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

[sybersitizen]

I only wonder that Bryan shoots with Nikon D300 APS-C, recommends F22 for a maximum DOF with a good sharpness. In fact he recommends always the maximum aperture value, even F32 and so on..

He shows a comparison of F8 vs F22 photo (with 200 % crop) to prove that diffraction doesn't ruin the image.

The aperture threshold depends on the format size, the pixel count, the final image size, and the viewing distance ... and it's also somewhat subjective. A 'widely accepted' threshold for the appearance of diffraction issues on a full frame camera camera is f/16. With APS-C that would be f/11.

But for my m43 g85 it looks really bad.

We can estimate f/8 for m43. With a 1" sensor it would be about f/6.

So I wonder what is the truth here: is it only APS-C vs M43 case?

The truth is that advice to always shoot at f/22 or even smaller (with any of these formats) as if there will be no sharpness impact is bad advice.

He is a really experienced photographer, so what is the case?

Look around and you'll find lots of information on this. The evidence is abundant.

 

[Krzycho]

Thanks for the answer.

The truth is that advice to always shoot at f/22 or even smaller (with any of these formats) as if there will be no sharpness impact is bad advice.

Just to be fair here, in his book Bryan advises to always shoot at smaller openings possible ONLY IF you want to have all the scene in focus, for so called 'describing exposures'.

I will review online resources as you wrote.

It's a little bit funny, because Bryan also writes that this is a hot topic in the forums (diffraction vs small openings), but he doesn't think it's relevant enough. But it seems that it's indeed crucial, so it's even more confusing.

 

[Bob]

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

He's already giving highly questionable advice. Every composition?

Your conclusion that the author provides highly questionable advice will live forever in the Internet.

OMG. I'm soooo embarrassed. Or not. Let that live forever on the Internet, too.

...and the Internet will also archive the fact that we've both responded to a post that is 13 years old. Now that's embarrassing.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

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

May I suggest looking up "Ben Long" on Lynda.com. He has some great courses on basic exposure. Bryan Peterson can be difficult to grasp and understand at times because he goes too quick I think (this was when I watched his course 5 years ago).

Basically this is because of lens compression with zoom lenses. The farther out you zoom (for any given aperture) the scene can be more compressed).

I wouldn't get too bogged down with this. Just remember it like this:

* Large apertures (like f/1.8 and f/2.8) produce shallower depth of field

* smaller apertures (like f/8 or f/11 or f/22) produce deeper depth of field

Where focal length plays a role is as such

* with a larger aperture (like f/2.8), and a short focal length (like 15mm) depth of field is still fairly large (larger than the example below)

* with a larger aperture (like f/2.8) and a longer focal length (like 200mm) your depth of field is decreased because of the compression.

He is basically telling you to get the entire scene in focus, shoot at f/22 and probably a medium focal length, like 35mm or 50mm. Unless you're shooting a flat subject, you should try to focus about 1/3 into the frame (what you see in the view finder) to get maximum DOF because generally 1/3 of the scene in front and 2/3 of the scene behind where you focus, will be in focus (and fall within the DOF). f/22 is pretty forgiving in many cases because it's DOF is generally pretty big, especially at shorter focal lengths and by this I mean you can be off a little on where you focus, say at 15mm at f/22 and most of the scene will still appear in focus.

Another way to look at this is like this... you're shooting with a 50mm lens and you focus on the subject ( the person):

f/2 is shallow depth of field (think of a person standing 50 ft in front of a car with its lights on. the person will be sharp, and you will see the lights from the car but they will be blurred. YOu might not be able to tell the lights are from a car or if it's one or two cars.

f/8 - The person is still in focus, the lights on the cars are more defined, but still blurry. You might be able to see that it's a car behind them but it will still be at least slightly out of focus.

f/16 - The person is still in focus, the car may mostly be in focus but slightly blurred.

f/22 - The person and the car and everything around it and the person would be pretty much in focus.

Hopefully these examples also illustrate what DOF and aperture does.

As a side note, He has some short video clips on Youtube if you Google them. Sometimes its easier to see him demonstrate the differences in a video. There are also a ton of videos that cover this subject too.

 

[tko]

Horrible advice in that book. I can't even read it w/o getting a headache. It would be more accurate to say ALL storytelling is best done through shallow DOF. I mean, storytelling is isolating a subject and showing a relationship. And his advice for setting all this up is funny, as is the photo that is supposed to illustrate something. I mean, he's talking about telling a story using everything in focus and he's got a field of flowers out of focus.

