The exposure triangle claims to explain the relationship between shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. At first glance, it looks like a useful diagram, until you realize that it’s not all what it's cracked up to be.
It's Pretty, but Not Accurate
When you first see the Exposure Triangle it’s an attractive graphical chart or diagram showing the range of each setting and the effect each setting has upon the exposure. That’s where the usefulness ends. Then newcomers start asking about where the current exposure is indicated in the triangle, only to find out it's not.
WClarke, Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0
The triangle indicates that if you go up in ISO you brighten the image, but as you do you get closer to the corner that also indicates more depth of field and a darker image. This is where it all falls apart.
Placing the elements of exposure in a graphical representation of a triangle implies that there is a relationship between each side and/or the corners. That's the whole purpose of a diagram like this, to depict the relationship between items. The Exposure Triangle does nothing to explain the relationship between these items. It simply takes three things and puts them in a triangle.
The current exposure is not represented in the triangle. When one setting changes it doesn’t explain how you can change either of the other two settings to maintain the proper exposure.
I'm very technical; I'm a software developer. I've written code to make charts and graphs to graphically represent data. When I first saw the Exposure Triangle I stared at it for a little while trying to figure out how the sides interacted with each other. After a while of analyzing it, I realized that they were not related in any way and it was simply three settings placed in a triangle for no other reason than a triangle has three sides.
A Better Diagram
I'm not saying that this is the best that it gets, but I think the following image does a little better job at describing what will happen when you change a setting:
In fact, it’s easier to explain that for a given exposure, using the above chart, that if you go darker on one setting you can simply go brighter on another setting the same number of stops to maintain that exposure. This is because each stop either lets in (exposes for) half as much or twice as much light as the previous stop. That’s it. Half as much, twice as much. As for ISO, it doesn't let in more or less light, but it does allow for the changing of shutter speed and aperture, which does.
ISO Isn't Part of Exposure
Exposure is the amount of light falling per unit area on the sensor. Technically ISO isn't a component of the exposure. It's simply amplifying the sensor values and modifying the captured image so that it will appear the "same" as it would have if the image had been properly exposed at ISO 100 (or whatever the base ISO of the sensor is). It's similar to the volume on a radio, the incoming signal doesn't get any stronger, it's just being played louder (amplified), static and all. But since sensitivity is simulated on digital cameras (as apposed to actual sensitivity of film), we'll pretend it's part of the exposure since it's what we work with when taking a photo.
The Myth Will Live On
I don’t think the Exposure Triangle is ever going away. It’s like the myth that swimming after eating will give you cramps. It’s been debunked a million times, yet the myth still lives on. In fact, my grandkids just repeated it to me the other day.
It’s only THREE THINGS. Each only has one primary attribute. Whatever happened to “It’s easy as 1-2-3”? So what should we call it? The Exposure Triad? The Three Pillars of Exposure? The Exposure Trinity?
How about just the three primary settings of exposure? What is your opinion of the Exposure Triangle?
My point is that with black and white film, there IS no standardization precisely BECAUSE development can be adjusted.
Kodak P3200 has a box speed of 3200, but is pretty much admitted by Kodak to be an 800-speed film.
Ilford Delta 3200 is widely considered to be a 1600-speed film.
Kodak Tri-X (even the new emulsion) is often considered to be a 320-speed film.
Ilford Pan F+ is often considered to be a 32-speed film.
This is not based upon exposure, but on the tonality and contrast. If you push a film, you'll get more grain and contrast. Kodak Tri-X is often described as higher contrast and "grittier" than Ilford HP5+. Is that simply a natural function of the emulsion or is it because when you shoot it at 400 and develop it accordingly, you're actually pushing a 320-speed film which is creating that contrast and "grit"? There's no way to know for sure and it's purely a judgment call. If the contrast of a given scene is equalized between the two emulsions by pulling Tri-X to 320 while shooting the HP5+ at 400, does that mean that the Tri-X is still a 400-speed film?
