I once read an article that said "Don't waste your time budgeting, do this instead." The article went on to say that you should create a spending plan instead. Well, what is a spending plan?.......Turns out, it looks very suspiciously like a budget. After watching this video, I'm left with a similar feeling. You can call the exposure triangle whatever you want. At the end of the day, if you're shooting your digital camera manually, then you're going to be setting 3 values when you take a photograph..... Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO. What matters is that you understand what each of the values does and how to set them properly. When I was learning the basics of photography, the exposure triangle made a lot of sense to me.
With all due respect, this is old-school thinking. I was raised on film also and for the most part, iso was a fixed parameter and exposure decisions were primarily limited to shutter speed and aperture. But not anymore. I shoot iso's from 64 to 8000 and get solid results. This ability makes iso an equal player with shutter speed and aperture - ie the exposure triangle. Of course, one needs to understand the workings of all three to make the best photographic decisions. And understanding how to use shutter speed and aperture creatively is key to great images. Shutter speed and aperture are the creative tools of image making while iso allows one to have a much greater range of using these tools with modern cameras. Forcing oneself to work with a fixed iso just limits your creativity. All three are key in controlling exposure. Sorry, but the exposure triangle is alive and well.
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.
The ISO is still part of the exposure triangle, because you still will change it relative to available light. It’s helpful to know that it’s applied gain/a post process but that doesn’t really translate into using the setting drastically different.
You are NOT changing the amount of light hitting the sensor by increasing or decreasing the ISO. The ISO number denotes the SENSITIVITY to light of the Sensor.
"The exposure triangle is useless to teach people how to expose their image properly..." And yet....it's how we all learned! Are photographers today too dimwitted to learn what generations of photographers have learned? If you set a certain shutter speed and aperture, there is only one "correct" ISO (call it ISO, digital gain or a bagel if you want) to achieve the "proper" exposure based on your artistic intent. Whether you set it in the camera or in post, it is pretty much forced on you (unless you change shutter speed or aperture), and is therefore very much a vital part of the equation. I understand that most modern cameras can handle high "bagel" very well, and some are even "bagel" invariant, but my 60+ years of experience have taught me that it is always better to get the exposure right in the camera, and why wouldn't you? It isn't brain surgery!
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 .
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
I have of course heard this topic debated many times, having been involved with photography for about 37 years. I sometimes now teach intro classes and when I do, I still use the exposure triangle. The reason I do is because I find it is a visual representation that people can understand - it's a basic shape after all, and the corners indicate that all sides are connected. That said, I also spend considerable time teaching pretty much what you just presented in this video, which is that shutter speed and aperture are the settings that control how much light reaches the sensor, along with movement, motion depth of field and some very basic info around diffraction. I think when people do understand the functions of the three settings, and gain appreciation for the importance of light it leads to a good understanding of how to effectively use the settings. More and more these days ISO is being thought of as a more active part of setting exposure it seems, and I guess that's due to advancements in sensor technologies. That's fine, but so far I have had good results using the triangle, presenting it in a way that is respectful of the fact that only ss & aperture actually control the amount of light reaching the sensor. I certainly am never upset by alternate points of view. I hear them out and think about them. Maybe eventually one will come along that really changes my mind - I'm open to that.
His advice means not using ISO much to get decent exposure. That may work fine when you shoot models (as he does apparently) who sit still when asked. It won't when shooting sports or willife with lots of hard to predict motion. Then you need short exposures to avoid motion blur and small apature for deep depth of field, given motion again. ISO often quite high is a critical tool for decent results.
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.
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.
I'm old school. Photography students (of whom I was never one) were expected to have basic qualifications in Mathematics, and usually in Science as well. Students would be expected to be able to grasp the two basic mathematical functions involved in the triangle, that f stops, shutter speeds and ISO are all related by a 2x function and that aperture is the ratio of focal distance to aperture diameter, hence it is inverse. Then the triangle works well. The triangle does not date from the beginnings of photography. The earliest photographers had only instinctive knowledge of film speed, had to count exposure by hand and the modern aperture scale was a late development. The triangle was a real boon, as was the concept of Exposure Value which exploited it. On a digital camera if you set the shutter speed and aperture to the desired settings but get the ISO wrong you will not be able to recover highlights or shadows as the case may be.
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.
The exposure triangle only shows that there is a relationship between the three elements, it doesn't tell what exposure to use, it assumes all three elements are in harmony. Like the volt/ohms/amps triangle it tells you that if you vary one, at least one other must be changed to compensate to get back to equilibrium. If you lengthen or shorten one side of the triangle, then one or both of the other sides has to change to make the triangle whole again, albeit a different shape. As a pro photographer for 51 years, the first question I ask is, how much depth of field do I want/need, that dictates the aperture, the second question is how fast, if at all, the subject is moving, that will determine what shutter speed is appropriate ( do I want subject and background sharp (fast shutter) or a blurred background (slower shutter) or indeed some motion in the subject (even slower shutter)) , the third question and the ONLY variable, what ISO do I need to achieve this criteria. No matter what situation you are in, studio or outdoors ALL three make the desired brightness of the image. I refrained from saying correct exposure because that it a whole different ball-game!! Now, because I shoot sport the light is often varying within an event, sunshine, now no sunshine, so I elect to use Aperture priority, set the aperture and shutter speed and allow the camera to vary the ISO. If things get REALLY bad (extreme drop or increase in light levels) then the shutter will begin to vary as well, which is not good!!!
The exposure triangle exists to remind you of the three things you can manipulate to alter the outcome of the exposure. It is also a representation of the 1:1:1 ratio of those things. ISO is not a post process thing (even if you want to see it as digital gain) and it never has been. JPEGs are the digital equivalent of a finished print done in camera, there is no post processing. But even on film you decide what ISO to espose for before you hit the shutter.
??? 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.
You have some nice photos and obviously know what you're doing. I think the main idea of the triangle is that if you can't realistically move one of the three, you might move another. Further, I think that moving ISO is really only best for low light situations when you're already wide open and now you have to choose between shutter and ISO. For example, I just took a photo indoors and to be able to see it, I had to be: f/2.8 1/5" and 800 ISO. However, remembering the triangle, I knew I could speed up the shutter for each of the steps I took higher in ISO. I retook the shot at f/2.8 1/40" and 6400 ISO and got the same exposure. From looking at each, the second is a much better photo, as despite the extra noise in the second, the first had too much motion blur. When dealing with low light, it's better to make a noisy sharp photo, rather than a clean blur.
As a pro in London for the last 37 years and elsewhere before that. I think you make some decent points. I think the one thing that many are missing is that you are simplifying the teaching on the mechanics and there`s nothing wrong with that.
Exposure is one thing, but aperture controls DOF, shutter speed the ability to stop or allow motion to blur, and ISO allows you to balance the other two. You need to understand all 3 if you want all full control. that before you even factor in grain/noise characteristics.
The Exposure Triangle is all about the relationship of the three controls/variables and their direct effect upon the other two should one be changed. The illustration flashed up during the video presentation for the briefest of moments outlined the benefits of adjusting anyone of them for a particular result. However, what is missed by many a teacher is the supportive information related to Stops that should go hand in hand with an explanation of the triangle. It is true that Automatic ISO exists and almost allows limitless combinations of shutter speed and aperture. It still however does have an impact on the quality of the final image. Whilst much can now be done to reduce noise with the powerful tools of Photoshop and the inbuilt processing power of many a mirrorless camera today it is important to explain the benefits of a quality capture in the first instance and to not rely on the wizardry. Also, we should consider those who will perhaps one day venture to experiment with film and will have to learn to work with film with a fixed ISO rating to the end of the roll.
There is one thing in your presentation that I do appreciate greatly - reminding me the simple fact that in digital cameras ISO is NOT related to the sensor's sensitivity to light but is in fact the POST production AMPLIFICATION of the signal by the digital amplifier/processor. Along with the above - what the sensor' base ISO is (its actual sensitivity to light, either 100 or 200). In my opinion every photographer must understand these two facts. Thank you for pointing it out. Yet, I agree with some other comments that manipulating the ISO as needed is an integral part of the creative process of taking digital photographs since it gives us tremendously more freedom in using shutter speed and aperture.
ISO is and was always a part of the exposure equation. By choosing “slow” (low ISO) film, you limited yourself to longer shutter speeds and/or shallower depth of field; choosing faster film (high ISO) gave you a better chance to freeze action or have a greater depth of field. In the film days, ISO was even a creative choice, because high speed film was grainier, which you could use as an effect. Digital cameras simply made ISO more flexible; choosing ISO has become a decision that you can make for every single exposure, and not for a whole roll of 24 or 36 shots. Digital cameras also made ISO more important, because the noise free or low noise range of ISO has reached ISO values that were not possible on film. In th film days, the fastest film I ever shot was rated ISO 400, while my modern digital cameras leet me shoot up to 6400 or 10000 with little noise.
As a 25 year video pro, the Exposure Triangle concept was VERY helpful to me learning digital photography when I needed to start incorporating photos into my work back in 2012 with my first DSLR, a Canon 60D 😮
I didn't know how to use a "real" camera, so I took an evening class to learn. What I came away with was an understanding of what shutter speed, aperture and ISO controls actually do to your image. IMO balancing exposure is secondary to depth of field and motion of subject and you can't teach the balancing of exposure without first explaining these things.
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
Great review! Another way to look at aperture is that the smaller number also controls depth of field (which is depth of the sharpest in focus area front to back), so the smaller is narrower depth of field/in focus area, and larger Fstop is larger depth of field/in focus area. Not just how much light it lets in. Using this analogy helps to remember what aperture also does related to its size/F stop number. Cheers!
