Bryan Peterson's UNderstanding Exposure - A few questions

riceowl

Leading Member
Messages
541
Reaction score
0
Location
Houston, TX, US
Howdy,

I finally picked up UNderstanding Exposure this week and have read through about 2/3's of it. its a great book! I didn't think it would offer much more since I've done a ton of reading on the net (but of course, by no means very good yet), but this book was definitely worth it and gave me some new perspectives. Anyway, I was kind of confused by a few things he said.

One is how he focuses. He seems to like to manual focus much of the time. He talks about using the distance scale, esp for the landscape type shots, to focus to infinity. He says to set focus to 2 feet on the distance scale and warns that it will look blurry in the viewfinder b/c the lens is wide opened at that point, but once you snap the pic, the lens stops down and it'll come into focus. That really kind of threw me. Does that mean you can't really trust manual focus then? If its blurry, but will come out focuses, how could you ever manual focus? Or does this only apply to focus'ing to infinity, but he does mention the 2 ft scale if I remember correctly. It kind of confused me. Is it b/c of DOF with the wide opened aperture and when it stops down it'll all come into focus, thus implying that you can still manual focus no problem but not everything will be in focus, however there will be something in focus.

Another question has to do with white balance. I guess I've misunderstood what WB is this whole time. I always thought WB didn't affect metering, that it just told the processor HOW to process the neutrals in the photo. BUt he seems to imply that it does affect metering. Is that right? Generally, I don't even worry about WB, I just set it to AWB and if I need to change it, I do so in post processing. But if it affects metering, then it is important to get it right from the start.

He gives the particular example of snow - which I understood. The camera, by itself, will make a snowy field gray. Makes sense, I understand that and how the meter works. So you set some EC to correct this and good to go. Understand so far. But he did talk about setting the white balance correctly and this to me seemed to imply it would affect the metering. I could be wrong, I may need to re-read.

ANyway, its a great read. Thanks to all on here who strongly recommended this book. I need to go out and try his techniques. I'm a little skeptical on some of his metering suggestions when it comes to the sky. BUt of course, I'm not the expert, so I'll give it a whirl. He says to meter off the blue sky, but for me, this usually tended to severly underexpose everything else. But in his photos in the book, they came out perfect. For instance, if I were taking a picture of some building, currently, I would meter the building and sometimes this would blow the sky. But when I was practicing before, there were times, where I believe I metered the sky, and the building would come out as a silhouette. And this is not from "backlit sun", its from "frontlit sun" Anyway, a bit counterintuitive for me, but I'm going to give it a whirl.

--
Just trying to learn

Blog: http://novicephotog.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9778447@N07/
 
From what I understood about the focus, was that when you manually focus through the viewfinder you are focusing with a DOF that would be equal to your lens being wide open.

It's not until you press the shutter release that the lens stops down to your selected aperture. So by using the scale to infinity for landscapes your really taking any guess work out of what will be in focus. Or you can also use your DOF preview after you adjust your focus to see if you were right.
 
One is how he focuses. He seems to like to manual focus much of the
time. He talks about using the distance scale, esp for the landscape
type shots, to focus to infinity. He says to set focus to 2 feet on
the distance scale and warns that it will look blurry in the
viewfinder b/c the lens is wide opened at that point, but once you
snap the pic, the lens stops down and it'll come into focus.
Two FEET? That will be hopeless for landscapes as you will get next to no depth of field and everything will be out of focus (except anything two feet in front of you, which isnt likely to be much for a landscape shot).

The depth-of-field calculator at

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

is really instructive: have a play with it. Suppose you have a typical crop-sensor DSLR like a Nikon D40 or a Canon EOS 400D or a Pentax K100D. Set the focal length to 25mm and the distance to the subject to 2 feet; aperture to f/16. The depth of field extends from 1.6 to 2.8 feet. At f/8 the situation is worse, with a depth of field from 1.75 to 2.33 feet. Not much use for a landscape!

I haven't read this book but it is well known and reputable. Is it possible you have mis-interpreted something? It sounds like he is trying to explain about hyperfocal focussing.

