👍🍻🍻 finally agree, well written. Exactly how exposure should be explained.
will give Dunno a new clipboard post. im so over the other one 😁
May 7, 2023
213
-
-
I love the whole Functional Stupidity research, it wasn't meant to be an insult , sorry if it come across that way.
-
No problem. It's a phenomenon that I've been up against my whole working life.
-
When I look at the title of this thread I understand it to refer to the phenomenon that all threads here that have over 100 or so replies always degenerate into a discussion of exposure or ISO. I guess all fora have similar tendencies. For those that I frequent on harpsichord playing, their building and repair, the hoary chestnuts are wood types and what glue to use: 😁
David
-
What I have always posted is totally consistent with Bob wrote.
Good to see you have finally seen the light and have given up on the misconception that exposure is how light or dark an image looks and that exposure is actually the amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.
-
Urea-formaldehyde (UF), also known as urea-methanal, so named for its common synthesis pathway and overall structure, is a nontransparent thermosetting resin or polymer. It is produced from urea and formaldehyde.🥶
-
-
nt...
-
I thought the vsrnish strength and type also had an effect. 😃
-
By striking out that text you are then posting nonsense again because earlier Bob posted
to which you replied
So you are in fact agreeing with Bob effectively saying exposure is the amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.
is totally consistent and accurate with what you agreed to with Bob.
The other option is you didn't understand at all what Bob posted and so had no idea about what you were actually agreeing to 😃
* 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. -
Would need to be with the liquid hardner and not the power hardener unless you had gaps !! 😉
Danny.
-
hehehehe 😄
You better sit back and get used to it because it ain't goin' nowhere 😎
-
Now now, children. Play nicely please.
Alan [who seems, at times, to be the nanny for Donald and Danno 😁]
-
ok Nanny Fine 🙂
-
Old fashioned hide glue is the glue of choice for harpsichords, as it holds tight, yet can be unglued.
David
-
NO varnish on harpsichords, unless you count the cases of English-style instrumnts. Unlike violins, etc, it would have a bad effect on the sound if applied to the working parts.
David
-
I'm not sure why we're getting into arguments about exposure again, especially in this thread. Bobn2 was on the right track with his response, but I find it still problematic.
Exposure is what is presented at the image sensor to collect (Light filtered by aperture filtered by shutter speed). ISO is akin to processing that exposure. But just as with film you could under develop or over develop "the exposure", you can do so with a digital camera, too. Get the ISO "right" and you have optimal data for viewing and/or further processing. Get the ISO "wrong" and you don't have optimal data. Too low an ISO will get you into bit/noise hell, too high an ISO will truncate data. But the important thing to note is that ISO is post exposure, not pre. That said, people can use ISO to change exposure so that they can optimize the captured data. However, camera makers don't give us the appropriate tools to do that for the most part.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by that, Thom. The only way that ISO changes exposure is via the aperture and shutter speed.
