It is a melancholy object to the informed photographer, when traversing forums, YouTube comment sections, and even certain articles in the photographic press, to behold the frequent complaints of confusion arising from the concept of photographic equivalence. These complaints, sincere and repeated, inform us that equivalence is too complicated for the modern mind, too abstract for the average practitioner, and far too prone to misuse to be allowed to persist in polite company.
Therefore, lest we burden the gentle shooter with any additional cognitive load, I humbly propose that we do away not only with equivalence, but with all other technical concepts which might—by requiring explanation—injure the tranquility of photographic discourse.
F-stops, in particular, are a scandal crying out for reform. Any reasonable person, trained in the basic arithmetic of civilized society, would expect that halving a number should either halve the quantity in question or double it. But not so with f-stops. Here, a reduction from f/4 to f/2 results not in half as much light, but in four times as much, for reasons rooted, allegedly, in “geometry” and “optics”, terms invoked chiefly to silence dissent. One cannot help but suspect that this system was devised not to aid understanding but to deliberately disorient newcomers, ensuring they must remain forever dependent on experts, charts, and YouTube explainers. Why else would a system be built upon the square root of two, except to keep the uninitiated from realizing that the Emperor is wearing a very well-exposed, but thoroughly irrational, set of clothes?
Shutter speed must go as well. The notion that time could be divided into such arcane fractions as 1/250th or 1/8000th of a second is clearly oppressive. Instead, cameras should offer a “still,” “somewhat blurry,” and “very blurry” mode.
Depth of field is particularly harmful, as it invites the viewer to imagine that both subject and background can exist in the same photograph, at different distances. This is a gateway to thinking three-dimensionally, which must be discouraged.
The circle of confusion (a term that is, frankly, redundant) is clearly problematic. It has “confusion” right in the name. Need I say more?
We should also abolish ISO, which falsely implies that signal-to-noise performance could be subject to tradeoffs. This illusion must be stamped out in favor of a new standard: “Clean,” “Grainy,” and “Instagram.”
Furthermore, the concept of white balance unfairly forces photographers to consider that light has color. In an era of inclusivity, who are we to say that a tungsten bulb is not “daylight, in its own way”?
Finally, all measurements should be replaced by presets named after animals or personality traits. For instance: “Cat Mode” (shallow depth of field, fast shutter), “Wise Grandparent” (everything in focus, slow), or “Edgy Millennial” (overexposed, ironic).
In short, I submit that a world without equivalence is not only possible, but inevitable, so long as we remove every other tool that might demand mental effort. It is only through this noble simplification that we may one day achieve true photographic harmony, unburdened by thought, numbers, or understanding.
Štěpán Kaňa says
There is a problem with ‘ “Cat Mode” (shallow depth of field, fast shutter), “Wise Grandparent” (everything in focus, slow), or “Edgy Millennial” (overexposed, ironic).’ — the first two are ok, but “ironic” is a function of language, not of the “world out there”.
Brian says
Finally a post here that I can understand. You made my day Jim.
Weird Lenses says
F stops should be maintained if he/she is a proud user of Olympus 300/4 Pro。
To keep him believe that lenses equals to BIGGGGG 600/4s
lmao
JimK says
BobsYourUncle on DPR has written a riposte:
Ah, dear readers—how delightful it is to be gently mocked by the satire of a mind too clever by half. And yet, with all due reverence to the brilliant modesty of the foregoing proposal, I feel compelled to offer a counterpoint equally steeped in Swiftian spirit. For while it may appear most noble to purge photography of all its pesky particulars, I propose—nay, I insist—that we instead go in the opposite direction: let us embrace complexity with fanatical enthusiasm, and elevate photographic equivalence (and all related metrics) to its rightful place—not as a tool of understanding, but as an initiation rite into the Sacred Order of the Overinformed.
Let us begin with equivalence itself. Is it difficult? Of course. Misunderstood? Certainly. Which is why we must multiply it. I propose a new system, not merely of crop factors, but of Compound Equivalence Matrices—charts so dense with nested footnotes and unit conversions that only the most pious will emerge from their study, blinking and reborn, with the secret knowledge of how a 28mm f/2.8 lens on Micro Four Thirds compares emotionally and spiritually on medium format.
We must also demand a return to Classical Notation. f/2.8? Ha! Why not use its proper geometric form: ƒ = √(A/πd²), where A is the area of the aperture in decameters squared, and d is the diameter of the entrance pupil in cubits? Let the unwashed masses fumble with their emojis; we, the enlightened, shall etch our exposure settings into stone tablets with a slide rule and a Leica loupe.
As for shutter speeds—surely, we’ve been far too lenient. No more of this decadent “1/500s” shorthand. Let us use Planck time intervals! Why stop at fractions of a second when you can specify shutter durations in quintillions of picoseconds? A shutter speed of 1/250 shall henceforth be expressed as “13.6 trillion Planck ticks”—suitable for recording fast-moving quarks and hummingbirds.
Depth of field? A travesty to reduce such elegance to mere millimeters. We must instead calculate the field curvature, nodal displacement, and refractive deviation of light rays as they pass through every lens element. Want to blur your background? Great. First, solve this 4th-order differential equation involving Snell’s Law and the curvature radius of your rear element. Enjoy!
ISO, too, must evolve. No more of this base-100 nonsense. I propose a logarithmic scale that takes into account quantum efficiency, sensor well depth, and the photographer’s caffeine level. Let the new ISO scale start at “Zen” and rise all the way to “Ragnarök.”
And white balance? Oh no, dear reader—we mustn’t eliminate it. We must add chromatic philosophy to it. Was your shot under sodium vapor light? Ask not what temperature it was in Kelvins; ask what mood it evokes, what existential hue it represents in the dying light of late capitalism.
Let photography become a noble labyrinth, a discipline so arcane and abstract that only the most devoted may participate. Let forums burst at the seams with equations, color diagrams, and bitter feuds over the phase response curve of preamps in CCDs. Let newcomers weep at the sight of graphs, and let us greet them with open arms and dense PDFs.
In conclusion, I submit to you: if we are to rid the world of simple-minded snapping and TikTok-friendly sliders, then we must not simplify, but glorify—not dilute, but distill complexity into something so rarefied that photography may ascend at last to its final form: a purely theoretical discipline practiced only by hermits, physicists, and the truly devoted.
Only then, my friends, shall we achieve photographic enlightenment.
God help us all.
Štěpán Kaňa says
Bob’s a genius. Love Planck’s ticks. Let’s adopt that. Also something like “net zero” or “ground zero” for the blackest black we can capture with our cams please?
DC wedding photographer says
Equal parts hilarious and depressingly accurate. It’s amazing how a concept designed to create clarity equivalence has become a battleground of confusion. This satire cuts close to the truth: maybe it’s not the concepts, but how we teach and talk about them that needs reform.