That's why even the companies themselves will say that the box speed is "suggested" and the development times are "suggested" rather than suggesting that there's some hard rule. The development times given are just to give you a starting point that will likely give you decent results (although some of them are grossly inaccurate) and it's always been understood that it's up to you as the user (or lab) to refine your own process through experimentation and experience.
As far as "playing roulette" with the ASA dial, you can actually pretty much do this and still get good results across the entire roll in many cases by using a technique like stand development because of the way the developer actually acts on the film. In this case, you're taking advantage of the fact that agitation affects the highlights more than the shadows so by no agitating, the developer in contact with the highlights will exhaust quickly while still giving the developer in contact with the shadows time to act. This is pretty much how I treat any roll of film that comes out of a Holga or similar toy camera to compensate for lack of any controls whatsoever. There are also developers that naturally have compensating properties while others are more aggressive.
So if you come down to it, the development doesn't even just depend on the dilution and time, but also your agitation scheme. That's why with traditional black and white film, the mantra is to expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights (although I'd argue that it ought to be expose for shadows, develop for mid-tones, and agitate for highlights).
You can argue that C-41 box speeds are standardized since every single C-41 film is engineered to produce the same exposure using the same exact process (chemicals, dilution, temperature, time, agitation). So the regular C-41 process is the standard by which those films can be rated.
If you're claiming that black and white film is standardized, there must be some basis for the standardization. When they determine the ISO rating, what standardized process are they using to do this? What chemicals at what dilution and what temperature using what agitation scheme? If they are not all using the same process to determine the box speed to advertise a given film at, how can you claim that it's any sort of standard? All ISO standards have documentation detailing the methodology used so I would be curious to know what precise methodology is used to determine the film speed of black and white film.
This will have to be my last post here as I don't think were making any progress and I don't see any enlightening information coming from you. Thank you for the discussion in any case.
Every one of your examples is a creative choice where you are essentially compensating for an exposure adjustment made by choice, with a different variable that will compensate for that adjustment. Like processing, agitation, push, pull etc. Which means you have an Idea of the ISO and are using it
There is absolutely standardization of sensitivity regardless of how flexible a particular film stock or sensor may be. Kodak does print this information about each of their films. It is literally on the box and on their white papers on each stock. Filmmakers test the film exhaustively to find the sweet spot that agrees most with the ISO standardization and aesthetic qualities. It's not relevant that you can make creative changes, rate the film higher or lower, or if the company says this is a 3200/1600/800 ISO film, or if it generally agreed that a 3200 film is more like 1600. It doesn't matter. You need some kind of knowledge of the sensitivity of the film and that's what ISO is. All that other qualities of the films latitude and flexibility are just bonus characteristics.
My roulette example was meant to be an ISO value you didn't know. Not an example of you purposely rating the film slower or faster. Pretend I loaded your camera with a 25-speed film and I set the meter in your camera to 12,000 ASA and you didn't know it, and In fact, it's covered with black tape. You go and shoot your important project like this trusting the meter. How would you develop that without knowing? Think everything's going to look just how you wanted it to with a little extra agitation? Obviously, the knowledge of the sensitivity of a film is really important no matter how you want to creatively interpret it. Even if you have a really cool and skilled developing trick. Most people don’t know about developing beyond pushing and so in general that's a pretty obscure approach and I'll still let that fall into the creative choice category
Hears a question to think about. Why is the International Organization for Standardization what all photographic manufactures use to define their cameras/films sensitivity? Maybe they take liberty with the definition of standardization when applied to different sensors and stocks, but the attempt is made to be standardized right?
Bottom line. If what you're doing works for you great. But I don't think you understand what I'm saying and you may be confused or convoluted about some aspects of what's going on there. And please excuse any sloppy writing. I'm tired of this.
Take care and have fun!
John,
I get what you're saying, but, no.
