And yet, you are the one who recommended it.
This, in particular, is toxic:
"Aperture: controls the area over which light can enter your camera
Shutter speed: controls the duration of the exposure
ISO speed: controls the sensitivity of your camera's sensor to a given amount of light
One can therefore use many combinations of the above three settings to achieve the same exposure."
Sadly so. I was never more than a friendly acquaintance who was privileged to share some time, conversation, and a few meals back in the day. He was knowledgeable, generous of spirit, and now sorely missed. Definitely someone who I respected and appreciated.
Fortunately, his writings are still available. His books are available online and from many public and university libraries.
I was a working color scientist when I first met Bruce. I found him likable, a good speaker, and one who went a long way to make color sconce and color engineering approachable by lay people. The ICC owes him a debt of gratitude, whether they know it or not. Bruce was a bit more comfortable with elision than I was.
And while we're praising color management evangelists, let's not forget Andrew Rodney.
[My quote from above in full] I'm only generally aware of the site and I'd want to take a closer look at any concerns to see how serious any errors or omissions might be. For now, from what I've seen of the site and other sources of online resources for beginners, I think a beginner could do a lot worse in getting started with basic information online.
Suggest a better alternative and I'll make an edit to substitute or add the better resource.
We have different views on what it requires to label something as toxic. I've experienced toxic at an online site, but that involved ongoing harassment with attempts at intimidation and bullying thrown in for good measure.
Do you agree that it's wrong?
In the too little time I was able to spend with Bruce, he always seemed comfortable with who he was and more concerned with informing people than impressing them.
I don't know why you modified what I said the way you did. But, circling back around to the matter at hand, do you think this statement is wrong?
"Aperture: controls the area over which light can enter your camera
Shutter speed: controls the duration of the exposure
ISO speed: controls the sensitivity of your camera's sensor to a given amount of light
One can therefore use many combinations of the above three settings to achieve the same exposure."
Online harassment, intimidation, and bullying are always wrong in my view.
I'm talking about this statement:
"Aperture: controls the area over which light can enter your camera
Shutter speed: controls the duration of the exposure
ISO speed: controls the sensitivity of your camera's sensor to a given amount of light
One can therefore use many combinations of the above three settings to achieve the same exposure."
I don't find anything dangerous in it at all. It's a very brief and simplified overview to introduce a basic concept to a beginner, not a detailed or deep exploration for a different audience.
In my experience that's been true for the reasons explained in the article. I've only used one raw processing application, for any extended period of time, which offered the option of processing an image with linear gamma (gamma 1.0), an old Kodak DCS software app. The rare times when I applied the linear gamma option, images looked like the one illustrated in Bruce's article — dark and flat. Every other app I've used for daily production work has a default gamma correction automatically applied for reasons which should be clear from the article.
The quote is a caption for an illustration, there is more detailed explanation in the body of the text. Gamma correction is also discussed and illustrated in the article.
The need for a tone reproduction curve / gamma correction is covered in the article's text and caption for the next illustration: "The same linear processed capture with a tone curve appears normal."
I recommend it for anyone wanting a very simple, concise, and well written introduction to the concepts discussed.
I'm persuaded that speaking for others presents an excellent opportunity for miscommunication. I can't say how dangerous that might be, however.
This is what would be (wrongly) labelled as 'semantics'. Instead of discussing the central issue, the discussion has been turned to whether an irrelevant adjective is best chosen. 'Toxic' is maybe overstated, but only because photography is usually not a life or death issue. It would be different if training material for medical doctors contained 'simplifications' which led the doctor to fundamentally misunderstand how the body works, and later on could lead to the use of procedures which would damage the health of patients.
i dont know of any camera user manual saying any different ,its been around for decades. If you know of any camera manual that says exposure is just shutter speed and aperture i be interested.
quote from the latest sony manual
"In the auto shooting modes and P/A/S-modes, the automatic exposure (AE) function is activated. As a result, the camera will determine the optimal exposure and set the aperture, shutter speed, and ISO sensitivity accordingly. By using this AE function, you can shoot photographs with appropriate brightness, automatically determined by the camera."
Tonality ?
There are also the expressions "High key" and "Low key". (But not "medium key".)
Don
Which makes it worse. I was around early enough to see how this all arose. It's a combination of two small errors put together to make a big one. Digital still cameras evolved from video cameras, so the first people to explain how they worked were video engineers. In the video world the 'gain' control was what was used to make a picture brighter or darker - the voltage gain on the signal applied to the grid of the cathode ray tube directly controlled the brightness of the display (which approximated to lightness). So video engineers explained the ISO control as 'gain' - which it wasn't. But 'gain' wasn't a word familiar to stills photographers, so 'gain' got translated to 'sensitivity' - which it wasn't. And plagiarism did the rest. An easy way to spot plagiarism is propagation of errors.
If they said that they'd be wrong. Exposure is just shutter speed, aperture, focal length and scene luminance. You can simplify by replacing aperture with f-number.
You're exactly right. On more than one occasion, I've reminded colleagues who were getting excessively worked up about a problem, that we're not dealing with life or death issues and that this too shall pass — whatever this too of the moment happened to be. So far we've had grave, dangerous, and toxic applied to the discussion, but I haven't seen much to actually fear.
You won't find dither, ADC inputs, or any number of other things mentioned. They're ignored because they are beyond the scope of the article and its intended purpose and audience.
Sounds like he knew his audience and the broad concepts he was trying to introduce to them and doing so in a way they could initially start to grasp.