Mmm. I can see what you are trying to say but not sure removing one side of the triangle helps. Irrespective of whether the camera post processes the image or not(raw images certainly not) if I set an f stop for effect and a corresponding shutter speed, my only way to then control exposure is with ISO setting. In my film camera this is by selection of a specific ASA/ISO stock(let’s not get into semantics of ASA vs ISO- ostensibly same) and then push or pull or standard processing. In digital camera I dial in my ISO for my desired exposure. Even in Raw if I mis-set the ISO I won’t get a useable image regardless of post processing. If I lock in my digital to a specific ISO(I often do) then I have the other two sides of the triangle to control exposure. Sure, set ISO to auto, and forget it, but it is still an essential part of the photographic process and required understanding by photographers. With all due respect, I can’t see how this is a difficult subject for people to get their head around. It has been a supporting tenet of photography since standard film stock was designed.
ASA (American Standard Association) became ISO (international Standard Organisation) in 1974. In other words they are strictly the same, just one is outdated.
I very much agree with what you are saying here. If ISO was supposed to be apart of the exposure triangle, then somewhere in the middle of it's range 200 - 6400 then 3300 would be the baseline, or "middle gray". I've been binge-watching your videos and I saw your "Popup flash magic" video first, I thought it was such an amazing video.
When I had my Pentax gear, I'd always use Auto for my first shot and get an idea of how the camera is reacting to the light and what it's recording. Once I've seen that, I'll go to full manual mode or aperture priority, adjust as necessary to suit my requirements. I've just moved across to micro four-thirds and the OM-1 so it's a whole different ballgame for me now but experience has taught me the basics so I set the camera up as I think fit, take a test shot and adjust as necessary.
If you think of Aperture numbers as a fraction, the correlation of numbers to size makes sense. For example, f16 is much smaller than f8. In the same way, shutter speed is a fraction of a second. 1/400 second is faster, letting less light in, than 1/100 of a second. Bigger numbers = less light. Regardless of how ISO works on digital cameras, it does affect the image coming out of the camera. Low ISO (100) is less sensitive to light than High ISO numbers (1600). You need a higher ISO in dark situations. If you want to ignore ISO, set it to AUTO, with a maximum shutter speed. Note that higher ISO numbers can give you grainy pictures. Shooting at f16 with a shutter speed of 1/500 and an ISO of 200 in a dark room will probably get you nothing. Those same settings outside at noon on a sunny day will be more successful. Aperture controls more than just light. It has an effect on depth of field - how much of your scene is in focus. Smaller numbers = narrow depth and bigger numbers give you more depth of focus. Shutter speed also impacts focus. Faster shutter speeds can freeze motion. Slower speeds lead to blurrier pictures - especially when hand held. Camera movement can cause blurry pictures. Photography is often a dance between shutter speed and aperture. Faster shutter speeds can lead to sharper pictures, but you need more light. Same with Aperture. Smaller apertures gives greater depth of focus, if you have enough light. Photography is really all about the light. Learn to pay more attention to the light and make other decisions based on that. With practice, it all starts to make more sense.
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.
Hello, thanks for the video. I had a similar realization at one point as the "exposure" is really the amount of light, and the ASA/ISO doesn't affect that part no matter what you change the dial to. In the past days of film, changing ISO wasn't really a thing. To do so meant meant changing your film. Today its as simple as turning a knob between photos. In the past you had to change film- if you had different film available. In the 35mm world that meant waiting til you were at the end of a roll (unless you were really clever) or had another camera with different stock. Same for medium format, but most of those had backs that could be changed in the middle of a roll, but you still needed to have purchased and brought the other film with you. Not so anymore with digital. Today I'd say that ASA is MORE important than it ever was because it directly affects what amount of light is needed. It "turns up the volume" as you mentioned.
Im just a newbie in the world of manual photography. Ive watched videos for and against the exposure triangle, and ive seen people talk about the exposure pie aswell, which is just a pie chart with the same concept. You could even call it the exposure square if you add exposure compensation dial to the list! To me, using a fujifilm x-t20, and having analog controls for aperture, shutter speed, and iso on the body (in the shape of a triangle) and just like the old school slr's, the exposure triangle makes sense to me. Its just 3 features of the camera that use light to expose your shot (even though iso is artificial light). Im currently using auto-iso which the camera changes depending on the situation, but with fujifilm, what you see on screen is what you get, so at 8:55 to 9:20, you're right, that's what i do! The video was worth a listen from the timestamps above. Ps. At 10:02, that's your exposure triangle on screen (left, right, bottom)!
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.
Nice video. I like that you are starting with fundamentals.100% agree to start with easily understandable terms like “faster/slower” and “bigger/smaller” instead of abstract jargon of “stops.”
Sorry but when I was shooting film, the ISO was a standard parameter in the film being used and could not be changed which made it important that the F stop and Shutter speed were set so the best quality photo was the result. Also, a lot of thought had to go into the shoot with film and use the proper ISO and type of film for the shooting conditions and surroundings for depth of field desired. I agree that changing the Shutter speed or the F stop does change the amount of light that enters the camera but the ISO also is a large part in what shutter speed and F stop should be used.
Your explanation is easy to follow , but for me exposure triangle is much more intuitive and easy to remember and put into practice , that is the way my brain works. I am still a very tech savvy @65 who off late started looking at photography more seriously, upgraded from Sony A6600 to Sony A7Cii full frame cameras and a few G master lenses recently , mainly for travel photography…
I agree with you, but will describe it this way. The ligth which come to the sensor is regulated with ND-filter, apparture and exposure time. ISO is an analog amplifing of the signal from the sensor before the ad-conversion. The later explains the noise in high iso.
Believe what you want, say what you want. If I set exposure and apature to get the look that I want, the ISO, ASA on analog photography, if the only possible thing to change to get a proper exposure. So I'll remain thinking about the exposure triangle. Seem to me that your many years into photography has increased your ability to "hook" others by talking. BTW, if you pay attention to your video, you actually agree with the exposure triangle only you used different words to initially sound like you don't. Oh well.
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.
You can't solve a maths problem with two thirds of the information!! Where is your 'datum' to be able to set your (other) two adjustments? Are you shooting on auto ISO?? which removes this part of snapping a pic? How is the sensitivity of your medium measured to correct your (other two) adjustments to create the look you like and are working for? OR are you just saying "Get a point n shoot"????
I don't know if you've been talking to certain people? But I've never understood the triangle. As a lifetime beginner photographer . With a learning disability. I find it hard to adapt to lots of ideas/ things. I currently own a Canon camera 📷 with a Sigma 60-600mm sports lens. X10. I tend not to play with the settings as I'm frightened that I won't be able to get them back. It shouldn't be this way . But it is. I understand lots of people wouldn't own a lens like mine being a lifetime beginner photographer. This lens is an amazing lens . But I can't seem to find or get somebody to tell me actually works with my camera. The other week I took some photos in a place which was darkish . But the photos actually came out better than I thought. Somebody was telling me about taking photos. And I could make the photo brighter if it was in a dark area? EV / HDR ? I DON'T UNDERSTAND EITHER OF THESES. I simply just take a single shot at a time. But getting a brighter picture at the other end would be great/fantastic. I see all sorts of things through my lens. And most people can't explain what I see? The lens also has its own software. I have heard many stories that this lens is way too heavy for most people. The total white weight depends on what sort of camera you own. The lens does have some down side to it. When shooting some close ups ??????? I would also like to meet people that have the same setup as I do. Real time or online and maybe I can learn from them. If they are willing to teach others. I only own DSLR Cameras. I find TH-cam and people like you really help others . And maybe one day might be experienced to take one of courses. I don't know how much of what I said relates to others?
Being an amateur photographer for around 35 years, I understand your idea that ISO is not part of the exposure - but this concept applies only to film photography. The exposure triangle definitely applies to digital photography, since the ISO is not adjusted after the sensor exposure (like during a film development), but before the exposure.
gotcha .... this video was actually brilliant ... for people who find a concept of large hole being described by a small number and vice versa difficult .. for others, well, how would I say it ... others just know that the ISO is derived and you use the lowest acceptable ISO to combination of aperture and minimal shutter speed that you need for your shot
My 2nd comment … I must say that your information on aperture, shutter speed and ISO are correct and well explained, but changing one affects the others, hence the triangle. Your example images show that you are an experienced and accomplished photographer!
Well, you get a thumbs up for explaining all the elements, but I’ve always found the exposure triangle a helpful concept, since all 3 directly affect the image captured. Obviously the aperture and shutter speed are the only parameters (unless you are using filters) which affect the incoming light, but an iso value is required BEFORE an image file is recorded. In this flexible digital world of photography, it is possible to brighten an image 5 or 6 stops with minimal degradation, but after that images will look poor. Because many cameras are “dual gain” it usually pays to set the iso higher in low light, rather than brightening in post. If you are interested I use auto-iso for all handheld shots and iso 64 for most tripod landscapes. These days I cap my auto-iso at 16,000 because I find my Topaz plugins can remove noise effectively. Z6 and Z7.
I completely agree. As a beginner, the Exposure Triangle never made sense to me. If anything it just made things more confusing. Listening to those who insist on explaining the ET as such, has never been helpful to my way of thinking. Generally I shoot in ISO auto with constraints. The only time I look to change the ISO is when, given the conditions, I cannot achieve my desired ontcome through adjusting my aperture and shutter speed.
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.
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.
Clearly, by the number of comments, you've stirred the pot, and good for you. I've been saying this almost as long as I've been a photographer (only a few years), but most don't want to hear it. Now, I did run across some engineers of sensors that suggested in duel gain sensors, like the Nikon Z9, when you move from ISO 400 to ISO 500, the sensor actually does become more sensitive to photons - BUT ONLY AT THAT ISO. Capacitance also drops so the DR at ISO 500 is actually better than 400 (See photons to photos). All in all, there is no relationship of ISO to exposure although the manuals of all Nikon, Canon, Sony etc. would make you think there is. Light enters through the lens and is increased or decreased with aperture or shutter speed in almost all cases. ISO is amplification of signal already recorded in nearly all cases (again, what the engineers tell me). I wouldn't say learning the exposure triangle is worthless, but in reality, the relationship being explained doesn't exist. More power to you and I love that the few people willing to point this out, sometimes do! Much appreciated!
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???