You set your ISO before you click the shot. And if you choose wrong, you either blow out your highlights, or you wind up with a shadowy mess if your sensor isn't "ISO invariant" enough.
For this reason, I'll continue to educate new photographers to consider ISO as a part of their exposure, before they click the shot. I'll be happy to explain quantum efficiency, SNR, and invariance etc. to anyone who is curious, but none of those things will stop me from considering ISO at the same time as I'm considering my aperture and shutter speed, in a "triangle" fashion of X number of EVs brighter/darker...
Could I make a suggestion to change this photo for the article? After the last 24 hrs it seems pretty insensitive.
If someone runs over a bunch of kids with a car are we all going to stop using our cars? How long do we do that for? A week? A month? Forever?
No Mike, BUT you can change your a picture of handguns and bullets to an article THAT IS TALKING ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY!!! You know, since it's not necessary for the stupid article.
Agreed. Really poor taste here. Didn’t even bother to read the article. His response here is of a typical half thought-out gun enthusiast argument.
Always afraid of your precious guns being taken away even though the majority of Dems and Reps are not suggesting that at all. Grow up and be a responsible human being. News flash; successful civilizations regulate all sorts of things for the mutually agreed upon good of the collective. It's not socialism (okay it is); its just being smart.
Thanks for going there, Mike. Allow me...
Actually, the automobile industry's profit margins are indeed to blame for a significant %% of fatal vehicle accidents, because if such massive corporations actually cared about the preservation of human life, there would be much stricter requirements for getting a drivers' license, which would of course have a huge effect on car ownership/sales.
If we truly cared about human life more than corporate profits, everyone who wanted to drive a car would have to pass a professional driving course, instead of just barely making it around the block with a buffoon of a DMV employee. Only highly competent, attentive people should be driving cars.
Everybody else should take all that $$ they pay for their car and insurance, and put it towards better public transportation.
Oh, speaking of large corporations that value their profit margins more than human life, and getting behind the wheel, why don't we mention the alcohol industry, and the huge factor that plays into tons of fatalities across the country and around the world. Once again, if we as a society truly cared about human life, we'd be doing a lot more to deter drunk driving, and alcoholism in general. Instead, we have morons with three or four DUI conviction under their belt, still getting behind the wheel.
You see, there is always a reasonable measure that could be taken to help significantly reduce fatalities of any kind. Your analogy was a complete fallacy, because if someone did "run over a bunch of kids", that person would lose their license, and we as a society would crack down on whatever it was that caused the situation, such as distracted driving, or irresponsible idiots or mentally unstable crazies even being allowed to get behind the wheel. That's a more accurate and fair analogy.
Either way, this was in extremely poor taste, and if more than just one or two people agree, isn't that enough to just change the graphic? If the content and message of the article becomes so significantly less powerful without the graphic that it actually affects the traffic to the article, then that's a pretty sad statement about the quality of the article itself.
So, have some pride in the quality article you wrote, and change the graphic.
How about a few days, maybe until the next mass shooting...never mind already happened.
Two options here:
1. Just change the photo (that's completely unnecessary to get the article's point across anyway) in light of sensitivity to two tragic events that just occurred in this country.
2. Argue about why you should bother changing a photo that is unnecessary to get the article's point across.
I'm all for freedom of expression, but I think there's a bit of wisdom in picking your fights. Is this REALLY the hill you feel you need to die on? To be fair, I didn't personally read the image like that, but it's clear that some people do so just my two cents. :/
I am not sure I agree with censoring the media at all, no matter what happens after the article is released. If we are OK with censoring the media, then I do have some suggestions to make though.
This isn't censorship. By all accounts it seems to be a request for a bit more mindfulness and sensitivity. You could run this article with any number of other images without detracting from the message of it at all.
Oh, so much fragility.
Get rid of the offensive weapons picture. Great, now I agree with you.
