Reading mode: Light Dark

Understanding Exposure - a good book?

Understanding Exposure - a good book?

  • Total voters
    0
Go to last post
jrtrent said:
GeorgianBay1939 said:
David Hull said:
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".
Click to expand...
That is a big improvement, reducing confusion for beginners (like me)! Thank you.
Click to expand...
What was the new forum you and David speak of?
Click to expand...
I don't know. Before my time, I think. I was only commenting on the use of the term "brightness triangle" as being a big improvement over "exposure triangle". I suspect that two exposure variables (f/ and shutter interval) were combined with ISO (analogue and/or digital gain) to yield a "brightness triangle", which is reasonable for me.
jrtrent said:
jrtrent said:
jrtrent said:
However, out of all that, it was never clear how photography was improved as a result.
Click to expand...
Does that explain the resistance to learning how to optimally load a modern sensor that I often see in these forums? Or is that resistance due to a reliance of an extrapolation of film/jpeg shooting into RAW shooting without realizing it.... perhaps enhanced by shooting RAW + JPEG?
Click to expand...
Interesting questions. I don't recall anyone talking about an exposure triangle when I started learning how to take pictures.
Click to expand...
Me neither. I don't know how/where the "Exposure Triangle" came from. I suspect, only suspect, that once film ISO became "adjustable" with digicams, someone made the suggestion that learners set "EXPOSURE" by adjusting the two EV variables (f/ and shutter interval) and the one "gain" variable (ISO). I suspect, only suspect, that leap, is what led to the misuse of the term "EXPOSURE".
jrtrent said:
The following blurb reflects my understanding of aperture, shutter speed, sensitivity, and brightness of the scene:

Exposure determines how much light gets to the film. All still cameras have two fundamental controls for this: lens aperture and shutter speed. The combination of the two is the exposure value, or EV used for exposure. Film speed (discussed later) determines the quantity of light that will properly expose the film. The combination of film speed and the brightness of the scene determine an EV that can be translated into specific combinations of aperture and shutter speed to capture the proper quantity of light. http://johnlind.tripod.com/science/scienceexposure.html
Click to expand...
That makes good sense to me. Yes, EV & scene luminance determine Exposure.

Thanks for that link. I will read it carefully later, as it seems to give a good background to the science .... at that time (over a decade ago!).
jrtrent said:
While ISO is not properly a component of exposure, it helps determine what the exposure should be, so I'm also not clear on how adhering to the exposure triangle concept is hurtful to one's picture-taking.
Click to expand...
It isn't particularly hurtful when shooting JPEGs, but it can cause issues for RAW shooters. See below.
jrtrent said:
Then too, I'm firmly rooted in a slide film or out-of-camera JPEG mentality, and have no interest, other than academic, in procedures that require further manipulation of the images on my part once I've pressed the shutter release.
Click to expand...
I understand completely. That is exactly where I was about 13 months ago.

I had been a confirmed JPEG shooter (coming from P&S travel digicams for a few years) and "didn't want to spend all that time behind a computer screen. I'd rather be out taking pix."

Then I tried to capture some scenes with very high range luminance which couldn't be captured using JPEGS. So some of my friends suggested demanded that I learn RAW (to push the limits of my GH2 a little further).

So I started shooting RAW so that I could use Photomatix Pro to fuse images to increase the DR of my output.

I had some issues with setting the camera up to shoot RAW, reading Luminous Landscape, Cambridge in Colour, Exposure Triangle advocates etc and got totally messed up.

It was not until I went back to the correct fundamentals (Exposure is a function of f/ (or actually T/), shutter interval and scene luminance) while ISO is a form of post exposure gain (both analogue and digital) that I finally learned how to expose the sensor for optimal signal to noise ... to maximize the DR of the capture. All of which is very different to what I had been doing before --- when shooting JPEGS.

There are lots of good reasons to shoot JPEGs but since shooting RAW, I find that I actually like post-processing.