It's my understanding that aperture is F (focal length)/(a fraction of the hole size). This explains the size of the numbers being that a larger portion of the hole is a larger size hole thus /1.8 is larger than /11. (1/1.8 is a larger fraction than 1/11. 1.8 is fewer parts of the pie than cutting it into 11 parts and taking 1 of them). ISO simply explains the sensitivity of the exposed area, as you stated. ISO is the abbreviation of the chemical "isochron" that determines the sensitivity of film. I hope that I didn't overstep any bounds with this. I am just trying to help...
@@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)
There is not a competent photographer who does not consider the exposure triangle either deliberately or by experience and then if augmented light...strobes and flash or even reflectors and scrims... before taking a photo. ISO in film was film sensitivity and in digital is amplification factor and it important for your final image, mostly degree of amplified signal to noise ratio of the sensor and analog post sensor amplifier. It is important. Shutter speed has a definite impact of the image, and its value chosen by the photographer is pretty deliberate, since it determines the image sharpness, the noise in the image file and how sensitive the subject is to movement. Its choice is very important to match the speed of movement of the camera or subject It is important Aperture is a deliberate choice also in that the aperture not only controls the amount of light per unity of time striking the sensor but also the depth of field, how much of the foreground and back ground is in focus, a gradual fall off or rapid, and really impacts the captured image. It is important A 4th factor is introduced when using augmented lighting such as flash or strobes, very common situations, and the light contribution by a strobe, or flash to the final exposure is based on duration of the strobe or flash. The longer a pulse of light is, the greater of light that is captured while the shutter is open. That ratio of the prior 3 exposure elements to flash duration determines final exposure and it very deliberately selected by the photographer to get the desired ratio of ambient to flash light. It is important. These factors under control of the photographer combine to determine the final result, they are all chosen deliberately by the photographer so the beginner should become accustomed to considering all the settings when visualizing the final result and so are the very first topics to become familiar with.
And then you have flash with flash power being the variable that comes off the aperture and ISO variables of the exposure triangle forming the exposure diamond - being made of 2 exposure triangles with flash exposure dependent upon flash power, ISO and aperture and is independent of shutter speed. I have been photographing for 60 years and only learned of the exposure triangle a couple of years ago - never did and still don't use it.
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.
Do you not think the triangle comes from the old days, sunny 16 rule, iso set by film, aperture set by conditions and subject. So to EVF I want my shutter at250, aperture f5.6 but to keep them there I move my iso dial and the EVF shows lighter or darker in the viewfinder. I certainly know sports photographers who set speed to 250th and 5.6 (football) and iso is on auto. It is a starting point for beginners, like the bloody rule of thirds.
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.
I learned Manual Mode but I really like FV mode on Canon M6 mark II. I trust my camera so ISO is usually set to Auto. I can also do that in Manual. FV just makes it so I can tap the screen to change f stop or shutter speed quicker. I also sometimes need to change exposure compensation quickly. Good video.
I like this approach, Though I did learn the triangle way back in the day. But like you said ISO was never a variable you could change. Once a roll of film was loaded we were stuck with that ISO. Aperture and shutter speed were really the only variables.
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)
I’ve been shooting for 60+ years and yes the “exposure triangle” can be confusing. If explained properly it doesn’t have to be confusing. When it comes to f/stops I tell photo newbies, think of f/stops has fractions, 90% of will understand the concept.
I have been taking photographs for a very long time, several decades. Back then we had either an ISO 100 or 400 in the camera. Inevitably you learn how to deal with aperture and time and continue taking photographs. It really depends on what you want to photograph. And today's cameras offer options for everyone. There is no right or wrong. When I'm photographing seriously static subjects, especially with flash, I'm in M mode and ISO 100. When I jump through the world with my camera, I preselect my aperture and time and use the automatic ISO. Photography technology has never been easier. But why are today's pictures usually so bad? Do people today pay more attention to the technology of the camera or the quality of the lens and no longer to the image itself?
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.
If you have a camera in your hand, you already have the Exposure triangle in front of you. Each controls functions of the triangle and without it, you have black or you have white or you have grey... that's all there is to it. So you literally explained the exposure triangle in an extremely detailed way bro!!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Awesome. Tha is for dumping the triangle. You're right. Doesn't work. Love the simplified version you explained. Your photos are amazing to say the least.
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.
Oh yes. Can’t agree more! Exposure Triangle is one of the most basic principles in photography which I had learned in college. And I believe it’s true. You need to go to school 🏫 for knowledge and stop 🛑 misleading people. LOL 😂
Have you thought about doing modelling shoots around Newcastle/ lake Macquarie areas ? From all types of photographers. From beginners to pro Photographers . From cheap to pricey shoots . It seems that not many people do this locations. You seem to have a lot of followers. Morning, day time, afternoon, night times? Is about teaching others? Seems to be the tend. I wonder how many people on here would be interested in shooting models with you.. just a thought.
I've never really used the exposure triangle, for many of the reasons you cite in the introduction. When I teach exposure I use the metaphor of a bucket being filled from a tap. If you want to get a certain amount of water in the bucket, you can open the tap fully (wide aperture) and fill the bucket quickly (fast shutter speed), or open the tap slightly (small aperture) and it takes longer to fill the bucket (slow shutter speed). So this introduces the idea of a choice between two related variables. I then go on to look at the secondary effects of aperture and shutter (DoF and motion blur), as a rationale for why you would want to choose between those variables. Later we keep that metaphor and think of the pixels on the sensor as the buckets. An empty pixel is black, a full pixel is white. If you let so much light in that all the neighbouring pixels are white (buckets are full to overflowing), you've got an area of burnt out highlights! I introduce ISO as like the volume control on a radio, with the question; "what if your chosen aperture / shutter combination is making the picture too dark?" Some of the subtleties and trade-offs we cover later, normally after reviewing some of the students' images (e.g you might choose a higher ISO over a slower shutter speed in poor light, since you can fix noise in post-processing but you can't really fix camera-shake). (ps. I also use an old film camera to demo shutter speed! It's a great way of bringing to life some of the functions of a camera that are increasingly buried in the box of technology. When showing the different shutter speeds in the back of the camera I ask the group to visualise someone on a bike riding across the frame. I ask them to think about how far the bike would have travelled across the frame during the various times the shutter was open. I find this helps to illustrate motion-blur.)
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?
You are not alone in this I follow the photographer Joe Edelman he says the same thing. Last week on his live stream he broke down the origin pf the phrase.
“Useless”??? Hmmm, can’t agree with that I’m afraid … it’s more like a law of physics, if you change the angle of any of the intersections of the triangle the length of the one or more of the sides changes. Like any Law of Physics, you may not necessarily know why or how it works, but nevertheless it’s still there, working away to keep the universe ticking away. Well over 50 years of photographic experience and I still believe in the triangle!
While I agree with everything that was said I think it would be important to mention in the same video how shutter speed affects ability to freeze the motion and the aperture affects the depth of field.
Yes caméras have à fixed sensitivity as films did. When you increase iso you amplify the signal, that is it. The real triangle include reflected light on the subject. All parameters equal changing iso only affects brightness after an equal exposure. When we pushed films from 400 to 1600 we did not increase exposure we wanted to over develop a to dark image. À sensor or film is calibrated to give a medium Grey at a native sensitivity. As soon as you don't follow base sensitivity you send more or less light on the sensor what creates a too or less exposed image. Changing iso is asking the camera to modify, generally increase the exposure. Iso doesn't generate noise on the contrary, what create noise is a lack of signal, a weak exposure. Indeed some cameras don't have iso dial when their sensor is iso indépendant, you just correct your underexposition in post production, your camera does not do the job. And look at handheld meters zero triangle, circles showing equivalent exposures, the way to understand parameters. It exists since the creation of photo, and will go on as long as we use a sensitive materiel. OH and make too people lay under the sun to be exposed to the same amount of light, one may burn although it received the SAME exposure. Sensitivity will affect the result of a given exposure. It will push you to choose one exposure, but exposure will occur whatever it falls on. What is bad is that people think that increasing iso will increase light on the sensor, no it does not
The actual video and explanation might me fine but the quality of sound and video leave a lot to be desired which makes the video harder to watch. He's out of focus the whole time, video is quite blurry in general and the sound is constantly clipping 😢. A "Pro" should easily be able to get this right, it tampers the credibility of the video quite a bit
I tickled me how you referred to the £1,000 Nikon FM3 as redundant 'beginner' technology. Without all the modern technical wizardry, I'm astonished how early 20th century photogs created such beautiful images. I guess their magic came from the dark-room rather than computer generated post-processing. Photography (painting with light) will always create controversy whether digital or film. I'm a member of some Facebook 'film photography' groups who's members insist that scanning and digitally manipulating their film images is OK. It kind of defeats the object (for me) - just capture the image digitally in the first place!
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).
In my opinion much ado about... not much. Aperture, shutter speed and ISO setting allow one to control how their image is recorded. In the same conditions touching one can be compensated by either of the two others, so they are linked (which is not the case with AF ;o). And what about the f 16 rule if SS, Aperture and ISO are not linked?
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.
