Scene luminance has nothing to do with exposure.

It was established earlier that for DonaldB, exposure in his thread title means the camera settings.

I can agree on that. so whats the value of using the word "exposure"

Is there any value in using the word "exposure" how does it relate to taking an image ?

Between dpreview and here there are countless threads discussing and answering those very questions.

i have my answer from sony site 😁😁😁 so im back to my original thread title. but i do get where you all are coming from.

Exposure is used very loosely

www.sony.com.au/electronics/support/articles/00267925

That article is not correct because it says

"The amount of light is determined by the aperture and shutter speed."

which is incorrect as I showed in my practical example earlier this thread where the exposure* was increased after the scene luminance was increased for a given set of camera settings - aperture, shutter speed and ISO.

The amount of light striking the sensor is determined by:

1. scene luminance
2. aperture
3. shutter speed

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

"Exposure is the amount of light coming into the camera when shooting a photograph."
Into the camera? Seriously?

"The amount of light is determined by the aperture and shutter speed."
Aperture and shutter speed don't determine the "amount" of light, they determine the reduction of the "amount" of light.

speed booster 😁

Is there some reason you can't simply accept the definitions?

Exposure = illuminance * time
Exposure value = log(base 2) f-number ^2 / shutter period

Exposure is the amount of light that hits the sensor per unit of area. This is useful for many things.
Exposure value is a camera setting. This is useful for many things.

www.canon.co.uk/get-inspired/tips-and-techniques/how-to-control-exposure/

now back to the thread title.

Exposure is the amount of light that hits the sensor per unit of area. This is useful for many things. 🙄🥱

That article also contains numerous errors.

One example, they say

"The three key factors in our exposure – aperture, shutter speed and ISO – work in combination, so when you change one factor you need to balance it out with another if you want to maintain the same exposure,..."

You do not need to balance the 3 to maintain the same exposure* for a given scene lighting.

You do need to balance the 3 to maintain the same image lightness, not exposure*, for a given scene lighting as I have shown in my The Exposure Triangle Is Misleading And Unnecessary thread.

I don't consider ISO at all when setting exposure* and where Auto ISO lands the ISO setting is irrelevant as long as important highlights are not clipped.

I set the image lightness in post.

Setting the exposure* for nice looking sooc jpegs is different to setting exposure* for maximising the quality of the raw data, especially in low light situations.

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

i guess its different strokes for different folks. my thread didnt get very far as everyone has a different idea what the meaning of Exposure is. 🤔

That is exactly why I include the definition of exposure* and optimal exposure** in my posts so that there is no confusion about what I mean when I use the terms.

Now, whether people choose to agree with them or not is their choice to make but at least they know what I mean.

In this thread you had your own definition of exposure - being the camera settings - when everyone else that I saw who replied was talking about the correct definition of exposure.

It's when people hide behind various wishy-washy meanings of terms and decline to define the terms as they use them that they can get themselves into strife.

It's when article authors, forum members and others confuse or use the terms "exposure" and "image lightness" interchangeably as if they mean the same thing when they clearly do not that they leave themselves vulnerable to being rightfully challenged by those who choose to use the terms correctly.

* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.

Im going to stick with the original exposure triangle. the rest doesnt make any logical sense to me at all. i suppose i will be just like the other 99%
of photographers.
everyone knows what fog is they dont need to know how or why its formed and in any case what value is it anyway, you just deal with it.

A. Fog Types. ...
(1) Advection fog. ...
(2) Radiation fog (ground or valley fog). ...
(3) Upslope fog (Cheyenne fog). ...
(4) Steam fog (arctic sea smoke). ...
(5) Frontal fog. ...

No problem. If you're happy with sooc jpegs - even though you are really shooting raw like everyone else but instead getting the camera to do the post processing - then the ET probably won't lead you astray too much, especially in good light.

I have posted on numerous occasions that imo by having a large enough supply of bananas you can train a monkey to take nice looking jpegs in good light using today's modern cameras.

I abandoned the ET a long time ago now because I now prefer to maximise the quality of the raw data and do the post processing myself rather than be limited by the options in today's modern cameras to output sooc jpegs.

best thing about owning the sony a74 the exposure leeway is so large it doesnt matter as long as my lighting is casting shadows where i want the rest is PP and
Portrait Pro makes up for the rest.

That's fine. Just do what works best for you as I and I suppose everyone else does 😊