Education continues

[deleted]

[deleted]

Oh, can't throw it away, I wouldn't know how to cross-cut my lawn... I just cringe at its application to qualitative discourse.

Disclaimer: 3 university degrees, four math courses among all of them. It can be done... 😝

The said Triangle, apart from controversy, is no good to me because I always use base ISO. Therefore, taking away ISO as a variable leaves me geometrically with a line ... just as adding EC above apparently begets a quadrangle.

Have I just proved the falsity of using the sides of geometric figures to demonstrate stuff? ...

... come back nomograms - all is forgiven

pynomo.org/wiki/index.php/File:Ex_photo_exposure.png

As a matter of fact, ISO doesn't do that. ISO is a lame film analogy. Also, ET suggests ISO regulates noise.

Much as I'm coming to believe expert advice that a dedicated pp suite would offer way finer controls by a more specialized toolset, does your answer imply that in-camera push processing will not or could not possibly introduce a shouldering to the highlights' section? Or would what there is to that just be wholly insufficient? Before I must have thought that this is a function usually performed by the native tonecurve belonging to a development profile designed by the camera manufacturer, aka a "film"simulation. I'm asking this because I still assume that the physical (fwc) limits on sensor photodiodes will be out of the loop during postprocessing in this meagre way.

I've never seen that in raw files from Sony, Leica, Hasselblad, Fujifilm, and Nikon cameras. It's possible, but then you could hardly call the files raw.

But Danno, didn't you know that the ISO setting magically changes the sensor's sensitivity - thereby circumventing all known laws of physics?

It occurs when using all the Lr profiles. There are tone curves baked into those profiles, but what I'm talking about is the way the Lr "Exposure" control works on the data after it comes out of the profile.

[deleted]

Interesting! I had never heard of the Pyramid, so I went here:

exposureworks.co.uk/exposure-triangle-aperture-shutter-speed-iso-cheat-card/

The addition of light made it most illuminating. 😉

There, I learned that, if you up the aperture by 3 steps, you should raise the shutter speed by the same ...

.. here in Texas we say "If yew had'na told me that, ah would never of known". Some shorten that down to "Izzadda fak?"

Also learned that, if you up the aperture by 3 steps, you should up the ISO by the same while the shutter speed stays the same by magic.

Nope, in your actual quote of what I said I explain why I don't need a triangle or any other shape to enable me to understand that for a constant image lightness, not constant exposure*, there is an inverse relationship between any 2 of aperture, shutter speed and ISO 🙂

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

It occurs to me that there might some sort of support for that in the ISO Standard Output Sensitivity Method because it is based on a constant image lightness of 118/255.

The cognoscenti of this site should know more about that ...

[deleted]

I call it as it's being called in camera manual, in the books etc. You can call it what ever you feel. And changing it in camera produces the same affect as changing sensitivity to the light (will require more or less light to produce the same image lightness for the same illumination). You can change it in camera or in post, still the same.

[deleted]