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

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

Imagine you are on the beach.... iso 100 skin takes will sunburn in 15 minutes but iso 200 skin will burn in 7.5 minutes and 400 iso skin takes half as long again. The iso number describes the sensitivity of your skin to light...... no bees.

Yet another tortured and inaccurate analogy.

Please post your own untortured analogy.

My apologies for being curt. The problem with using analogies as an explanatory tool is that as soon as you ask a question in the context of the analogy most answers quickly start to break down the logic of the analogy, so to keep it working it becomes increasingly tortured. The problem with your analogy is that it is inaccurate to describe the sensitivity of the sensor as being changed by raising ISO.

In practice, a beginner thinking that they are changing the sensitivity of the sensor by raising the ISO distracts them from the fundamental source of the noise, which is the exposure of the sensor to light. Also, being taught that changing ISO changes sensitivity leads to a fundamentally wrong understanding of how you change the ISO of your photo. On this last point I can't tell you how many tortured discussions (make that arguments) I've had with people who think that any camera that goes to ISO 100 is twice as sensitive to light as any camera that only goes to ISO 200.

 

[justinwonnacott]

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.

Imagine you are on the beach.... iso 100 skin takes will sunburn in 15 minutes but iso 200 skin will burn in 7.5 minutes and 400 iso skin takes half as long again. The iso number describes the sensitivity of your skin to light...... no bees.

Yet another tortured and inaccurate analogy.

Please post your own untortured analogy.

My apologies for being curt. The problem with using analogies as an explanatory tool is that as soon as you ask a question in the context of the analogy most answers quickly start to break down the logic of the analogy, so to keep it working it becomes increasingly tortured. The problem with your analogy is that it is inaccurate to describe the sensitivity of the sensor as being changed by raising ISO.

In practice, a beginner thinking that they are changing the sensitivity of the sensor by raising the ISO distracts them from the fundamental source of the noise, which is the exposure of the sensor to light. Also, being taught that changing ISO changes sensitivity leads to a fundamentally wrong understanding of how you change the ISO of your photo. On this last point I can't tell you how many tortured discussions (make that arguments) I've had with people who think that any camera that goes to ISO 100 is twice as sensitive to light as any camera that only goes to ISO 200.

Huh?

 

[photonut2008]

I just looked up Bryan's photo career and he is writing best selling photography books and leading photo tours worldwide. That seems to be helping people. Not too shabby.

None of that changes the fact that he wrote a book that is filled with BS. Should we just pretend it's a good book because he seems like a nice guy?

What BS?

The bee analogy for one.

And the discussion isn't whether or not he's a nice guy but whether his contribution helps or hinders budding photographers.

It clearly ends up hindering. See what I just wrote here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63322969

I don't know what sort of feedback goes on in the world of publishing but I'd expect that the book has flourished in part by reputation and I'd have expected if those who had read the first and second editions found his approach so misleading then he would have by now amended it.

He runs enough courses and on--line courses to give users the opportunity to be critical. Maybe the feedback he gets is along the lines "I found the technical explanations about ISO confusing but it all made sense when I though about the bees", or "Yes, the triangle helps me remember there are three controls on the camera".

There are two other controls on the camera that relate to exposure as well. One is EC and the other is the metering mode.

Too many people on here do not understand how to get through to the non-technical, and maybe just the artistic and that they cannot understand that is no better/worse than those people not being able to understand what many people on here consider elementary logic.

I would love to hear the view of an educationalist but I'm sure lots of readers of Peterson's books are busy taking photos and gaining inspiration from the examples he has provided.

Lots of us busy ourselves with taking photos, although I prefer to make them. Since we are spending so much time with analogies here, it's worth pointing out that lots of people also drive cars but far fewer understand even fundamental aspects of handling a car in a challenging situation or optimizing the car's performance. Funny thing though, you don't see a lot of people running out and buying car's with manual transmissions intended to be used on race tracks and then reaching out to a beginner's driver education school to learn how to handle such a tool.

 

[Iliah Borg]

It clearly ends up hindering.

