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?
I would say that it is rarely ever a good idea to shoot at f/16 no matter the time of day, that is just not a good aperture to shoot at because of diffraction
I can see your problem with the exposure triangle, but I'm not seeing *why* you have such a problem with it.
It's a helpful guide. Has it debilitated anyone's ability to photograph....?
When I learned about exposure in the early '60's, I was taught that three things needed to be considered to get the exposure right and that those same three things determined in part the look of an image. Forty years later I began hearing those three things described as the exposure triangle and just wrote it off as "kid speak". I'm like the other folks here...I've never seen the "triangle" as a triangular graph before now.
So, for people like me who see the title of this piece...people who shot manual only cameras without meters in them, or those of us who still shoot with a camera in one hand and a meter in the other, you can kill the "exposure triangle" if you like. But we'll still use ISO, f/stop and shutter speed to get both our exposures and the look of the image as we want them.
Do any of you actually teach photography? The comments are hilarious...
"It's [ISO is] similar to the volume on a radio, the incoming signal doesn't get any stronger, it's just being played louder (amplified)..."
Actually turning up the volume on a radio is the opposite of turning up the ISO on a camera. Cranking up the ISO is applying gain to the sensor signal, and as we know will introduce artifacts like visual noise.
Conversely, turning up the volume on a radio is actually reducing the resistance to the outgoing audio signal. Without a volume knob your radio would play at full volume, and unless you're 18 years old you probably don't want that, so a volume attenuator is needed. This is why the volume knob on a Denon receiver, for example, has an infinity symbol at the position where NO sound would come out of the connected speakers. It's indicating infinite or absolute resistance to the audio signal.
On the other hand, applying gain to an audio signal is common when recording or capturing an audio signal (as opposed to playing it back).
Much like ISO and capturing a still/video image, one might need to turn up the gain on the audio recorder or on the microphone itself if the microphone isn't getting the sound levels desired, and in doing so artifacts like hiss will probably show up.
***
I've taught photography for years and never used the exposure triangle. I simply demonstrate the relationships among shutter speed, aperture, and ISO values.
I just thought through this problem trying to create a cheat sheet to teach photography to my kids. For three dimensions, a matrix needs three axis... a cube. Here's that small snippet of my overall cheat sheet:
This is an American site is it?
Kill an insidious triangle... with guns, bullets, knives.
give me a break. If you teach the exposure triangle properly, with visuals and cause and effect it makes complete sense. I've been teaching it for years. If I do X, Y will happen. If i lose a stop of light here, I can borrow a stop of light from there......
Yeah, but explain why these three settings need to be placed in a triangle formation. What does that triangle shape add to the information or data presented?
"I'm very technical; I'm a software developer. I've written code to make charts and graphs to graphically represent data."
Yes, you are truly a software engineer. You guys are extremely focused and detailed oriented. i worked in technology for 32 years. Software engineers tend to "over geek" everything. Plus the manuals they wrote were unintelligible to the average user. As a sales professional, a key part of my job was to translate engineering gobble de gook into simple language. That's why the "For Dummies" series did so well. Your explanations are correct, but for me, the exposure triangle still works. In the field a photographer wants to be able to get a usable exposure in various lighting situations. Using the triangle with lots of practice gets it right without "geeking out" into needless details. Please do not write an article on color management ;)
After the third person says something like "...so if I'm at 1/1000th I need to be at f/1.4?" you really see that it's not representing the *relationship* between the items like it should. It's just three sets of data. It's meeting at the corners that throws people off, along with arrows indicating darker and brighter pointing towards the same corner.
Point taken. However, the average photographer in the field who is trying to get to f8 in low light while hand holding, just increases the iso until he is there. Or, the more adept ones use the histogram until he has the exposure. If he is on a tripod, generally no problem. If he is hand holding the iso is increased. If he is going after a shutter speed in certain conditions, he uses the same process. This works whether you’r shooting A, T or manual. He doesn’t think about the triangle, he has it in muscle memory. And, generally doesn’t have a clue about the science behind it. He just knows that the process works.