Pay attention to what's going on and change your picture and headline. Guns, bullets and killing HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PHOTOGRAPHY. It looks like you are trying to get clicks off of recent mass shootings. A new low for Fstoppers.
I just don't understand how an article about photography has anything to do with a shooting in Texas or Ohio. The article was scheduled long before any of that.
We get it Mike. You see nothing wrong with your imagery and think that a bunch on snowflakes have been triggered. Good for you. Click. That wasn’t the sound of a gun. It is me turning off your channel and will never read your articles again. Good luck fstoppers with this writer.
If you don't understand, Mike, that's fine. But being stubborn and unwilling to change the graphic out of respect to anyone else is still in poor taste, period.
I don't understand how a gun a pile of bullets and a knife relates to a "exposure triangle" rant?
Totally get it mike, I might have a different perspective for you. People who follow stoppers on google are getting this article mixed in with shooting coverage. It’s why I clicked the link, from google it looks like fstoppers did an article on the shootings and in that context had a weird enough title that it might be a confusing click. So while your image would be fine out of context, you are unknowingly being advertised to people following the shooting news and are getting misrepresented on google as being related to the recent mass killings.
It also makes it look like you are using the image as opportunistic clickbait in light of the recent news.
Yes, well things happen and sometimes it pays to adjust your plans slightly in light of unforeseen things that come up... I would think that a graphic could be swapped out rather easily even right now. It's not as if these things are written in stone.
That's the problem... you don't understand Mike and since the article is still up it's clear you and Fstoppers don't have a clue. SMH It's not good because multiple people were just murdered by guns and bullets and you're using a picture of guns and bullets in an article posted at the same time regardless of how far ahead you planned it. Get it now? I really didn't think it's nearly as complex as the exposure triangle.
Ummm, you're the one that needs to pay attention to timelines.
Besides, didn't you say on another post you were leaving this site?
The article was posted Aug. 3rd the same day as the shooting in Texas. That night was the shooting in Ohio. I'm not missing any "timelines"... whatever point you're trying to make. And yes I rarely read the sales articles disguised as photography news on this site anymore but saw that some people responded to my comment. So I thought I would try and educate some folks on why that posting an image of guns and bullets on an article about "killing" the exposure triangle is not only stupid but pointless and insensitive at this moment in time.
Haha, its a tool which doesn't kill anyone by itself, deal with it soyboy
.
What a silly article. The reason that the triangle exists is that these are the three cornerstones of photography that apply to any imaging technology. The science fact of these three laws of apply a to all and any imaging device, including your eyes in a somewhat abstract way. The triangle relationship of photography is as unwavering as the importance of water and food to a living thing. All cameras are based on these three principals and all the features and gadgetry of cameras are just ways of interpreting and manipulating these cornerstones.
They are all related in a connected fashion. Adjust one setting and you must change one of the others to maintain the exposure you want. Fact.
You can try and conceptualize and rationalize it with any new graph you want. But at the end of the day it’s pretty frivolous since it’s a simple relationship that should only take a day or two to grasp, memorize and apply. No matter how you want to think about it.
There are more than three principles. Scene Luminance (Light) which is the CORNERSTONE of any photography is missing from your triangle.
Oh yeah and I can change the shutter speed up one stop without touching the Aperture or ISO and get the same brightness in the image? How? Throw on an ND filter. So long for your "fact"
I think you’re reaching here. These three factors determine how to handle the light coming into the camera. Hey f you change the quantity of light. With ND, flash or light modifiers. As will happen in life. The principals remain the same when dealing with that light. Your point is not relevant. Checkmate.
WOW. This is a new low for poor, tactless timing.
Hey, I've got one... Can we just kill the large corporations that prop up the 2nd amendment?
Why dont we just kill the first amendment while we are at it then, because that is what you are calling for, censoring the media because you dont agree with something they said.
