The Decline Continues

A lot of it has to do with how (and who) you approach, and how your credibility is perceived.

This gets back to goals. If you can outline what the goals of the site are, how reviews will be handled, etc., you can present in a way they'll take seriously. But it's another of those chicken/egg things. To get started you have to get started.

Thanks, but it still bothers me.
One way I try to make things move forward with few errors is by templating. I'll often keep the previous camera book open as I create the new one, which means that recent books tend to get updates (eventually). There's a file sitting on my drive of all the things that still need updating, though.
Oh, and that's another thing that bothers me: Web sites I refer to go dark and software gets deprecated/replaced. The number of things I have to check on every pass on a book is getting ridiculous.

Thom sent me his guide to the Nikon D1x over 20 years ago.
I must have read that book a million times, and… I didn’t notice any errors that I recall.

I still have the book, and the camera - - yes, it runs on a pair of 18650 Li-ion batteries today. lol

oh… I found a wonderful online photo "tutorial" for replacing the internal clock battery.
www.flickr.com/photos/nieljohn/albums/72157603758438197/with/2597951102/

Can you still access the CD? Could've used that book when I went from full manual Nikon FM, Hasselblad and Sinar to the D1, had a steep learning curve...

Interestingly enough, I just clicked on my bookmark for IR, and was redirected to Outdoor Photographer. Kind of confirms that IR is gone.

As it should be because it is the relationship between exposure* and image lightness with the aim to output an average 18% grey image.

But you can also adjust the image lightness with ISO without altering the exposure* at all.

* 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.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights.

Bobs Quote.
However, I had a project going on at the same time. I find myself increasingly intolerant of the rubbish peddled by the bulk of photographic web sites. It's very hard to find one that doesn't get the very basics of photography wrong. And if they get the absolute basics wrong, how can you trust them not to get everything else wrong?
This is like saying every camera manufacturing company that ever existed is wrong. because they all say the same thing. ive even read film camera manuals where they say the shutter/aperture and asa/iso dials are mechanically connected together. how much more info is needed.

What are you saying the camera manufacturers' engineers and/or scientists are saying that is all the same?

I haven't met one yet that doesn't effectively say that exposure is the amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.

the problem is, just shutter + aperture combined are useless. without iso, exposure has no practical use. thats why 99% of all sites and camera / lightmeter manuals site 3 adjustments not 2.

So you are again running away when your statements without any evidence to support them is challenged.

"What are you saying the camera manufacturers' engineers and/or scientists are saying that is all the same?"

You have brought this same lame argument many times and the reply is the same. When you say it's a problem, you are speaking on behalf of yourself and probably others who do not properly understand what exposure* is and what does and does not affect it. You are certainly not speaking on my behalf because I disagree with your statement.

I don't need to consider ISO to set my optimal exposure**. The camera can set ISO wherever it likes after I have set the exposure* as long as important highlights are not clipped. I set the final image lightness in post.

That is total nonsense because as I posted earlier I can change the image lightness with ISO without altering the exposure*.

I set the optimal exposure** and then let the camera set ISO where it likes as long as highlights are not clipped. I set the final image lightness in post.

* 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.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights.

You are using the misconception that exposure is how light or dark an image looks. It simply isn't.

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

Exposure is not how dark or how light an image looks

Fixed your misconception for you 🙂

* 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.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights.

Sigh, the decline is becoming a tank now.

So that means that only 1% of them have got it right.

👍🍻🍻 finally agree, well written. Exactly how exposure should be explained.
will give Dunno a new clipboard post. im so over the other one 😁