The Exposure Triangle is only confusing and "useless" when it is poorly explained and leaves out key information. Which, with all due respect, you have just done. Aperture, shutter speed and ISO are juggled, together, to come to the best compromise between all three settings to fit the intent of the photographer for a given subject/situation. While you have shown, using the actual camera body and lens, how the shutter and apertures physically work, and how they together influence exposure...which is great...you go on, seeming to say that ISO is irrelevant until post-processing, while in the same comment stream speak about how you then go about setting ISO to fit the needs of the photograph while you're in the field; higher if it's darker, lower if it's brighter. If ISO is a useless post-processing afterthought, why are you bothering to set it to suit the available light in the field at the point of exposure? I don't understand that contradiction. As other commenters have stated, ISO in the digital world HAS become an integral part of the exposure equation and no matter how far down the pecking order it is relegated it doesn't change the fact that every exposure involves ISO as part of that equation. By undermining variable ISO you greatly hobble the variety and number of exposure combinations possible with aperture and shutter speed alone. Additionally, and very important, is not omitting information about the artistic contributions of aperture and shutter speed to the photographer's artistic intent when talking about exposure (or the exposure triangle)... they are integral. What good is a useable exposure combination that doesn't take into consideration the photographer's vision in other aspects... is the selected shutter speed is too low or too high for the subject matter, or the depth of focus is too shallow or too wide to achieve the intent of the photographer? Speaking about useable exposure combinations without considering the artistic intent, the WHY, of aperture and shutter speed, and how ISO can help to facilitate better outcomes misses the essence of the Exposure Triangle. I'm not saying I've done a good or comprehensive job of explaining it myself, but I think you are poo-pooing a very useful tool, which, when clearly explained, will change your understanding of the fundamental juggling act of exposure and lead to amazing, intentional results. TH-camr Sean Tucker has a very good explanation of the Exposure Triangle and how to use it. How to Nail Exposure using Manual Mode
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.
Commenting is probably a waste of time after 250 comments. Have I missed something? Your replacement to the exposure triangle, was talking about the ... the exposure triangle settings?? Basically, leaving ISO in a more reserve importance (but you still need to know it??), and changing shutter speed or the aperture by trial and error. I don't know any beginner on digital learning the exposure triangle settings who has set the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO using a formula, and then go out and shoot a ton of photos without looking at each shot and then trying to get it right. Yeah, you set a starting point, look at the results, and then you will find out by trial and error what you need or could do. But you need to know the good range of ISO, shutter, and aperture, or the impact of turning each up or down. You also need to know something about ISO, and that 12,000 or 24,000 is not a good starting point one fine day when you start learning to shoot. Sorry, have I missed something? You're presenting yourself with something different to say, but it's the same (and ignoring the fact you have experience to draw on)?? Bonus!: Learn to shoot mirrorless on a Fujifilm X-T camera with an XF lens (prime, or constant aperture zoom). This setup gives each exposure triangle setting visually and tactilely right in front of you all the time whether the camera is on or off. Each triangle setting can also be independently directly put in and out of auto to see what the camera would do. The X-T3 is probably the best X-T camera to learn on, as it is the newest without IBIS, so that camera shake can be learnt with shutter speed values (assuming the lens has no OIS). But maybe that's not so important these days, but it's a basic grounding to experience. Also know that the X-T3 exposure compensation dial just changes the three exposure triangle settings, and only the ones set on auto. Best left alone when learning. Sorry, I actually think better advice is to learn on the X-T3 rather than pretending you're not learning the exposure triangle, when you actually are!
You are telling people it is complicated. I have never heard anyone speak of an exposure triangle. I started photography in the early 1960s, in Australia. 😊
The headline says the exposure triangle doesn't work. There's zero talking on how it doesn't work. Watched the whole video. How does it not work? You explained it well. But you never explained how it doesn't work.
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.
What's hard? It's chemistry (or the digital replica) powered by light. Aperture is a function of the math controlled by the lens to give a useful circle of confusion. OK, maybe just three things is easier.
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
Of course the exposure triangle is relevant. And of course there needs to be some greater explanation as to what each control does for the exposure. But to say it is useless is misleading to the beginners.
Sorry ...aperture priority, iso automatic upto your highest setting you camera is capable of keeping clean, set minimum shutter speed depending on light conditions and use exposure compensation to adjust exposure ...
So essentially what everyone here is arguing about comes to what people mean with the word "exposure". Sure, ISO doesn't affect the physics but it sure as hell affects the end result. Everyone getting all up and arms about the exposure triangle just can't fathom that the word "exposure" in that context means the what the image looks like. Who cares if ISO changes the signal to noise ratio or if higher ASA film created higher/bigger grain. Shutter speed, aperture and ISO affect the end result, all work within "stops of light" so stop bickering about semantics.
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)
One question aren't you to old for clickbait? Ohhh my bad there's no age for that...? Exposure triangle is not a concept is just the 3 elements you have to work with is not about a cool concept or something trending is the way camaras are built and you have to understand your tools just as in any order business.... from that bullshit title I was expecting a young TH-camr eager too get views...but common now man!!!
Instead of explaining why a higher aperture number means a smaller opening (1 divided by x), you are throwing in the F word. That's of poor educational value.
Knowing since previous millenium what aperture, shutter speed and film sensitivity are and how they balance one another, I clicked this film only because of the nice lady from the cover I thought will be the presenter. I am disappointed.
Well regardless of what this chap says about exposure triangle, he just spent 14 minutes or so of explaining it yet again . . . just on a more rudimentary level for . . . ? anyway ... exposure requires all three tools incorporated in a camera - ANY camera. So its just a cat of a different color... Best part of video - great looking girls - great lighting . . .
Ever shot dance concerts and productions? Bands? Anything moving at a decent speed in low light? Just based on the description, I won't watch this, but its not enough to skip this video, I need to press the "Don't recommend this channel" button.
I read an artical back in the late 80s that digital would be the demise of the professional photographer, and for a long time it did hurt the profession. That is fact. Im not going to glaze over my knowledge of what I learned as a retired professional photographer of over 40 years, still shooting and now using digital. The sad, reallity is digital has made todays photographers lazy. Many are very good but, many are lazy. You have the luxury of cameras that can do everything to create an image and you really don't have to deep think exposure. Iso, plain and simple boosts your light sensitivity. Why would you be boosting your iso in a controlled studio, unless you have low power lights, 100ws. Only if You the need the help, but 400, 600 or 1000ws, why would you need to boost iso. You really don't know how unlucky you really are and how for many, todays equipment is doing you a tremendous disservice, due to being able to give you iso setting in the thousands range. How do you really learn to control ligjt if its at you finger tips. I had limited film speeds to use and it was like that for decades. Pushing film was our option, and then developing for that push. Yes it helps to extend your exposure range in low Iight, or your lens is not fast enough. Im going to give you a test to do. Turn off your auto iso. You have only the ability to expose at 100 iso in the studio . Outdoors, at dusk, 400 or push to 800. Indoors in a low light enviroment, the same as outdoors. Do not cheat yourself, and shoot manual, not auto. You are a photographer. You need to think, not the camera. If you stay true to this, you will thank me. I learned from an analogue world. Dont let it control you, you control it. You are the professional, not your equipment. Dont let it be a crutch...and if you use the auto settings as a rule, shame on you.
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.
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.
Well duh, a line art triangle does not explain things. The exposure triangle, including ISO as a component of “exposure”, is of course THE fundamental component of understanding photography and exposure.
Dude just explained the exposure triangle without explaining the exposure triangle. I'm sorry (no I'm not) but the exposure triangle really has nothing to do with getting proper exposure it's about understanding artistic choices. Your video would have made sense if you said we shouldn't be calling it the exposure triangle and then pled your case otherwise it's lost on me what your true point was here. Heaven forbid someone doesn't care about how all three of these things work together and then decide they want to shoot a film camera where there is no feedback until you develop your film.
There is no triangle. There is more light or less light, for more or less time. ISO isn't something you change - it's a design parameter the camera is designed at to produce the best image. In video, when shooting in LOG you have a base ISO and you don't change it, you vary the light with aperture, ND, and lighting.
I think we are talking photography here not video (although the same thing applies). Yes on a camera ISO was/is something you change: with film you changed the film, in digital photography you boost the signal received by the sensor. Why is it that my 25000 ISO night shots handheld are better (without any motion blur) than my 50 ISO ones handheld too? The whole thing with the triangle is for a set exposure if you modify one of the parameters (SS, f-stop, ISO) then you have to modify any of the two other parameters (ISO included thence the link between the 3 sides of the triangle) or both to get the same original exposure.
So you said you set your ISO before using the SS + Aperture. You're using the Exposure triangle, Well done.🤣 You can call it what you want but it's the exposure triangle, you explain Aperture and SS which are exactly the same in the Triangle and need to be understood with the same explanation so it's hardly like your "fruit" triangle. There is one Fruit in the video though 🤪
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)
I once read an article that said "Don't waste your time budgeting, do this instead." The article went on to say that you should create a spending plan instead. Well, what is a spending plan?.......Turns out, it looks very suspiciously like a budget. After watching this video, I'm left with a similar feeling. You can call the exposure triangle whatever you want. At the end of the day, if you're shooting your digital camera manually, then you're going to be setting 3 values when you take a photograph..... Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO. What matters is that you understand what each of the values does and how to set them properly. When I was learning the basics of photography, the exposure triangle made a lot of sense to me.
Thanks for your comment.
With all due respect, this is old-school thinking. I was raised on film also and for the most part, iso was a fixed parameter and exposure decisions were primarily limited to shutter speed and aperture. But not anymore. I shoot iso's from 64 to 8000 and get solid results. This ability makes iso an equal player with shutter speed and aperture - ie the exposure triangle. Of course, one needs to understand the workings of all three to make the best photographic decisions. And understanding how to use shutter speed and aperture creatively is key to great images. Shutter speed and aperture are the creative tools of image making while iso allows one to have a much greater range of using these tools with modern cameras. Forcing oneself to work with a fixed iso just limits your creativity. All three are key in controlling exposure. Sorry, but the exposure triangle is alive and well.
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.
It’s been very successful for many decades. I have never heard anyone complain that it doesn’t work…
But whatever works for you.
The ISO is still part of the exposure triangle, because you still will change it relative to available light. It’s helpful to know that it’s applied gain/a post process but that doesn’t really translate into using the setting drastically different.
You are NOT changing the amount of light hitting the sensor by increasing or decreasing the ISO.
The ISO number denotes the SENSITIVITY to light of the Sensor.
"The exposure triangle is useless to teach people how to expose their image properly..." And yet....it's how we all learned! Are photographers today too dimwitted to learn what generations of photographers have learned? If you set a certain shutter speed and aperture, there is only one "correct" ISO (call it ISO, digital gain or a bagel if you want) to achieve the "proper" exposure based on your artistic intent. Whether you set it in the camera or in post, it is pretty much forced on you (unless you change shutter speed or aperture), and is therefore very much a vital part of the equation. I understand that most modern cameras can handle high "bagel" very well, and some are even "bagel" invariant, but my 60+ years of experience have taught me that it is always better to get the exposure right in the camera, and why wouldn't you? It isn't brain surgery!
