The Exposure Triangle is Useless: Am I the only one who realises this? Here is a better way. 

Thanks for your comment.

Thanks for your comments. They are appreciated.

It's not old school. It's new school and It's putting the correct interpretation on how exposure works. You're making the same mistake that most others make i.e. aperture and shutter speed work with natural light. ISO does not. It's a completely separate issue which is a product of a process in the camera that creates an electrical signal which is sent to the sensor to either amplify or reduce the amount of brightness in the finished image. It does it's job AFTER the aperture and SS have done theirs. The other issues with the EXPOSUREE triangle are mention of freezing or blurring action. Nether of those has anything to do with exposure and therefore they mislead people in their understanding of what EXPOSURE is about.

Actually, you have this backward, but first, in film there was no ISO per say, just ASA (different organization). Second, increasing ASA by choosing a different film, would effect exposure. In nearly all cases, ISO is purely amplified signal that is already captured. It has nothing to do with the sensitivity of the sensor to capture photons - except in rare cases. Talk to the engineers at Nikon, Canon, or Sony and they will tell you that (even though their manuals suggest otherwise). The think that increasing ISO increases exposure is to use "Old School" film thinking to Digital photography. If it works for you, great, but it's not accurate 99 percent of the time.

In the days of film, you could get away with confusing ISO as being part of exposure, since film is in the exposure path, and the nature of the film, ie it’s light sensitivity, affects the exposure. In the rapid transition to digital, they repurposed the term ISO for an entirely different concept. Film ISO was controlled by several different standards, depending on the film type. Digital ISO is an entirely separate standard that has nothing to do with the sensor, rather it is a signal boost AFTER exposure, which happens when the shutter is closed and the photo sites are read. There are two kinds; analog and digital, and many cameras use their own proprietary mix of either, even using separate analog-to-digital converters depending on ISO, to create the illusion of ISO-less cameras within a certain range. In short; Digital ISO, which is NOT the same as film ISO, but designed to work on the same logarithmic scale and with the same name, is NOT part of exposure. It is a post-processing step which brightens an underexposed image at the cost of increasing noise along with it.

Thank you for your comments. The exposure triangle makes sense to me because I started with film. Like anything worth learning it requires study and understanding. As you learn and experience you will learn how to control these three parameters to get the results you want. It will take time and perseverance.

yep

14 minutes to say ISO Priority, or "P" Program mode, but I juggle shutter an Apature myself rather than letting the camera do it for me. But ISO is part of getting an exposure. .. Buys Film, Loads Film, Picks up light meter and sets ISO/ASA to film stock. Failure to check and adjust the meter will throw out all the frames on that Roll Where did I my rangefinder I have a couple of rolls of the new Ilford B&W to play with. Normally I select shutter on how I want to captue motion, set the lens based on Depth of field I want and let ISO float in Auto .

Thanks for your comment.

He's right that ISO isn't technically a variable of exposure. ISO is really how brightly the camera renders the combination of your aperture and shutter speed settings. What most people teach about ISO is inaccurate but it somehow still makes it easier on how to use ISO for beginners. ISO isn't actually the sensitivity of your camera to light. Your camera only has one sensitivity, which is whatever the base ISO of your camera is. Every other setting above base ISO is a DIGITAL amplification of the signal. It's not considered as a variable of exposure because it doesn't PHYSICALLY affect how much light the sensor receives. But you are also right that it DOES have something to do with exposure as exposure is how bright or dark your image is. @@mamertobernal4460​

His point is that since setting the ISO is a post process, you do not always need to have it correctly set in the camera. You can change the exposire value when post-processing the RAW file, and get exactly the same results. Which is more practical varies depending on the situation.

Exactly. For a minute I gave him too much credit thinking he was trying to talk about iso invariant sensors but nope lmao.

ISO setting is NOT a post process. You can adjust slight variations in exposure in post. If you shoot at, say, 100ISO and what's really needed for the shutter speed/aperture settings is, say, 1600ISO, you're up the creek without a paddle.All three elements depend on each other to obtain the desired result.@@henrikmartensson2044

Not using ISO much to get a decent exposure ?? ISO will always have a part to play even if it never moves off the minimum value. ISO has nothing directly to do with someone sitting still or not.

