But Danno, didn't you know that the ISO setting magically changes the sensor's sensitivity - thereby circumventing all known laws of physics?
June 6, 2023
189
-
-
It occurs when using all the Lr profiles. There are tone curves baked into those profiles, but what I'm talking about is the way the Lr "Exposure" control works on the data after it comes out of the profile.
-
[deleted]
-
Interesting! I had never heard of the Pyramid, so I went here:
exposureworks.co.uk/exposure-triangle-aperture-shutter-speed-iso-cheat-card/
The addition of light made it most illuminating. 😉
There, I learned that, if you up the aperture by 3 steps, you should raise the shutter speed by the same ...
.. here in Texas we say "If yew had'na told me that, ah would never of known". Some shorten that down to "Izzadda fak?"
Also learned that, if you up the aperture by 3 steps, you should up the ISO by the same while the shutter speed stays the same by magic.
-
That depends on which of the several versions you choose.
-
Nope, in your actual quote of what I said I explain why I don't need a triangle or any other shape to enable me 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
-
It occurs to me that there might some sort of support for that in the ISO Standard Output Sensitivity Method because it is based on a constant image lightness of 118/255.
The cognoscenti of this site should know more about that ...
-
[deleted]
-
I call it as it's being called in camera manual, in the books etc. You can call it what ever you feel. And changing it in camera produces the same affect as changing sensitivity to the light (will require more or less light to produce the same image lightness for the same illumination). You can change it in camera or in post, still the same.
-
[deleted]
-
By including "for a constant image lightness, not exposure*,..." I have never needed to say the third remains fixed for people to understand what I meant.
In the example camera settings I post people see that the 3rd setting is fixed without me having to tell them.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.
-
By doing that, you made it wrong. It would have been wrong if you did not do that as well. And no, two wrongs do not make one right here.
-
We'll just have to disagree on this one.
With the example camera settings I post people see the 3rd setting is fixed so there is no confusion in what I am saying.
-
That's changing the responsivity, not the sensitivity. In any case, to think that changing responsivity of a transducer is the only way to change the output of the system in which it's used is a grave conceptual error. It's like saying that the only way to make your record player louder is to buy a cartridge with a larger output. Then going on to say that the volume control is in fact a cartridge 'sensitivity' control.
-
Yes, and how it's being called distorts physics behind the camera operation.
-
Learning of the relationship between aperture, shutter speed, scene brightness and exposure.
Don
-
Maybe also between exposure and noise / clipping.
-
In fact, that it elevates what is probably the least important concern in exposure management to be the most important, and indeed the sole concern.
-
Unrealistic ugly pictures are always a concern.
-
How much does that change with a day's worth of dust?
