Help! Can’t understand “Understanding Exposure” by Bryan Peterson

[Iliah Borg]

Brian Peterson has figured out how to write and teach to a target audience and has developed a successful photographic career. How is that wrong?

Just because someone (or something) has some sort of "mass appeal" doesn't make that person (or it) right.

And it doesn't make it wrong.

What's wrong (in the context of this discussion) is his explanation of ISO.

You are shooting from the corners just like the earlier worker bee comments.

The worker bee analogy comes from Bryan Peterson.

Now if you cite his explanation of ISO

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0008576/article/100-in-100-Understanding-the-Effect-of-ISO-on-Exposure

and tell what's wrong with it

It can be summed up in his last sentence, "... the use of ISO 1600 really brings on the noise!" What brings on the noise is underexposure. One thing that's wrong with the bee analogy is that your honey doesn't taste worse because more bees were used to gather it.

you may have a point.

It's pointless to try to explain how ISO relates to exposure to you, same as it is to explain how popularity relates to being right or wrong.

In the meantime the book remains popular.

That's completely irrelevant.

How so?

Popularity doesn't equate to being right (or as you said above) wrong.

No review has come forth to ruin the popularity of the book.

Also irrelevant.

Many claim to use it successfully to help their photography. Isn't that the purpose of the book?

Then the purpose of the book is so that some can "claim" it has helped them?

Wrong. The purpose of the book is to actually help people.

By teaching falsehoods, great help.

TBD

It is an established fact.

TBD

ROTFLMAO you really don't have a clue.

ROTFLMAO

While you are rolling on the floor laughing, Brian is laughing all the way to the bank.

You don't know that ROTFLMAO

Not to mention that personal gain isn't always the same as community good ) - to quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

Yes, you are nothing but a superhero to this forum...

"One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans—anything except reason." - Thomas Sowell

 

[mamallama]

Brian Peterson has figured out how to write and teach to a target audience and has developed a successful photographic career. How is that wrong?

Just because someone (or something) has some sort of "mass appeal" doesn't make that person (or it) right.

And it doesn't make it wrong.

What's wrong (in the context of this discussion) is his explanation of ISO.

You are shooting from the corners just like the earlier worker bee comments.

The worker bee analogy comes from Bryan Peterson.

Now if you cite his explanation of ISO

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0008576/article/100-in-100-Understanding-the-Effect-of-ISO-on-Exposure

and tell what's wrong with it

It can be summed up in his last sentence, "... the use of ISO 1600 really brings on the noise!" What brings on the noise is underexposure. One thing that's wrong with the bee analogy is that your honey doesn't taste worse because more bees were used to gather it.

you may have a point.

It's pointless to try to explain how ISO relates to exposure to you, same as it is to explain how popularity relates to being right or wrong.

In the meantime the book remains popular.

That's completely irrelevant.

How so?

Popularity doesn't equate to being right (or as you said above) wrong.

No review has come forth to ruin the popularity of the book.

Also irrelevant.

Many claim to use it successfully to help their photography. Isn't that the purpose of the book?

Then the purpose of the book is so that some can "claim" it has helped them?

Wrong. The purpose of the book is to actually help people.

By teaching falsehoods, great help.

TBD

It is an established fact.

TBD

ROTFLMAO you really don't have a clue.

ROTFLMAO

While you are rolling on the floor laughing, Brian is laughing all the way to the bank.

You don't know that ROTFLMAO

Not to mention that personal gain isn't always the same as community good ) - to quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Several of Brian Peterson books are still among the best selling photography books even today. Thus people must be happy with the help they are getting from them.

 

[riveredger]

Brian Peterson has figured out how to write and teach to a target audience and has developed a successful photographic career. How is that wrong?

Just because someone (or something) has some sort of "mass appeal" doesn't make that person (or it) right.

And it doesn't make it wrong.

What's wrong (in the context of this discussion) is his explanation of ISO.

You are shooting from the corners just like the earlier worker bee comments.

The worker bee analogy comes from Bryan Peterson.