The exposure triangle gave me a general idea of what was going on. I think most people just learn exposure by messing around in manual when they first grab a camera because wrong intuition tells most people that manual mode is for pros haha.
This article is content for content's sake. There is nothing wrong with using the visual of a triangle to help teach people to understand the three main settings that will effect their image results and what the side effects of adjusting each are. You're over thinking it.
Put Triangle down!! You can't make a mathematical calculation on creativity.
I'll be honest with you, I think you over analyzed the hell out of it. I've never seen numbers put on it like that but have always heard it as more of a visualization tool. Take the food pyramid for example; that doesn't directly tell you down to the grain of rice how many you need to eat to balance out the chicken leg you ate. All the exposure triangle is referring to is "Imagine a balanced exposure is a triangle, if you change one side, then you need to compensate by changing another so it's still balanced". For a more direct and literal graphic, the one you used would be extremely useful.
As a sidenote: I do appreciate the time and effort you put into the cover photo. Ammo ain't cheap! lol
If you take a picture and you are happy with it, just keep it. If it doesn't, you can delete it if you're using a digital camera, adjust it according to what each function does, and try again.
Or do we need to over complicate it more?
Really Fstoppers? Clicks before conscience? The fact that you've kept the nonsensical image and placed it at the top of the page speaks volumes. See you in September.
I've never seen the triangle with values, I have just seen it as an illustration of the general relationships between the settings, ie if you change one you need to change one or both of the others to maintain the same exposure. For me it was really useful for that concept. It doesn't make sense with specific values added. That being said, your diagram is good for showing what happens when you change a particular setting, but doesn't show the relationship between the settings.
Is it just me or the image used for this article in very poor taste? Are we that insensitive now to all that is going on?
The triangle not suitable shape for explaining the exposure. A 2D or 3d coordinate system does the job: i made some materials many years ago, as a teacher... soon will be available in english:
https://www.fotobetyar.hu/interaktivanyagok/viszonossagi_torveny/
I was referring to the gun knife and bullets.
I'm teaching a friend about exposure. He watched the video, ' 6 reasons to ditch the exposure triangle' and all hell broke loose. Now the thinks he's been lied to. Now my lessons have been sent back to the dark ages. Thanks to all you nitpickers out there! Shame on you!
This article is just about how to nitpick a learning tool to help Smartphone photographers move to DSLR/Mirrorless cameras. Both the list and triangle format are just fine for teaching. The triangle is just an artistic look of the data. Yes, it's not proper, but it works. We see this in mathematics all the time. A friend and I even created an artistic formula (looks like a giant letter T) for computing Speed, Time, and Distance calculations for chart plotting. While it's not official mathematic notation, it gets the point across and students are able to draw the formula on their test notepaper. The mathematic notation is written in three lines. Harder to remember and prone to creating mistakes. :)
The line: "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." Notice he said, "implies that there is a relationship" Well yes if your instructor failed to point that out.
While we're at it, the ISO graph should just be thrown out. It's really not ISO either. It's a freaking GAIN CONTROL! The Aperture should be called a light modifier or Lightifirer. What are softboxes and Grids? Light Modifiers! If I have a spotlight that I can control the scene; then why isn't that included in the exposure triangle? I'm pretty sure that's an adjustment that can be manipulated. What if I ask my models to put on some very reflective outfits? That's another setting that will affect exposure.
You see we can just nitpick everything apart. This is not going to help a declining industry or hobby. Heck, If I have to draw exposure settings on a cartoon rabbit, then I will if it gets the point across! :) Let's just drop this nitpicking and find ways to educate all these snapshot shooters into becoming great photographers. ;)
what is 'brighter' and 'darker' even doing on the chart anyway?
Also..it's only a 'triangle' since digital came along... before that..ISO (or ASA) was fixed.. so that the aperture / film speed lines were sitting on top of each other and it was pretty obvious how they related
With the triangle.. the key is to know that you can only change any TWO of the the three settings (and how they affect each other) to keep the same exposure value metered