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
I have of course heard this topic debated many times, having been involved with photography for about 37 years. I sometimes now teach intro classes and when I do, I still use the exposure triangle. The reason I do is because I find it is a visual representation that people can understand - it's a basic shape after all, and the corners indicate that all sides are connected.
That said, I also spend considerable time teaching pretty much what you just presented in this video, which is that shutter speed and aperture are the settings that control how much light reaches the sensor, along with movement, motion depth of field and some very basic info around diffraction. I think when people do understand the functions of the three settings, and gain appreciation for the importance of light it leads to a good understanding of how to effectively use the settings.
More and more these days ISO is being thought of as a more active part of setting exposure it seems, and I guess that's due to advancements in sensor technologies. That's fine, but so far I have had good results using the triangle, presenting it in a way that is respectful of the fact that only ss & aperture actually control the amount of light reaching the sensor.
I certainly am never upset by alternate points of view. I hear them out and think about them. Maybe eventually one will come along that really changes my mind - I'm open to that.
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?
@@melaniezette886 when using a film camera you determine the ISO when you purchase the roll of film
His advice means not using ISO much to get decent exposure. That may work fine when you shoot models (as he does apparently) who sit still when asked. It won't when shooting sports or willife with lots of hard to predict motion. Then you need short exposures to avoid motion blur and small apature for deep depth of field, given motion again. ISO often quite high is a critical tool for decent results.
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.
A run around all just to come back to a triangle of 3 settings
Thanks for your comment.
I'm old school. Photography students (of whom I was never one) were expected to have basic qualifications in Mathematics, and usually in Science as well. Students would be expected to be able to grasp the two basic mathematical functions involved in the triangle, that f stops, shutter speeds and ISO are all related by a 2x function and that aperture is the ratio of focal distance to aperture diameter, hence it is inverse. Then the triangle works well. The triangle does not date from the beginnings of photography. The earliest photographers had only instinctive knowledge of film speed, had to count exposure by hand and the modern aperture scale was a late development. The triangle was a real boon, as was the concept of Exposure Value which exploited it. On a digital camera if you set the shutter speed and aperture to the desired settings but get the ISO wrong you will not be able to recover highlights or shadows as the case may be.
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.
The exposure triangle only shows that there is a relationship between the three elements, it doesn't tell what exposure to use, it assumes all three elements are in harmony. Like the volt/ohms/amps triangle it tells you that if you vary one, at least one other must be changed to compensate to get back to equilibrium. If you lengthen or shorten one side of the triangle, then one or both of the other sides has to change to make the triangle whole again, albeit a different shape. As a pro photographer for 51 years, the first question I ask is, how much depth of field do I want/need, that dictates the aperture, the second question is how fast, if at all, the subject is moving, that will determine what shutter speed is appropriate ( do I want subject and background sharp (fast shutter) or a blurred background (slower shutter) or indeed some motion in the subject (even slower shutter)) , the third question and the ONLY variable, what ISO do I need to achieve this criteria. No matter what situation you are in, studio or outdoors ALL three make the desired brightness of the image. I refrained from saying correct exposure because that it a whole different ball-game!! Now, because I shoot sport the light is often varying within an event, sunshine, now no sunshine, so I elect to use Aperture priority, set the aperture and shutter speed and allow the camera to vary the ISO. If things get REALLY bad (extreme drop or increase in light levels) then the shutter will begin to vary as well, which is not good!!!
You are correct Brian. Thanks for your comment.
You did a great explanation... of the exposure triangle 😂
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."
The exposure triangle exists to remind you of the three things you can manipulate to alter the outcome of the exposure. It is also a representation of the 1:1:1 ratio of those things. ISO is not a post process thing (even if you want to see it as digital gain) and it never has been. JPEGs are the digital equivalent of a finished print done in camera, there is no post processing. But even on film you decide what ISO to espose for before you hit the shutter.
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.
You have some nice photos and obviously know what you're doing.
I think the main idea of the triangle is that if you can't realistically move one of the three, you might move another. Further, I think that moving ISO is really only best for low light situations when you're already wide open and now you have to choose between shutter and ISO.
For example, I just took a photo indoors and to be able to see it, I had to be: f/2.8 1/5" and 800 ISO. However, remembering the triangle, I knew I could speed up the shutter for each of the steps I took higher in ISO. I retook the shot at f/2.8 1/40" and 6400 ISO and got the same exposure. From looking at each, the second is a much better photo, as despite the extra noise in the second, the first had too much motion blur.
When dealing with low light, it's better to make a noisy sharp photo, rather than a clean blur.
I agree.
As a pro in London for the last 37 years and elsewhere before that. I think you make some decent points. I think the one thing that many are missing is that you are simplifying the teaching on the mechanics and there`s nothing wrong with that.
Exactly. Thank you.
Except denying the existence of a tool that generations of photographers (including pros) have used so far.
Exposure is one thing, but aperture controls DOF, shutter speed the ability to stop or allow motion to blur, and ISO allows you to balance the other two. You need to understand all 3 if you want all full control. that before you even factor in grain/noise characteristics.
Thanks Mark. I was trying to keep the explanation simple without confusing people with non-exposure choices.
The Exposure Triangle is all about the relationship of the three controls/variables and their direct effect upon the other two should one be changed.
The illustration flashed up during the video presentation for the briefest of moments outlined the benefits of adjusting anyone of them for a particular result. However, what is missed by many a teacher is the supportive information related to Stops that should go hand in hand with an explanation of the triangle.
It is true that Automatic ISO exists and almost allows limitless combinations of shutter speed and aperture. It still however does have an impact on the quality of the final image. Whilst much can now be done to reduce noise with the powerful tools of Photoshop and the inbuilt processing power of many a mirrorless camera today it is important to explain the benefits of a quality capture in the first instance and to not rely on the wizardry.
Also, we should consider those who will perhaps one day venture to experiment with film and will have to learn to work with film with a fixed ISO rating to the end of the roll.
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??
There is one thing in your presentation that I do appreciate greatly - reminding me the simple fact that in digital cameras ISO is NOT related to the sensor's sensitivity to light but is in fact the POST production AMPLIFICATION of the signal by the digital amplifier/processor. Along with the above - what the sensor' base ISO is (its actual sensitivity to light, either 100 or 200). In my opinion every photographer must understand these two facts. Thank you for pointing it out. Yet, I agree with some other comments that manipulating the ISO as needed is an integral part of the creative process of taking digital photographs since it gives us tremendously more freedom in using shutter speed and aperture.
Thank you for your comment.
ISO is and was always a part of the exposure equation. By choosing “slow” (low ISO) film, you limited yourself to longer shutter speeds and/or shallower depth of field; choosing faster film (high ISO) gave you a better chance to freeze action or have a greater depth of field. In the film days, ISO was even a creative choice, because high speed film was grainier, which you could use as an effect. Digital cameras simply made ISO more flexible; choosing ISO has become a decision that you can make for every single exposure, and not for a whole roll of 24 or 36 shots. Digital cameras also made ISO more important, because the noise free or low noise range of ISO has reached ISO values that were not possible on film. In th film days, the fastest film I ever shot was rated ISO 400, while my modern digital cameras leet me shoot up to 6400 or 10000 with little noise.
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).
As a 25 year video pro, the Exposure Triangle concept was VERY helpful to me learning digital photography when I needed to start incorporating photos into my work back in 2012 with my first DSLR, a Canon 60D 😮
That's great. Everyone has their own way of learning and doing.
I didn't know how to use a "real" camera, so I took an evening class to learn.
What I came away with was an understanding of what shutter speed, aperture and ISO controls actually do to your image.
IMO balancing exposure is secondary to depth of field and motion of subject and you can't teach the balancing of exposure without first explaining these things.
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
Great review! Another way to look at aperture is that the smaller number also controls depth of field (which is depth of the sharpest in focus area front to back), so the smaller is narrower depth of field/in focus area, and larger Fstop is larger depth of field/in focus area. Not just how much light it lets in. Using this analogy helps to remember what aperture also does related to its size/F stop number. Cheers!
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)
Mmm. I can see what you are trying to say but not sure removing one side of the triangle helps. Irrespective of whether the camera post processes the image or not(raw images certainly not) if I set an f stop for effect and a corresponding shutter speed, my only way to then control exposure is with ISO setting. In my film camera this is by selection of a specific ASA/ISO stock(let’s not get into semantics of ASA vs ISO- ostensibly same) and then push or pull or standard processing. In digital camera I dial in my ISO for my desired exposure. Even in Raw if I mis-set the ISO I won’t get a useable image regardless of post processing. If I lock in my digital to a specific ISO(I often do) then I have the other two sides of the triangle to control exposure. Sure, set ISO to auto, and forget it, but it is still an essential part of the photographic process and required understanding by photographers. With all due respect, I can’t see how this is a difficult subject for people to get their head around. It has been a supporting tenet of photography since standard film stock was designed.
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.
I very much agree with what you are saying here. If ISO was supposed to be apart of the exposure triangle, then somewhere in the middle of it's range 200 - 6400 then 3300 would be the baseline, or "middle gray". I've been binge-watching your videos and I saw your "Popup flash magic" video first, I thought it was such an amazing video.
Thank you. Many more to come.
When I had my Pentax gear, I'd always use Auto for my first shot and get an idea of how the camera is reacting to the light and what it's recording. Once I've seen that, I'll go to full manual mode or aperture priority, adjust as necessary to suit my requirements.
I've just moved across to micro four-thirds and the OM-1 so it's a whole different ballgame for me now but experience has taught me the basics so I set the camera up as I think fit, take a test shot and adjust as necessary.
That is a great way to work Ray.
