The term "EXPOSURE" is obsolete… really?

K

Kodiak Qc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,285
Name
French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
Edit My Images
Yes
•


Good, great, correct, etc are only but a few of the many adjec-
tive related to exposure. As well as under, over, etc to express
less favourable results.

At the time of emulsion on acetate, exposure was the main word,
feature. Reading a negative, contact sheet, or E6's one could ap-
preciate easily the very importance of the results of the triangle
correct setup.

With this thread, I want to discuss and defend the position that
the term exposure IS obsolete… post SR that is!

With the ever extending limits of the DR, added to the many
fast improving and powerful features of engines, commenting
of the exposure when related to digital photography is making
— to me at least — no more sense.

Instead, I prefer to talk in term of rendition — since a not too poor-
ly exposed shot may well be rendered successfully and, as in so
many cases do not justify comments about the exposure because
the said digital improvements do not reveal the quality of it.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

I still think of 'exposure' as just that - the moment the 'film' or indeed 'sensor' is exposed to light.

I guess 'rendition' is apt for what goes on afterwards be it development or pp but it always was.
 
Last edited:
•

I think it is the first time I have the pleasure
to meet you here, Phil! :cool:
dinners said:
I guess 'rendition' is apt for what goes on afterwards be it development or pp but it always was.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with that.
…but what sense does it make to talk of
exposure as seen in many comments?
 
Hi there.

I've been slacking of late on the forum :whistle:
 
I have to disagree. Exposure (i.e. the capture of the amount of light the photographer intended) is still critical to good results. Its possible to bring things back, to a degree, after the photos was taken but it never looks as good.
 
boyfalldown said:
I have to disagree. Exposure (i.e. the capture of the amount of light the photographer intended) is still critical to good results. Its possible to bring things back, to a degree, after the photos was taken but it never looks as good.
Click to expand...

Agree. Even with the performance of modern sensors if you under expose then shadow recover you'll get noise, odd colours in the shadow areas etc. Over exposure is worse as once you blow something out, well its gone. Histograms make exposure easy and with digital cameras there is really no excuse for getting that part wrong.
 
boyfalldown said:
Its possible to bring things back, to a degree, after the photos was taken…
Click to expand...


Yes but, as experienced by many, even a two
stop under may well be recovered within a de-
cent converter.
 
SFTPhotography said:
Histograms make exposure easy and with digital cameras there is really no excuse for getting that part wrong.
Click to expand...


Absolutely, Steve, but these considerations
are prior to SR!

As far as noise is concerned, it all depends on
the DR and the converter!
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•


Good, great, correct, etc are only but a few of the many adjec-
tive related to exposure. As well as under, over, etc to express
less favourable results.

At the time of emulsion on acetate, exposure was the main word,
feature. Reading a negative, contact sheet, or E6's one could ap-
preciate easily the very importance of the results of the triangle
correct setup.

With this thread, I want to discuss and defend the position that
the term exposure IS obsolete… post SR that is!

With the ever extending limits of the DR, added to the many
fast improving and powerful features of engines, commenting
of the exposure when related to digital photography is making
— to me at least — no more sense.

Instead, I prefer to talk in term of rendition — since a not too poor-
ly exposed shot may well be rendered successfully and, as in so
many cases do not justify comments about the exposure because
the said digital improvements do not reveal the quality of it.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

A dictionary might be needed here
One can see it's a 'borrowed ' terminology surely
 
Kodiak Qc said:
??? o_O
Click to expand...

Lost my quote

Exposure is a term related to time
Coupled with aperture and ISO
We get an image
Cellulose or digital
The combination should then be addressed
SAI
As in

Say old chap what was your SAI..sounds the same but it is essential to get the sperring rite

And largish ov orgen
 
Last edited:
Our traditional understanding of exposure is certainly obsolete... it became obsolete the moment we switched from film to digital. I.e. ISO is not part of exposure with digital (it should be replaced with "light").

But the term "exposure" in relation to brightness/contrast/etc hasn't really changed in any sense. With film we might offset the meter by setting the ISO to something different. After capture we might push/pull the development, and we might dodge/burn on the enlarger. All affected the "exposure" of the final image, and with possible side effects.
 
Last edited:
There never has been such a thing as unqualified correct exposure.
Exposure is always qualified by the Effect you want to achieve.
To day the best sensors can capture virtually all the useful light falling on them. but with still some way to go at the highlight end of the registers.
to a large extent sensors are ISO less, except at the extremes.

Noise is a function of Light, if there is not enough captured you see noise in one form or another.
Unfortunately unlike film the dark tones always show noise. That is unless they are captured as a grey and then darkened in PP.
The setting of the "Mood" of a photograph as to its darkness and lightness and the contrast of the finished image, has largely settled as a function of Post processing.