That's what I as going to say "you did a great job explaining the exposure triangle but pretty much neglected how ISO plays a roll."

Agreed. Two notes: "Photography students" in technical schools, not art schools. Let us face it "the mathematics" involved in the relationship between aperture, shutter-speed and sensitivity (ISO) are not hard concepts to grasp (and I am not a technical student). Earliest photographers did not have "instinctive" but experiential knowledge based on tests.

That's great. We all have our own ways of doing things.

Perfect Iso invariant cameras would not need iso dial, one iso only and you underexpose when we need. We are not far from it.

@@melaniezette886 Do you actually use a camera? Or just a smartphone? Do you use light temp settings at all?

It is useful if it explains that a sensitivity requires an exposure and that when your sensor has a fixed sensitivity iso cannot change it it can just amplify exposure. The sun shines in the same way for everybody, it doesn't care what your sensitivity.

Thanks for your comment.

You are correct Brian. Thanks for your comment.

Exactly. Thank you.

Except denying the existence of a tool that generations of photographers (including pros) have used so far.

Where do you get that:"what is missed by many a teacher is the supportive information related to Stops" and what do you mean by it??

I agree.

Thank you for your comment. We all work in different ways.

ASA (American Standard Association) became ISO (international Standard Organisation) in 1974. In other words they are strictly the same, just one is outdated.

Iso increases final brightness of the shot. Exposure ends, the signal is sent to the processors to increase and shape it. The sensor receives light, light depends on light on the subject, aperture and time. The brightness of an image depends on exposure and iso. Brightness is not exposure and iso is not part of exposure. You have four parameters you can play with, 3 for exposure plus one iso.

@@melaniezette886 So you never alter your ISO?

Thanks for your comment.

Thanks Mark. I was trying to keep the explanation simple without confusing people with non-exposure choices.

Thank you for your comment.

I think with modern sensors (iso invariant) it's getting more close to something like a "post-process step".

@@bartpo Doesn't matter in JPEG. If you don't nail it in camera it's gone.

??? I am not sure "JPEGs are the digital equivalent of a finished print in camera" is completely accurate, let us say it is a metaphor. In the same way, some may be right to say that ISO modification is a processing issue as sensors have a set/fixed sensitivity that is amplified during the processing stage that happens in camera. Changing the ISO setting on a digital camera only tells the camera how much processing is required.

Call it a digital polaroid if that makes it easier for you. A JPEG is an image you can't drastically change anymore the moment it is shot. And that is not a metaphor, that is simply a fact. The point is that you always have to keep ISO in mind, be it when changing film or on a platform that is capable of adjusting it's sensitivity on the fly (or it's digital gain if you want to be that pedantic about it). @@BrunoChalifour

@@noenken A jpg is definitely not a finished print, believe me; in the same way as a negative is not a finished print. A finished print is a finished print by definition. A jpg unless you keep it on the screen of your camera (and you do not print your own images), and even then it can be modified in camera now, is sometimes miles away from the finished print. I expose my digital files (raw and jpg) for the finished print but they are definitely not my finished prints (there would be no fun in either making the images or printing them if we stayed at the JPG level and did not play with it (and for that Raw gives us more leeway). But these are details and I agree on the jist of your comment.

Thank you.

Thanks for your comment. I was trying to keep it simple for new photographers. I prefer to explain DOF later in the learning process.

the largest number controls it too but in the other direction. So the conclusion should be that all apertures control the depth of field ;o)

I could not agree more! Those are composition related, which comes first. After that, you can adjust what you need to for exposure. They both equate to the amount of light AND another major thing that affects your image. That said, he did say he was dumbing this down and just talking about exposure and that there were other things that needed to be taken into consideration.

Iso means a camera needs a certain amount of light or exposure. The light falling on the sensor depends on light on the subject, the aperture and exposure time that's it. If you only change iso light on the sensor stays the same. If you increase iso and compensate you mathematically decrease exposure, the camera will just increase an underexposition to give the same brightness, but final brightness is Not exposure

That's great. Everyone has their own way of learning and doing.

Yes. Thank you for your comment.