And I find that by manipulating the images in post, I have trained my eyes somewhat .... a big help when again looking through the eyepiece. I think that many experienced photographers don't really realize how well trained their eyes are. As a neophyte, I had to go through many hours of shooting, chimping and post-processing to get my eyes up to a condition where I now understand (trust?) the metering system(s), the live view histogram (made from JPEGS), the post-exposure R,G,B,Y histograms (made from sidecar JPEGs) and now know whether I "got it" or I need to shoot an exposure bracket.

(I should perhaps add that I spent my younger days flying high performance aircraft around courtesy Her Majesty, so a lot of the fundamentals of composition, contrast, lead-ins, etc, came quite naturally. That stuff never gets lost.)

I am rattling on and on here. Sorry. I just thought it might be helpful to realize that I am a beginning (serious) photographer. I have lots of time to practice, experiment, process and enjoy this fascinating hobby.

That is why I am so thankful to Gollywop for condensing a lot of stuff onto a couple of pages in a clear direct and correct way. It helped me a lot in understanding some of the arguments that we see in these forums, but more importantly it gave me a big boost in getting out of the HDR hole, to just past the "Dammit, I suck" stage:



[ATTACH alt=" This seems relevant to this discussion ... as we "develop" as photographers."]385218[/ATTACH]
This seems relevant to this discussion ... as we "develop" as photographers.

All good stuff!

Tom
 

Attachments

  • 53cd3ed572f84b1a80333bcb57edadb1.jpg.png
    53cd3ed572f84b1a80333bcb57edadb1.jpg.png
    62.6 KB · Views: 0
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...
My case against the book is simply how many it has misinformed. Many of the discussions on these forums on exposure stop dead when it emerges that one party in the discussion doesn't actually know what 'exposure' is. The discussions that follow on from that usually involve firstly the taking of umbrage at the mere suggestion that the person doesn't know what exposure is and secondly a citation of Peterson as authority for the incorrect understanding. The conclusion that I drew was that people were learning wrongly what exposure was from Peterson, so I got a copy - and found exactly what Gollywop says. Firstly the book never tells you what exposure is and secondly it leads one to make incorrect inferences about what it is. If it had been my first exposure to the concept of exposure, I would have come across misunderstanding it too. It should more properly be called 'Misunderstanding Exposure'. Whether it's a good guide to photography in general, I'm not so sure - I didn't think much of it in those terms.
 
GeorgianBay1939 said:
jrtrent said:
GeorgianBay1939 said:
David Hull said:
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".
Click to expand...
That is a big improvement, reducing confusion for beginners (like me)! Thank you.
Click to expand...
What was the new forum you and David speak of?
Click to expand...
I don't know. Before my time, I think. I was only commenting on the use of the term "brightness triangle" as being a big improvement over "exposure triangle". I suspect that two exposure variables (f/ and shutter interval) were combined with ISO (analogue and/or digital gain) to yield a "brightness triangle", which is reasonable for me.
GeorgianBay1939 said:
GeorgianBay1939 said:
GeorgianBay1939 said:
However, out of all that, it was never clear how photography was improved as a result.
Click to expand...
Does that explain the resistance to learning how to optimally load a modern sensor that I often see in these forums? Or is that resistance due to a reliance of an extrapolation of film/jpeg shooting into RAW shooting without realizing it.... perhaps enhanced by shooting RAW + JPEG?
Click to expand...
Interesting questions. I don't recall anyone talking about an exposure triangle when I started learning how to take pictures.
Click to expand...
Me neither. I don't know how/where the "Exposure Triangle" came from. I suspect, only suspect, that once film ISO became "adjustable" with digicams, someone made the suggestion that learners set "EXPOSURE" by adjusting the two EV variables (f/ and shutter interval) and the one "gain" variable (ISO). I suspect, only suspect, that leap, is what led to the misuse of the term "EXPOSURE".
GeorgianBay1939 said:
The following blurb reflects my understanding of aperture, shutter speed, sensitivity, and brightness of the scene:

Exposure determines how much light gets to the film. All still cameras have two fundamental controls for this: lens aperture and shutter speed. The combination of the two is the exposure value, or EV used for exposure. Film speed (discussed later) determines the quantity of light that will properly expose the film. The combination of film speed and the brightness of the scene determine an EV that can be translated into specific combinations of aperture and shutter speed to capture the proper quantity of light. http://johnlind.tripod.com/science/scienceexposure.html
Click to expand...
That makes good sense to me. Yes, EV & scene luminance determine Exposure.

