Why are my photos noisy - discussion

It failed to say “per unit area,” and that “coming” can be interpreted as “per unit time,” which would be wrong. ”Light” is right though. 🙂

You are quoting statements that are not even correct because the light is not amplified in the camera.

If you need to be taken seriously, post where you think the light is being amplified in the camera.

i was answering your post "Sometimes I can't even begin to fathom how your brain works, if that's the right word for it." now you know and so does danno. 😁

its from the Sony page.

I know it's from the Sony page and I posted why the statement is not correct.

If you need to be taken seriously, post where you think the light is being amplified in the camera.

I also posted a link where Sony say that exposure is not how light or dark an image looks.

i just posted the whole Sony page. you selectively keep leaving things out.

One stop here refers to drop in noise but that corresponds to two stops in exposure. So the math is OK.

There are other problems with averaging- it may be done after demosaicing to align frames, etc.

I haven't left anything out. I posted a link to the entire Sony article.

I also posted a link where Sony say that exposure is not how light or dark an image looks.

I'm sure anyone interested can read the article for themselves and see that what I said is consistent with it.

thats what i noticed the frames are just not aligned perfectly in camera . also what happens when i stack 60 images in zerene ,with a noisy camera sensor even at base iso the software stacks the noise and then its blobs of noise.

Yes, I know how your brain works as I posted earlier:

"It's very easy to see what he does. When he has been proven wrong and has run out of arguments to try to justify his opinions, he uses a scatter gun approach to going off on fairy tale tangents to try to disguise his lack of understanding of basic photography concepts."

In the cameras you are using light isn't amplified, never. It's awfully wrong to say it is.

The funny thing is that short article kinda does say that “exposure is how light or dark an image looks.”

That is why I do not shoot Sony. 🙂

Yes I suppose you could interpret it that way but then it shows that Sony themselves are very confused about what exposure is.

Their comment

"Exposure compensation is an adjustment to the exposure that the camera judges to be appropriate, to make it closer to the brightness you want"

is actually consistent with their definition of exposure shown at the start of the article amount of light coming through the lens onto the sensor.

You can also adjust the lightness of an image by increasing or decreasing the exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.

But that is not saying that exposure is defined as how light or dark an image looks. It is describing the potential effect of adjusting the exposure.

In manual mode, you can also lighten/darken an image in camera without altering the exposure at all by simply adjusting ISO.

Their quotes I posted earlier clearly show that they believe exposure is not how light or dark an image looks.

The inconsistencies and blatant errors in that article confirms that they are mostly written by marketing/sales people or technical writers who do not have the correct understanding of the basic Photography 101 concepts.

I have a problem with fighting the alleged myth that “exposure is how light or dark an image looks” in the first place. Rule #1 about debunking a myth is to demonstrate that it is a myth. Did anyone actually say that? It is a poorly constructed phrase to my non-native English speaking ears 😉 to begin with. It sounds formulated in a way to make it easy to be attacked.

If you fix X and Y, etc., exposure does determine lightness. It is a factor but not the only one - but who objected that?

I would say that even with a minilab exposure doesn't determine lightness because auto-lightness is a part of the process, in other words, not everything is fixed.

DonaldB has posted in other threads words to the effect that exposure is how light or dark an image looks on the medium the image is being viewed on.

To determine lightness you need aperture, shutter speed and iso, 3 things not 2.

To determine exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open - you need scene luminance, aperture and shutter speed.

Once you differentiate exposure from image lightness everything should become clearer and easier. It's when you use them interchangeably that heads begin to spin trying to reconcile the fact you can alter the lightness without altering the exposure.

There are two ways to handle ignorant/trolling members: you block them (DPR way), or you continue debunking their ridiculous posts. Do you know of a better solution? Ignoring is not a solution, as that would spread the "alternative facts."