Understanding Exposure - a good book?

I have heard so much about the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson, so last year I went to the trouble of downloading a PDF version of the book to see if it was worth purchasing for real.

I am happy I did not waste any money, because reading the first few chapters it was clear that this book could teach me nothing new, the explanations weren't very good (and neither were the included photo). And then there is the entire "Exposure Triangle" debate, where I have since concluded that I am against including ISO in the exposure triangle.

Recently I saw another thread where this book was warmly recommended by several people, so that it makes me wonder if I am alone in my views.

Please understand that this thread is not intended just to bash the book, I wish to hear others opinions and views. Also keep in mind, I only read the first few chapters, so I don't know the entire book and maybe the good part comes later.

The rest is learning the quirks of your tools of choice,
good luck finding a book for your own particular combo.

quadrox said:

I have heard so much about the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson, so last year I went to the trouble of downloading a PDF version of the book to see if it was worth purchasing for real.

I am happy I did not waste any money, because reading the first few chapters it was clear that this book could teach me nothing new, the explanations weren't very good (and neither were the included photo). And then there is the entire "Exposure Triangle" debate, where I have since concluded that I am against including ISO in the exposure triangle.

Recently I saw another thread where this book was warmly recommended by several people, so that it makes me wonder if I am alone in my views.

Please understand that this thread is not intended just to bash the book, I wish to hear others opinions and views. Also keep in mind, I only read the first few chapters, so I don't know the entire book and maybe the good part comes later.

Click to expand...

Like anything, it depends where you are at in your study of photography. I personally don't think there is too much of a problem with thinking in terms of the exposure triangle, even though it is not strictly correct. I was a bit amazed that there was so much fuss about it a while back. It WAS entertaining though

quadrox said:

I have heard so much about the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson, so last year I went to the trouble of downloading a PDF version of the book to see if it was worth purchasing for real.

I am happy I did not waste any money, because reading the first few chapters it was clear that this book could teach me nothing new, the explanations weren't very good (and neither were the included photo). And then there is the entire "Exposure Triangle" debate, where I have since concluded that I am against including ISO in the exposure triangle.

Recently I saw another thread where this book was warmly recommended by several people, so that it makes me wonder if I am alone in my views.

Click to expand...

You are not alone:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38342560

There were many more comments by others that were similar.

quadrox said:

Please understand that this thread is not intended just to bash the book, I wish to hear others opinions and views. Also keep in mind, I only read the first few chapters, so I don't know the entire book and maybe the good part comes later.

Click to expand...

I looked the book over at B&N and didn't notice it getting any better in the later chapters.

If you are already fairly expert and getting the results you want neither this nor any other book will seem particularly worthwhile.

On the other hand, if you aren't getting good results this book is an excellent place to start. This is especially true when using one of the recent digital cameras where you can get acceptable images at incredible ISO ratings. This makes varying ISO from shot to shot a factor that merits careful consideration and demands that the photographer understand the concept of the exposure triangle.

Jerry

my level of shooter at that time.

quadrox said:

I am happy I did not waste any money, because reading the first few chapters it was clear that this book could teach me nothing new, the explanations weren't very good (and neither were the included photo). And then there is the entire "Exposure Triangle" debate, where I have since concluded that I am against including ISO in the exposure triangle.

Click to expand...

Well it sounds like you are of the mentality that you'll believe what you want to believe and dismiss sources that offer what you don't think is true. You cannot get a good exposure without incorporating ISO.

quadrox said:

Recently I saw another thread where this book was warmly recommended by several people, so that it makes me wonder if I am alone in my views.

Click to expand...

You'll end up being the slim minority in the end. The book will help you understand camera metering far better than shoot, review historgram, adjust exposure settings, reshoot, repeat.

quadrox said:

Please understand that this thread is not intended just to bash the book, I wish to hear others opinions and views. Also keep in mind, I only read the first few chapters, so I don't know the entire book and maybe the good part comes later.

Click to expand...

Ron Poelman said:

The rest is learning the quirks of your tools of choice,
good luck finding a book for your own particular combo.

Click to expand...

Re: If you can see it, it's exposed correctly.

Could not be further from the truth, seriously. And there's no place to start with just a false blanket statement!

won't vote because the options are stacked against the book. I found the book very useful and I pick it up and re-read sections regularly. It is not the end all or be all but is is more than just OK.

I am pointing my camera at a subject,
I can make it dark, I can make it light, I have infinite choice.
Pray, what is this "correct" exposure you speak of ?

Like RaymondR, I don't think your poll gives options that do the book justice. It's a very good book on one aspect of photography--exposure. Your poll options include phrases like "there really is not much to know beyond what is in the book" and "it teaches the most important things a photographer should know," which don't even describe the book's intent. One of the book's vendors, Adorama, describes it this way, "If you're someone who finds the concept of exposure overwhelming and confusing, then Understanding Exposure is the book you've been waiting for. . . Understanding Exposure reveals that you always have creative options about how you expose a picture- the decision is up to you, not your camera." If you already have a good understanding of light and exposure, there will be little new to learn; however, unlike you, I do find his example photos and explanations to be interesting to see and read.

quadrox said:

I have heard so much about the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson, so last year I went to the trouble of downloading a PDF version of the book to see if it was worth purchasing for real.

I am happy I did not waste any money, because reading the first few chapters it was clear that this book could teach me nothing new, the explanations weren't very good (and neither were the included photo). And then there is the entire "Exposure Triangle" debate, where I have since concluded that I am against including ISO in the exposure triangle.

Recently I saw another thread where this book was warmly recommended by several people, so that it makes me wonder if I am alone in my views.

Please understand that this thread is not intended just to bash the book, I wish to hear others opinions and views. Also keep in mind, I only read the first few chapters, so I don't know the entire book and maybe the good part comes later.

Click to expand...

Was there a point to this thread? There are plenty of things I find useful to learn from and then there are others that bring nothing new to me. That doesn't mean someone else can't benefit from it.

Understanding light and mastering light with a particular imaging tool (camera + lens) are based on principles and practice. The book by Peterson can help lay the groundwork, but one learns and grows from real experiences in different lighting conditions and subject matters.

The eyes can adapt to "see." The camera, on the other hand, captures light according to parameters. The effect of each parameter and the dynamic interrelationships among the parameters can only be appreciated through practice. Adjusting those parameters in a certain way can intentionally create the "feel" of the resultant image.

• Exposure is important because it determines how light or dark the images are.
• Too dark and detail in the shadows is lost; too light and detail in the highlights is lost.
• The photographer determines the exposure. This is where knowledge and experience make a huge difference.
• The photographer is responside for the idea of what is to become of the image.
• The factors to be "controlled" are influenced by both the environment at hand and the technical specifications of the equipment.

As a fairly experienced amateur going back to film days, I thought the book was very useful in explaining how cameras meters measure light, and how to use that information to get better exposures.

No its not the only source of information , but its the book I gave my Stepdaughter when she got her first DSLR. I think the writing is clear, and the photographs visually demonstrate the effects of where and how you meter on the final image.

Not specifically stated, but evident in his photographs, is the extensive use of tripods. Like many, I find the use of a tripod often inconvenient, but for overall image sharpness nothing beats it at low shutter speeds

Rmark said:

Not specifically stated, but evident in his photographs, is the extensive use of tripods. Like many, I find the use of a tripod often inconvenient, but for overall image sharpness nothing beats it at low shutter speeds

Click to expand...

Tripods are always inconvenient. But worthless blurred images are even less convenient. As you say, nothing beats a tripod.

I've read that you need about 1/1500 sec to really knock out handheld camera shake. Now, i can only use that fast a shutter speed in bright daylight -- which is a pain.

Is this a technology-advance thing -- where in the future, we will be able to have cameras with very fast shutter speeds in low light -- or are we up against the laws of optics here?

As it is, it's tough on the grandchildren, having to drink two shots of whiskey to slow them down as that candle-lit birthday cake comes in!

Kaso said:

• Exposure is important because it determines how light or dark the images are.

Click to expand...

I thought that's what Lightroom is for.

Understanding Exposure is not a good book for beginners.

I read Peterson about a year ago after deciding to shoot RAW. Prior experience was JPEG shooting with P&S travel cameras then a year or so of JPEG shooting with M4/3 cameras.

Peterson explains and extrapolates the approaches of film and JPEG shooting using the "Exposure Triangle" paradigm.

So I wasted months with that misleading concept until I read Gollywop's Exposure Vs Brightening .

So now I always recommend reading Gollywop as a form of inoculation against the false concepts found in Peterson.

Once you understand exposure ..... (The exposure is the density of light (total light per area -- photons / mm²) that falls on the sensor during the exposure, which is usually expressed as the product of the illuminance of the sensor and the time the shutter is open (lux · seconds, where 1 lux · second = 4.1 billion photons / mm² for green light -- 555 nm). The only factors in the exposure are the scene luminance, t-stop (where the f-ratio is often a good approximation for the t-stop), and the shutter speed (note that neither sensor size nor ISO are factors in exposure).) ... it is fine to read Peterson, skeptically.

So with the proviso of understanding what exposure really means in digital photography, reading Peterson is good fun and is helpful.

I hope this helps.

Tom

Ron Poelman said:

I am pointing my camera at a subject,
I can make it dark, I can make it light, I have infinite choice.

Click to expand...

And so could a monkey but the monkey wouldn't know what he/she is doing.

Ron Poelman said:

Pray, what is this "correct" exposure you speak of ?

Click to expand...

Greatly over expose or greatly under expose if you feel like it but ask any pro photographer what correct exposure is any he/she will tell and show you. Sounds like you should read that book too.

GeorgianBay1939 said:

Understanding Exposure is not a good book for beginners.

I read Peterson about a year ago after deciding to shoot RAW. Prior experience was JPEG shooting with P&S travel cameras then a year or so of JPEG shooting with M4/3 cameras.

Peterson explains and extrapolates the approaches of film and JPEG shooting using the "Exposure Triangle" paradigm.

So I wasted months with that misleading concept until I read Gollywop's Exposure Vs Brightening .

So now I always recommend reading Gollywop as a form of inoculation against the false concepts found in Peterson.

Once you understand exposure ..... (The exposure is the density of light (total light per area -- photons / mm²) that falls on the sensor during the exposure, which is usually expressed as the product of the illuminance of the sensor and the time the shutter is open (lux · seconds, where 1 lux · second = 4.1 billion photons / mm² for green light -- 555 nm). The only factors in the exposure are the scene luminance, t-stop (where the f-ratio is often a good approximation for the t-stop), and the shutter speed (note that neither sensor size nor ISO are factors in exposure).) ... it is fine to read Peterson, skeptically.

So with the proviso of understanding what exposure really means in digital photography, reading Peterson is good fun and is helpful.

I hope this helps.

Tom

Click to expand...

First off, for the benefit of those in the thread who might not have actually read the book, Peterson does not use the term "exposure triangle" at least not in the chapter heading where he introduces the concept (I didn't bother to re-read the book to write this comment). Rather he choses to use the term "Photographic Triangle". What's more, in the first chapter titled "What is meant by "Exposure"?" he makes the statement ... a question I have heard more often than any other "Hey Brian... what should my exposure be?" (in other words how much light should hit the film/digital media and for how long". It seems quite clear that Peterson understands what exposure actually consists of and he nails it down right up front before he ever says anything about any type of triangle.

I would be curious how your enlightenment (after your proper education by Gollywop) improved your photography. Please feel free to illustrate with actual images that were dramatically improved before and after as a result of your new and now "correct" understanding of exposure.

During the time that this was being so vehemently slapped around, I read most of the threads and participated in a few of them. As far as I can tell we ran something like 10 threads to 150, forced DPR to create a new forum and finally decided that the "exposure triangle" should really be the "brightness triangle". However, out of all that, it was never clear how photography was improved as a result. One thing that I am sure of though is that if you hand a beginner a copy of Peterson's book it will probably get them to doing better photography a lot quicker than slogging through Gollywop's article of your "physics lesson" above.