He repeatedly say that telling a story requires maximum DOF. Not once, not twice, but multiple times, yet he doesn't say why and his own examples contradict what he's saying. He defines "story telling" as having a foreground, a middle, and a background. Yeah, right. A blurred background or foreground can never "tell a story?" What nonsense.

And the example photos he supplies, such as that of his daughter on page 34, are shallow DOF. Actually, I don't think a single one of his photos "tell a story." Pretty compositions. A sunset with a flower, and old lady, a pretty girl. Not a story, no one is interacting with anything.

"When you wish to create a story telling exposure, you will most likely use your wide angle lens."

Again, in the example photo of his daughter, he seems to prefer the telephoto version. I know I do.

Exposure has nothing to do with FL. FL has nothing to do with story telling. Composition and shutter blur tells a story. And he doesn't have anything on composition. Bad choice of phrases on his part.

 

[sybersitizen]

Horrible advice in that book. I can't even read it w/o getting a headache. It would be more accurate to say ALL storytelling is best done through shallow DOF. I mean, storytelling is isolating a subject and showing a relationship. And his advice for setting all this up is funny, as is the photo that is supposed to illustrate something. I mean, he's talking about telling a story using everything in focus and he's got a field of flowers out of focus.

He repeatedly say that telling a story requires maximum DOF. Not once, not twice, but multiple times, yet he doesn't say why and his own examples contradict what he's saying. He defines "story telling" as having a foreground, a middle, and a background. Yeah, right. A blurred background or foreground can never "tell a story?" What nonsense.

Clarification: The photo shown along with the text is the one he considered a bad example. The one he considered a good example is on the next page. This is not to say that his 'storytelling' philosophy makes sense, just to explain why only his 'bad' example was visible on the page with the text. Here are pages 46 and 47:

And the example photos he supplies, such as that of his daughter on page 34, are shallow DOF. Actually, I don't think a single one of his photos "tell a story." Pretty compositions. A sunset with a flower, and old lady, a pretty girl. Not a story, no one is interacting with anything.

"When you wish to create a story telling exposure, you will most likely use your wide angle lens."

Again, in the example photo of his daughter, he seems to prefer the telephoto version. I know I do.

Exposure has nothing to do with FL. FL has nothing to do with story telling. Composition and shutter blur tells a story. And he doesn't have anything on composition. Bad choice of phrases on his part.

I haven't got the book. I only found it online here to reference the page containing the questionable advice quoted in the original starting post in order to show the context.

The additional goofy excerpts later quoted by others were icing on the cake.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

Horrible advice in that book. I can't even read it w/o getting a headache. It would be more accurate to say ALL storytelling is best done through shallow DOF. I mean, storytelling is isolating a subject and showing a relationship. And his advice for setting all this up is funny, as is the photo that is supposed to illustrate something. I mean, he's talking about telling a story using everything in focus and he's got a field of flowers out of focus.

He repeatedly say that telling a story requires maximum DOF. Not once, not twice, but multiple times, yet he doesn't say why and his own examples contradict what he's saying. He defines "story telling" as having a foreground, a middle, and a background. Yeah, right. A blurred background or foreground can never "tell a story?" What nonsense.

And the example photos he supplies, such as that of his daughter on page 34, are shallow DOF. Actually, I don't think a single one of his photos "tell a story." Pretty compositions. A sunset with a flower, and old lady, a pretty girl. Not a story, no one is interacting with anything.

"When you wish to create a story telling exposure, you will most likely use your wide angle lens."

Again, in the example photo of his daughter, he seems to prefer the telephoto version. I know I do.

Exposure has nothing to do with FL. FL has nothing to do with story telling. Composition and shutter blur tells a story. And he doesn't have anything on composition. Bad choice of phrases on his part.

I wouldn't classify the book as horrible, as I got some bits and pieces from it (particularly exercises and was able to quickly understand aperture as it was one of the first books I read a long while back when I started out).

But I think this idea of a "story telling aperture" (which isn't entirely Bryans creation as I've seen it discussed by many photographers) is subjective and depends on what type of story you're trying to tell. For some, that might be 2.8 (with a longer FL) to really isolate your subject, to others it might be f/22 at a shorter FL to show an entire scene in focus.

All apertures and FL combos are story telling, along with shutter speed (for blur). The key for the photographer is just finding which one suits the "story" the best and portrays the story they want to tell.

