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

[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

That is why you are now making up more and more excuses.

Oh don't. I'm not making any excuses. You haven't read the book, your own posts proved that you are unfamiliar with the text.

Also you didn't dispute not being a reader here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63321504 You've addressed Peterson's audience as "his readers", thus excluding yourself and distancing from that audience.

You're rage posting. It means only one thing: you don't know what to say. Again. You've lost it. Again. And none of this is remotely normal. ROTFLMAO

 

[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

That is why you are now making up more and more excuses.

Oh don't. I'm not making any excuses. You haven't read the book, your own posts proved that you are unfamiliar with the text.

You may be the forum guru but you lied about me.

Also you didn't dispute not being a reader here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63321504 You've addressed Peterson's audience as "his readers", thus excluding yourself and distancing from that audience.

You're rage posting. It means only one thing: you don't know what to say. Again. You've lost it. Again. And none of this is remotely normal. ROTFLMAO

At least I don't lie.

 

[Xasan]

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.

Let's look at it in this way: reflection + transmission + absorption = 100%, right?

Battleship gray, 22-23% reflection, was where it all started with exposure meter calibration as a serious business matter.

As I see it, the quote presents at least two problems. Meters "see" color, for one. For a Nikon shooter it is illiteracy to say differently. Second is this: no, meters are not calibrated to assume anything, they are simply calibrated. Interpretation of the measurements is a whole different subject.

"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.

90% agree. ISO setting can help in technical matters, that's all. Right tool for the job, to get highlights as high as possible after the exposure resources are exhausted. What the highlights are is a creative choice, at least sometimes.

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.

Very well stated, fully agree.