He offers some interesting thoughts and recommendations:

"Now for what may be surprising news: your camera’s light meter (whether center-weighted, matrix/evaluative, or spot) does not “see” the world in either living color or black and white but rather as a neutral gray. In addition, your reflected-light meter is calibrated to assume that all those neutral-gray subjects will reflect back approximately 18 percent of the light that hits them."

"On some DSLRs there is an auto-ISO feature. When it is activated, the camera will determine which ISO to use, based on the light. I do not recommend this approach at all since the camera will often get it wrong, and it doesn’t know that you desire to be a “creative photographer,” and part of your creativity stems, of course, from having full control over what ISO you use."

 

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

Imagine you are on the beach.... iso 100 skin takes will sunburn in 15 minutes but iso 200 skin will burn in 7.5 minutes and 400 iso skin takes half as long again. The iso number describes the sensitivity of your skin to light...... no bees.

Yet another tortured and inaccurate analogy.

Please post your own untortured analogy.

My apologies for being curt. The problem with using analogies as an explanatory tool is that as soon as you ask a question in the context of the analogy most answers quickly start to break down the logic of the analogy, so to keep it working it becomes increasingly tortured. The problem with your analogy is that it is inaccurate to describe the sensitivity of the sensor as being changed by raising ISO.

In practice, a beginner thinking that they are changing the sensitivity of the sensor by raising the ISO distracts them from the fundamental source of the noise, which is the exposure of the sensor to light. Also, being taught that changing ISO changes sensitivity leads to a fundamentally wrong understanding of how you change the ISO of your photo. On this last point I can't tell you how many tortured discussions (make that arguments) I've had with people who think that any camera that goes to ISO 100 is twice as sensitive to light as any camera that only goes to ISO 200.

Huh?

My presumption teaching a beginner is that what they learn becomes a foundation for what they will know if they choose to advance their skills.

My guess is you are confused by the last sentence. One example (and one I spent a lot of time debating with people about) is Nikon changing the ISO of the D300 to ISO 200 compared to it being ISO 100 for the D200. Yes, they are different sensors with different responsivities to light (particularly to certain frequencies), but under daylight conditions the difference between them is about a third of a stop and not a full stop (under artificial lighting the D300 does about a stop better at higher ISOs). The reason for the D300 being an ISO 200 camera and the D200 being an ISO 100 camera is that ISO is defined as an end result based on the camera's default settings -- so if you change those settings (a big one being the Brightness adjustment) the end result changes; another default setting is the metering mode as well as the EC setting (so if I dial down my Brightness and raise my EC to compensate for that, I have in effect changed the camera's ISO, and it should also be noted that Nikon doesn't recommend applying EC to the default Matrix metering mode, which is one of the reasons I use Center-weighted metering mode instead).

For more on this see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exposure_index

Specifically, take note of:

"The Recommended Exposure Index (REI) technique, new in the 2006 version of the standard, allows the manufacturer to specify a camera model's EI choices arbitrarily. The choices are based solely on the manufacturer's opinion of what EI values produce well-exposed sRGB images at the various sensor sensitivity [sic -- again, ISO doesn't change the sensitivity of the sensor] settings. This is the only technique available under the standard for output formats that are not in the sRGB color space. This is also the only technique available under the standard when multi-zone metering (also called pattern metering) is used."

In practice, using my D800, shooting Raw, I often have my camera set to + .67 EC at ISO 100, so if you do the math that works out to me treating my D800 in those situations as an "ISO 65" camera.

 

[photonut2008]

It clearly ends up hindering.

He offers some interesting thoughts and recommendations:

"Now for what may be surprising news: your camera’s light meter (whether center-weighted, matrix/evaluative, or spot) does not “see” the world in either living color or black and white but rather as a neutral gray. In addition, your reflected-light meter is calibrated to assume that all those neutral-gray subjects will reflect back approximately 18 percent of the light that hits them."

Wow, I didn't realize that 18% gray meant that 82% of the light was being absorbed by the gray target. I find this unbelievable.