If you are shooting a landscape and want everything up to infinity to be in focus, what most people would do is just focus on infinity. With the setup above (25mm lens, f/8) everything from 13.3. feet to infinity would be in focus. Fine. But if you focus slightly in front of infinity (to be precise, at 13.6 feet) - then everything from 6.8 feet to infinity will be in focus. The depth of field stretches from in front of the focus point to behind , and by using 13.6 feet (the hyperfocal distance under these conditions) as the focus point you are relying on the depth of field to bring infinity into focus, whilst getting some more depth of field close to you.

This explains the comment about the image looking out of focus in the viewfinder. When looking through the viewfinder the lens is wide open (say, at f/2 if you are using a prime lens, or f/3.5 if you are using a kit zoom lens). Under these conditions (25mm, f/3.5, 13.6 feet focus distance) the background WILL be out of focus because the depth of field stretches from 9.5 to 23.5 feet and 'infinity' is not in focus. But as soon as you take the picture, the lens stops down to your selected aperture and the depth of field will extend to infinity.
Another question has to do with white balance. I guess I've
misunderstood what WB is this whole time. I always thought WB didn't
affect metering, that it just told the processor HOW to process the
neutrals in the photo. BUt he seems to imply that it does affect
metering. Is that right?
Possibly but it won't have much effect. As you say is just affects the colour balance in the photo from warm (yellowish) to cool (bluish). I haven't noticed it having any significant effect on exposure and I can't see why it should.
Generally, I don't even worry about WB, I
just set it to AWB and if I need to change it, I do so in post
processing.
Me too, except in artifiical light (tungsten or fluorescent lights) where AWB doesn;t work well.

Best wishes
--
Mike
 
Howdy,
One is how he focuses. He seems to like to manual focus much of the
time. He talks about using the distance scale, esp for the landscape
type shots, to focus to infinity. He says to set focus to 2 feet on
the distance scale and warns that it will look blurry in the
viewfinder b/c the lens is wide opened at that point, but once you
snap the pic, the lens stops down and it'll come into focus. That
really kind of threw me.
For this, I guess what he is trying to explain is about the hyperfocal distance and DOF.

If you set your focus > = hyperfocal distance, anything at and beyond this focus distance will be "acceptably" sharp. Just like you get the DOF up to infinity, which you need this for landscape shooting. No matter you set your focus at hyperfocal distance or larger than hyperfocal distance, you still get DOF up to infinity. Let say for his case, the hyperfocal distance is 2 feet. So you can get sharp focus till infinity whether you set your focus at 2 feet, 3 feet, 10 feet or anything larger.

But if you set at 10 feet, you only get anything from 10 feet to infinity sharp. Closer thing will be blur. So, it would be better to set at 2 feet to get everything from 2 feet to infinity sharp.

One thing to note here is that if you set your focus smaller than hyperfocal distance, you can't get the depth till infinity. So, it is adviceable to set your focus slightly larger than hyperfocal distance, but yet not too large to get the advantage above. This is to avoid the risk that if you slightly go below hyperfocus distance, the very far object will be blurred.

However, the problem here is that hyperfocal distance is a function of a few things including aperture (the f-number). The smaller the f-number, the longer the hyperfocal distance. For his case, when the aperture is wide open using viewfinder, the hyperfocal distance is larger than 2 feet, but your focus distance is 2 feet (less than hyperfocal distance), so you don't get the depth till infinity and see blurred background. When you snap, the aperture stop down, and the hyperfocal distance just change to slightly lower than 2 feet, hence you get the depth till infinity ---> sharp landscape.
 
riceowl wrote:

For this, I guess what he is trying to explain is about the
hyperfocal distance and DOF.

If you set your focus > = hyperfocal distance, anything at and beyond
this focus distance will be "acceptably" sharp. Just like you get
the DOF up to infinity, which you need this for landscape shooting.
No matter you set your focus at hyperfocal distance or larger than
hyperfocal distance, you still get DOF up to infinity. Let say for
his case, the hyperfocal distance is 2 feet. So you can get sharp
focus till infinity whether you set your focus at 2 feet, 3 feet, 10
feet or anything larger.
But if you set at 10 feet, you only get anything from 10 feet to
infinity sharp. Closer thing will be blur. So, it would be better
to set at 2 feet to get everything from 2 feet to infinity sharp.
Sure... but I think that '2 feet' is a mistake (somewhere). The only way to get a hyperfocal distance that short is to use an ultra-wide angle lens stopped right down. With an 18mm lens (widest setting of most standard zooms on a crop-sensor camera) you'd need to use f/32 to get a hyperfocal distance of 2 feet, which would give everything from 13 inches to infinity in focus... and a very soft image due to diffraction effects. Maybe the book said 20 feet, which would work fine in many cases.

Best wishes
--
Mike
 
One is how he focuses. He seems to like to manual focus much of the
time. He talks about using the distance scale, esp for the landscape
type shots, to focus to infinity. He says to set focus to 2 feet on
the distance scale and warns that it will look blurry in the
viewfinder b/c the lens is wide opened at that point, but once you
snap the pic, the lens stops down and it'll come into focus.
Two FEET? That will be hopeless for landscapes as you will get next
to no depth of field and everything will be out of focus (except
anything two feet in front of you, which isnt likely to be much for a
landscape shot).
The "two" sounds like it cold be a confusion with Hyperfocal Distance DoF nearpoint.

When hyperfocal focusing is used, Depth of Field extends up to infinity behind the hyperfocal distance focused, and from a nearpoint that is HALF hyperfocal distance.....

..... which could be expressed as " hd/2 " ... possibly [?]

I haven't seen the book, but I think I might be on the right track regarding where that anomalous "two" came from.
--
Regards,
Baz
 
I missed something up there. Correction here.

When you set your focus at hyperfocal distance, everything behind the hyperfocal distance until infinity is "acceptably" sharp. But something slightly infront of the hyperfocal distance is also "acceptably" sharp. About HD/2 I guess.

But if you set your focus to infinity, you only get "acceptably" sharp from hyperfocal distance to infinity. You lose the extra that you can get by setting it at hyperfocal distance.

Example, if hyperfocal distance is 2 feet and you set focus at infinity, you get "acceptably" sharp from 2 feet to infinity. But if you set focus at 2 feet, you get "acceptably" sharp from 1 feet (I randomly choose a small number here, you can get it calculated out with some DOF calculator) to infinity.
 
Sure... but I think that '2 feet' is a mistake (somewhere). The only
way to get a hyperfocal distance that short is to use an ultra-wide
angle lens stopped right down. With an 18mm lens (widest setting of
most standard zooms on a crop-sensor camera) you'd need to use f/32
to get a hyperfocal distance of 2 feet, which would give everything
from 13 inches to infinity in focus... and a very soft image due to
diffraction effects. Maybe the book said 20 feet, which would work
fine in many cases.
I think you are right here, I also tried calculate and if use f/16, you will need 16mm lens to get hyperfocal distance at 1.8 feet. Lol.

If set focus to infinity, get depth from 1.8 feet to infinity.
If set focus at 2 feet, get depth from 1 feet to infinity.
 
Example, if hyperfocal distance is 2 feet and you set focus at
infinity, you get "acceptably" sharp from 2 feet to infinity. But if
you set focus at 2 feet, you get "acceptably" sharp from 1 feet (I
randomly choose a small number here, you can get it calculated out
with some DOF calculator) to infinity.
The nearpoint distance of hyperfocal distance DoF isn't random . It is ALWAYS HALF hyperfocal distance -- whatever that happens to be for the actual aperture in use. (See my post made a short while ago....)

So your guess of 1 foot for a 2 foot HD, is bang on! Well done! ;-)
--------------------------------------

The point about using hyperfocal distance is that it doesn't extend DoF BEYOND infinity, where it is absolutely useless...

... well, to anybody but Buzz Lightyear* that is! ;-)
  • See excellent animated movie "Toy Story"
--
Regards,
Baz
 
skylark_khur wrote:
The nearpoint distance of hyperfocal distance DoF isn't random . It
is ALWAYS HALF hyperfocal distance -- whatever that happens to be for
the actual aperture in use. (See my post made a short while ago....)

So your guess of 1 foot for a 2 foot HD, is bang on! Well done! ;-)
Lol, I guess it was something there but not entirely sure, so just randomly put a number. Guess I'm lucky to day.

So, essentially, why the author go through the trouble (not really very trouble) to set focus at hyperfocal distance instead of just set it at infinity is to get the extra depth in front of the hyperfocal distance.

If it is 20 feet, you get extra 10 feet by going through the "trouble".
 
The point about using hyperfocal distance is that it doesn't extend
DoF BEYOND infinity, where it is absolutely useless...

... well, to anybody but Buzz Lightyear* that is! ;-)
  • See excellent animated movie "Toy Story"
Ahaaa... so THAT's what good ol' Buzz Lightyear was on about: he was answering the question 'how far does the depth of field extend when you focus beyond the hyperfocal distance?' There's obviously more to that movie than meets the eye.

Come to think of it, answers to commonly-asked photography questions on this forum crop up in many films. For example:

Q: Should I buy a Canon or Nikon?
A: Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn
(Clark Gable, in 'Gone with the wind')

Q: I've just bought a Rebel XTi and want to turn professional. Any advice?
A: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
(from 2001, A Space Odyssey)

As you can tell, I'm bored at work today...
Best wishes
--
Mike
 
RE> So you set some EC to correct this and good to go.

Nope.

How much snow will be in your shot? Will it fill the frame, or will there be lots of sky in the shot, too?

People in the picture? How much of the frame will they take up?

Themore snow, the greater the exposure compensation. The less snow, the less exposure comp. How much is more and how much is less? Beats me.

That's why smart people use manual exposure when taking pictures of subjects where the amount of snow varies from frame to frame.

Distance scales? You read about that because the author and the publisher have not done a half decent job keeping the book current.

White balance and metering? You've just confused me, because the author confused you. While everything is realted in photography -- aperture to depth of field to focus to blur from shutter speeds to ....there's not much connection the vast majority of the time between white balance and metering, although tehere are things like shadows going blue on snow, and the darkness of the shandows relating to the exposure settings.

But mostly, it doesn't matter.

BAK

BAK
 
You haven't said anything helpful. Sometimes its difficult for a person new to photography to ask the "right" question when they don't understand the topic. Ask for clarification to try and understand what it is they are having difficulty with rather than just pointing out that they are confused.
 
One is how he focuses.
He is explaning why using the hyperfocal distance (2 feet is just to explain a point) will give you a picture that has more in focus than simply setting the lens to infinity.
Another question has to do with white balance.... affecting metering.
No, please reread.
I'm a little skeptical on some of his metering suggestions when it comes
to the sky.
Don't forget that he uses Center-weighted Average metering exclusively. Won't work with matrix (multi-pattern) metering, so set your camera to center-weighted before you try this out.
 
Hey all,

Thanks for all your responses. To answer the question many you have asked, "Could I have misread what the author stated?" My answer is absolutely and I probably did. When I get home, I'll look to see again what it is he said. On the focusing, I have heard of focusing to infinity, but I could have sworn he didn't say that, he gave a number and I thought the number was 2 feet. If this doens't sound logically, then I probably misread it or misunderstood.

On the WB question, he didn't say it affected the metering, but it seemed to be implicitly implied. Again, this is probably me misreading what he said. I'll reread this section and report back as well. From what I remember, he was talking about snow and how it turns to grayish if you listen to the metering. In the same area, he talked about setting hte white balance to help you by using a gray card (he also gave a trick about using hte palm of your hand and taking the difference or something like that, BUT don't take that as gospel, I remember that even less well). I'll have to look at it again, but in his steps it almost seemed to imply WB would affect metering.

I'm going to have to reread the book. I've read through it pretty quickly so I'm sure I've missed some stuff or misunderstood. I will say its an excellent book, I enjoy it and have learned some good tips. Also, convinced me that I should get into manual mode sooner rather than later. I've been pretty content in Av mode and sometimes Tv, but after reading his book, I see there is more than meets the eye to the advantages of shooting in manual mode.

I'll take a look at what he says and repost here. More than likely, I misunderstood what he was saying.

--
Just trying to learn

Blog: http://novicephotog.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9778447@N07/
 
Mary, interesting thread on metering. I did take a read on that. I didn't take into account that Peterson does say he uses center weighted all the time.

For the distance stuff, in the book on p39, there is a picture and he has a description of how he took the picture. He used a wide angle lens "20-35mm" and set aperture to f/22 and preset his focus so that distance of two feet is set. He warns that in the viewfinder, it will look out of focus, but once the button is pressed to take the pic, the lens will stop down and it will all be in focus.

So I guess he gave the 2 feet as a particular example. I'm not sure if he'd always use 2 feet for this type of pic, he was doing a pic with great DOF. He has other mentions of presetting his focus using distance scale, but doesn't give the actual number, so I assume maybe at 2 feet?

Okay, this is why I may have confused the WB with the metering. I've never used a gray card before, I have heard of them, BUT I always thought they were for setting the white balance. It seems that I may be wrong on this, but it appears that a gray card is used to aid in metering, which makes sense to me. Now, is that correct? Is a gray card used to help in metering? I guess the reason I thought it was for white balance was b/c I could have sworn I've seen instruction on setting Custom WB and it said to take a pic of a gray card and then follow certain steps depending on your camera, and viola, you have custom WB set. This is why I thought he was implying WB is affecting the metering, he says to shot a gray card to help with the metering (or meter off a gray card to be exact).

--
Just trying to learn

Blog: http://novicephotog.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9778447@N07/
 
I too am almost done reading this book and am rather new to photography as a hobby. One thing I really don't understand is how he says he's always pointing his camera to something other than the subject to get a meter reading. Why???? He'll say something like, "I pointed to camera to the blue sky to get a meter reading." Why would he do that if he's taking pictures of flowers right in front of him?
 
For the distance stuff, in the book on p39, there is a picture and he
has a description of how he took the picture. He used a wide angle
lens "20-35mm" and set aperture to f/22 and preset his focus so that
distance of two feet is set. He warns that in the viewfinder, it
will look out of focus, but once the button is pressed to take the
pic, the lens will stop down and it will all be in focus.

So I guess he gave the 2 feet as a particular example. I'm not sure
if he'd always use 2 feet for this type of pic, he was doing a pic
with great DOF. He has other mentions of presetting his focus using
distance scale, but doesn't give the actual number, so I assume maybe
at 2 feet?
Then he is just giving an example. When you using 20mm f/22 on full-frame, the hyperfocal distance is 2 feet. By focusing at infinity, you get the DOF 2 feet to infinity. By focusing at 2 feet, you get the DOF 1 feet to infinity. Hence, nearer limit and more coverage.

But you get this only when the aperture step down to f/22 when SNAP. When viewing, the aperture is wide open and the hyperfocal distance is much greater. For example, if it is f/2.8 when wide open, the hyperfocal distance is 15.5 feet, and when focusing at 2 feet, you get the DOF from 1.78 feet to 2.29 feet only. Thus, he tell you this doesn't matter because this "temporary" blurry landscape is not something that you are going to end up.
 
I too am almost done reading this book and am rather new to
photography as a hobby. One thing I really don't understand is how he
says he's always pointing his camera to something other than the
subject to get a meter reading. Why???? He'll say something like, "I
pointed to camera to the blue sky to get a meter reading." Why would
he do that if he's taking pictures of flowers right in front of him?
Because he is trying to fool the metering? I presume he is using center-weighted spot metering. So, the choice is where he want the result to be correctly expose. If he is metering at the flower, he get the flower correctly expose with the risk of overblown sky. If he is metering at the sky, he get the sky correctly expose but the flower might slightly underexpose. In many case, you can't get everything in a frame correctly expose. It is your choice to balance it and get the effect you want.

When we use matrix-patterned metering, the camera will try her best to balance it. Although the camera may not be always success.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top