I think one of the problems is the idea that ISO has to 'happen'. What has to happen is rendering an image in a colorimetric space from a raw file. There are many ways and means for that to happen. All ISO does is control one aspect of that - the relationship between exposure and lightness in the final image. Everything else is inside the engineers' black box (which some of us peek inside - but that doesn't have a lot to do with ISO).
April 10, 2023
638
-
And so it goes on ad nauseum. Fascinating. 😏
-
When I see experts discussing topics ad nauseum ("done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome"), I assume there is no answer. I see there isn't even a bare consensus on the fundamentals.
Photography must be so difficult that experienced people cannot tell me how to take a good photo of my granddaughters. I've seen good photos of my granddaughters so I know it can be done.
All this confusion and conflict means I am free to choose any answer - or point of view - or philosophy. I have not learned one single thing from these kinds of discussions. I chose the right answer 10 years ago.
[Edit: Alternative comment: "Does anyone here know what they're talking about? It doesn't seem so."]
-
You are being very generous, referring to people who don't understand what exposure is as experts ;)
-
What right answer did you choose? Please share.
All this long discussions are caused when knowledge is disputed by beliefs. -
It's actually simple and straight forward if you have a correct understanding of what exposure* is and what does and does not affect it.
I posted how I take good photos of my grandkids in my "Why Are My Images Noisy?" thread.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.
-
Your comment is off-topic. Someone please answer my question.
-
Your comment is off-topic. Someone please answer my question.
-
I am waiting on your answer, namely, what is the right answer that you chose 10 years ago.
-
That's fair.
I chose lux-seconds. ISO is data manipulation. You can hang all the embellishments and exceptions you want on it. I follow the arguments and I don't care. I haven't cared for 10 years. And I can take good photos of my granddaughters.
Now can someone answer my question?
-
The correct word is 'ad nauseam'
-
In order of importance when shooting raw:
a) do not clip relevant highlights (even though good post-processors can reconstruct a bit)
b) maximize the exposure (shutter speed and aperture) as much as the situation allows (anticipate, do not lose subject because you are fiddling with settings too much).In aperture priority mode, you can use Auto-ISO with a specific minimum shutter speed. If the ISO is high apply one or two stops of negative EC to get some highlight headroom (in Auto-ISO modes, it lowers ISO, not exposure).
-
I did in an earlier post. I posted how I take good photos of my grandkids.
-
Seems you are unable [or unwilling?] to choose in the discussion what is the wheat and what the chaff. Even if you chose the wheat for your answer, you now get the likes from the chaff eaters.
-
I would respectfully disagree that it doesn't seem anyone in this thread - or on this site - knows what they're talking about.
On the one hand, are folks who accept the 100+ year old understanding of exposure as the brightness of the scene per unit area as projected by the lens on the plate, film, or sensor. A list of references documenting this has been provided for the benefit of anyone seeking or desiring confirmation.
On the other hand, are folks who have embraced the so-called exposure triangle and are so deeply committed to that belief that any evidence or rational argument to the contrary is simply dismissed.
Fortunately for those who embrace the mythical ET, it's a belief system that doesn't prevent a person from doing brilliant photography. But neither does that belief system empower a person to achieve their full potential.
In any endeavor, be it personal or professional, an accurate understanding of the fundamentals empowers a person to advance and grow. A foundational understanding based on misinformation is limiting.
Each of us is free tp choose on which side of the fence we're going to stand.
Regardless of where that may be for... well, anyone, please share a photo or two now and again in the photography forums. We may choose to live in different realities when it comes to the fundamentals of photography but we can all share in appreciation of a quality image.
-
this is an exposure meter. explain to everyone why its called and exposure meter and not a light meter .
-
But your file name says light meter.
So even you call it a light meter and not an exposure meter.
-
It's called both. 'Exposure meter' is a subset of 'light meter'. Specifically a type of light meter designed to help someone set exposure.
So, how it works:
ISO is an 'exposure index' - which in layman's terms is a guide to setting exposure. Exposure is light energy density at the focal plane. It is controlled by f-number, shutter speed and scene luminance (how much light is coming from the scene you're photographing). So you set the ISO on the exposure meter to tell it the exposure you're trying to set. It measures the light coming from the scene (hence 'light meter') and tells you the EV (combination of shutter and f-number) that you need to set to get the exposure that ISO says you should set.
