The Exposure Triangle Is Misleading And Unnecessary.

All that matters to me is actual real world photography. But, as photographers we need to master the basics such as exposure discussed here. All good.

BUT, for example:

For some of my street photography work (when both myself and the subject(s) are moving) I've hit a sweet spot where I've nailed it that 1/500th to stop the motion coupled with f5.6 or f8 for sufficient dof is mandatory.

For this scenario I'll use auto ISO and let it float. I'll maybe use + exposure compensation for ETTR purposes. It depends.

In summary, all this theory is useful, but it perhaps leads to a novice getting files that have put optimum light on the sensor, but resulting in unusable images.

I prefer nailing keepers......

An example would be helpful.

Here's one at ISO 10,000, (yes 10,000) I used 1/400th to sufficiently stop the motion and f1.8 because I was winging it on sufficient dof. I could have put more light on the sensor by opening the shutter for longer, but ruining the shot in the process due to motion blur.

Sensors are not rated in ISO units, those years when they were are far gone. Look at the sensor specification sheets, you will see.

It's complicated. Some films are not rated in ISO speed units at all. Film is much less "documented" than sensors, and much harder to experiment with. Good knowledge of film is very rare. IMHO best not to bring film into these discussions.

It's a real ISO setting, governed by ISO standard.

ISO isn't a part of exposure.

Film grain and sensor noise are quite different things.

I was asking for an example where a novice put "optimal light on the sensor", but got an unusable image, to point that novice to blur and DoF considerations explained extensively.

In relation to this thread, it's literally suggested that opening the shutter for longer, thus putting more light on the sensor, "improves" the outcome. I've countered that stance with an alternative viewpoint, backed up with an image as requested. I'm not sure what else you are asking for?

Sorry, I don't see that. I see only noise aspect mentioned, not the outcome.

I requested an image from a novice.

Exactly, but a novice reading this thread might deduce that they are better shooting at 1/200th instead of 1/400th. That's the point.

I'm not a novice, so I cant help you there.

Maybe I did misinterpret, but it's easy to read it as such. Hence adding to the debate with a real life example. Real life examples are far better than plain theory IMO.

Bearing in mind that I'm writing in response to a post under "photography tutorials". Maybe tutorials are better served with "here's an example photo to show the problem, and another one to show how to do it properly" :)

I submit that you could have made that image at ISO 5000 or ISO 2500 with the same exposure and it would have looked just as good after the raw development.

Yes you are quite correct that I COULD have done that. But why would I bother? Like you say it would have looked just as good. NOT better. So, for real world reaction fast photography pick the shutter speed and aperture you NEED and let the ISO float. Why bother faffing around and overly complicating things for no effective real world gain in the end result?

Do you think event, wedding etc photographers would adopt the approach you advocate? I suspect we'd all be too busy nailing the shot.....

You would have had less highlight clipping, so it probably would have looked better at a lower ISO setting. And what's so hard about setting the exposure and picking an ISO that makes highlight clipping unlikely, and just using that ISO for the scene? That's what I do. I never use auto-ISO, because it removes my control of highlight detail.

But there is no highlight clipping :) Plus for the next shot I might step into a brightly lit bar or whatever. Wired that way I'm only interested in nailing the shot, not faffing about with settings to maximise my raw file potential. Events, street, weddings etc..... we need to be setup for ANYTHING and INSTANTLY