The Exposure Triangle Is Misleading And Unnecessary.

How?

You're just going round in circles now because that was raised either in this or another thread and it was explained that if you talk to any of the actual camera manufacturers' engineers, and not the marketing/sales people, they will not tell you that iso is an exposure control. The engineers there actually know what they are talking about.

Especially in Manual mode ISO has no effect on exposure* at all as has been shown in practical examples in numerous posts.

* exposure - amount of light striking the sensor per unit area while the shutter is 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.

"3"/ triangle what do they have in common ?

except if you are using the z9

You are not answering. How does ISO control exposure?

That’s because he knows it actually doesn’t, especially in manual mode.

If he actually read the aricle he linked to he would have seen that they are defining exposure as how light or how dark a sooc jpeg looks and not as the correct technical definition as the amount of light striking the sensor per unit area while the shutter is open.

That’s because he knows it actually doesn’t, especially in manual mode.

If he actually read the aricle he linked to he would have seen that they are defining exposure as how light or how dark a sooc jpeg looks and not as the correct technical definition as the amount of light striking the sensor per unit area while the shutter is open.

That article is actually supporting my op where I say at best the exposure triangle is misleading because it teaches an incorrect definition of exposure and imo is totally unnecessary as I described.

Yeah, well don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Your link also contained this pearl of wisdom...

"Each time you double the ISO (for example, from 200 to 400), the camera needs only half as much light for the same exposure. So if you had a shutter speed of 1/250 at 200 ISO, going to 400 ISO would let you get the same exposure at 1/500 second (providing the aperture remains unchanged)".

Does that sound right to you? Gee, I guess might as well just shoot at ISO 12,800 and 1/2500" then. It's the same exposure, right? What could possibly go wrong?

Hmm, it's no wonder why it's so difficult to have proper conversation about this stuff? Way to go, Nikon!

Yep, they are confusing exposure with image lightness and assuming they mean the same thing when they are two different things.

They are incorrectly defining exposure as how light or how dark a sooc jpeg looks.

The funny thing here for me is that DonaldB has posted a link to an article that actually supports my op in that the ET is at best misleading and at worst total nonsense.

So, in this beginner’s forum, if we say that “high iso causes more noise” are we done with this nonsense thread?

And why should we say so?

Nikon really ought to do better.

It's kind of like walking into a hospital and noticing that there are a lot of sick people there and saying "hospitals make people sick."

Yes, but unfortunately they are not alone.

Another myth I was mislead by is "higher iso causes more noise".

It actually causes less noise because of the lower exposure* but more of that noise will be visible.

You mean it will be visible in the actual image? Imagine that! Photographers actually delivering actual images with or without noise rather than typing flurf here.

I'm just explaining why iso does not cause more noise as many beginners are mislead into believing.

It is totally appropriate to do that in a beginners environment.

Wait a second…. You can’t have it both ways…… speaking of the final finished image here (which really is the only thing that creatives like photographers should care about)…..

What is true for a beginner to know about the final image:

Option1 (your direct quote):
Another myth I was mislead by is "higher iso causes more noise". It actually causes less noise because of the lower exposure* but more of that noise will be visible.

Or

Option 2 (direct quote):
I'm just explaining why iso does not cause more noise as many beginners are mislead into believing.

Just asking because any beginner might now be very confused when they pick up a camera with the goal of actually creating a finished image. If they dial up ISO and leave other settings the same, will the finished image have more or less visible noise?

Do beginners need more than: Noise is function of light on the sensor. The ISO setting does not affect noise unless you're in an automatic mode in which the ISO setting affects the shutter speed or aperture.

However, if the beginner believes high ISO equals high noise, they need more to disabuse them of the notion, which this thread helps to do.

A discussion of more noise versus more visible noise, SNR, etc. doesn't seem necessary for a beginner, unless they evidence interest.