The Decline Continues

So you are again running away when your statements without any evidence to support them is challenged.

"What are you saying the camera manufacturers' engineers and/or scientists are saying that is all the same?"

You have brought this same lame argument many times and the reply is the same. When you say it's a problem, you are speaking on behalf of yourself and probably others who do not properly understand what exposure* is and what does and does not affect it. You are certainly not speaking on my behalf because I disagree with your statement.

I don't need to consider ISO to set my optimal exposure**. The camera can set ISO wherever it likes after I have set the exposure* as long as important highlights are not clipped. I set the final image lightness in post.

That is total nonsense because as I posted earlier I can change the image lightness with ISO without altering the exposure*.

I set the optimal exposure** and then let the camera set ISO where it likes as long as highlights are not clipped. I set the final image lightness in post.

* 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.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights.

You are using the misconception that exposure is how light or dark an image looks. It simply isn't.

Image lightness and exposure* are clearly two different things, not two names for the same thing.

Exposure is not how dark or how light an image looks

Fixed your misconception for you 🙂

* 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.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights.

Sigh, the decline is becoming a tank now.

So that means that only 1% of them have got it right.

👍🍻🍻 finally agree, well written. Exactly how exposure should be explained.
will give Dunno a new clipboard post. im so over the other one 😁

I love the whole Functional Stupidity research, it wasn't meant to be an insult , sorry if it come across that way.

What I have always posted is totally consistent with Bob wrote.

Good to see you have finally seen the light and have given up on the misconception that exposure is how light or dark an image looks and that exposure is actually the amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.

Urea-formaldehyde (UF), also known as urea-methanal, so named for its common synthesis pathway and overall structure, is a nontransparent thermosetting resin or polymer. It is produced from urea and formaldehyde.🥶

nt

nt...

By striking out that text you are then posting nonsense again because earlier Bob posted

to which you replied

So you are in fact agreeing with Bob effectively saying exposure is the amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.

is totally consistent and accurate with what you agreed to with Bob.

The other option is you didn't understand at all what Bob posted and so had no idea about what you were actually agreeing to 😃

* 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.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights.