What's different when ISO setting is changed?

Probably useful for ajax (David) to refer to this -

This "conceptual ISO" matter was touched upon in this recent conversation - [HERE].

Note Richard's comments Post #10, and my comments Post #11 - extracts below, my bold and underlined now for emphasis:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

I suspect that photographers who have learned their trade/art working with film, which had a finite ISO for each roll are less accepting of the auto ISO method of automating exposure. At first, I looked down my nose at Auto ISO but, have become more accepting of that method of exposure determination and control. . .

---

*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

. . .Stating what Richard wrote a different way - with Film, there were only TWO variables we could set and/or tweak on the camera - those being Av (Aperture) and Tv (Shutter Speed) . . . When Digital came along there was a revolutionary change as we could 'select' a different ISO between shots - now although not exactly the same, but certainly synonymous with being able to select a different film speed between shots. . .

---

***

I expect a general truth is: those of us (such as David, the OP) who have used film and have some understanding of it, can readily see inaccuracies or confusions that are prevalent when terms have been carried forward from Film and adopted/adapted to Digital.

On the other hand, I think that mostly all of those who have only used Digital, even those with a Technical or Engineering bent are probably quite comfortable with the label “ISO” and probably don't care much about the etymology.

I think that a most important thing is to ensure that pedantry and definitions are used when necessary – and I tend to deem that always necessary when there is any likelihood of confusion or misinterpretation.

Also, in a lighter vein: it is often necessary to refer to stuff “correctly”, simply because the common/adopted/adapted/invented term irritates the life out of one (me) . . . “Full Frame” is at the top of my list, at the moment.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

Probably useful for ajax (David) to refer to this -

This "conceptual ISO" matter was touched upon in this recent conversation - [HERE].

Note Richard's comments Post #10, and my comments Post #11 - extracts below, my bold and underlined now for emphasis:



*



***

I expect a general truth is: those of us (such as David, the OP) who have used film and have some understanding of it, can readily see inaccuracies or confusions that are prevalent when terms have been carried forward from Film and adopted/adapted to Digital.

On the other hand, I think that mostly all of those who have only used Digital, even those with a Technical or Engineering bent are probably quite comfortable with the label “ISO” and probably don't care much about the etymology.

I think that a most important thing is to ensure that pedantry and definitions are used when necessary – and I tend to deem that always necessary when there is any likelihood of confusion or misinterpretation.

Also, in a lighter vein: it is often necessary to refer to stuff “correctly”, simply because the common/adopted/adapted/invented term irritates the life out of one (me) . . . “Full Frame” is at the top of my list, at the moment.

WW

---

One can explain the name. Don't forget the "crop camera" to add to your list:)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george013

One can explain the name. Don't forget the "crop camera" to add to your list:)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

George

---

Allow me to add the abuse of "APS-C" in the digital age, especially by Canon and formerly by Sigma.

No-one here old enough to know the "Advanced Photo System-Classic" (guessing nineteen-nineties?).
Sorry if I started a side track that is too far off the beaten track.
I'll stop now.
regards.