Now if you cite his explanation of ISO

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0008576/article/100-in-100-Understanding-the-Effect-of-ISO-on-Exposure

and tell what's wrong with it

It can be summed up in his last sentence, "... the use of ISO 1600 really brings on the noise!" What brings on the noise is underexposure. One thing that's wrong with the bee analogy is that your honey doesn't taste worse because more bees were used to gather it.

you may have a point.

It's pointless to try to explain how ISO relates to exposure to you, same as it is to explain how popularity relates to being right or wrong.

In the meantime the book remains popular.

That's completely irrelevant.

How so?

Popularity doesn't equate to being right (or as you said above) wrong.

No review has come forth to ruin the popularity of the book.

Also irrelevant.

Many claim to use it successfully to help their photography. Isn't that the purpose of the book?

Then the purpose of the book is so that some can "claim" it has helped them?

Wrong. The purpose of the book is to actually help people.

By teaching falsehoods, great help.

TBD

It is an established fact.

TBD

ROTFLMAO you really don't have a clue.

ROTFLMAO

While you are rolling on the floor laughing, Brian is laughing all the way to the bank.

You don't know that ROTFLMAO

Not to mention that personal gain isn't always the same as community good ) - to quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

Yes, you are nothing but a superhero to this forum...

"One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans—anything except reason." - Thomas Sowell

I was commenting on your intimation that you are here for the good of the community.

 

[Aberaeron]

Brian Peterson has figured out how to write and teach to a target audience and has developed a successful photographic career. How is that wrong?

Just because someone (or something) has some sort of "mass appeal" doesn't make that person (or it) right.

And it doesn't make it wrong.

What's wrong (in the context of this discussion) is his explanation of ISO.

You are shooting from the corners just like the earlier worker bee comments.

The worker bee analogy comes from Bryan Peterson.

Now if you cite his explanation of ISO

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0008576/article/100-in-100-Understanding-the-Effect-of-ISO-on-Exposure

and tell what's wrong with it

It can be summed up in his last sentence, "... the use of ISO 1600 really brings on the noise!" What brings on the noise is underexposure. One thing that's wrong with the bee analogy is that your honey doesn't taste worse because more bees were used to gather it.

you may have a point.

It's pointless to try to explain how ISO relates to exposure to you, same as it is to explain how popularity relates to being right or wrong.

In the meantime the book remains popular.

That's completely irrelevant.

How so?

Popularity doesn't equate to being right (or as you said above) wrong.

No review has come forth to ruin the popularity of the book.

Also irrelevant.

Many claim to use it successfully to help their photography. Isn't that the purpose of the book?

Then the purpose of the book is so that some can "claim" it has helped them?

Wrong. The purpose of the book is to actually help people.

By teaching falsehoods, great help.

TBD

It is an established fact.

TBD

ROTFLMAO you really don't have a clue.

ROTFLMAO

While you are rolling on the floor laughing, Brian is laughing all the way to the bank.

You don't know that ROTFLMAO

Not to mention that personal gain isn't always the same as community good ) - to quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Several of Brian Peterson books are still among the best selling photography books even today. Thus people must be happy with the help they are getting from them.

Not commenting on the quality of his books but your logic is flawed there. It is possible that the buyer is unaware of how good or bad the book is until after they have bought and read it. Also it could well be that novices would not know whether advice given in the book was good, bad or indifferent even if they took a view on it and on the writing style.

 

[Iliah Borg]

Brian Peterson has figured out how to write and teach to a target audience and has developed a successful photographic career. How is that wrong?

Just because someone (or something) has some sort of "mass appeal" doesn't make that person (or it) right.

And it doesn't make it wrong.

What's wrong (in the context of this discussion) is his explanation of ISO.

You are shooting from the corners just like the earlier worker bee comments.

The worker bee analogy comes from Bryan Peterson.

Now if you cite his explanation of ISO

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0008576/article/100-in-100-Understanding-the-Effect-of-ISO-on-Exposure

and tell what's wrong with it

It can be summed up in his last sentence, "... the use of ISO 1600 really brings on the noise!" What brings on the noise is underexposure. One thing that's wrong with the bee analogy is that your honey doesn't taste worse because more bees were used to gather it.

you may have a point.