Thanks for that link. I will read it carefully later, as it seems to give a good background to the science .... at that time (over a decade ago!).
GeorgianBay1939 said:
While ISO is not properly a component of exposure, it helps determine what the exposure should be, so I'm also not clear on how adhering to the exposure triangle concept is hurtful to one's picture-taking.
Click to expand...
It isn't particularly hurtful when shooting JPEGs, but it can cause issues for RAW shooters. See below.
GeorgianBay1939 said:
Then too, I'm firmly rooted in a slide film or out-of-camera JPEG mentality, and have no interest, other than academic, in procedures that require further manipulation of the images on my part once I've pressed the shutter release.
Click to expand...
I understand completely. That is exactly where I was about 13 months ago.

I had been a confirmed JPEG shooter (coming from P&S travel digicams for a few years) and "didn't want to spend all that time behind a computer screen. I'd rather be out taking pix."

Then I tried to capture some scenes with very high range luminance which couldn't be captured using JPEGS. So some of my friends suggested demanded that I learn RAW (to push the limits of my GH2 a little further).

So I started shooting RAW so that I could use Photomatix Pro to fuse images to increase the DR of my output.

I had some issues with setting the camera up to shoot RAW, reading Luminous Landscape, Cambridge in Colour, Exposure Triangle advocates etc and got totally messed up.

It was not until I went back to the correct fundamentals (Exposure is a function of f/ (or actually T/), shutter interval and scene luminance) while ISO is a form of post exposure gain (both analogue and digital) that I finally learned how to expose the sensor for optimal signal to noise ... to maximize the DR of the capture. All of which is very different to what I had been doing before --- when shooting JPEGS.

There are lots of good reasons to shoot JPEGs but since shooting RAW, I find that I actually like post-processing.

And I find that by manipulating the images in post, I have trained my eyes somewhat .... a big help when again looking through the eyepiece. I think that many experienced photographers don't really realize how well trained their eyes are. As a neophyte, I had to go through many hours of shooting, chimping and post-processing to get my eyes up to a condition where I now understand (trust?) the metering system(s), the live view histogram (made from JPEGS), the post-exposure R,G,B,Y histograms (made from sidecar JPEGs) and now know whether I "got it" or I need to shoot an exposure bracket.

(I should perhaps add that I spent my younger days flying high performance aircraft around courtesy Her Majesty, so a lot of the fundamentals of composition, contrast, lead-ins, etc, came quite naturally. That stuff never gets lost.)

I am rattling on and on here. Sorry. I just thought it might be helpful to realize that I am a beginning (serious) photographer. I have lots of time to practice, experiment, process and enjoy this fascinating hobby.

That is why I am so thankful to Gollywop for condensing a lot of stuff onto a couple of pages in a clear direct and correct way. It helped me a lot in understanding some of the arguments that we see in these forums, but more importantly it gave me a big boost in getting out of the HDR hole, to just past the "Dammit, I suck" stage:



[ATTACH alt=" This seems relevant to this discussion ... as we "develop" as photographers."]385218[/ATTACH]
This seems relevant to this discussion ... as we "develop" as photographers.

All good stuff!

Tom
Click to expand...
How a variation in media sensitivity is technologically achieved has no bearing on what makes for a properly exposed image. Let us use an example.

Scene Brightness Value: 9 (bright day light)
Aperture: f/2.8

What will be your choice for shutter speed to make an image that mimics the scene?
 
Thank you for summarising my thoughts on the book way better than I would be able to do in a reasonable time frame :) .

I bought this book in ~2006 (or 2007?) after reading endless praises for it on forums on some microstock sites. And I was really sorry I did. The biggest problem, I think, is that the author tried to boost his ROI by essentially reprinting his 1990 film book. Some of the tricks for metering the scene are actually useful for JPEG shooter (i.e. the concept of using a lot of manual settings, or metering off the green grass and giving it -2/3 exposure compensation), but, as you say, they are way less relevant for raw shooters. And to make matters worse, it's interspersed with completely harmful advice, like, for example, taking landscape photos at F/22 for maximizing DoF (at this time I already heard about the diffraction impact, but some people didn't, and at the same forum were asking why their photos taken with 8-10MP crop cameras at F/22 or less were rejected for softness).

