Education continues

Received B&H newsletter today, with a link to
"Beginner basics: What is ISO in photography?"
photofocus.com/learn/beginner-basics-what-is-iso-in-photography

Not all that much wrong with it is there? Even when the notion of signal amplification is probably not out of a beginner's reach, so as that can be a substitute for sensor sensitivity.

"The lower the ISO number, the less sensitive the image sensor is to light, resulting in less noise in the image."

Let me get this straight. Lowering "sensitivity" decreases noise?

That article and the one by Richard Butler at DPReview

The ins and outs of ISO: What is ISO?

could not be more different if they tried.

So which is the accurate explanation of ISO?

Are you confused on that point?

.

With the thread title "Education continues" and then the link in the op with no other information it is reasonable for beginners to conclude that IliahBorg is saying the article in his op is accurate.

It appears yawlenz believes the article in the op is mostly accurate.

Yes, it appears so, "Not all that much wrong with it is there?", meaning, he knows that I don't approve of the article.

and they can't find the light.

Why B&H are doing this is totally incomprehensible to me.

Maybe he meant that or maybe he/she thinks most of it is correct and is asking you if you you think there is anything not correct in it.

You don't get to decide for everyone else what yawlenz means anymore than I or anyone else does.

I didn't interpret yawlenz's post the way you did.

I read what was posted and decide what it means.
Nothing further.

Yes, you get to decide on behalf of yourself only and certainly not for me or anyone else. That is the point I was making 🙂

I am not surprised that B&H would share such an article. They have similar articles on their own page (link):
"With digital sensors, when we adjust ISO ... we are increasing its sensitivity electronically by, in layman's terms, increasing the voltage to the sensor."

Reading the article linked to in the OP and trying to scan for the obvious and regular fallacies that I thought mr. Borg would be hinting at, I didn't notice a sheer multitude of them. So I can't quite get why he would choose to get fired up about it. As its author reminded her audience a few times over of the importance of keeping iso low enough to optimize the actual sensor exposure (within requirements of motion blur and dof) – is there any good reason to deny her the slack? I'm not so willing to go drive the adamant route to haven.

So did I.

One very obvious fallacy in that article is that aperture, shutter speed and ISO determine the exposure for an image.

Actually scene luminance, aperture and shutter speed, not ISO determine the exposure*.

You can alter the image lightness without altering the exposure* at all.

The author of the article doesn’t define exposure.

* exposure. - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.

LOL.

I challenge anyone here to reference a camera sensor that has a linearly variable "sensitivity" - no need to mention the Aptina or it's licenceés.