Great overview. Thanks! PS: There used to be 800 (color neg), 1600 and 3200 ISO film (the latter in color and BW).

Yes but it has never been a triangle because it has never been. You had the ambiant light level, aperture and time =exposure for a given iso. People think that iso is sensitivity it's not as soon as you increase iso the camera will choose to underexpose to compensate because the exposure will be amplified by the camera

@@melaniezette886 If I shoot at 250th of a second and at f5.6, because those are the settings I want . if the picture is to dark I will increase the ISO, you can even see it in the EVF view finder ( how amazing). My camera is not choosing to underexpose or do anything other than give me the exposure I want. Your explanation would confuse a lot of people who have little experience. KIS.

Yes. She makes it much easier for me.Thanks for your comment.

Use whatever system that enables you to control your image. We are all different.

Thank you for your comment. I'll try harder in future. I'm still learning about shooting video.

That is a great way to work Ray.

And have fun. Thanks for your comment.

Yes, the amount of light between f 16 and f 8 has been reduced by a factor of 4 ;o) By the way Shutter speed does NOT "impact focus." There are two main DISTINCT causes for blurred images: 1-motion blur (too slow a shutter speed for an unsteady hand), 2-out-of-focus images. These are two totally separate things.

The noise comes from a lack of exposure. Keep exposure constant and change only iso, not more noise

Hi Dana,. We all choose to work in different ways. The important thing is to have fun and create.

??? that definitely helps the targeted general audience of view-camera users ;o)

Thank you for watching.

Thank you for your comment.

Everyone works differently. I too started with film. Maybe that is why I tend to lock my ISO.

Iso dictates what exposure is needed it does not mean it is part of it, I agree with you

That's great that you are enjoying your photography. Thank you for your comment.

Thanks for your comment.

Yeah, the exposure triangle is obviously not useless.

To add to the conversation, ISO has been used in analog photography since 1974. Aperture is part of exposure, you probably meant shutter-speed instead of "exposure". And regarding your opinion on the exposure triangle I am full-heartedly with you.

Indeed look at Wikipedia the definition of exposure. At the end it is a quantity of light nothing else. We are all exposed to light and we can find ways to increase or decrease it like a camera.

Thank you.

Persistence is the key to great photos. Look at your image and try to understand what went wrong then research how to fix it. Thanks for your comment.

I'm saying that the sensor has one sensitivity depending on it's manufacture. Then the camera's processor boosts or reduces the brightness in accordance with your ISO setting.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

We all have our own way of working. The most important thing is to have fun doing it.

Thank you for that. I was trying to make things simple for new photographers.

@@newcastlephotographycollege Excuse me.I was just thinking that if you put the information out there it would help us beginners to understand. I mean no disrespect.

I do not know where you got the "isochron" story from but it might be slightly erroneous. ISO means International Standard Organisation while ASA meant American Standard Association. So much for that. Now in the light of this, trying to paraphrase "newcastlephotographycollege" in vaguely explaining aperture may in fact be "overstepping". ;o)

Thanks for your comment.

Thanks Larry for your comments.

Thanks for your comment.

???

@@BrunoChalifour not sure what you mean with "???" but it was a bit irony from my side

@@sigsegv111 That is what I was checking as I was not sure. Thanks ;o)

Thank you for those comments. Please keep watching and commenting.

Of course the relationship exists. Let me explain it to you. You have measured your exposure for a particular scene. Now if you change your ISO setting one of the two other sides of the triangle (parameters) or both will have to be modified to get the same exposure. This is true for the three settings: if you modify one of them you can compensate by one of the two others or both. Then obviously they are linked. What is difficult to understand here???

I sometimes use the "sunny F16 rule" to give me a starting point.

Awesome, thank you!

Of course the triangle works. It has worked for generations of photographers and will continue to do so. You may not have had the right exposure to it, let us face facts.

???

Thank you.

Thanks Michael.

By taking control of the settings you get what you intended, leaving up to the camera more hoping than deliberate image creation. One might as well leave it up to a cell phone camera function. But many have an intended outcome, so do not leave it to a camera in auto function. That is the difference between snap shots and photography. The former is by chance and the later is by intention.