Yeah, because sarcastically saying "to choose a completely unrelated, click-bait-y graphic is in poor taste due to recent events" ...is totally the same as an Orwellian 1984.
This article was made and scheduled for posting long before the recent events. It is not unrelated, I would say that guns and knives are much indeed related to "KILLING the exposure triangle"
I highly doubt this image was selected as click bait, but has far more to do with the concept of killing the exposure triangle.
You can leap to conclusions and seek to be angry if you want, but the simpler answer is usually the true one. You are the one that brought politics into this, not the author.
I am not in favor of ever censoring the media, but apparently you are in specific situations that you do not agree with.
How far should we take this? Should journalists now be required to go back through their entire history of posts to delete any image that offends people after a new event causes something?
When someone kills people with a truck or car in a crowd, should everyone go back through every article they have written and delete any image featuring a truck?
Who determines what is OK for journalists to say and what is not OK for them to say? Who determines what is OK for a photographer to photograph and post, and what is not? Pretty dangerous ground to stand on my friend. Calling for censoring of the press in any way, is fascism, and it doesnt stop where it starts.
"I highly doubt this image was selected as click bait"
Ahh, thank you, that's my signal to ignore this conversation...
Considering this article was scheduled before any of the recent events, and no one was at all concerned with the image until today, I feel fair in making that assertion. It is troublesome that so many people will just ignore any viewpoint they dont agree with, instead of listening to both sides and trying to come to an informed decision.
It depends how far you go back for a recent event? El Paso, Dayton or Gilroy?
The is the digital age, the editors can switch out a photo for another photo. Easy Peasy.
And when I saw the photo I figured it was simply to get the attention of readers both gun fans and gun non-fans, just like pictures of boobs. There will be reaction....
I don't think the government should censor things like this. Let the marketplace do it. If the consumers don;t think a gun with a a silly amount of bullets and a knife work with a story about exposure then it is up to the owners or editors of the site to remove it.
If OTOH people like it then keep it.
In any event clicks pay the bills.
No be said he couldn’t express himself. People asked him to be considerate since the imagery was not the theme of his article. He refused.
But let’s not waste time feeling sorry for a photography writer whose readers disagree with his artistic sensibilities. Very young kids died this weekend and in Ohio you barely recognize the sounds on the street because the bullets were streaming like ball bearings rolling down a hill. Reminded me of the Vulcan cannon on an AC130 gunship.
I grew up the son of two farm children who taught me about gun responsibility and their utility for hunting and defense. Most of us have no issue with the 2nd amendment. I gave up having a gun because of my wife that was nervous around them and because I no longer had an immediate purpose for one. In the intervening years I would help friends that were hunters plan their hunts (I am an strong hiker and know the territory very well). I took up wildlife photography because I wasn’t interested and in killing something and thought it was a greater challenge to take a picture of it instead. Fast forward twenty five years later I have never found a reason that required a gun. I thought about it when one of those responsible gun owners shot a bullet through my daughters bedroom window, but generally I feel safer with police officers and our military. I share these experiences because we need to calm down. People just want a solution that makes responsible owners happy while keeping communities safe. This is 2hat I will be praying for this evening. Mike, I guess you have to do what you want to do be damned.
Wow, you just enjoy killing do you?
The size of the sensor has nothing to do with this formula. Your talking about a perceived similarity of depth of field. A creative choice. But a 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens across ALL formats.
It’s true that manufactures interpret iso to give themselves a signature look. But it still works for the most part, to use a light meter. I use mine almost exclusively on film and digital with excellent results. You can profile your meter to be more accurate to the digital camera, but it’s really not that big of a deal given the flexibility of post processing.
So it still works, but manufactures profiles and interpretations of the data coming off the sensor make this wonky. Great manufactures like Leica don’t do much of that and I have found their cameras to be highly accurate when using an external light meter.
I’m sorry but you’re dead wrong about aperture. The triangle is referring to light transmission. Not DOF characteristic.