So on the whole, I think it was one of the most useless (if not harmful) books I've bought on the subject of photography (especially, again, for the raw shooter).
 
EinsteinsGhost said:
EinsteinsGhost said:
jrtrent said:
GeorgianBay1939 said:
David Hull said:
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".
Click to expand...
That is a big improvement, reducing confusion for beginners (like me)! Thank you.
Click to expand...
What was the new forum you and David speak of?
Click to expand...
I don't know. Before my time, I think. I was only commenting on the use of the term "brightness triangle" as being a big improvement over "exposure triangle". I suspect that two exposure variables (f/ and shutter interval) were combined with ISO (analogue and/or digital gain) to yield a "brightness triangle", which is reasonable for me.
EinsteinsGhost said:
EinsteinsGhost said:
EinsteinsGhost said:
However, out of all that, it was never clear how photography was improved as a result.
Click to expand...
Does that explain the resistance to learning how to optimally load a modern sensor that I often see in these forums? Or is that resistance due to a reliance of an extrapolation of film/jpeg shooting into RAW shooting without realizing it.... perhaps enhanced by shooting RAW + JPEG?
Click to expand...
Interesting questions. I don't recall anyone talking about an exposure triangle when I started learning how to take pictures.
Click to expand...
Me neither. I don't know how/where the "Exposure Triangle" came from. I suspect, only suspect, that once film ISO became "adjustable" with digicams, someone made the suggestion that learners set "EXPOSURE" by adjusting the two EV variables (f/ and shutter interval) and the one "gain" variable (ISO). I suspect, only suspect, that leap, is what led to the misuse of the term "EXPOSURE".
EinsteinsGhost said:
The following blurb reflects my understanding of aperture, shutter speed, sensitivity, and brightness of the scene:

Exposure determines how much light gets to the film. All still cameras have two fundamental controls for this: lens aperture and shutter speed. The combination of the two is the exposure value, or EV used for exposure. Film speed (discussed later) determines the quantity of light that will properly expose the film. The combination of film speed and the brightness of the scene determine an EV that can be translated into specific combinations of aperture and shutter speed to capture the proper quantity of light. http://johnlind.tripod.com/science/scienceexposure.html
Click to expand...
That makes good sense to me. Yes, EV & scene luminance determine Exposure.

Thanks for that link. I will read it carefully later, as it seems to give a good background to the science .... at that time (over a decade ago!).
EinsteinsGhost said:
While ISO is not properly a component of exposure, it helps determine what the exposure should be, so I'm also not clear on how adhering to the exposure triangle concept is hurtful to one's picture-taking.
Click to expand...
It isn't particularly hurtful when shooting JPEGs, but it can cause issues for RAW shooters. See below.
EinsteinsGhost said:
Then too, I'm firmly rooted in a slide film or out-of-camera JPEG mentality, and have no interest, other than academic, in procedures that require further manipulation of the images on my part once I've pressed the shutter release.
Click to expand...
I understand completely. That is exactly where I was about 13 months ago.

I had been a confirmed JPEG shooter (coming from P&S travel digicams for a few years) and "didn't want to spend all that time behind a computer screen. I'd rather be out taking pix."

Then I tried to capture some scenes with very high range luminance which couldn't be captured using JPEGS. So some of my friends suggested demanded that I learn RAW (to push the limits of my GH2 a little further).

So I started shooting RAW so that I could use Photomatix Pro to fuse images to increase the DR of my output.

I had some issues with setting the camera up to shoot RAW, reading Luminous Landscape, Cambridge in Colour, Exposure Triangle advocates etc and got totally messed up.

It was not until I went back to the correct fundamentals (Exposure is a function of f/ (or actually T/), shutter interval and scene luminance) while ISO is a form of post exposure gain (both analogue and digital) that I finally learned how to expose the sensor for optimal signal to noise ... to maximize the DR of the capture. All of which is very different to what I had been doing before --- when shooting JPEGS.