@@stanspb763 I generally get the results I intend, but, my best to you regardless.🙃 All opinions matter.

It is not because it did not make sense to you (it may depend on how it was explained to you) that it has not been helpful to generations of photographers. Kinda hard to deny that fact. PS: your last sentence clearly indicates that you have realised there is a relationship between aperture, shutter-speed and ISO (thence the triangle) ;o)

Expect little; accept everything. As I said, as a beginner, the triangle did not make sense to me, Bruno. The relationship of the three elements is obvious, yes. It's interesting that exception is apparently taken with my comments and not the author's. Still the triangle, as a concept, did not make sense to me, regardless.

@@DanaPushie Thanks for the reply Dana. Now if you look at the comments you'll see that the author raised a ton of exceptions! ;o)

I agree. Maybe because I shot film for many years, I don't play with my ISO often.

I think it all depends on why you are using a camera. Many use it merely as a recording device. They want to capture something to remember it later. As a result, they rarely pay attention to the entire scene within the frame. The result is a less interesting picture. Add to that the ability to take a lot of pictures at once and later pick out one that works (sort of), and less care is taken with each exposure. 100 shots costs the same as one. Everyone is now a photographer. That’s why some younger photographers are going back to film. It forces you to pay attention, because every exposure costs you more money and time. As with most things, photography has more to do with the person using the camera than it has to do with the gear. Pay attention to what you are doing, learn how the gear works and how to manipulate it. Learn from the results and make adjustments next time. Pay attention to the light, because that is all you are photographing.

@@autokrohne Either you are replying to another post here or you didn't understand me. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear to you. I have been taking analog photographs for around 35 years. I can't get into the habit of randomly rattling through pictures in series mode. Today I take photos with my digital camera just as if it were an analogue one. I only use the technical possibilities that these cameras offer. For many photographers, and by that I mean you, good photography is analogue. For them it is a matter of faith. But ultimately it's the image that counts.

I do much the same. Since moving to Fuji from Canon, I’ve learnt to trust the auto ISO in combination with its autoDR (dynamic range) feature; the sun is bright in summer here in Australia, so it is easy to blow out the sky when trying not to underexpose your subject and moving fast in street or event photography. On Canon, I used to bracket, which is a pain, esp when hand held. The dual analog-to-digital converters in the Fuji means I’m not losing much by going to ISO 400 or 800, and it is far better to have a slight bit more noise than to blow out the sky when doing street shooting, which involves all sorts of light conditions changing fast. Gives more latitude when editing later. Auto features are not to be feared, it lets me concentrate on the subject and composition. There are more bad photos purely because photography is far more accessible and affordable than before, and far more photos are produced by people who don’t aspire to be photographers, but just want to document a moment with their friend etc. Truly great photos are still being produced, and far more than in the past, because there are also far more people who can afford to take up photography either as a serious hobby, like me, or become a professional. The objective of the two are entirely different; those who want to capture memories with friends and family, versus those who want to create images and art. Both are valid, just different.

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

Thanks for your comment.

You may not realise it but you do use the Exposure Triangle sub-consciously, it's the only way to get correct exposure, all three elements are intertwined.

That's a strange way of presenting things if I have ever seen one ;o) Need translation here.

I do the occasional workshop around Newy. Keep an eye on my FB page for upcoming dates.

Thank you for the explanation.

Thanks for your comments David. I didn't say that ISO is irrelevant. I just said that it doesn't control exposure (the amount of light that hits your sensor). I don't mention the secondary considerations of the '3' because I wanted to simplify the explanation for new photographers. I find that my students get confused when factoring in DOF etc when learning exposure. I introduce the secondary considerations at a later stage.

Thank you. Welcome.

That's great. Thanks for your comment.

That's a good approach.

Unless you were professional and used medium format exchangeable backs or sheet film.

Thanks for your comment.

You could. not change the ISO in mid-roll but you could still change the roll ;o) and then the triangle applied (by comparison with the initial roll ;o)

The reason that I don't think it works is because it doesn't show the effects of changing one exposure variable on the other. I respect that everyone has their own way of working. This is just my opinion.

