Sorry, I just completely disagree with that. Judging by the recent thread here and countless other threads just like it, the truth cannot come later. Once people have accepted the “alternate facts”, there’s often little hope that the “actual facts” are ever going to sink in - especially when the original alternate ones came from a presumably trustworthy source. Just look around, people are believing all sorts of crap nowadays. If these people can’t be swayed at all by easily verifiable facts - what hope is there for sorting out the exposure triangle, years after they’ve “known” different?
April 11, 2023
678
-
-
beginners start with there phones these days. . learning the art of photography for people with no imagination needs to start with composition.
-
cant wait for the explanation of exposure = shutter speed /aperture when global shutter comes into play, is that term "shutter" even the right word 🤨🙄
-
The weasel word there is 'technically'. It's true or it isn't. Not 'technically true' is false. The real point about this discussion is that the actual facts are as simple as the triangular factoids, and they lead somewhere. The triangular ones lead nowhere at all, just to people trying the impossibility of 'balancing' three different things, when the don't know what those things actually do.
-
I cannot believe I am reading this. You can never hope to educate yourself about anything, without a good textbook, with the emphasis on good.
A beginner will learn faster without frustration if he/she has read about some basic technical/artistic concepts first. A book written by a reliable author is the best place to start. Not the contradictory word of internet.
A beginner need to know about the pictorial effects of aperture and shutter speed. Noise tends to increase with increasing ISO. I guess the beginner needs to know what happens when you move the ISO dial.
-
Nice shot. Man, the access in those days was so much better than today.
I was at Road America for the 30th Can-Am reunion, and we were in the process of publishing a book on the history with Pete Lyons as author. I had some proof pages printed as it hadn't been bound yet, and several of the McLaren team mechanics were there, just devouring those pages and telling stories that really should have been in the book.
My avatar is shot at 600mm from Turn 5 at Road America, and this is the only angle I get these days. Farther up the turn for different vantage points and shorter more stable lenses is now blocked off by catch fencing, lots of it that you cant shoot over, and a emergency response truck directly in the shooters line of sight. I get the safety stuff, but I am unaware of anybody hitting the outer wall in Turn 5 and challenging the 4 foot tall chain link that has been there for years. Even the guys with press passes are grumbling.
-
To use an analogy. I am designing some foundations for a building right now. My textbooks give me a simple method that approximates the truth and gives me safe results, but which I know and the academic who wrote my textbook knows is not really happens under that block of concrete. Sometimes fake news is useful.
We need to control DoF, subject movement. In the field I use ISO as the third factor to get what I want.
-
That's a slightly different case. The 'triangle' is not a method. Sounds like what you're talking about is a rule of thumb, albeit a quantitative one. We have those in photography too - but they none of them require the learning of incorrect basics.
-
I like those home renovator tv shows ( pun, im a tradie), where the contestants cant even swing a hammer. which is like a lot photographers at our camera club. we have A graders that still don't know what composition is. Its hard enough for them to get an image in focus when holding a macro workshop 🤣😂
-
I doubt that your design methods are based on a misconception. If you're shooting raw, the exposure triangle is based on a misconception. For JPEG shooters, it could be a good teaching aid if it were called something else. Brightness triangle?
-
Thanks. A few more:
-
I remember learning and revering the exposure triangle. Looking back, it actually did not explain anything. People who teach are not beginners, but some of those teachers think the exposure triangle explains it, but it does not.
-
I used to check in with the turn marshals and climb a tree just above the apex of 6A (the second half of the corkscrew) at Laguna Seca, and shoot the cars coming over the hill in turn 5. One day someone spun out and went through the hay bales and ended up against the trunk of my tree. I spent an uncomfortable minute or so hoping the car wouldn't catch on fire. I never went up in that tree again.
-
It sure can be. We "dial" numbers on telephones. When we're done with a call, we "hang up". There's a button on the phone for the "operator".
-
Maybe Brightness Triangle but i would call it image lightness or just lightness triangle because what it actually teaches is that there is an inverse relationship between any 2 of aperture, shutter speed and ISO for a constant image lightness, not a constant exposure*.
The misconception the Exposure Triangle teaches is that for a given scene lighting
f/8, 1/200s, iso 400
and
f/8, 1/100s, iso 200are the same exposure*.
They both output the same image lightness but the iso 400 shot has only half the exposure* of the iso 200 shot because less light struck the sensor.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.
-
I suppose we can all agree on selective double standards.
-
"Shutter" is already a hangover from the days when the exposure had to be ended manually by inserting something into the light path.
-
I have one of the old glass plate cameras, i was given it last week and its a museum piece worth $1500 ama zing peice of kit where you load 6 plates into it and they fold down after the exposure.