There are lots of good reasons to shoot JPEGs but since shooting RAW, I find that I actually like post-processing.

And I find that by manipulating the images in post, I have trained my eyes somewhat .... a big help when again looking through the eyepiece. I think that many experienced photographers don't really realize how well trained their eyes are. As a neophyte, I had to go through many hours of shooting, chimping and post-processing to get my eyes up to a condition where I now understand (trust?) the metering system(s), the live view histogram (made from JPEGS), the post-exposure R,G,B,Y histograms (made from sidecar JPEGs) and now know whether I "got it" or I need to shoot an exposure bracket.

(I should perhaps add that I spent my younger days flying high performance aircraft around courtesy Her Majesty, so a lot of the fundamentals of composition, contrast, lead-ins, etc, came quite naturally. That stuff never gets lost.)

I am rattling on and on here. Sorry. I just thought it might be helpful to realize that I am a beginning (serious) photographer. I have lots of time to practice, experiment, process and enjoy this fascinating hobby.

That is why I am so thankful to Gollywop for condensing a lot of stuff onto a couple of pages in a clear direct and correct way. It helped me a lot in understanding some of the arguments that we see in these forums, but more importantly it gave me a big boost in getting out of the HDR hole, to just past the "Dammit, I suck" stage:

[ATTACH alt="This seems relevant to this discussion ... as we "develop" as photographers."]385218[/ATTACH]
This seems relevant to this discussion ... as we "develop" as photographers.

All good stuff!

Tom
Click to expand...
How a variation in media sensitivity is technologically achieved has no bearing on what makes for a properly exposed image. Let us use an example.

Scene Brightness Value: 9 (bright day light)
Aperture: f/2.8

What will be your choice for shutter speed to make an image that mimics the scene?
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I don't really understand the question, mainly because I don't understand your terminology.

I didn't know what you meant by "variation in media sensitivity", so I Googled the expression but didn't get much of value.

Nikon uses the term "ISO sensitivity" here:

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/g9mqnyb1/understanding-iso-sensitivity.html
  • Photography is built on the three pillars of exposure: shutter speed, aperture and sensitivity. Shutter and aperture are controls for adjusting how much light comes into the camera. How much light is needed is determined by the sensitivity of the medium used. That was as true for glass plates as it is for film and now digital sensors. Over the years that sensitivity has been expressed in various ways, most recently as ASA and now ISO.
And the manual for my GX7 says under the topic "Setting the Light Sensitivity" that I can rotate a dial to set ISO Sensitivity.

Although I prefer NOT to use the term "ISO sensitivity" as it is potentially misleading, I guess that is what you mean by "variation in media sensitivity".

And I didn't know what you meant by "Scene Brightness Value". Some Googling led me eventually to

It's the average scene luminance
  • "It's an ASA standardized brightness value of the average scene luminance. It is used within the APEX system ."
Before I get my log2 calculator out to play with this:



5f2bb2140246459cba7bd62222355cf6.jpg.png
I better confirm that this is what you mean!

I await your advice. And maybe you could tell me why I am even doing this!

(When I spot meter, often in A(perture) priority, I get a pretty good idea of relative scene luminance in EV just by looking at the numbers and watching the Live View histogram. Subject to DOF and Motion Blur, when I feel that I have max exposure of the shadows without blowing highlights, I release the shutter. Then I chimp the RGBY channels to confirm that I haven't blown them. I can often get by with blowing R or B somewhat as I can usually recover them in Post Processing after RAW conversion. Lately I've been using Pattern meter in M(anual) mode (with Constant Preview ON) to get reasonably reliable optimal exposures. In very low light conditions with large Luminance Range I have to make judgement as to risk of blowing highlights vs analogue gain vs post processing opening of shadows. When all else fails I shoot a bracket and use Photomatix Pro! :-D ) I should add that I occasionally "calibrate" my procedure by checking my RAW files using RawDigger .

I guess that I'd prefer to use the capability of the camera and my knowledge of the capture and processing of the signal to inform my practice and procedures.

Maybe there is someone else out here who understands your question and would be able to answer it.

I'd be happy to learn more about this, if it will help me get better imagery in challenging situations.

Tom
 
You made quite a bit of run around while being aware if what I meant. I deliberately chose the term to exclude technology (film vs digital sensor as the media) as understanding exposure is independent of that.

So, now that you know, what is your answer?
 
stasvolik said:
Thank you for summarising my thoughts on the book way better than I would be able to do in a reasonable time frame :) .
Click to expand...
You're welcome.
stasvolik said:
I bought this book in ~2006 (or 2007?) after reading endless praises for it on forums on some microstock sites. And I was really sorry I did. The biggest problem, I think, is that the author tried to boost his ROI by essentially reprinting his 1990 film book. Some of the tricks for metering the scene are actually useful for JPEG shooter (i.e. the concept of using a lot of manual settings, or metering off the green grass and giving it -2/3 exposure compensation), but, as you say, they are way less relevant for raw shooters. And to make matters worse, it's interspersed with completely harmful advice, like, for example, taking landscape photos at F/22 for maximizing DoF (at this time I already heard about the diffraction impact, but some people didn't, and at the same forum were asking why their photos taken with 8-10MP crop cameras at F/22 or less were rejected for softness).
Click to expand...
Yes. What's interesting is that he deals with diffraction (at least in the 3rd edition), so he does indeed know about it, but he effectively pooh-pooh's it. Indeed, in his sidebar entitled "Diffraction vs. Satisfaction," he makes the rather remarkable statement:

So I want to set the record straight on lens diffraction and share what thousands of commercial freelance photographers all over the world know: Shooting at f/22 can be a great idea, and any worries about loss of sharpness and contrast are just as overblown as the Y2K fears were!

Interestingly, in the example he gives to prove his point of an image taken at f/22 and f/8, the effects of diffraction are quite noticeable. As you might expect, they don't ruin the picture, but they sure are noticeable.

I also love his follow up to the paragraph quoted above; specifically: In over thirty-five years of shooting commercially, I can't ever remember a client saying, "Bryan, whatever you do, don't shoot at f/22."

So Peterson apparently not only knows and discusses diffraction with thousands of commercial freelance photographers all over the world, but he's also got a large number of clients who are technologically savvy enough about the diffraction issue to know it's not worth mentioning. That's impressive. :-)

What's also interesting is that the hyperfocal distance for that shot (lens was 12mm) would only have changed from 1.43 ft at f/22 to 2.82 ft at f/11, and the Merklinger near-resolution would only have gone from .5mm to 1mm, so there's a good question as to whether anything was gained by using f/22 in the first place.
stasvolik said:
So on the whole, I think it was one of the most useless (if not harmful) books I've bought on the subject of photography (especially, again, for the raw shooter).

--
Cheers.
P.S. Comments and critiques are always welcome :) .
Click to expand...


--
gollywop



D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg
 
This is how Peterson conveys his message:
gollywop said:
So I want to set the record straight on lens diffraction and share what thousands of commercial freelance photographers all over the world know: Shooting at f/22 can be a great idea, and any worries about loss of sharpness and contrast are just as overblown as the Y2K fears were!

In over thirty-five years of shooting commercially, I can't ever remember a client saying, "Bryan, whatever you do, don't shoot at f/22."
Click to expand...
To a beginner, it sounds pretty clear and convincing eh?

Contrast that with:
gollywop said:
and the Merklinger near-resolution would only have gone from .5mm to 1mm,
Click to expand...
Yes your quote is out of context I know, I know but with that kind of techno talk (techno-babble to a beginner) you could see why Peterson sells thousands more books even if they are filled with errors and omissions.
 
AceP said:
This is how Peterson conveys his message:
AceP said:
So I want to set the record straight on lens diffraction and share what thousands of commercial freelance photographers all over the world know: Shooting at f/22 can be a great idea, and any worries about loss of sharpness and contrast are just as overblown as the Y2K fears were!

In over thirty-five years of shooting commercially, I can't ever remember a client saying, "Bryan, whatever you do, don't shoot at f/22."
Click to expand...
To a beginner, it sounds pretty clear and convincing eh?

