Thread by @jmspool

You’ve got several good theories here. Let’s debunk them.

https://twitter.com/verbiate/status/1370154446584385538

Let’s start with why do prosumer cameras still report these numbers. Your theory is because they are still useful in photography. That’s good, but I have an alternative theory.

My theory is because it’s an anachronism. The things those numbers represent are actually no longer meaningful. But, as you say, photographers have been trained on them. So, they come to expect them.

In the olden days, they represented physical things: the speed of light absorption on film, the diameter of the aperture, the speed of a shutter.

In most cameras, those things no longer exist. They are simulated. (One could argue that f-stops have always been a meaningless number. They are relative values, without connection to the actual dimensions of the aperture they describe.)

There is no more film. Apertures are fixed. Shutter speed is dynamic.

These numbers, as reported in digital cameras today, are actually guesses based on what the designers think an equivalent might be in a conventional camera. And they aren’t accurate.

So, my theory is they are offered as placebos. Not because they add value, but because they make the photographers more comfortable.

One might suggest they are the egg in the original Betty Crocker cake mix.

google.com/amp/s/www.psyc…

Here’s some evidence: the three variables you mentioned—ISO (actually ASA), F number, and shutter timing—date back to the 1830s.

Has there been no innovation in photography since then? Of course there has.

Why have no new critical numbers emerged in the last 190 years?

Let’s talk about Bokeh use. This is all the rage in pro photography today.

It’s an artifact of how digital cameras work. It can be precisely controlled.

Yet, it has no dashboard for reporting bokeh effects. Why not? Wouldn’t pros want the control?

They do want control, but a dashboard, which would have a slew of complicated, inscrutable numbers wouldn’t help.

Instead, interactive controls allow the photographers adjust the image until they get what they want.

The original purpose for the standard photography numbers wasn’t used while the photographer took the picture.

It was used to record what the settings were after the fact.

Photographers would record the values, using bracketing techniques to adjust the image.

They would need the numbers back in the darkroom. They needed to adjust the darkroom equipment and supplies to match the exposure numbers.

But we don’t use darkrooms today. The numbers aren’t necessary.

Often, photographers worked on gut feel. Some of the most famous early images were made without any of those numbers.

Ansel Adams, when shooting his famous Moonrise over Hernandez, couldn’t find his light meter, so just guessed.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonrise,…

Phone cameras have controls (faux filters, touch exposure hot spots, sliders, and others) for photographers to adjust the settings.

With the advent of more input devices, beyond conventional physical knobs, on today’s cameras, there a lot for modern designers to work with.

The photographers who demand the old values will eventually die.

Photography will only become more powerful.

New generations of photographers will never learn what an f-stop is. And emulsion doesn’t mean anything anymore.

The camera dashboard is vestigial. And unnecessary.

As to your definition of a professional user as an advanced user, here’s my follow up question:

What is the precise moment when a user becomes an advanced user?

If you had 100 users in a room, what rubric would you use to sort them into non-advanced users and advanced users?

I contend there is no such thing as an advanced user.

There are users with more skills and experience than others.

But there is no way to classify any individual as being an advanced user.

(In that way, it’s like an f-stop, except without the agreed upon calibration.)

I’d love to see the book when you’re ready.