Sensors are already sensitive enough to capture all the photons falling on them, however their registers are not yet deep enough to capture full sun spectral highlights.
There is no doubt that this will be achieved in the foreseeable future.
At that point, Sensors will be truly ISO less. and "Correct exposure" will be totally redundant at the point of capture.
 
Kiwi Paul said:
Shutter release and dynamic range
Click to expand...

Thanks Paul.

Speaking as someone who has recently become obsessed with gazing at the beautiful jewels that are mounted 6x6 slides, I can confirm that creating 'correct' exposures is most certainly NOT an obsolete activity.

"Fast improving and powerful engines"? Are they the ones that deliver my E6 chemicals? :D
 
Just semantics really isn't it? Who cares? Just take some photos and stop trying to reframe/redefine meanings for no purpose.
 
An ISO-less camera sensor means that you no longer have to bother selecting ISO as part of the "exposure triangle", because much the same effect as raising ISO can be achieved by using a lower ISO and in post-processing raising exposure, brightness, or whatever your RAW editor likes to call it. But that doesn't mean exposure has become obsolete. It means that the exposure trio of ISO, shutter, and aperture has become exposure duo of shutter and aperture. If the combination of shutter speed and aperture has left too few photons representing shadow detail then lifting the shadows in post processing, raising brightness, or indeed, upping the ISO at the time of the shot, will all still leave the shadow detail prone to false or absent colour, banding, and noise. But getting the exposure right for the shadow detail by adding some artificial light, or using a longer shutter duration on a tripod, will result in improved image quality.
 
mrtoad said:
Lost my quote

Exposure is a term related to time
Coupled with aperture and ISO
We get an image
Cellulose or digital
The combination should then be addressed
SAI
As in

Say old chap what was your SAI..sounds the same but it is essential to get the sperring rite

And largish ov orgen
Click to expand...

I'm with you till SAI ! What's with all the abbreviations?

Kodiak said in his OP (that's "original post"), about whether "Exposure" was an obsolete term when talking about "post SR" (shutter release; ie after you've hit the button and the image is stored).
I don't ever talk about having "made exposures" after pressing the shutter, so that part of the question is pointless.
Exposure is about capturing the light.
We "expose" the film/sensor for a particular amount of time to an amount of light controlled by the aperture.

Took me ages to work out that @Kodiak Qc means "Shutter Release" when he puts "SR". He does have a habit of using slightly unusual words and terms in his posts, I assume this is due to the French/English translation.
Equally "rendition" is do with how the image processed.
The dictionary definition is:
"noun
1. the act of rendering.
2. a translation.
3. an interpretation, as of a role or a piece of music. "

So, a 'rendition' is nothing to do with capturing the light, more to do with interpreting or translating the captured light (ie processing, even if it's using the built in jpeg conversion).
 
Last edited:
ABTog said:
I'm with you till SAI ! What's with all the abbreviations?

Kodiak said in his OP (that's "original post"), about whether "Exposure" was an obsolete term when talking about "post SR" (shutter release; ie after you've hit the button and the image is stored).
I don't ever talk about having "made exposures" after pressing the shutter, so that part of the question is pointless.
Exposure is about capturing the light.
We "expose" the film/sensor for a particular amount of time to an amount of light controlled by the aperture.

Took me ages to work out that @Kodiak Qc means "Shutter Release" when he puts "SR". He does have a habit of using slightly words and terms in his posts, I assume this is due to the French/English translation. Equally "rendition" is do with how the image processed.
The dictionary definition is:
"noun
1. the act of rendering.
2. a translation.
3. an interpretation, as of a role or a piece of music. "

So, a 'rendition' is nothing to do with capturing the light, more to do with interpreting or translating the captured light (ie processing, even if it's using the built in jpeg conversion).
Click to expand...

sorry old chap...i got carried away with the upper frontal lobe spin on this
my bad..i thought incorrectly this was a spoof thread with all the contributors showing off...but not their photos...which we must admit must have been exposed in some way or another..despite our ramblings...mrtoad stand up and take a bow

i am glad we agree on an image being exposure via aperture onto the image plane..which in the digital camera has been programmed by us..we choose iso

my builder is quite good at rendering but his renditions are not images...just plain surfaces with cement on them
so the english language again kicks all our idealogy into the long grass..considering our audience of many languages

i was beginning to wonder why everyone was getting rendered recently and didnt want it to be a habit...

my next posted images will definately not be a rendering but a masterpiece of exposure.

blah blah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top