Contrast that with:
AceP said:
and the Merklinger near-resolution would only have gone from .5mm to 1mm,
Click to expand...
Yes your quote is out of context I know, I know but with that kind of techno talk (techno-babble to a beginner) you could see why Peterson sells thousands more books even if they are filled with errors and omissions.
Click to expand...
I've never been able to agree with the notion that one should lie to beginners because its easier for them to understand lies. It's both patronising and unproductive. Of course, what Gollywop wrote above was not directed at beginners - he made the reasonable assumption that here he was talking to non-beginners, for whom the efficiency of 'jargon' in conveying precise ideas outweighed the unfamiliarity.

Trying to design a pedagogy for a complex subject which both tells the truth and helps the beginner to learn the fundamentals is not easy, but it can be done and is usually much more rewarding than lying because the truth is too difficult.
 
bobn2 said:
AceP said:
This is how Peterson conveys his message:
bobn2 said:
So I want to set the record straight on lens diffraction and share what thousands of commercial freelance photographers all over the world know: Shooting at f/22 can be a great idea, and any worries about loss of sharpness and contrast are just as overblown as the Y2K fears were!

In over thirty-five years of shooting commercially, I can't ever remember a client saying, "Bryan, whatever you do, don't shoot at f/22."
Click to expand...
To a beginner, it sounds pretty clear and convincing eh?

Contrast that with:
bobn2 said:
and the Merklinger near-resolution would only have gone from .5mm to 1mm,
Click to expand...
Yes your quote is out of context I know, I know but with that kind of techno talk (techno-babble to a beginner) you could see why Peterson sells thousands more books even if they are filled with errors and omissions.
Click to expand...
I've never been able to agree with the notion that one should lie to beginners because its easier for them to understand lies. It's both patronising and unproductive. Of course, what Gollywop wrote above was not directed at beginners - he made the reasonable assumption that here he was talking to non-beginners, for whom the efficiency of 'jargon' in conveying precise ideas outweighed the unfamiliarity.

Trying to design a pedagogy for a complex subject which both tells the truth and helps the beginner to learn the fundamentals is not easy, but it can be done and is usually much more rewarding than lying because the truth is too difficult.
Click to expand...
I voted the book down. There are more useful (and free) sites along with camera simulators from which to gather a working knowledge of exposure without having to accept Peterson's overly simplistic explanations like this gem:

"To better understand the effect of ISO on exposure, think of the ISO as a worker bee. The job of the worker bees is to gather the light that comes through the lens and make an image"

or at the other extreme having to digest the technically correct white paper:

"With an ISO-variant camera (one whose read noise decreases with increased ISO), the benefit is in favor of brightening with added in-camera ISO, which will typically result in less read noise than shooting darker and pushing in raw processing."

Can you name some author's who both understand their subject matter AND can convey the information to a beginner without scaring them off?
 
bobn2 said:
I've never been able to agree with the notion that one should lie to beginners
Click to expand...
Especially when those distortions overcomplicate the things.

But it is often good and practical to go by iterations I think. First one might be like the strategy I practice for many years with digital, because digital is primarily highlight-limited: start with determining the light meter calibration, that is how many stops there are between the zero in the spot-metering mode and actual blowing highlights out; next, meter from the highlights where the hint of texture is necessary and add the compensation from the previous.
 
AceP said:
bobn2 said:
AceP said:
This is how Peterson conveys his message:
AceP said:
So I want to set the record straight on lens diffraction and share what thousands of commercial freelance photographers all over the world know: Shooting at f/22 can be a great idea, and any worries about loss of sharpness and contrast are just as overblown as the Y2K fears were!

In over thirty-five years of shooting commercially, I can't ever remember a client saying, "Bryan, whatever you do, don't shoot at f/22."
Click to expand...
To a beginner, it sounds pretty clear and convincing eh?

Contrast that with:
AceP said:
and the Merklinger near-resolution would only have gone from .5mm to 1mm,
Click to expand...
Yes your quote is out of context I know, I know but with that kind of techno talk (techno-babble to a beginner) you could see why Peterson sells thousands more books even if they are filled with errors and omissions.
Click to expand...
I've never been able to agree with the notion that one should lie to beginners because its easier for them to understand lies. It's both patronising and unproductive. Of course, what Gollywop wrote above was not directed at beginners - he made the reasonable assumption that here he was talking to non-beginners, for whom the efficiency of 'jargon' in conveying precise ideas outweighed the unfamiliarity.

