The iSO definition doesn't say anything whatsoever about filling of capacitors.
There's a fundamental inconsistency there. If ISO is defined in terms of exposure (which it is) it cannot at the same time be part of exposure. If it were its definition becomes self-referential and nonsense.
There is no defined meaning of ISO for a digital sensor, only for a complete digital still camera.
ISO film ratings standardize the development. Sometimes the standard development doesn't reflect typical development for the intended application. That's why some film manufacturers didn't use ISO for some films. Photographers who did their own developing often didn't use ISO ratings, but calculated their own exposure indices. Mine were always quite a bit less than the ISO ratings, and my development times were shorter. The analogy to photographers doing their own development is digital photographers shooting raw.
Also, if you're a beginner in photography today, I think it's unlikely that you have experience with ISO film ratings.
I would like somebody to suggest an ISO rating method for film latent image.
With film, grain, even with high speed film, still depends on exposure and development.
I don't think we should discuss film here. Too many misconceptions to deal with.
Add control for variable flash output power, some ND filters, and the ability to darken or brighten the sun by will alone and/or during solar eclipses - and you're looking at an N-dimensional exposure polytope right there.
There is probably instrumentation which could detect collected photocharge on the grains, which could give an estimate of development potential.
Yes, and now it's more accurate than it used to be. Now we even talk about photographic transistors and diodes. But ISO seem to refuse to codify latent image.
Then I could have saved a lot of hours in the darkroom that I spent working out Zone system EIs and development times.
I've got 20 years on you! And I always found that understanding things always increased my chances of 'nailing' significantly. And that doesn't just apply to photography.
Yes - some folks like to argue the nit and nats of apples and oranges.
They forget that some folks are actually beginners. Perhaps the exposure triangle is simply misused sometimes.
And then to argue that 40 years of experience beats 20 years. I think about golf - where years of experience doesn't mean much. Perhaps they mean to say years of learning and practice. And then more practice...
:-)
The same words can have different referents for different communities. This is the realm of semantics and consensus. Lack of agreed-upon referents can result in misunderstandings. For photography, it is probably more helpful to give an easy to understand formula for obtaining optimal image quality than to quibble about semantics.
Lots of luck with that one! You are assuming everyone reduces vectors to scalars with the same weightings.
Not quite what was being argued. It was proposed that 40 years made an argument when the other had 60 years. Doesn't work even on its own terms.
There's a semantic misunderstanding here with the word 'formula'.
There is an easy to understand formula for obtaining optimal image quality. It is.
- Use the slowest shutter speed that your pictorial constraints allow.
- Use the smallest f-number that your pictorial constraints allow.
- Set the ISO according to the resultant exposure
- If you can't set the ISO low enough to avoid over-exposure then reduce exposure using either the shutter or f-number, depending on your pictorial priorities.
The only detail there with lots of devils lurking is 'set the ISO according to the resultant exposure'.
Thank you for your thoughts but I don't see how I define optimal exposure is related to my op.
In my op I simply put out there why I was mislead by the exposure triangle and why I now see it as misleading and unnecessary.
Obviously some will disagree and some will agree.
When I make images in difficult situations, it's not that simple. I need to trade things off against each other, weighting things according to my goals for the image.
(screen grab)its out of camera jpeg no adjustments. whats better an image with noise or an image that you cant see due to motion blur ?
I’m curious what published, notable, working pros who started their careers after 1990 (30-years ago) would say about this thread.