@@newcastlephotographycollege It might be a very narrow approach to the exposure triangle, all the more that it sounds so obvious to many.

Thank you for that.

Thankfully we are all different. Thanks for the comment.

The magic may come from the photographers who adapt their creativity to the tools they use, whatever the tools, and not so much the tools. Conversely photography does not create controversy, people do, whatever the field. I agree with you on the fact that people that pride themselves with shooting film (why?) but then scan them and work on them in an image-processing software are " amusing" (and somewhat paradoxical).

Thanks for your comments. You must have a wealth of experience.

Exactly right. Thank you.

The video is about exposure. What you mention has nothing to do with exposure.

Thank you for your comments. I'll try to do better next time.

@@newcastlephotographycollege Thanks for reading my long drivel!

If you shoot manual you definitely have to juggle all three!

@@brianjones5535 I believe the context of his opinion is for those just "learning."

Thanks for sharing

Thanks for sharing!

Thank you for your comments and explanation.

Then the size of the bucket is your ISO, the smaller it is (high ISO) the less light is required to fill it; the bigger it is (low ISO) the more light you need to fill it. So the size of the bucket (ISO) informs the duration during which the tap is open (SS) and how wide it is open (Aperture), so... the three criteria are linked thence the exposure triangle. That difficult?

@@BrunoChalifour Ooh! Got out of bed the wrong side this morning, did we?😂

Thank you for your comment.

??? what has the circle of confusion of a lens to do with exposure and more to the point the exposure triangle???

Nothing beyond having an image that is in focus and the aperture required to make it that way. Of course the needful aperture has to let enough heat through the lens to activate the film's chemistry otherwise the triangle is a fairytale of wishful thinking ...which leads us back to the aperture's roll in the triangle.@@BrunoChalifour

Thanks for your comment.

I never thought of that.

Thank you for your comment.

Brightness and exposure are two different concepts in photography, linked true but different. It is not the exposure that makes a photograph "artistic" or not. Either it is good and you can do a lot with it, or it is bad and you limited, if not doomed. ;o)

@@BrunoChalifour explain the difference.

Hi.

Thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you for your comment.

Thanks Mike.

Thanks for your comment.

Thanks Mike.

I became a pro in 1972, Kodachrome - 25 ISO (ASA in those days!), colour negative I used exclusively 160 ISO, B/W Tri-X 400 iso, how the hell did we manage????

@@brianjones5535 we did, and we had to think out what we wanted, how to get it, and then execute the job. I was a full service photographer, and when 400 iso was introduced, it was like being a kid in a candy store.

@@brianjones5535 Not that well in dimly lit conditions when we could not use flash!!

In the 1980s?!? There was no digital camera on the market yet. The foreseen future could not compare to film (in definition and sensitivity) and would be extremely expensive when it came in the 1990s. Most people using digital cameras do not work in a "controlled studio", so we cannot limit the conversation at that. Why expose at 100 ISO if one needs more and has that possibility at their disposal?? It does not make sense. Technology evolves and with it our possibilities as photographers why deny it? People can think, and use their digital cameras appropriately for their purposes whether in manual mode, A or S mode with exposure compensation. It is not the tool that is the problem, as in many other areas, but the way it is used. If you had ever worked in a retail photo store you would know how many useless negatives and transparency film directly went to the bin coming back from the lab. How many photojournalists, or wedding photographer work daily in manual mode?? Not that there is a problem with that; it is just one options now, and not the only one. Personally I "discovered" auto ISO not so long ago and it can be very useful at times.