It's pointless to try to explain how ISO relates to exposure to you, same as it is to explain how popularity relates to being right or wrong.

In the meantime the book remains popular.

That's completely irrelevant.

How so?

Popularity doesn't equate to being right (or as you said above) wrong.

No review has come forth to ruin the popularity of the book.

Also irrelevant.

Many claim to use it successfully to help their photography. Isn't that the purpose of the book?

Then the purpose of the book is so that some can "claim" it has helped them?

Wrong. The purpose of the book is to actually help people.

By teaching falsehoods, great help.

TBD

It is an established fact.

TBD

ROTFLMAO you really don't have a clue.

ROTFLMAO

While you are rolling on the floor laughing, Brian is laughing all the way to the bank.

You don't know that ROTFLMAO

Not to mention that personal gain isn't always the same as community good ) - to quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

Yes, you are nothing but a superhero to this forum...

"One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans—anything except reason." - Thomas Sowell

I was commenting on your intimation that you are here for the good of the community.

My "intimation" is not that ) If you have nothing to add on the topic, have a nice day.

 

[Iliah Borg]

Brian Peterson has figured out how to write and teach to a target audience and has developed a successful photographic career. How is that wrong?

Just because someone (or something) has some sort of "mass appeal" doesn't make that person (or it) right.

And it doesn't make it wrong.

What's wrong (in the context of this discussion) is his explanation of ISO.

You are shooting from the corners just like the earlier worker bee comments.

The worker bee analogy comes from Bryan Peterson.

Now if you cite his explanation of ISO

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0008576/article/100-in-100-Understanding-the-Effect-of-ISO-on-Exposure

and tell what's wrong with it

It can be summed up in his last sentence, "... the use of ISO 1600 really brings on the noise!" What brings on the noise is underexposure. One thing that's wrong with the bee analogy is that your honey doesn't taste worse because more bees were used to gather it.

you may have a point.

It's pointless to try to explain how ISO relates to exposure to you, same as it is to explain how popularity relates to being right or wrong.

In the meantime the book remains popular.

That's completely irrelevant.

How so?

Popularity doesn't equate to being right (or as you said above) wrong.

No review has come forth to ruin the popularity of the book.

Also irrelevant.

Many claim to use it successfully to help their photography. Isn't that the purpose of the book?

Then the purpose of the book is so that some can "claim" it has helped them?

Wrong. The purpose of the book is to actually help people.

By teaching falsehoods, great help.

TBD

It is an established fact.

TBD

ROTFLMAO you really don't have a clue.

ROTFLMAO

While you are rolling on the floor laughing, Brian is laughing all the way to the bank.

You don't know that ROTFLMAO

Not to mention that personal gain isn't always the same as community good ) - to quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Several of Brian Peterson books are still among the best selling photography books even today. Thus people must be happy with the help they are getting from them.

You have a lot of the same opinions

The book is factually wrong and misleading. See, there is a difference between the opinions and facts. If it is popular, well, the more harm it brings.

Ciao.

 

[LoneTree1]

What might have been an acceptable depth of field scale for low-resolution film may not be for high resolution digital cameras. DOF scales were always crude anyway.

 

[mamallama]

Brian Peterson has figured out how to write and teach to a target audience and has developed a successful photographic career. How is that wrong?

Just because someone (or something) has some sort of "mass appeal" doesn't make that person (or it) right.

And it doesn't make it wrong.

What's wrong (in the context of this discussion) is his explanation of ISO.

You are shooting from the corners just like the earlier worker bee comments.

The worker bee analogy comes from Bryan Peterson.

Now if you cite his explanation of ISO

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0008576/article/100-in-100-Understanding-the-Effect-of-ISO-on-Exposure

and tell what's wrong with it

It can be summed up in his last sentence, "... the use of ISO 1600 really brings on the noise!" What brings on the noise is underexposure. One thing that's wrong with the bee analogy is that your honey doesn't taste worse because more bees were used to gather it.

you may have a point.

It's pointless to try to explain how ISO relates to exposure to you, same as it is to explain how popularity relates to being right or wrong.

In the meantime the book remains popular.

That's completely irrelevant.

How so?

Popularity doesn't equate to being right (or as you said above) wrong.

No review has come forth to ruin the popularity of the book.

Also irrelevant.

Many claim to use it successfully to help their photography. Isn't that the purpose of the book?

Then the purpose of the book is so that some can "claim" it has helped them?

Wrong. The purpose of the book is to actually help people.

By teaching falsehoods, great help.

TBD

It is an established fact.

TBD

ROTFLMAO you really don't have a clue.

ROTFLMAO

While you are rolling on the floor laughing, Brian is laughing all the way to the bank.

You don't know that ROTFLMAO

Not to mention that personal gain isn't always the same as community good ) - to quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Several of Brian Peterson books are still among the best selling photography books even today. Thus people must be happy with the help they are getting from them.

Not commenting on the quality of his books but your logic is flawed there. It is possible that the buyer is unaware of how good or bad the book is until after they have bought and read it. Also it could well be that novices would not know whether advice given in the book was good, bad or indifferent even if they took a view on it and on the writing style.

Possibly and possibly not. Those shooting at the book are shooting from the corners and are not real book reviews. That is why I say TBD.

 

[photonut2008]

Brian Peterson has figured out how to write and teach to a target audience and has developed a successful photographic career. How is that wrong?

Just because someone (or something) has some sort of "mass appeal" doesn't make that person (or it) right.

And it doesn't make it wrong.

What's wrong (in the context of this discussion) is his explanation of ISO.

You are shooting from the corners just like the earlier worker bee comments.

The worker bee analogy comes from Bryan Peterson.

Now if you cite his explanation of ISO

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0008576/article/100-in-100-Understanding-the-Effect-of-ISO-on-Exposure

and tell what's wrong with it

It can be summed up in his last sentence, "... the use of ISO 1600 really brings on the noise!" What brings on the noise is underexposure. One thing that's wrong with the bee analogy is that your honey doesn't taste worse because more bees were used to gather it.

you may have a point.

It's pointless to try to explain how ISO relates to exposure to you, same as it is to explain how popularity relates to being right or wrong.

In the meantime the book remains popular.

That's completely irrelevant.

How so?

Popularity doesn't equate to being right (or as you said above) wrong.

No review has come forth to ruin the popularity of the book.

Also irrelevant.

Many claim to use it successfully to help their photography. Isn't that the purpose of the book?

Then the purpose of the book is so that some can "claim" it has helped them?

Wrong. The purpose of the book is to actually help people.

Getting a wrong and downright muddled explanation isn't helping them. Again, noise doesn't come from raising the ISO, it comes from lowering the EV.

 

[mamallama]

Brian Peterson has figured out how to write and teach to a target audience and has developed a successful photographic career. How is that wrong?

Just because someone (or something) has some sort of "mass appeal" doesn't make that person (or it) right.

And it doesn't make it wrong.

What's wrong (in the context of this discussion) is his explanation of ISO.

You are shooting from the corners just like the earlier worker bee comments.

The worker bee analogy comes from Bryan Peterson.

Now if you cite his explanation of ISO

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0008576/article/100-in-100-Understanding-the-Effect-of-ISO-on-Exposure

and tell what's wrong with it

It can be summed up in his last sentence, "... the use of ISO 1600 really brings on the noise!" What brings on the noise is underexposure. One thing that's wrong with the bee analogy is that your honey doesn't taste worse because more bees were used to gather it.

you may have a point.

It's pointless to try to explain how ISO relates to exposure to you, same as it is to explain how popularity relates to being right or wrong.

In the meantime the book remains popular.

That's completely irrelevant.

How so?

Popularity doesn't equate to being right (or as you said above) wrong.

No review has come forth to ruin the popularity of the book.

Also irrelevant.

Many claim to use it successfully to help their photography. Isn't that the purpose of the book?

Then the purpose of the book is so that some can "claim" it has helped them?

Wrong. The purpose of the book is to actually help people.

Getting a wrong and downright muddled explanation isn't helping them. Again, noise doesn't come from raising the ISO, it comes from lowering the EV.

And in what context are you telling me that? And why are you saying, again?

 

[robert1955]

Brian Peterson has figured out how to write and teach to a target audience and has developed a successful photographic career. How is that wrong?

Just because someone (or something) has some sort of "mass appeal" doesn't make that person (or it) right.

And it doesn't make it wrong.

What's wrong (in the context of this discussion) is his explanation of ISO.

You are shooting from the corners just like the earlier worker bee comments.

The worker bee analogy comes from Bryan Peterson.

Now if you cite his explanation of ISO

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0008576/article/100-in-100-Understanding-the-Effect-of-ISO-on-Exposure

and tell what's wrong with it

It can be summed up in his last sentence, "... the use of ISO 1600 really brings on the noise!" What brings on the noise is underexposure. One thing that's wrong with the bee analogy is that your honey doesn't taste worse because more bees were used to gather it.

you may have a point.

It's pointless to try to explain how ISO relates to exposure to you, same as it is to explain how popularity relates to being right or wrong.

In the meantime the book remains popular.

That's completely irrelevant.

How so?

Popularity doesn't equate to being right (or as you said above) wrong.

No review has come forth to ruin the popularity of the book.

Also irrelevant.

Many claim to use it successfully to help their photography. Isn't that the purpose of the book?

Then the purpose of the book is so that some can "claim" it has helped them?

Wrong. The purpose of the book is to actually help people.

By teaching falsehoods, great help.

TBD

It is an established fact.

TBD

ROTFLMAO

While you are rolling on the floor laughing, Brian is laughing all the way to the bank.

That phrase actually means the seller thinks he makes more money from a transaction than he knows it is worth.

 

[photonut2008]

Brian Peterson has figured out how to write and teach to a target audience and has developed a successful photographic career. How is that wrong?

Just because someone (or something) has some sort of "mass appeal" doesn't make that person (or it) right.

And it doesn't make it wrong.

What's wrong (in the context of this discussion) is his explanation of ISO.

You are shooting from the corners just like the earlier worker bee comments.

The worker bee analogy comes from Bryan Peterson.

Now if you cite his explanation of ISO

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0008576/article/100-in-100-Understanding-the-Effect-of-ISO-on-Exposure

and tell what's wrong with it

It can be summed up in his last sentence, "... the use of ISO 1600 really brings on the noise!" What brings on the noise is underexposure. One thing that's wrong with the bee analogy is that your honey doesn't taste worse because more bees were used to gather it.

you may have a point.

It's pointless to try to explain how ISO relates to exposure to you, same as it is to explain how popularity relates to being right or wrong.

In the meantime the book remains popular.

That's completely irrelevant.

How so?

Popularity doesn't equate to being right (or as you said above) wrong.

No review has come forth to ruin the popularity of the book.

Also irrelevant.

Many claim to use it successfully to help their photography. Isn't that the purpose of the book?

Then the purpose of the book is so that some can "claim" it has helped them?

Wrong. The purpose of the book is to actually help people.

Getting a wrong and downright muddled explanation isn't helping them. Again, noise doesn't come from raising the ISO, it comes from lowering the EV.

And in what context are you telling me that?

The context is a lame and inaccurate bee analogy to explain the role of ISO in "gathering" light. ISO plays no role in "gathering" light, its role is in displaying it.

Reducing exposure to its bare elements we have:

1.) The light in the scene.

2.) The transmission of that light through the lens (of which the aperture is one part).

3.) The duration of that light.

4.) The medium that records that light (in the context of this discussion, a digital sensor).

That's not a triangle, and it doesn't include ISO.

And why are you saying, again?

You really need to work on your reading skills. The again part is because I had already written above (now emboldened and underlined for your benefit) that noise comes from underexposure and not from ISO. Clearly I could repeat this a hundred times to you and you will still not grasp it.

 

[mamallama]

Brian Peterson has figured out how to write and teach to a target audience and has developed a successful photographic career. How is that wrong?

Just because someone (or something) has some sort of "mass appeal" doesn't make that person (or it) right.

And it doesn't make it wrong.

What's wrong (in the context of this discussion) is his explanation of ISO.

You are shooting from the corners just like the earlier worker bee comments.

The worker bee analogy comes from Bryan Peterson.

