Exposure is not how dark or how light an image looks!

I occasionally used a Trip 35, which belonged to a sibling, when I first started to become interested in photography. Its a fun little camera which Olympus made for several years due to its popularity. I hope you will enjoy being the new owner of one!

I've owned a Minox 35 GT for many years which has a 2x "backlight switch" as its only form of auto exposure compensation. If anything else is needed, you have to turn the ASA dial to compensate like your Trip 35.

But, that's why I said: film cameras with auto exposure systems "often" include some type of exposure compensation, rather than always. Some, like the Trip 35, were bare-bones simplicity in their design and they can provide great enjoyment. Enjoy your Trip!

• I just saw a picture you posted of your Trip 35 and that you had loaded it with film. In case you're interested in some historical documents, here are links to: an Olympus Compact brochure; and one in color; and the 1968 dealer catalog pages from the U.S. Olympus importer at that time; all featuring the Trip 35. I had forgotten that one of its advertised selling points is that it locks the shutter release if the camera determines the light level is too low. Information in links is courtesy of the Pacific Rim Camera reference library which has a treasure trove of info on all kinds of old photo equipment.

Great clarification.

In my book, exposure means the light per area as well. If we refer to under- or over-exposed areas or images, this is relative to something we think should be right. Exposure is absolute. We can call images that seem too dark "under-exposed", because we think that they should be exposed brighter (i.e., more light on the subject, wider aperture or longer shutter speed). That's always just our personal judgement.

The only time where over-exposed could have an absolute meaning is when the sensor capacity is exceeded. Even then I'd speak of blown-out instead, and expose darker.

Yes I agree as well.

What is that "something" you are referring to?
If it is image lightness then you are changing the meaning of the word exposure to image lightness and not light per area when you say over/under exposed because you can keep the exposure* constant and make an image lighter or darker simply by adjusting ISO.

Image lightness and exposure* although related are two different things, not two different names for the same thing.

That doesn't really make much sense to me because after having set the optimal exposure** then if an image is still too dark it is not correct to say it is under exposed because no more exposure could have been added (unless adding light to the scene) because then the DOF and/or motion blur would have been messed up. In this scenario the image is too light, not under exposed.

* exposure - amount of light striking the sensor per unit area while the shutter is open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.

Yes. Meters are not a perfect solution. One should not blindly rely on them in all circumstances. However, they often work well enough to provide good results.

My discussion of how one might want to deviate from a meter's suggestion was a general discussion, and not a suggestion to blindly follow those rules of thumb,

I believe that it would be best to disconnect the terms over/under exposure from exposure and not take it literally. Overexposure should not mean too much exposure because it is almost never used that way. The same goes for other terms, e.g., shutter speed.

In what way is it an advantage (especially to a beginner) to encourage an incorrect use of the term?

Historically (in the days of film), Over/Under exposure did not refer to how dark or light the final print looked.

As to "Shutter Speed", that actually is a correct use of the word "Speed". "Speed" can refer to the rate at which something moves or operates. It can also refer to the duration a task takes. (for instance "That was a speedy trial"). It is reasonable to say that a shutter duration of 1/500 is faster than a shutter duration of 1/10 second. Even though in both cases the blades of the shutter move at the same rate. "Shutter Speed" refers to the duration the shutter is open. Shorter durations can legitimately be called faster speeds.

I do not feel that it has been agreed in this thread what the correct use of the terms over/under-exposure is. Exposure is any combination of aperture and shutter speed.

I believe it has been agreed that over/under exposure does not mean how dark or light the final print looks.

Technically, exposure is a combination of sensor illuminance and shutter speed. Sensor illuminance can be calculated from scene luminance (anybody remember the light meters that read out in luminance?) and f/stop.

It is common for photographers to omit scene luminance when talking about exposure.

Q: "What exposure did you use for that shot?"

A: "I gave it 1/125 at f/8."

I think it's too late in the game to insist on always referencing scene luminance when talking about exposure, but when the discussion is technical, I think the role of scene luminance should not be forgotten.

Thank you for the elaboration. At least we can teach to remove the mention of ISO from the answer to "What exposure did you use for that shot?".

In your opinion, is there an unambiguous definition of over/under-exposure?

To me, they mean exposures that are greater or less than the exposures that, after reflection and with great wisdom, the photographer would choose were there the opportunity to repeat the captures.

It is because of that inappropriate disconnection that we have many people saying over/under exposed when in reality they mean too light or too dark.

For the sake of clarity and consistency, especially in a Beginners Forum the meaning of the word exposure should be the same as when it is used by itself or when saying over/under exposed.

Having different meanings for words depending on the context can lead to only confusion and misconceptions in a Beginners Forum.

* exposure - amount of light striking the sensor per unit area while the shutter is open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights.

Why do you think that the meaning changes?

so you have just walked into the studio to shoot a product/model and you set exposure of f8 1/125 sec and nothing else ! yeh right.

The single word exposure gets tied to a variety of different intended meanings. Distinguishing between exposure and Exposure Value (EV) is a good step toward better clarity in terminology. A few more suggested distinctions, which may offer some additional descriptive clarity, are between the terms exposure, exposure level, and exposure control. There are a variety of light sensitive imaging systems which may utilized, each containing a recording medium for capturing images.

In photographic terms, Exposure is an event which produces a quantity of light onto a light sensitive surface over a period of time. Exposure Level is the effect that an exposure event has on a light sensitive medium which can be measured and recorded. Exposure Control is the balancing of the input level of light with the sensitivity level of the recording medium to achieve the desired tonality and other qualities of an image. Accurate exposure control is necessary to record the range of desired brightness levels in a scene and balance tonality effectively in the image you envision and intend to produce.

Despite our best efforts at exposure control, or those of a camera's auto exposure system, we may have an imbalance among the variables which results in a poorly recorded image. The exposure value chosen may produce scene brightness levels which are higher or lower than you desire for the recording medium. This may result in the range of recorded brightness levels being too high or low to be considered either optimal or within your tolerance for deviation from your quality standards. In the photography world, these poor quality results are referred to as overexposure and underexposure. There are a variety of potential remedial actions within the imaging chain which may improve the result, but those are separate from the terms which have long been applied in describing images which exhibit undesirable brightness and tonality characteristics in their recorded representation of a scene.

The reason has been explained on more than one occasion already by Michael Fryd, myself and maybe others earlier in this thread. No need for me to repeat again.

* exposure - amount of light striking the sensor per unit area while the shutter is open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights.

Under- and over-exposure are terms by themselves; they do not contradict or change the meaning of exposure. As Jim and a few other mentioned, they mean being below or above the intended exposure.