If you want to match DOF from camera to camera with different format sizes, what you say works. But it does not change the fact that a 2.8 lens is a 2.8 across all formats. Light transition is not DOF. And focal lens is the same. A 50mm is a 50mm on any format. The format crops your field of view. But it is the same focal length and aperture across all formats.
Think about it for a while and you’ll come around because it’s the truth.
Okay. Well this article is about the “triangle”. And the relationship of exposure. So that’s why my point is correct.
Your “equivalent” is only a matter of perception of depth of field over different formats.
Light transition is the amount of light passing through the lens, which the aperture controls. Thus is is the same across the board when a lens is a 2.8.
Controlling depth of field is not what this article is about, but that’s what you’re talking about.
Another seperate fact you may find interesting is that DOF is the same across any lens at the same aperture and subject size and on the same format.
Example. A 50mm, framing a head and shoulders shot will have the same DOF as a 200mm framing the same head and shoulders shot if both lenses have the same aperture, on the same camera.
One day you’ll understand and agree with what I’m saying if you keep learning. Also you don’t have to read and respond to these posts. But since you’ve chosen to engage, I’ll attempt to enlighten you. Really think about it and understand what I’m saying and you will be a more informed photographer. I’m not making this stuff up. They are timeless laws that I guess aren’t well understood by a lot of photographers. But camera manufactures and professionals know this stuff. I’m also speaking from 20 years of professional commercial cinematography experience, and a few degrees in the subject from real accredited collages. What I say is truth!
No need to bother. mark mark here is pumped up with all of the medium format fairy dust that he's snorted so he just rambles on and on about sensor size in just about every thread he participates in. Anything short of medium format is not a "real camera" in his world. I made the mistake of getting sucked into the vortex. Save your own sanity and exit ASAP. :/
I'm impressed at the level of emotion and debate you are getting from an article about the exposure triangle. Lol amazing.
It's an interesting thought experiment/opinion piece. Regardless of the side you are on, I think it's always good to explore other options and opinions. Even if you don't agree with them, you might take away something useful. As far as the headline picture, although the timing is aweful, it was up before the terrible events that occurred. If anyone has an issue with it, I would recommend going thru their entire online history and remove the word "shoot" from anything they have ever posted. Might be difficult for a photographer. (Not being political, just realistic)
To those calling out to change the image. You are calling out to censor media. Really? You want to censor the media to change an image because of events that happened after the article even came out? An image that actually does fit with both the title and the article "Can we just KILL the exposure triangle already"
Are you really ok with censoring the media now? Or just when it says or does things that you personally do not agree with.
No one was censoring the author. We requested he alter the imagery out of thoughtfulness and respect for slain children and other victims. He deferred and commented about how one dead automobile driver was no reason to ban cars. No one’s rights were trampled. He made a choice and we communicated our displeasure and disappointment. And to be fair whether or not the image was replaced was not going to change the world, but then again it would have been a compassionate gesture.
I am more a interested in talking about how adults arrive at these uncompromising positions. Do we lack confidence in the merit of our views that we have to “double down”all the time? Maybe we are too affixed in always being right and being competitive. Maybe we lack compassion towards others because we are dealing with our own survival in a challenging world with limited resources. Maybe we are afraid that being open minded will be perceived as weakness. .
There is really no need to talk about this further. We all know where the other sits. However, I suggest the following for consideration since you mentioned censorship; free speech is less a right and more a responsibility. A responsibility that exists both for the listener and the communicator. Let’s try to be adults and use our common sense in these situations.
The title picture showing a barrage of bullets is not funny. Maybe all too American, but in the light of yet another 2 amok shootings inappropriate. Would you mind to replace it by something more... photography oriented?
So much for the sunny-16 rule. Google quote: "On a sunny day set aperture to f/16 and shutter speed to the [reciprocal of the] ISO film speed [or ISO setting] for a subject in direct sunlight."