If you think of Aperture numbers as a fraction, the correlation of numbers to size makes sense. For example, f16 is much smaller than f8.
In the same way, shutter speed is a fraction of a second. 1/400 second is faster, letting less light in, than 1/100 of a second. Bigger numbers = less light.
Regardless of how ISO works on digital cameras, it does affect the image coming out of the camera. Low ISO (100) is less sensitive to light than High ISO numbers (1600). You need a higher ISO in dark situations.
If you want to ignore ISO, set it to AUTO, with a maximum shutter speed. Note that higher ISO numbers can give you grainy pictures.
Shooting at f16 with a shutter speed of 1/500 and an ISO of 200 in a dark room will probably get you nothing. Those same settings outside at noon on a sunny day will be more successful.
Aperture controls more than just light. It has an effect on depth of field - how much of your scene is in focus. Smaller numbers = narrow depth and bigger numbers give you more depth of focus.
Shutter speed also impacts focus. Faster shutter speeds can freeze motion. Slower speeds lead to blurrier pictures - especially when hand held. Camera movement can cause blurry pictures.
Photography is often a dance between shutter speed and aperture. Faster shutter speeds can lead to sharper pictures, but you need more light. Same with Aperture. Smaller apertures gives greater depth of focus, if you have enough light.
Photography is really all about the light. Learn to pay more attention to the light and make other decisions based on that. With practice, it all starts to make more sense.
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
Hello, thanks for the video. I had a similar realization at one point as the "exposure" is really the amount of light, and the ASA/ISO doesn't affect that part no matter what you change the dial to. In the past days of film, changing ISO wasn't really a thing. To do so meant meant changing your film. Today its as simple as turning a knob between photos. In the past you had to change film- if you had different film available. In the 35mm world that meant waiting til you were at the end of a roll (unless you were really clever) or had another camera with different stock.
Same for medium format, but most of those had backs that could be changed in the middle of a roll, but you still needed to have purchased and brought the other film with you. Not so anymore with digital.
Today I'd say that ASA is MORE important than it ever was because it directly affects what amount of light is needed. It "turns up the volume" as you mentioned.
Yes. She makes it much easier for me.Thanks for your comment.
Im just a newbie in the world of manual photography. Ive watched videos for and against the exposure triangle, and ive seen people talk about the exposure pie aswell, which is just a pie chart with the same concept. You could even call it the exposure square if you add exposure compensation dial to the list! To me, using a fujifilm x-t20, and having analog controls for aperture, shutter speed, and iso on the body (in the shape of a triangle) and just like the old school slr's, the exposure triangle makes sense to me. Its just 3 features of the camera that use light to expose your shot (even though iso is artificial light). Im currently using auto-iso which the camera changes depending on the situation, but with fujifilm, what you see on screen is what you get, so at 8:55 to 9:20, you're right, that's what i do! The video was worth a listen from the timestamps above.
Ps. At 10:02, that's your exposure triangle on screen (left, right, bottom)!
Use whatever system that enables you to control your image. We are all different.
The title is clickbait plain and simple.
It’s all about the workings of the exposure triangle but with a fixed iso.
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.
Nice video. I like that you are starting with fundamentals.100% agree to start with easily understandable terms like “faster/slower” and “bigger/smaller” instead of abstract jargon of “stops.”
Thank you.
Sorry but when I was shooting film, the ISO was a standard parameter in the film being used and could not be changed which made it important that the F stop and Shutter speed were set so the best quality photo was the result. Also, a lot of thought had to go into the shoot with film and use the proper ISO and type of film for the shooting conditions and surroundings for depth of field desired. I agree that changing the Shutter speed or the F stop does change the amount of light that enters the camera but the ISO also is a large part in what shutter speed and F stop should be used.
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
Your explanation is easy to follow , but for me exposure triangle is much more intuitive and easy to remember and put into practice , that is the way my brain works. I am still a very tech savvy @65 who off late started looking at photography more seriously, upgraded from Sony A6600 to Sony A7Cii full frame cameras and a few G master lenses recently , mainly for travel photography…
That's great that you are enjoying your photography. Thank you for your comment.
I agree with you, but will describe it this way. The ligth which come to the sensor is regulated with ND-filter, apparture and exposure time.
ISO is an analog amplifing of the signal from the sensor before the ad-conversion. The later explains the noise in high iso.
Thank you for your comment.
True ! You have to deal with bellow extension and film failure reciprocity too. It's no more a triangle 😜
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)
Believe what you want, say what you want.
If I set exposure and apature to get the look that I want, the ISO, ASA on analog photography, if the only possible thing to change to get a proper exposure.
So I'll remain thinking about the exposure triangle.
Seem to me that your many years into photography has increased your ability to "hook" others by talking. BTW, if you pay attention to your video, you actually agree with the exposure triangle only you used different words to initially sound like you don't. Oh well.
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.
You can't solve a maths problem with two thirds of the information!! Where is your 'datum' to be able to set your (other) two adjustments? Are you shooting on auto ISO?? which removes this part of snapping a pic? How is the sensitivity of your medium measured to correct your (other two) adjustments to create the look you like and are working for? OR are you just saying "Get a point n shoot"????
Thanks for your comment.
I don't know if you've been talking to certain people? But I've never understood the triangle. As a lifetime beginner photographer . With a learning disability. I find it hard to adapt to lots of ideas/ things. I currently own a Canon camera 📷 with a Sigma 60-600mm sports lens. X10. I tend not to play with the settings as I'm frightened that I won't be able to get them back. It shouldn't be this way . But it is. I understand lots of people wouldn't own a lens like mine being a lifetime beginner photographer. This lens is an amazing lens . But I can't seem to find or get somebody to tell me actually works with my camera. The other week I took some photos in a place which was darkish . But the photos actually came out better than I thought. Somebody was telling me about taking photos. And I could make the photo brighter if it was in a dark area? EV / HDR ? I DON'T UNDERSTAND EITHER OF THESES. I simply just take a single shot at a time. But getting a brighter picture at the other end would be great/fantastic. I see all sorts of things through my lens. And most people can't explain what I see? The lens also has its own software. I have heard many stories that this lens is way too heavy for most people. The total white weight depends on what sort of camera you own. The lens does have some down side to it. When shooting some close ups ??????? I would also like to meet people that have the same setup as I do. Real time or online and maybe I can learn from them. If they are willing to teach others. I only own DSLR Cameras. I find TH-cam and people like you really help others . And maybe one day might be experienced to take one of courses. I don't know how much of what I said relates to others?
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.
Being an amateur photographer for around 35 years, I understand your idea that ISO is not part of the exposure - but this concept applies only to film photography. The exposure triangle definitely applies to digital photography, since the ISO is not adjusted after the sensor exposure (like during a film development), but before the exposure.
Thank you for your comment.
gotcha .... this video was actually brilliant ... for people who find a concept of large hole being described by a small number and vice versa difficult .. for others, well, how would I say it ... others just know that the ISO is derived and you use the lowest acceptable ISO to combination of aperture and minimal shutter speed that you need for your shot
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)
My 2nd comment … I must say that your information on aperture, shutter speed and ISO are correct and well explained, but changing one affects the others, hence the triangle. Your example images show that you are an experienced and accomplished photographer!
Thanks Larry for your comments.
Well, you get a thumbs up for explaining all the elements, but I’ve always found the exposure triangle a helpful concept, since all 3 directly affect the image captured. Obviously the aperture and shutter speed are the only parameters (unless you are using filters) which affect the incoming light, but an iso value is required BEFORE an image file is recorded. In this flexible digital world of photography, it is possible to brighten an image 5 or 6 stops with minimal degradation, but after that images will look poor. Because many cameras are “dual gain” it usually pays to set the iso higher in low light, rather than brightening in post. If you are interested I use auto-iso for all handheld shots and iso 64 for most tripod landscapes. These days I cap my auto-iso at 16,000 because I find my Topaz plugins can remove noise effectively. Z6 and Z7.
We all have our own way of working. The most important thing is to have fun doing it.
I completely agree. As a beginner, the Exposure Triangle never made sense to me. If anything it just made things more confusing. Listening to those who insist on explaining the ET as such, has never been helpful to my way of thinking. Generally I shoot in ISO auto with constraints. The only time I look to change the ISO is when, given the conditions, I cannot achieve my desired ontcome through adjusting my aperture and shutter speed.
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)
Clearly, by the number of comments, you've stirred the pot, and good for you. I've been saying this almost as long as I've been a photographer (only a few years), but most don't want to hear it. Now, I did run across some engineers of sensors that suggested in duel gain sensors, like the Nikon Z9, when you move from ISO 400 to ISO 500, the sensor actually does become more sensitive to photons - BUT ONLY AT THAT ISO. Capacitance also drops so the DR at ISO 500 is actually better than 400 (See photons to photos). All in all, there is no relationship of ISO to exposure although the manuals of all Nikon, Canon, Sony etc. would make you think there is. Light enters through the lens and is increased or decreased with aperture or shutter speed in almost all cases. ISO is amplification of signal already recorded in nearly all cases (again, what the engineers tell me). I wouldn't say learning the exposure triangle is worthless, but in reality, the relationship being explained doesn't exist. More power to you and I love that the few people willing to point this out, sometimes do! Much appreciated!
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???
It's my understanding that aperture is F (focal length)/(a fraction of the hole size). This explains the size of the numbers being that a larger portion of the hole is a larger size hole thus /1.8 is larger than /11. (1/1.8 is a larger fraction than 1/11. 1.8 is fewer parts of the pie than cutting it into 11 parts and taking 1 of them).
ISO simply explains the sensitivity of the exposed area, as you stated. ISO is the abbreviation of the chemical "isochron" that determines the sensitivity of film. I hope that I didn't overstep any bounds with this. I am just trying to help...
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)
There is not a competent photographer who does not consider the exposure triangle either deliberately or by experience and then if augmented light...strobes and flash or even reflectors and scrims... before taking a photo.
ISO in film was film sensitivity and in digital is amplification factor and it important for your final image, mostly degree of amplified signal to noise ratio of the sensor and analog post sensor amplifier.
It is important.
Shutter speed has a definite impact of the image, and its value chosen by the photographer is pretty deliberate, since it determines the image sharpness, the noise in the image file and how sensitive the subject is to movement. Its choice is very important to match the speed of movement of the camera or subject
It is important
Aperture is a deliberate choice also in that the aperture not only controls the amount of light per unity of time striking the sensor but also the depth of field, how much of the foreground and back ground is in focus, a gradual fall off or rapid, and really impacts the captured image.
It is important
A 4th factor is introduced when using augmented lighting such as flash or strobes, very common situations, and the light contribution by a strobe, or flash to the final exposure is based on duration of the strobe or flash. The longer a pulse of light is, the greater of light that is captured while the shutter is open. That ratio of the prior 3 exposure elements to flash duration determines final exposure and it very deliberately selected by the photographer to get the desired ratio of ambient to flash light.
It is important.
These factors under control of the photographer combine to determine the final result, they are all chosen deliberately by the photographer so the beginner should become accustomed to considering all the settings when visualizing the final result and so are the very first topics to become familiar with.
Thank you for the explanation.
And then you have flash with flash power being the variable that comes off the aperture and ISO variables of the exposure triangle forming the exposure diamond - being made of 2 exposure triangles with flash exposure dependent upon flash power, ISO and aperture and is independent of shutter speed.
I have been photographing for 60 years and only learned of the exposure triangle a couple of years ago - never did and still don't use it.
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.
As a newbie I've found this video fantastic!! Thank you!
Thank you for watching.
Do you not think the triangle comes from the old days, sunny 16 rule, iso set by film, aperture set by conditions and subject. So to EVF I want my shutter at250, aperture f5.6 but to keep them there I move my iso dial and the EVF shows lighter or darker in the viewfinder. I certainly know sports photographers who set speed to 250th and 5.6 (football) and iso is on auto. It is a starting point for beginners, like the bloody rule of thirds.
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.
I learned Manual Mode but I really like FV mode on Canon M6 mark II. I trust my camera so ISO is usually set to Auto. I can also do that in Manual. FV just makes it so I can tap the screen to change f stop or shutter speed quicker. I also sometimes need to change exposure compensation quickly. Good video.
Thank you.
I like this approach, Though I did learn the triangle way back in the day. But like you said ISO was never a variable you could change. Once a roll of film was loaded we were stuck with that ISO. Aperture and shutter speed were really the only variables.
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)
You are spot on and im with you. Great explanation. My response comment im sure is going to get alot of blow back...truth hurts.
Thanks Michael.
A very good way to explain the basics. I was confused for a long time. I wish I had seen this many years ago.
Thank you.
Good argument but what were the random image insertions with rubbish music for?
I think the best way to explain f-stop is as a fraction. So...f 1/2.8 is a larger opening (number) than f 1/22.
I’ve been shooting for 60+ years and yes the “exposure triangle” can be confusing. If explained properly it doesn’t have to be confusing. When it comes to f/stops I tell photo newbies, think of f/stops has fractions, 90% of will understand the concept.
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
I have been taking photographs for a very long time, several decades. Back then we had either an ISO 100 or 400 in the camera. Inevitably you learn how to deal with aperture and time and continue taking photographs. It really depends on what you want to photograph. And today's cameras offer options for everyone. There is no right or wrong. When I'm photographing seriously static subjects, especially with flash, I'm in M mode and ISO 100. When I jump through the world with my camera, I preselect my aperture and time and use the automatic ISO. Photography technology has never been easier. But why are today's pictures usually so bad? Do people today pay more attention to the technology of the camera or the quality of the lens and no longer to the image itself?
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.
You present great photos in this video. I like it a lot. Great inspiration for my work. Thanks Man.
Thank you.
If you have a camera in your hand, you already have the Exposure triangle in front of you. Each controls functions of the triangle and without it, you have black or you have white or you have grey... that's all there is to it. So you literally explained the exposure triangle in an extremely detailed way bro!!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thanks for your comment.
Awesome. Tha is for dumping the triangle. You're right. Doesn't work. Love the simplified version you explained. Your photos are amazing to say the least.
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.
Oh yes. Can’t agree more! Exposure Triangle is one of the most basic principles in photography which I had learned in college. And I believe it’s true. You need to go to school 🏫 for knowledge and stop 🛑 misleading people. LOL 😂
???
I don't teach the "Exposure Triangle" in my classes. I explain every element in a separate lesson, then tie it together.
That's a good approach.
Have you thought about doing modelling shoots around Newcastle/ lake Macquarie areas ? From all types of photographers. From beginners to pro Photographers . From cheap to pricey shoots . It seems that not many people do this locations. You seem to have a lot of followers. Morning, day time, afternoon, night times? Is about teaching others? Seems to be the tend. I wonder how many people on here would be interested in shooting models with you.. just a thought.
I do the occasional workshop around Newy. Keep an eye on my FB page for upcoming dates.
I've never really used the exposure triangle, for many of the reasons you cite in the introduction. When I teach exposure I use the metaphor of a bucket being filled from a tap. If you want to get a certain amount of water in the bucket, you can open the tap fully (wide aperture) and fill the bucket quickly (fast shutter speed), or open the tap slightly (small aperture) and it takes longer to fill the bucket (slow shutter speed). So this introduces the idea of a choice between two related variables. I then go on to look at the secondary effects of aperture and shutter (DoF and motion blur), as a rationale for why you would want to choose between those variables. Later we keep that metaphor and think of the pixels on the sensor as the buckets. An empty pixel is black, a full pixel is white. If you let so much light in that all the neighbouring pixels are white (buckets are full to overflowing), you've got an area of burnt out highlights! I introduce ISO as like the volume control on a radio, with the question; "what if your chosen aperture / shutter combination is making the picture too dark?"
Some of the subtleties and trade-offs we cover later, normally after reviewing some of the students' images (e.g you might choose a higher ISO over a slower shutter speed in poor light, since you can fix noise in post-processing but you can't really fix camera-shake).
(ps. I also use an old film camera to demo shutter speed! It's a great way of bringing to life some of the functions of a camera that are increasingly buried in the box of technology. When showing the different shutter speeds in the back of the camera I ask the group to visualise someone on a bike riding across the frame. I ask them to think about how far the bike would have travelled across the frame during the various times the shutter was open. I find this helps to illustrate motion-blur.)
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?😂
You are not alone in this I follow the photographer Joe Edelman he says the same thing. Last week on his live stream he broke down the origin pf the phrase.
Thank you for that.
Those photos.... Excellent !
“Useless”??? Hmmm, can’t agree with that I’m afraid … it’s more like a law of physics, if you change the angle of any of the intersections of the triangle the length of the one or more of the sides changes. Like any Law of Physics, you may not necessarily know why or how it works, but nevertheless it’s still there, working away to keep the universe ticking away. Well over 50 years of photographic experience and I still believe in the triangle!
That's great. Thanks for your comment.
While I agree with everything that was said I think it would be important to mention in the same video how shutter speed affects ability to freeze the motion and the aperture affects the depth of field.
The video is about exposure. What you mention has nothing to do with exposure.
Yes caméras have à fixed sensitivity as films did. When you increase iso you amplify the signal, that is it. The real triangle include reflected light on the subject. All parameters equal changing iso only affects brightness after an equal exposure. When we pushed films from 400 to 1600 we did not increase exposure we wanted to over develop a to dark image.
À sensor or film is calibrated to give a medium Grey at a native sensitivity. As soon as you don't follow base sensitivity you send more or less light on the sensor what creates a too or less exposed image. Changing iso is asking the camera to modify, generally increase the exposure. Iso doesn't generate noise on the contrary, what create noise is a lack of signal, a weak exposure.
Indeed some cameras don't have iso dial when their sensor is iso indépendant, you just correct your underexposition in post production, your camera does not do the job.
And look at handheld meters zero triangle, circles showing equivalent exposures, the way to understand parameters.
It exists since the creation of photo, and will go on as long as we use a sensitive materiel.
OH and make too people lay under the sun to be exposed to the same amount of light, one may burn although it received the SAME exposure. Sensitivity will affect the result of a given exposure. It will push you to choose one exposure, but exposure will occur whatever it falls on.
What is bad is that people think that increasing iso will increase light on the sensor, no it does not
Exactly right. Thank you.
The actual video and explanation might me fine but the quality of sound and video leave a lot to be desired which makes the video harder to watch.
He's out of focus the whole time, video is quite blurry in general and the sound is constantly clipping 😢.
A "Pro" should easily be able to get this right, it tampers the credibility of the video quite a bit
Thank you for your comment. I'll try harder in future. I'm still learning about shooting video.
I tickled me how you referred to the £1,000 Nikon FM3 as redundant 'beginner' technology. Without all the modern technical wizardry, I'm astonished how early 20th century photogs created such beautiful images. I guess their magic came from the dark-room rather than computer generated post-processing. Photography (painting with light) will always create controversy whether digital or film. I'm a member of some Facebook 'film photography' groups who's members insist that scanning and digitally manipulating their film images is OK. It kind of defeats the object (for me) - just capture the image digitally in the first place!
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).
In my opinion much ado about... not much. Aperture, shutter speed and ISO setting allow one to control how their image is recorded. In the same conditions touching one can be compensated by either of the two others, so they are linked (which is not the case with AF ;o).
And what about the f 16 rule if SS, Aperture and ISO are not linked?
I sometimes use the "sunny F16 rule" to give me a starting point.
Are you saying the camera is ,itself, set at 200 ISO?
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.
Great advice:
1. Having two things to juggle are far easier than adding a third.
2. Start in manual at once.
3. Practice (get your 10K hours in).
If you shoot manual you definitely have to juggle all three!
@@brianjones5535 I believe the context of his opinion is for those just "learning."