"On some DSLRs there is an auto-ISO feature. When it is activated, the camera will determine which ISO to use, based on the light. I do not recommend this approach at all since the camera will often get it wrong, and it doesn’t know that you desire to be a “creative photographer,” and part of your creativity stems, of course, from having full control over what ISO you use."

I don't consider ISO a creative choice. I often use Auto-ISO on my D800 and prefer not to have to change the ISO when I have chosen an aperture and shutter speed for the situation and then the light changes. Also, if the camera's exposure meter is getting it wrong using Auto-ISO then turning off Auto-ISO doesn't solve that problem.

 

[mamallama]

What is his definition or explanation of ISO?

Get the book.

BTW, ISO defines themselves, and the "bees" are the only explanation of ISO speed he provides - see his "EXERCISE: UNDERSTANDING ISO"

Apparently his readers are OK with it.

I see, you are not one of them.

It's just a few dollars on e-bay, get it and become a reader.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=brian+peterson+understanding+exposure&_sacat=0

Never mind. I don't deal with eBay.

But I see the latest edition is selling for a lot more than a few dollars.

There is no reason to prefer the 4th edition, I have all of them and they are all the same wrong when it comes to exposure.

Now you are back to shooting from the corner.

To quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

I just looked up Bryan's photo career and he is writing best selling photography books and leading photo tours worldwide. That seems to be helping people. Not too shabby.

I'm not sure what you mean by shooting from the corner,

Nothing. It's how he attempts to manufacture uncertainty, a formal tool similar to the earlier TBD when the truth is clear as day, from the same certain bag of tricks.

He is defending an indefensible, and even having no first-hand knowledge of the subject doesn't stop him.

I have neither defended nor criticized the book. I have asked some questions and stated some undisputable facts about the book and about Bryan Peterson in that the book is a popular and a best seller and that Bryan has a successful photographic career as a photographer, author and leader of sold out worldwide photographic tours.

My comments here has been that there have been blanket criticism of the book like its horrible, full of BS, wrong, misleading, nitpicking, etc. without further explanations about what's wrong, etc.

After someone criticized his explanation of ISO, I asked what is wrong with his definition or explanation of ISO? The answer I get is, Get the book. That is what I mean by shooting from the corners.

but I'd call this is a prime example of that habit.

Others say, "Before the blind, do not put a stumbling block". Funny enough, the word for "stumbling block" in Greek is skandalon https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/σκάνδαλον

 

[justinwonnacott]

OMG this thread has begun to twist and turn often with pompous smoke being left behind like . . . (make an analogy here!) and many posts are quotes of quotes of quotes which is never good for clarity.

Reading all of these threads together will not be much help to a beginner trying to learn how to use their camera's exposure controls properly. I have learned that I would never use the "bees" metaphor to teach anyone. That BP's popular book helps many readers is well and good but the book's popularity is no warranty that the information given is accurate.

Modern cameras are great at getting reasonably good exposures without much fuss. Choosing the correct metering mode will often handle situations that are more "difficult" to shoot, but it pretty well comes down to "is the shot underexposed, overexposed or?" Shoot RAW, chimp, and review your shots with the caveat that the jpg preview is innaccurate and if needed, well ... the exposure compensation dial beckons....

ISO is more complex but my choice of ISO for me is nearly always dictated by the exposure time that I need for a sharp image and I believe that is the case for most photographers.

 

[Iliah Borg]

What is his definition or explanation of ISO?

Get the book.

BTW, ISO defines themselves, and the "bees" are the only explanation of ISO speed he provides - see his "EXERCISE: UNDERSTANDING ISO"

Apparently his readers are OK with it.

I see, you are not one of them.

It's just a few dollars on e-bay, get it and become a reader.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=brian+peterson+understanding+exposure&_sacat=0

Never mind. I don't deal with eBay.

But I see the latest edition is selling for a lot more than a few dollars.

There is no reason to prefer the 4th edition, I have all of them and they are all the same wrong when it comes to exposure.

Now you are back to shooting from the corner.

To quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

I just looked up Bryan's photo career and he is writing best selling photography books and leading photo tours worldwide. That seems to be helping people. Not too shabby.

I'm not sure what you mean by shooting from the corner,

Nothing. It's how he attempts to manufacture uncertainty, a formal tool similar to the earlier TBD when the truth is clear as day, from the same certain bag of tricks.

He is defending an indefensible, and even having no first-hand knowledge of the subject doesn't stop him.

I have neither defended nor criticized the book.

Of course you can't defend or criticize the book (apart from your "That analogy is inappropriate", and "drivel") - you never read it.

 

[mamallama]

What is his definition or explanation of ISO?

Get the book.

BTW, ISO defines themselves, and the "bees" are the only explanation of ISO speed he provides - see his "EXERCISE: UNDERSTANDING ISO"

Apparently his readers are OK with it.

I see, you are not one of them.

It's just a few dollars on e-bay, get it and become a reader.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=brian+peterson+understanding+exposure&_sacat=0

Never mind. I don't deal with eBay.

But I see the latest edition is selling for a lot more than a few dollars.

There is no reason to prefer the 4th edition, I have all of them and they are all the same wrong when it comes to exposure.

Now you are back to shooting from the corner.

To quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

I just looked up Bryan's photo career and he is writing best selling photography books and leading photo tours worldwide. That seems to be helping people. Not too shabby.

I'm not sure what you mean by shooting from the corner,

Nothing. It's how he attempts to manufacture uncertainty, a formal tool similar to the earlier TBD when the truth is clear as day, from the same certain bag of tricks.

He is defending an indefensible, and even having no first-hand knowledge of the subject doesn't stop him.

I have neither defended nor criticized the book.

Of course you can't defend or criticize the book (apart from your "That analogy is inappropriate", and "drivel") - you never read it.

How presumptuous of you. That is a lie. It is just like your other shoot-from the hip comments. I have read the book but I do not own a copy. My library has copies of the Second and Third Editions for checkout which I have done on occasion.

Your comment is just like many of your other comments - you don't know what you are talking about. You talk big like you know, but you don't.

 

[Iliah Borg]

What is his definition or explanation of ISO?

Get the book.

BTW, ISO defines themselves, and the "bees" are the only explanation of ISO speed he provides - see his "EXERCISE: UNDERSTANDING ISO"

Apparently his readers are OK with it.

I see, you are not one of them.

It's just a few dollars on e-bay, get it and become a reader.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=brian+peterson+understanding+exposure&_sacat=0

Never mind. I don't deal with eBay.

But I see the latest edition is selling for a lot more than a few dollars.

There is no reason to prefer the 4th edition, I have all of them and they are all the same wrong when it comes to exposure.

Now you are back to shooting from the corner.

To quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

I just looked up Bryan's photo career and he is writing best selling photography books and leading photo tours worldwide. That seems to be helping people. Not too shabby.

I'm not sure what you mean by shooting from the corner,

Nothing. It's how he attempts to manufacture uncertainty, a formal tool similar to the earlier TBD when the truth is clear as day, from the same certain bag of tricks.

He is defending an indefensible, and even having no first-hand knowledge of the subject doesn't stop him.

I have neither defended nor criticized the book.

Of course you can't defend or criticize the book (apart from your "That analogy is inappropriate", and "drivel") - you never read it.

How presumptuous of you. That is a lie.

Ahaha

 

[mamallama]

What is his definition or explanation of ISO?

Get the book.

BTW, ISO defines themselves, and the "bees" are the only explanation of ISO speed he provides - see his "EXERCISE: UNDERSTANDING ISO"

Apparently his readers are OK with it.

I see, you are not one of them.

It's just a few dollars on e-bay, get it and become a reader.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=brian+peterson+understanding+exposure&_sacat=0

Never mind. I don't deal with eBay.

But I see the latest edition is selling for a lot more than a few dollars.

There is no reason to prefer the 4th edition, I have all of them and they are all the same wrong when it comes to exposure.

Now you are back to shooting from the corner.

To quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

I just looked up Bryan's photo career and he is writing best selling photography books and leading photo tours worldwide. That seems to be helping people. Not too shabby.

I'm not sure what you mean by shooting from the corner,

Nothing. It's how he attempts to manufacture uncertainty, a formal tool similar to the earlier TBD when the truth is clear as day, from the same certain bag of tricks.

He is defending an indefensible, and even having no first-hand knowledge of the subject doesn't stop him.

I have neither defended nor criticized the book.

Of course you can't defend or criticize the book (apart from your "That analogy is inappropriate", and "drivel") - you never read it.

How presumptuous of you. That is a lie.

Ahaha

That is how our resident forum guru and expert kisses off his lies.

 

[Iliah Borg]

What is his definition or explanation of ISO?

Get the book.

BTW, ISO defines themselves, and the "bees" are the only explanation of ISO speed he provides - see his "EXERCISE: UNDERSTANDING ISO"

Apparently his readers are OK with it.

I see, you are not one of them.

It's just a few dollars on e-bay, get it and become a reader.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=brian+peterson+understanding+exposure&_sacat=0

Never mind. I don't deal with eBay.

But I see the latest edition is selling for a lot more than a few dollars.

There is no reason to prefer the 4th edition, I have all of them and they are all the same wrong when it comes to exposure.

Now you are back to shooting from the corner.

To quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

I just looked up Bryan's photo career and he is writing best selling photography books and leading photo tours worldwide. That seems to be helping people. Not too shabby.

I'm not sure what you mean by shooting from the corner,

Nothing. It's how he attempts to manufacture uncertainty, a formal tool similar to the earlier TBD when the truth is clear as day, from the same certain bag of tricks.

He is defending an indefensible, and even having no first-hand knowledge of the subject doesn't stop him.

I have neither defended nor criticized the book.

Of course you can't defend or criticize the book (apart from your "That analogy is inappropriate", and "drivel") - you never read it.

How presumptuous of you. That is a lie.

Ahaha

That is how our resident forum guru and expert kisses off his lies.

How desperate of you.

"The drivel quoted above is from a 2008 review of Bryan Peterson's book."

 

[photonut2008]

OMG this thread has begun to twist and turn often with pompous smoke being left behind like . . . (make an analogy here!) and many posts are quotes of quotes of quotes which is never good for clarity.

"Huh."

Reading all of these threads together will not be much help to a beginner trying to learn how to use their camera's exposure controls properly.

This is not the Beginners Questions Forum, though there is certainly an abundance of misinformation there.

--
Internet Interlocuter

 

[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.

Do they understand sound volume control? That's it.

Do you? Have a crack at it...

 

[Iliah Borg]

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.

Do they understand sound volume control? That's it.

Do you?

I do.

Please don't tell me you need worker bees analogies to explain it to you.

--

About LibRaw | LibRaw

www.libraw.org

 

[mamallama]

What is his definition or explanation of ISO?

Get the book.

BTW, ISO defines themselves, and the "bees" are the only explanation of ISO speed he provides - see his "EXERCISE: UNDERSTANDING ISO"

Apparently his readers are OK with it.

I see, you are not one of them.

It's just a few dollars on e-bay, get it and become a reader.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=brian+peterson+understanding+exposure&_sacat=0

Never mind. I don't deal with eBay.

But I see the latest edition is selling for a lot more than a few dollars.

There is no reason to prefer the 4th edition, I have all of them and they are all the same wrong when it comes to exposure.

Now you are back to shooting from the corner.

To quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

I just looked up Bryan's photo career and he is writing best selling photography books and leading photo tours worldwide. That seems to be helping people. Not too shabby.

I'm not sure what you mean by shooting from the corner,

Nothing. It's how he attempts to manufacture uncertainty, a formal tool similar to the earlier TBD when the truth is clear as day, from the same certain bag of tricks.

He is defending an indefensible, and even having no first-hand knowledge of the subject doesn't stop him.

I have neither defended nor criticized the book.

Of course you can't defend or criticize the book (apart from your "That analogy is inappropriate", and "drivel") - you never read it.

