By including "for a constant image lightness, not exposure*,..." I have never needed to say the third remains fixed for people to understand what I meant.
In the example camera settings I post people see that the 3rd setting is fixed without me having to tell them.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.
By doing that, you made it wrong. It would have been wrong if you did not do that as well. And no, two wrongs do not make one right here.
We'll just have to disagree on this one.
With the example camera settings I post people see the 3rd setting is fixed so there is no confusion in what I am saying.
That's changing the responsivity, not the sensitivity. In any case, to think that changing responsivity of a transducer is the only way to change the output of the system in which it's used is a grave conceptual error. It's like saying that the only way to make your record player louder is to buy a cartridge with a larger output. Then going on to say that the volume control is in fact a cartridge 'sensitivity' control.
Yes, and how it's being called distorts physics behind the camera operation.
Learning of the relationship between aperture, shutter speed, scene brightness and exposure.
Don
Maybe also between exposure and noise / clipping.
In fact, that it elevates what is probably the least important concern in exposure management to be the most important, and indeed the sole concern.
Unrealistic ugly pictures are always a concern.
How much does that change with a day's worth of dust?