The Exposure Triangle is only confusing and "useless" when it is poorly explained and leaves out key information. Which, with all due respect, you have just done. Aperture, shutter speed and ISO are juggled, together, to come to the best compromise between all three settings to fit the intent of the photographer for a given subject/situation. While you have shown, using the actual camera body and lens, how the shutter and apertures physically work, and how they together influence exposure...which is great...you go on, seeming to say that ISO is irrelevant until post-processing, while in the same comment stream speak about how you then go about setting ISO to fit the needs of the photograph while you're in the field; higher if it's darker, lower if it's brighter. If ISO is a useless post-processing afterthought, why are you bothering to set it to suit the available light in the field at the point of exposure? I don't understand that contradiction. As other commenters have stated, ISO in the digital world HAS become an integral part of the exposure equation and no matter how far down the pecking order it is relegated it doesn't change the fact that every exposure involves ISO as part of that equation. By undermining variable ISO you greatly hobble the variety and number of exposure combinations possible with aperture and shutter speed alone. Additionally, and very important, is not omitting information about the artistic contributions of aperture and shutter speed to the photographer's artistic intent when talking about exposure (or the exposure triangle)... they are integral. What good is a useable exposure combination that doesn't take into consideration the photographer's vision in other aspects... is the selected shutter speed is too low or too high for the subject matter, or the depth of focus is too shallow or too wide to achieve the intent of the photographer? Speaking about useable exposure combinations without considering the artistic intent, the WHY, of aperture and shutter speed, and how ISO can help to facilitate better outcomes misses the essence of the Exposure Triangle. I'm not saying I've done a good or comprehensive job of explaining it myself, but I think you are poo-pooing a very useful tool, which, when clearly explained, will change your understanding of the fundamental juggling act of exposure and lead to amazing, intentional results. TH-camr Sean Tucker has a very good explanation of the Exposure Triangle and how to use it. How to Nail Exposure using Manual Mode
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.
Commenting is probably a waste of time after 250 comments. Have I missed something? Your replacement to the exposure triangle, was talking about the ... the exposure triangle settings?? Basically, leaving ISO in a more reserve importance (but you still need to know it??), and changing shutter speed or the aperture by trial and error. I don't know any beginner on digital learning the exposure triangle settings who has set the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO using a formula, and then go out and shoot a ton of photos without looking at each shot and then trying to get it right. Yeah, you set a starting point, look at the results, and then you will find out by trial and error what you need or could do. But you need to know the good range of ISO, shutter, and aperture, or the impact of turning each up or down. You also need to know something about ISO, and that 12,000 or 24,000 is not a good starting point one fine day when you start learning to shoot. Sorry, have I missed something? You're presenting yourself with something different to say, but it's the same (and ignoring the fact you have experience to draw on)??
Bonus!: Learn to shoot mirrorless on a Fujifilm X-T camera with an XF lens (prime, or constant aperture zoom). This setup gives each exposure triangle setting visually and tactilely right in front of you all the time whether the camera is on or off. Each triangle setting can also be independently directly put in and out of auto to see what the camera would do. The X-T3 is probably the best X-T camera to learn on, as it is the newest without IBIS, so that camera shake can be learnt with shutter speed values (assuming the lens has no OIS). But maybe that's not so important these days, but it's a basic grounding to experience. Also know that the X-T3 exposure compensation dial just changes the three exposure triangle settings, and only the ones set on auto. Best left alone when learning. Sorry, I actually think better advice is to learn on the X-T3 rather than pretending you're not learning the exposure triangle, when you actually are!
Thank you for your comments. I'll try to do better next time.
@@newcastlephotographycollege Thanks for reading my long drivel!
Very helpful for a beginner, thank you so much for your effort. ✨👍✨Subscribed ✅
Thank you. Welcome.
You are telling people it is complicated.
I have never heard anyone speak of an exposure triangle.
I started photography in the early 1960s, in Australia. 😊
Thanks for your comments. You must have a wealth of experience.
The headline says the exposure triangle doesn't work. There's zero talking on how it doesn't work. Watched the whole video. How does it not work? You explained it well. But you never explained how it doesn't work.
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.
What's hard? It's chemistry (or the digital replica) powered by light. Aperture is a function of the math controlled by the lens to give a useful circle of confusion. OK, maybe just three things is easier.
??? 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
Of course the exposure triangle is relevant. And of course there needs to be some greater explanation as to what each control does for the exposure. But to say it is useless is misleading to the beginners.
Thank you for your comment.
Sorry ...aperture priority, iso automatic upto your highest setting you camera is capable of keeping clean, set minimum shutter speed depending on light conditions and use exposure compensation to adjust exposure ...
Thanks for sharing
So essentially what everyone here is arguing about comes to what people mean with the word "exposure". Sure, ISO doesn't affect the physics but it sure as hell affects the end result. Everyone getting all up and arms about the exposure triangle just can't fathom that the word "exposure" in that context means the what the image looks like. Who cares if ISO changes the signal to noise ratio or if higher ASA film created higher/bigger grain. Shutter speed, aperture and ISO affect the end result, all work within "stops of light" so stop bickering about semantics.
Thanks for your comment.
Thank you
You're welcome
...essentially, "my method works very well for me so your method (which, incidentally, works very well for you) must be useless".
Embarrassing.
Thanks for sharing!
Exposure is the brightness of a photograph. You can be artistic but there is a such thing as proper exposure
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.
One question aren't you to old for clickbait? Ohhh my bad there's no age for that...? Exposure triangle is not a concept is just the 3 elements you have to work with is not about a cool concept or something trending is the way camaras are built and you have to understand your tools just as in any order business.... from that bullshit title I was expecting a young TH-camr eager too get views...but common now man!!!
Instead of explaining why a higher aperture number means a smaller opening (1 divided by x), you are throwing in the F word. That's of poor educational value.
Knowing since previous millenium what aperture, shutter speed and film sensitivity are and how they balance one another, I clicked this film only because of the nice lady from the cover I thought will be the presenter. I am disappointed.
Thank you for your comment.
The horrid F word since when was FRACTION a bad word.
I never thought of that.
thank you from morocco
Hi.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion - no matter how stupid that opinion is - so best of luck with yours.
Thanks Mike.
Well regardless of what this chap says about exposure triangle, he just spent 14 minutes or so of explaining it yet again . . . just on a more rudimentary level for . . . ? anyway ... exposure requires all three tools incorporated in a camera - ANY camera. So its just a cat of a different color... Best part of video - great looking girls - great lighting . . .
Thanks for your comment.
❤
Thanks.
Ever shot dance concerts and productions? Bands? Anything moving at a decent speed in low light? Just based on the description, I won't watch this, but its not enough to skip this video, I need to press the "Don't recommend this channel" button.
I read an artical back in the late 80s that digital would be the demise of the professional photographer, and for a long time it did hurt the profession. That is fact. Im not going to glaze over my knowledge of what I learned as a retired professional photographer of over 40 years, still shooting and now using digital. The sad, reallity is digital has made todays photographers lazy. Many are very good but, many are lazy. You have the luxury of cameras that can do everything to create an image and you really don't have to deep think exposure.
Iso, plain and simple boosts your light sensitivity. Why would you be boosting your iso in a controlled studio, unless you have low power lights, 100ws. Only if You the need the help, but 400, 600 or 1000ws, why would you need to boost iso.
You really don't know how unlucky you really are and how for many, todays equipment is doing you a tremendous disservice, due to being able to give you iso setting in the thousands range. How do you really learn to control ligjt if its at you finger tips. I had limited film speeds to use and it was like that for decades. Pushing film was our option, and then developing for that push. Yes it helps to extend your exposure range in low Iight, or your lens is not fast enough. Im going to give you a test to do. Turn off your auto iso. You have only the ability to expose at 100 iso in the studio . Outdoors, at dusk, 400 or push to 800. Indoors in a low light enviroment, the same as outdoors. Do not cheat yourself, and shoot manual, not auto. You are a photographer. You need to think, not the camera. If you stay true to this, you will thank me. I learned from an analogue world. Dont let it control you, you control it. You are the professional, not your equipment. Dont let it be a crutch...and if you use the auto settings as a rule, shame on you.
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.
Well duh, a line art triangle does not explain things.
The exposure triangle, including ISO as a component of “exposure”, is of course THE fundamental component of understanding photography and exposure.
Thanks Mike.
Dude just explained the exposure triangle without explaining the exposure triangle. I'm sorry (no I'm not) but the exposure triangle really has nothing to do with getting proper exposure it's about understanding artistic choices. Your video would have made sense if you said we shouldn't be calling it the exposure triangle and then pled your case otherwise it's lost on me what your true point was here. Heaven forbid someone doesn't care about how all three of these things work together and then decide they want to shoot a film camera where there is no feedback until you develop your film.
Thank you for your comments.
There is no triangle. There is more light or less light, for more or less time. ISO isn't something you change - it's a design parameter the camera is designed at to produce the best image. In video, when shooting in LOG you have a base ISO and you don't change it, you vary the light with aperture, ND, and lighting.
Thanks for your comment.
I think we are talking photography here not video (although the same thing applies). Yes on a camera ISO was/is something you change: with film you changed the film, in digital photography you boost the signal received by the sensor. Why is it that my 25000 ISO night shots handheld are better (without any motion blur) than my 50 ISO ones handheld too? The whole thing with the triangle is for a set exposure if you modify one of the parameters (SS, f-stop, ISO) then you have to modify any of the two other parameters (ISO included thence the link between the 3 sides of the triangle) or both to get the same original exposure.
Nearly everything said is a half truth, oh dear. I liked the clips of the girls though.
Thanks for your comment.
So you said you set your ISO before using the SS + Aperture. You're using the Exposure triangle, Well done.🤣
You can call it what you want but it's the exposure triangle, you explain Aperture and SS which are exactly the same in the Triangle and need to be understood with the same explanation so it's hardly like your "fruit" triangle.
There is one Fruit in the video though 🤪
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)
Old story. Is it all because you lack of idea for new video?
Hi Red. Thanks for your comment. I have well over 100 ideas for future videos. I hope you will check some of them out.