against some resistance, and that involves demonstrating why the ideas simply cannot work. That discussion inevitably goes much deeper than the one you'd have with willing learners. It also doesn't work for those that just accumulate factoids without understanding, because there is no reference point for the factoids - they are just accepted as absolute facts.
-
the facts are for 100 years the exposure triangle has worked for 99% of photographers. you are the minority. you and no one else has
proven that is doesn't work. another fact is that people relate to the exposure triangle and not to your concept. so change your teaching practice because
it certainly isnt working. -
The false teaching of the exposure triangle has been proven countless times over the years.
I can alter the image lightness for a given scene lighting without altering the exposure* at all.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.
-
must piss you off that you cant read between the lines. but then again you dont even know what between the lines are. 😏
-
Nope, I can read between lines but it doesn't change what you said.
If you haven't the courage to stand by what you said then you have only yourself to blame when people call out the BS and blatant lies you post.
-
Another non-factual 'fact' from you. The triangle hasn't been around for anything like 100 years - it dates originally from Peterson's ironically titled 'Understanding Exposure' published in 1990, though then it was the 'Photographic Triangle' and didn't include ISO. It's present form developed on the Web, so far as I can see, and using the Web Archive I can't trace it back earlier that 2010. Further, the idea that it has 'worked' for 99% of photographers is a bit like saying that COVID has worked for 99% of humans, in that it hasn't actually killed them. The 'triangle' damages the understanding of every photographer that adopts it, and damages their proficiency, whether or not they realise.
On the contrary, it's been proven from the very basic theory of photography, and also in practice.
It's not 'my concept', it's simply the basics of photography, as taught in any reputable text book, and which has been around for 100 years or more. People 'relate' to opioids too. That doesn't mean that they are doing them any good.
-
That's because there is nothing between the lines.
-
Yes, that was the point I was making but I doubt he understood :-)
-
as ive said in the past delete the iso field in the images posted and lets see the reactions of all photographers. simple.
-
Look, squirrel!
-
The exposure triangle teaches that
f/7, 1,400s, ISO 100
and
f/7, 1,800s, ISO 200
are the same exposure* which is nonsense because they are the same image lightness while the ISO 200 shot has had 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 resulting from the lower exposure*.
* exposure. - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.
-
and you say we are in denial 🤨
-
Requesting to delete the ISO is a stupid request because it gives an indication of how much gain was applied to the raw data to achieve the desired image lightness especially if the image is a sooc jpeg.
I set exposure* without considering iso at all as long as important highlights are not clipped.
My final image lightness is set in post, not in camera.
* exposure. - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.