Now if you cite his explanation of ISO

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0008576/article/100-in-100-Understanding-the-Effect-of-ISO-on-Exposure

and tell what's wrong with it

It can be summed up in his last sentence, "... the use of ISO 1600 really brings on the noise!" What brings on the noise is underexposure. One thing that's wrong with the bee analogy is that your honey doesn't taste worse because more bees were used to gather it.

you may have a point.

It's pointless to try to explain how ISO relates to exposure to you, same as it is to explain how popularity relates to being right or wrong.

In the meantime the book remains popular.

That's completely irrelevant.

How so?

Popularity doesn't equate to being right (or as you said above) wrong.

No review has come forth to ruin the popularity of the book.

Also irrelevant.

Many claim to use it successfully to help their photography. Isn't that the purpose of the book?

Then the purpose of the book is so that some can "claim" it has helped them?

Wrong. The purpose of the book is to actually help people.

Getting a wrong and downright muddled explanation isn't helping them. Again, noise doesn't come from raising the ISO, it comes from lowering the EV.

And in what context are you telling me that?

The context is a lame and inaccurate bee analogy to explain the role of ISO in "gathering" light. ISO plays no role in "gathering" light, its role is in displaying it.

Reducing exposure to its bare elements we have:

1.) The light in the scene.

2.) The transmission of that light through the lens (of which the aperture is one part).

3.) The duration of that light.

4.) The medium that records that light (in the context of this discussion, a digital sensor).

That's not a triangle, and it doesn't include ISO.

And why are you saying, again?

You really need to work on your reading skills. The again part is because I had already written above (now emboldened and underlined for your benefit) that noise comes from underexposure and not from ISO. Clearly I could repeat this a hundred times to you and you will still not grasp it.

Again, all you are doing is shooting from the corners. Cite an excerpt from the latest edition of the book in the context it was written, analyze that instead of shooting from the corner as that is all I have seen from you and some others.

 

[Bob]

I hope the rest of the book is better.

Unfortunately not, it gets much worse. Some parts are so bad they read like satire:

“To better understand the effect of ISO on exposure, think of the ISO as a worker bee. If my camera is set for ISO 100, I have, in effect, 100 worker bees; and if your camera is set for ISO 200, you have 200 worker bees. The job of these worker bees is to gather the light that comes through the lens and make an image. If both of us set our lenses at the same aperture of f/5.6 meaning that the same volume of light will be coming through our lenses – who will record the image the quickest, you or me? You will since you have twice as many worker bees at ISO 200 than I do at ISO 100″ - Understanding Exposure, Bryan Peterson

Feel free to write a better explanation of ISO to an audience of beginners who are so technically challanged that they would have great difficultly understanding anything beyond pressing a single button to snap the photo.

 

[Ellis Vener]

Specifically, the chapter on “Storytelling Apertures”. He describes how to overcome the lack of a depth-of-field scale on SLR lenses by using the distance settings.

He writes; “And, since every storytelling composition relies on maximum depth of field, you would first choose to set your aperture to f/22 and then align the distance above your distance-setting mark on the lens. Your focal length will determine which distance you choose.”

I don’t understand the last sentence. HOW does the focal length determine the distance at which you focus? If you select f/22; at what distance do you focus?

Any help appreciated.

Thx,
Bruceter

It’s simple: always focus on the most important person or object in the frame. Always. Everything else in the frame along with exposure settings and depth of fold is in support of that.

 

[ZodiacPhoto]

I primarily got it to read about the "Exposure triangle"

Well, well :-D

Don't miss his "worker bees":

"To better understand the effect of ISO on exposure, think of the ISO as a worker bee. If my camera is set for ISO 100, I have in effect 100 worker bees, and if your camera is set for ISO 200, you have 200 worker bees. The job of these worker bees is to gather the light that comes through the lens and make an image. If both of us set our lenses at the same aperture of f/5.6—meaning that the same volume of light will be coming through our lenses—who will record the image the fastest, you or me? You will, since you have twice as many worker bees at ISO 200 as I do at ISO 100."

Brilliant!

Finally, I understand where all the high ISO noise comes from - it comes from the bees!

