Scene luminance has nothing to do with exposure.

That is exactly why I include the definition of exposure* and optimal exposure** in my posts so that there is no confusion about what I mean when I use the terms.

Now, whether people choose to agree with them or not is their choice to make but at least they know what I mean.

In this thread you had your own definition of exposure - being the camera settings - when everyone else that I saw who replied was talking about the correct definition of exposure.

It's when people hide behind various wishy-washy meanings of terms and decline to define the terms as they use them that they can get themselves into strife.

It's when article authors, forum members and others confuse or use the terms "exposure" and "image lightness" interchangeably as if they mean the same thing when they clearly do not that they leave themselves vulnerable to being rightfully challenged by those who choose to use the terms correctly.

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

Im going to stick with the original exposure triangle. the rest doesnt make any logical sense to me at all. i suppose i will be just like the other 99%
of photographers.
everyone knows what fog is they dont need to know how or why its formed and in any case what value is it anyway, you just deal with it.

A. Fog Types. ...
(1) Advection fog. ...
(2) Radiation fog (ground or valley fog). ...
(3) Upslope fog (Cheyenne fog). ...
(4) Steam fog (arctic sea smoke). ...
(5) Frontal fog. ...

No problem. If you're happy with sooc jpegs - even though you are really shooting raw like everyone else but instead getting the camera to do the post processing - then the ET probably won't lead you astray too much, especially in good light.

I have posted on numerous occasions that imo by having a large enough supply of bananas you can train a monkey to take nice looking jpegs in good light using today's modern cameras.

I abandoned the ET a long time ago now because I now prefer to maximise the quality of the raw data and do the post processing myself rather than be limited by the options in today's modern cameras to output sooc jpegs.

best thing about owning the sony a74 the exposure leeway is so large it doesnt matter as long as my lighting is casting shadows where i want the rest is PP and
Portrait Pro makes up for the rest.

That's fine. Just do what works best for you as I and I suppose everyone else does 😊

has nothing to do with it.

I'm afraid I disagree with you.
Don Cox

The "original triangle" must be the one in Peterson's book.
I think that as soon as you introduce triangles or trinities, mysticism arrives, followed by theological wrangles.

Don Cox

pretty much. 'aperture, shutter speed and iso. they are all i record on the camera when i test a new studio setup. i dont even record my 7 studio lights settings anymore as i have them diffused and spaced at exactly the places i need them for the required amount of light. scene luminance is such a waist of brain space and its not practically recordable anyway in my situation. if scene luminence was important you would have included it in your software exif data 😎

You don't have the book, do you?

No

LOL google is your friend, his book is referenced many times. go do your homework.

Ah, the ever-popular suck-it-and-see approach! No brain-space waisted at all ... and, presumably, not a single light-meter to be seen in your professional studio, unlike here:

stolen from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_meter#Exposure_meter_calibration

Yes, go

photographic triangle is a good name . but im sure many will criticise it just the same. as they criticise exposure triangle.

petapixel.com/2016/07/18/never-teach-exposure-triangle-beginners/