Trying to design a pedagogy for a complex subject which both tells the truth and helps the beginner to learn the fundamentals is not easy, but it can be done and is usually much more rewarding than lying because the truth is too difficult.
Click to expand...
I voted the book down. There are more useful (and free) sites along with camera simulators from which to gather a working knowledge of exposure without having to accept Peterson's overly simplistic explanations like this gem:

"To better understand the effect of ISO on exposure, think of the ISO as a worker bee. The job of the worker bees is to gather the light that comes through the lens and make an image"

or at the other extreme having to digest the technically correct white paper:

"With an ISO-variant camera (one whose read noise decreases with increased ISO), the benefit is in favor of brightening with added in-camera ISO, which will typically result in less read noise than shooting darker and pushing in raw processing."

Can you name some author's who both understand their subject matter AND can convey the information to a beginner without scaring them off?
Click to expand...
There's a series of articles in a British photo mag...
 
Iliah Borg said:
Iliah Borg said:
I've never been able to agree with the notion that one should lie to beginners
Click to expand...
Especially when those distortions overcomplicate the things.

But it is often good and practical to go by iterations I think. First one might be like the strategy I practice for many years with digital, because digital is primarily highlight-limited: start with determining the light meter calibration, that is how many stops there are between the zero in the spot-metering mode and actual blowing highlights out; next, meter from the highlights where the hint of texture is necessary and add the compensation from the previous.
Click to expand...
 
Iliah Borg said:
Iliah Borg said:
I've never been able to agree with the notion that one should lie to beginners
Click to expand...
Especially when those distortions overcomplicate the things.

But it is often good and practical to go by iterations I think. First one might be like the strategy I practice for many years with digital, because digital is primarily highlight-limited: start with determining the light meter calibration, that is how many stops there are between the zero in the spot-metering mode and actual blowing highlights out; next, meter from the highlights where the hint of texture is necessary and add the compensation from the previous.
Click to expand...
Yes, this technique was a real eye-opener for me when I first learned it. Not only did it help determine good exposures when there were no live-view blinkies, but it's appreciation also entailed coming to important understandings of the workings of a camera.

And, RawDigger makes the headroom determination much easier, faster, and surer.

The only real problem with it is when the desired highlight is too small to encompass the spot meter area. In this case, of course, the metering will indicate higher than desired, and one must use judgement to determine how much less EC is needed. But, a bit of experience quickly solves this issue. :-)



--
gollywop



D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg
 
riveredger said:
riveredger said:
riveredger said:
ISO is the sensor's sensitivity to light.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. The sensor's sensitivity to light does not change.
Click to expand...
Yes it does, for the purposes of increasing image brightness. This stuff is very easy, no need to overcomplicate the basics and get bogged down in symantics.
Click to expand...
Try "semantics". And it pays to know the meaning of the words you use; because "semantics" means "meaning" - see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=semantics&allowed_in_frame=0

Now to the issue at hand. You have your camera loaded with film. Can you change the ISO of the film?
 
Iliah Borg said:
Now to the issue at hand. You have your camera loaded with film. Can you change the ISO of the film?
Click to expand...
Most definitely. Now, with roll film, the change is for the whole roll but we had several stops of control over ISO. And with sheet film, Mr. Adams played with that variable quite a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Sounds like Bryan F. Peterson passed away...
Replies
14
Views
2K
Sally-Wadd
S
Fulcanelli
  • Question Question
How to Get a Good Exposure Reading w/ Cheap Handheld Meter
Replies
13
Views
365
ThrillaMozilla
T
R
  • Locked
Make an experiment
Replies
2
Views
2K
Mathew Anderson
Mathew Anderson
J
Further experiments with multiple exposure
Replies
7
Views
25K
Jeff Biscuits
J
Ysarex
  • Locked
Equivalence Nonsense
5 6 7
Replies
138
Views
6K
gary0319
gary0319

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top