--
http://www.zodiacphoto.com

 

[Iliah Borg]

I primarily got it to read about the "Exposure triangle"

Well, well :-D

Don't miss his "worker bees":

"To better understand the effect of ISO on exposure, think of the ISO as a worker bee. If my camera is set for ISO 100, I have in effect 100 worker bees, and if your camera is set for ISO 200, you have 200 worker bees. The job of these worker bees is to gather the light that comes through the lens and make an image. If both of us set our lenses at the same aperture of f/5.6—meaning that the same volume of light will be coming through our lenses—who will record the image the fastest, you or me? You will, since you have twice as many worker bees at ISO 200 as I do at ISO 100."

Brilliant!

Finally, I understand where all the high ISO noise comes from - it comes from the bees!

That was the idea I'm afraid.

Also, if one sensor is twice the size, is it twice the number of bees? If it is twice the number of pixels, is it also twice the number of bees? What are the rules here, what causes the number of bees to duplicate, and what doesn't? Clarification would be welcome.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

 

[ZodiacPhoto]

I primarily got it to read about the "Exposure triangle"

Well, well :-D

Don't miss his "worker bees":

"To better understand the effect of ISO on exposure, think of the ISO as a worker bee. If my camera is set for ISO 100, I have in effect 100 worker bees, and if your camera is set for ISO 200, you have 200 worker bees. The job of these worker bees is to gather the light that comes through the lens and make an image. If both of us set our lenses at the same aperture of f/5.6—meaning that the same volume of light will be coming through our lenses—who will record the image the fastest, you or me? You will, since you have twice as many worker bees at ISO 200 as I do at ISO 100."

Brilliant!

Finally, I understand where all the high ISO noise comes from - it comes from the bees!

That was the idea I'm afraid.

Also, if one sensor is twice the size, is it twice the number of bees?

No, but each bee is twice fatter

 

[photonut2008]

I hope the rest of the book is better.

Unfortunately not, it gets much worse. Some parts are so bad they read like satire:

“To better understand the effect of ISO on exposure, think of the ISO as a worker bee. If my camera is set for ISO 100, I have, in effect, 100 worker bees; and if your camera is set for ISO 200, you have 200 worker bees. The job of these worker bees is to gather the light that comes through the lens and make an image. If both of us set our lenses at the same aperture of f/5.6 meaning that the same volume of light will be coming through our lenses – who will record the image the quickest, you or me? You will since you have twice as many worker bees at ISO 200 than I do at ISO 100″ - Understanding Exposure, Bryan Peterson

Feel free to write a better explanation of ISO to an audience of beginners

That's not hard at all since the above explanation makes a fundamental error by equating ISO with "gathering" light.

who are so technically challenged that they would have great difficultly understanding anything beyond pressing a single button to snap the photo.

Okay, but one has to wonder why they would buy a book to teach them something if they really don't want to be bothered to actually learn it.

You have two exposure parameters that you can control, which constitute the Exposure Value:

1.) Aperture

2.) Shutter speed

Your digital sensor's response to light dictates an optimum Exposure Value for a given amount of light, which is your "base ISO." If the scene you want to photograph is too dark for an optimum EV (given the constraints of your desired depiction of subject motion and DOF, camera shake, and intended output -- all topics for a more advanced discussion) then you compensate for that by raising the ISO which adjusts the brightness of the exposure after it has been taken.

 

[Iliah Borg]

I primarily got it to read about the "Exposure triangle"

Well, well :-D

Don't miss his "worker bees":

"To better understand the effect of ISO on exposure, think of the ISO as a worker bee. If my camera is set for ISO 100, I have in effect 100 worker bees, and if your camera is set for ISO 200, you have 200 worker bees. The job of these worker bees is to gather the light that comes through the lens and make an image. If both of us set our lenses at the same aperture of f/5.6—meaning that the same volume of light will be coming through our lenses—who will record the image the fastest, you or me? You will, since you have twice as many worker bees at ISO 200 as I do at ISO 100."

Brilliant!

Finally, I understand where all the high ISO noise comes from - it comes from the bees!

That was the idea I'm afraid.

Also, if one sensor is twice the size, is it twice the number of bees?

No, but each bee is twice fatter

Entering "yo bee" jokes territory?