How presumptuous of you. That is a lie.

Ahaha

That is how our resident forum guru and expert kisses off his lies.

How desperate of you.

"The drivel quoted above is from a 2008 review of Bryan Peterson's book."

So what?

Now you are deflecting from your lie. You have a habit of reading one thing and making up your own story unrelated to what you read.'

Our resident guru and expert has no clothes. He lies big but talk loud and his followers give him votes. Sounds familiar?

 

[Iliah Borg]

What is his definition or explanation of ISO?

Get the book.

BTW, ISO defines themselves, and the "bees" are the only explanation of ISO speed he provides - see his "EXERCISE: UNDERSTANDING ISO"

Apparently his readers are OK with it.

I see, you are not one of them.

It's just a few dollars on e-bay, get it and become a reader.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=brian+peterson+understanding+exposure&_sacat=0

Never mind. I don't deal with eBay.

But I see the latest edition is selling for a lot more than a few dollars.

There is no reason to prefer the 4th edition, I have all of them and they are all the same wrong when it comes to exposure.

Now you are back to shooting from the corner.

To quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

I just looked up Bryan's photo career and he is writing best selling photography books and leading photo tours worldwide. That seems to be helping people. Not too shabby.

I'm not sure what you mean by shooting from the corner,

Nothing. It's how he attempts to manufacture uncertainty, a formal tool similar to the earlier TBD when the truth is clear as day, from the same certain bag of tricks.

He is defending an indefensible, and even having no first-hand knowledge of the subject doesn't stop him.

I have neither defended nor criticized the book.

Of course you can't defend or criticize the book (apart from your "That analogy is inappropriate", and "drivel") - you never read it.

How presumptuous of you. That is a lie.

Ahaha

That is how our resident forum guru and expert kisses off his lies.

How desperate of you.

"The drivel quoted above is from a 2008 review of Bryan Peterson's book."

So what?

So you didn't read the book, as you don't remember one of the most important pieces that really stands out.

And yes, you called Peterson's words drivel.

Trash the insults you've prepared for your closing post, nobody cares

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

 

[justinwonnacott]

This "dialogue" is uncivil , reading insult after insult.

 

[mamallama]

What is his definition or explanation of ISO?

Get the book.

BTW, ISO defines themselves, and the "bees" are the only explanation of ISO speed he provides - see his "EXERCISE: UNDERSTANDING ISO"

Apparently his readers are OK with it.

I see, you are not one of them.

It's just a few dollars on e-bay, get it and become a reader.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=brian+peterson+understanding+exposure&_sacat=0

Never mind. I don't deal with eBay.

But I see the latest edition is selling for a lot more than a few dollars.

There is no reason to prefer the 4th edition, I have all of them and they are all the same wrong when it comes to exposure.

Now you are back to shooting from the corner.

To quote you, "The purpose of the book is to actually help people."

I just looked up Bryan's photo career and he is writing best selling photography books and leading photo tours worldwide. That seems to be helping people. Not too shabby.

I'm not sure what you mean by shooting from the corner,

Nothing. It's how he attempts to manufacture uncertainty, a formal tool similar to the earlier TBD when the truth is clear as day, from the same certain bag of tricks.

He is defending an indefensible, and even having no first-hand knowledge of the subject doesn't stop him.

I have neither defended nor criticized the book.

Of course you can't defend or criticize the book (apart from your "That analogy is inappropriate", and "drivel") - you never read it.

How presumptuous of you. That is a lie.

Ahaha

That is how our resident forum guru and expert kisses off his lies.

How desperate of you.

"The drivel quoted above is from a 2008 review of Bryan Peterson's book."

So what?

So you didn't read the book, as you don't remember one of the most important pieces that really stands out.

And yes, you called Peterson's words drivel.

Trash the insults you've prepared for your closing post, nobody cares

Now you have become a weasel trying to weasel out of your lie.

You lied and you know it. That is why you are now making up more and more excuses. You made a blanket lie and now you are making up caveats to justify it. You lose respect when you keep making excuses.

Weasel, weasel, pants on fire.