Thank you for your thoughts but I don't see how I define optimal exposure is related to my op.
In my op I simply put out there why I was mislead by the exposure triangle and why I now see it as misleading and unnecessary.
Obviously some will disagree and some will agree.
When I make images in difficult situations, it's not that simple. I need to trade things off against each other, weighting things according to my goals for the image.
(screen grab)its out of camera jpeg no adjustments. whats better an image with noise or an image that you cant see due to motion blur ?
I’m curious what published, notable, working pros who started their careers after 1990 (30-years ago) would say about this thread.
I think most would agree with my op.
“Most” is a majority. Perhaps you are correct.
I think that some portion of working, notable, published pros would neither agree or disagree because they couldn’t care less. They just need to make good/great images and do so regardless of “classroom perfection”.
i was only reaving the guy up 😎
I never said underexposure is always avoidable.
You maximized your exposure to match your dof and motion blur requirements. You also adjusted the camera's ISO setting to lighten the picture to acceptable levels. Beyond the definition of exposure, I don't see the disagreement.
"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."
what if id used silent shutter, well we better not call it shutter as its not technically correct . what should we call it ? and the sensor is always exposed 🙄
On my camera it's called LiveView but I don't see how that is related to my op.
I see it as another example where you got it wrong and are trying to cover it up again :-)
While this discussion is wonderful (and in the interests of harmony, I agree with every post 😂), I think you have to go back to where we are - we are in a "Beginners Questions" Discussion.
To a beginner, generally someone who has picked up their first digital camera, there IS a relationship between speed, exposure and ISO. He or she will double the speed, halve the ISO and get a picture which looks the same on their 5 year old iPad. They won't care that there might be more or less noise - or they can turn down EC and then change it in post processing.They see "I can turn ISO up which means I can take better pictures in low light".
I think we have gone way beyond a "Beginners Discussion" here. Not to say we should stop discussing - far from it - but let the beginner know that there IS a relationship, there is an exposure triangle - for THEM. Because it works. For THEM.
Alan
[Just putting the fox in the hen house to see what happens 😁😁]
That isn't related to my op.
I did all that in my op. I explained what the relationship between aperture, shutter speed and iso actually is and what it actually isn't and so far no-one has posted anything that shows what I posted is not accurate.
You've done it properly for so long that I suspect you've forgotten how difficult it is for beginners to separate their thinking into two steps:
...Adjust the shutter and aperture as needed to handle motion blur and depth of field
...Adjust the ISO to achieve desired image brightness
I'm sure you've seen beginners walk around with their cameras set to high ISO in bright daylight wondering why their pictures are so noisy.
Separating the decision process into two steps (and avoiding the "triangle") is meant to help them avoid that problem.
Sherm
What matters to beginners and, IMO, working pros is simply this: “did I capture the image that I wanted/will this satisfy the client/will this sell?” Highly technical discussions, IMO, often don’t help the beginner and the folks making money off of their photography simply don’t care.
