The Exposure Triangle Is Misleading And Unnecessary.

I have this thing about the way photographers tend to think about perspective. All over the web, in books and magazines going back decades you can see things along the lines of:

"Tele lenses flatten the image by compressing perspective. Wide lenses increase depth by expanding perspective".

These errors are another example of confusing correlation and causation and you see it everywhere. Perspective is managed by moving closer or further from your subject, not by changing focal length. Tele lenses do not compress anything, distance does. The reason wide angle lenses give big noses is because you stand too close to the nose in order to fill the frame. The reason why the error persists, I think, is because when you use a tele lens, you photograph things that are far away and when everything is far away it all looks about the same size. And the only time you notice this is when you use a tele. And when you use a wide, your subject is tiny, so you naturally move closer. In both cases it is quite natural to jump to conclusions about causation. And most of the time mis-understanding the cause doesn't harm getting the shot, so it's really a silly thing to get wound up by.

I can't quite work out whether this is also true about the exposure triangle. Does using it make you shoot things incorrectly? Given I don't actually understand what the ISO knob does, it's difficult to be sure.

www.aperturebuzz.com/extended-iso/

You know, I was just thinking the same thing.

I am also thinking that it sets a very poor example for the level of discourse we come here for.

Say cheese!

David

Why do you always imply that:

1. The “exposure triangle” describes exposure?
2. All elements of the exposure triangle have a direct impact on each other (related to exposure) instead of a weak correlation?

This is false.

I was wondering why that fact hadnt been pointed out before in this discussion.

David

My daughter just drops it off at a lab in the city where she lives and they email you a link to the digital files. some companies scanners are very poor but the one my daughter is using is very good and the files are 8 meg from a fuji film scanner. the files look fairly good btu there is very little room to PP them in photoshop. havent taken a full roll with the new trip 35 yet so have no idea how it is giong to preform. i did pull it apart and clean it up and it seems to work good from what i can tell. all good fun though. my 20 yold daughter is loveing film cameras atm and im loving finding them and fixing them up ready for use and shooting a roll or 2.

Read and learn what's in these two posts

Original post of the thread:
dprevived.com/t/the-exposure-triangle-is-misleading-and-unnecessary/1602/

Additional comment:
dprevived.com/t/the-exposure-triangle-is-misleading-and-unnecessary/1602/post/12851/

If you learn what's in these two you'll be 99% of the way to where you need to be.

im printing all the images on my canon pro10s as all the labs are only printing from the scans and there prints are very poor. its not cheap printing from my printer but at least i know the prints will last for a long time.

This statement carries so much baggage that a ship would sink under its weight. This is akin to saying:

• Really, there is no fundamental reason for having an AWB setting in camera at all.
• Really, there is no fundamental reason for having a NR setting in camera at all.
• …

I would agree if you would say: “Really, there is no fundamental reason for having an ISO control in my workflow at all.”

But this over-generalization is just another red herring.

I think the main sticking point for you is that you seem to have the impression that the ISO knob somehow turns up the light and hence, is a component of exposure. It does not. Typically, the ISO knob will turn up an electrical signal produced by the sensor after the exposure. The result will be a brighter end result, but the exposure has not been increased, and whatever noise was present in that initial exposure will become more visually apparent. Increasing the exposure itself (light+aperture+SS) will also produce a brighter end result, but with less apparent noise because, unlike raising the ISO, a greater exposure will result in an also greater signal to noise ratio. If ISO was an equal component of exposure, the result would be the same either way, but it is not.

This statement is false. All credible sources that describe the exposure triangle say that aperture & shutter speed are responsible for exposure.

As the first statement is already wrong, the implication is that this one is also wrong.

Gain is about ADC sampling, not about light generation. No idea where these statements come from. I’ve never read a credible source explaining it that way, which is by the way also wrong (not only the statement in itself, but also that it is described like that).

only relying on the cameras metering atm as she was sick of shooting the full manual 35mm cameras
where to set the correct exposure you needed to set.
1: shutter speed
2: f stop
3: film speed asa
4: exposure comp depending on backlighting .which is directly part of asa setting.
5: if indoors set the flash to all numbers 1,2,3 🙄and distance.

to her it was a pain in the a.... so i gave my old

and she loves it. because it is fully automatic including flash. its a quality point and shoot 35mm camera. very sort after buy the young ones. so im interested in her experience with the trip 35 as its not as sophisticated as the konica.