thats correct Danno . adjusting ISO In A,S,P can change exposure.
June 6, 2023
189
-
-
No-one is disputing that, so what point are you trying to make?
In the PAS modes ISO sets the target exposure* to output the image lightness the camera is programmed to for that ISO setting.
I explained why especially in manual mode the ET is nonsense.
NB. I quoted my whole sentence in your quote of what I said and not just the part that suits your agenda 😃😎
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
-
Yes
Indeed, nor does either of those make it right.
Is that all that it says?
You mean where it says '36 exposures'? If so, that is indulgence of an equivocation fallacy. In that context 'exposure' is referring to an instance of the exposure of a frame of the film to light, not to a quantitative measure of the exposure of that frame to light. It's perhaps unfortunate that photographic parlance includes such an equivocation, but using it to argue that the quantitative meaning is other than it is, is simply deliberate obfuscation. Do you honestly believe that if someone says their photo is 'over-exposed' what they meant is that they used too many frames to capture it?
-
[deleted]
-
Didn't you see a smile after this question?
Here is an article on B&H website. Could you please tell me what is wrong in it? -
Yes, I saw the smile, it wasn't clear what you meant by it.
Which article on the B&H website are you referring to? -
The three things that directly affect how much light energy reaches the sensor do not include ISO. ISO affects exposure only in how it influences the selected metering mode to set aperture and/or shutter speed.
The so-called "exposure triangle" over-simplifies the mechanism, and leads folk to conclude such things as increasing ISO increases noise, when what's really going on is that the increased ISO makes the metering mode set aperture/shutter speed such that less light is collected, the real reason there's increased noise in the image.
Don't know about you, but I'd rather understand the specific mechanisms and their implications, not some over-simplified analogy...
-
Or if we included the EC control we could have a quadrangle (i suppose it would be a square, since the 'triangle' is always presented as equilateral). The 'threeness' of a relationship between three variables is not in question, what's in question is whether the 'exposure triangle' itself offers any additional insight into that relationship, apart from there being three variables.
-
I've taught a lot of computer science, and in that body of teaching there are a lot of posited analogies. Some work better than others, a lot of them just serve to confuse even further. And, the success in using any particular one really depends on the specific audience...
My suggestion is to discard all this "geometry" and just concentrate on understanding the mechanism itself...
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
Oh, can't throw it away, I wouldn't know how to cross-cut my lawn... I just cringe at its application to qualitative discourse.
Disclaimer: 3 university degrees, four math courses among all of them. It can be done... 😝
-
The said Triangle, apart from controversy, is no good to me because I always use base ISO. Therefore, taking away ISO as a variable leaves me geometrically with a line ... just as adding EC above apparently begets a quadrangle.
Have I just proved the falsity of using the sides of geometric figures to demonstrate stuff? ...
... come back nomograms - all is forgiven
-
As a matter of fact, ISO doesn't do that. ISO is a lame film analogy. Also, ET suggests ISO regulates noise.
-
Much as I'm coming to believe expert advice that a dedicated pp suite would offer way finer controls by a more specialized toolset, does your answer imply that in-camera push processing will not or could not possibly introduce a shouldering to the highlights' section? Or would what there is to that just be wholly insufficient? Before I must have thought that this is a function usually performed by the native tonecurve belonging to a development profile designed by the camera manufacturer, aka a "film"simulation. I'm asking this because I still assume that the physical (fwc) limits on sensor photodiodes will be out of the loop during postprocessing in this meagre way.
-
I've never seen that in raw files from Sony, Leica, Hasselblad, Fujifilm, and Nikon cameras. It's possible, but then you could hardly call the files raw.
-
But Danno, didn't you know that the ISO setting magically changes the sensor's sensitivity - thereby circumventing all known laws of physics?