@@BrunoChalifour Hello Bruno, thanks for your insightfull explaination, and I'm sure you are competent and confident in your abilites. If you read my statement closely I said the late 80's. It may have been 88 or 89. Digital had been around since 1975, invented by an engineer with Kodak, and it was being used albeit limited to commercial use, but yes, not the general public until it hit the market in 1990. Dycam came first, then I think Cannon, and then Nikon with the first DSLR the D1 @ 1 meg, and thats when the change really started. As a working photographer since 1980, I saw many different changes in cameras and auto mode advancement, but the one very different thing was that working pros then did not rush to buy all the new toys, as they still relyed on their knowledge and not a camera to do the work. We looked upon them as toys. Film still only had limeted ASA ratings and we needed to understand how to create in that reality. It forced you to think about how you would complete the assignment, but not so today. I also know all to well about waste. Waste was part of doing business and part of our budget when figuring jobs. Digital did change the industry in good and bad ways. It did bring the still film industry to a vertual halt and severly hurt Kodak, which in invented digital, along with many other filmmakers, not to mention post production labs. Something photographers today know very little about, but was very much needed in my prime. Post-production programs and the like today, replacing all of that need. Yes it's wonderful to have all the features to help expand what you can do, but the reason for that artical was to explain how this coming technology will hurt more than help the Professional Photographer and the profession...and it did, for many could not or refused to reinvent themselves, and many people bought cameras and now said, Im a photographer. It's made it to simple and dependent. It's not that simple. I had many who I came across who knew nothing about what they were doing, yet said "I'm a photographer". The equipment was the photographer, they were button pushers. Some are still around, most are gone. Digital neerly bankrupted Kodak. They came out in 88 with electronic portrait proofing, which we had in my studio. I personally know and worked with many people who lost their jobs with Kodak when they reduced film production. As a photographer today, you live and die by it's technology, but the key is, you are the photographer, not the camera. Too, too many let the camera do all the work, because they can. They have made it to easy. The tool is you, but the problem is...today's equipment is the master, and today's photographers have become the assistants. This is all my opinion. Be well and good luck.

Hi Red. Thanks for your comment. I have well over 100 ideas for future videos. I hope you will check some of them out.

Thanks for your comment. We all have our own opinions. Thank goodness.

@@newcastlephotographycollege just a shame yours is in denial. ;-)

Setting ISO before setting SS+exposure is an old film habit (and quite a necessary one so that one does not forget and ruins a whole film) now it may sound outdated to some with a digital camera. The order does not matter as much as the result anyway. It also depends whether you work in A, SS or Auto ISO mode. So there is no rule except getting the right settings to work together ;o) Who's the fruit now? ;o)

Thanks for your comment.

I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.

Adjusting in post capture will limit the possibilities one may have with current cameras compared to what can be achieved by increasing (boosting) the ISO in camera (post-capture adjustment is limited by dynamic range which is shorter in over or under-exposure than setting the right ISO for the scene). What do you mean by "that apply to extended ISO settings (I know what extended ISO setting is but I do not see how it applies here. Am I illiterate or being silly too??? I am not quite following your train of thought. Could you clarify?

​@@BrunoChalifour Maybe you are silly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ What I said was in reference to the video. In his understanding, the camera is taking pictures at constant ISO and then does the digital exposure boost. What he explains would only apply to "extended" settings. One of the sentences I wrote is not what I was intending. I must have pressed something while typing and erased part of it... I meant that different producers use different ways of controlling the ISO. And for example signal can be amplified at the sensor for full stops but adjusted in microprocessor at 1/3rd. What I mean by "post-capture" was in the microprocessor, not in the photoshop. The bottom line is that, there is no a "one way" how the ISO works. Sony, Canon, Fuji will have different patents and secret on how to deliver consistent and best quality they can to their customer. Funny thing not everyone may know. I remember back when I had Canon 85/f1.2 the f stop wasn't actually offering more light than f/1.4 because physics I guess, so canon was adjusting the image in the camera "post capture" to brighten it. To prove it, all you had to do was to cover the contacts, so the camera wouldn't get the metadata, and the picture would come out darker at the same settings. With 5dMk2 it was easy to clip red channel because of that. Red channel has lower dynamic range on top of losing the top end because of this trickery.

@@roman_thephotog Ok, noted. Now I thought that something in ISO meant International Standard which means it is a measuring unit that most (should?) abide by. Am I wrong? Could it be that the difference you see have more to do with the conceptions of the sensors and the algorithms used to process the information coming from it than variations outside the norm/standard ISO announced. As for the difference between the two 85 mm Canon (and the example has very little to do with the ISO issue) it is a known fact that manufacturers have a tendency to be a little optimistic especially with their wide aperture lenses (see the Dxo website for examples) stating they open more than they actually do.