 

[AnthonyL]

Horrible advice in that book. I can't even read it w/o getting a headache. It would be more accurate to say ALL storytelling is best done through shallow DOF. I mean, storytelling is isolating a subject and showing a relationship. And his advice for setting all this up is funny, as is the photo that is supposed to illustrate something. I mean, he's talking about telling a story using everything in focus and he's got a field of flowers out of focus.

He repeatedly say that telling a story requires maximum DOF. Not once, not twice, but multiple times, yet he doesn't say why and his own examples contradict what he's saying. He defines "story telling" as having a foreground, a middle, and a background. Yeah, right. A blurred background or foreground can never "tell a story?" What nonsense.

And the example photos he supplies, such as that of his daughter on page 34, are shallow DOF. Actually, I don't think a single one of his photos "tell a story." Pretty compositions. A sunset with a flower, and old lady, a pretty girl. Not a story, no one is interacting with anything.

"When you wish to create a story telling exposure, you will most likely use your wide angle lens."

Again, in the example photo of his daughter, he seems to prefer the telephoto version. I know I do.

Exposure has nothing to do with FL. FL has nothing to do with story telling. Composition and shutter blur tells a story. And he doesn't have anything on composition. Bad choice of phrases on his part.

I wouldn't classify the book as horrible, as I got some bits and pieces from it (particularly exercises and was able to quickly understand aperture as it was one of the first books I read a long while back when I started out).

But I think this idea of a "story telling aperture" (which isn't entirely Bryans creation as I've seen it discussed by many photographers) is subjective and depends on what type of story you're trying to tell. For some, that might be 2.8 (with a longer FL) to really isolate your subject, to others it might be f/22 at a shorter FL to show an entire scene in focus.

As I understand it, and I have a 2008 printed version, "story telling" is showing the subject within its surroundings and hence f/22 and deep dof. He has a separate section called "Singlular-Theme Apertures" where he is isolating the subject with wide apertures and shallow DOF.

If I get round to it I'll post an image of an old lens with the DOF scale that along with decent viewfinders on film SLRs were relevant in the days that Peterson was doing most of his photography (and earning money from it).

 

[sirhawkeye64]

Horrible advice in that book. I can't even read it w/o getting a headache. It would be more accurate to say ALL storytelling is best done through shallow DOF. I mean, storytelling is isolating a subject and showing a relationship. And his advice for setting all this up is funny, as is the photo that is supposed to illustrate something. I mean, he's talking about telling a story using everything in focus and he's got a field of flowers out of focus.

He repeatedly say that telling a story requires maximum DOF. Not once, not twice, but multiple times, yet he doesn't say why and his own examples contradict what he's saying. He defines "story telling" as having a foreground, a middle, and a background. Yeah, right. A blurred background or foreground can never "tell a story?" What nonsense.

And the example photos he supplies, such as that of his daughter on page 34, are shallow DOF. Actually, I don't think a single one of his photos "tell a story." Pretty compositions. A sunset with a flower, and old lady, a pretty girl. Not a story, no one is interacting with anything.

"When you wish to create a story telling exposure, you will most likely use your wide angle lens."

Again, in the example photo of his daughter, he seems to prefer the telephoto version. I know I do.

Exposure has nothing to do with FL. FL has nothing to do with story telling. Composition and shutter blur tells a story. And he doesn't have anything on composition. Bad choice of phrases on his part.

I wouldn't classify the book as horrible, as I got some bits and pieces from it (particularly exercises and was able to quickly understand aperture as it was one of the first books I read a long while back when I started out).

But I think this idea of a "story telling aperture" (which isn't entirely Bryans creation as I've seen it discussed by many photographers) is subjective and depends on what type of story you're trying to tell. For some, that might be 2.8 (with a longer FL) to really isolate your subject, to others it might be f/22 at a shorter FL to show an entire scene in focus.

As I understand it, and I have a 2008 printed version, "story telling" is showing the subject within its surroundings and hence f/22 and deep dof. He has a separate section called "Singlular-Theme Apertures" where he is isolating the subject with wide apertures and shallow DOF.

If I get round to it I'll post an image of an old lens with the DOF scale that along with decent viewfinders on film SLRs were relevant in the days that Peterson was doing most of his photography (and earning money from it).

I have a copy of the book, although it's likely a newer copy as I got it about 5 years ago, but I don't think he updates the actual wording that much because those concepts don't change, but then again, I haven't looked at it in probably 4 years.

I've read that section and I know what he's discussing, but I guess what I'm saying is that he's wrong in that regard (at least IMO) to make beginners think to have a story telling aperture, you have to be at f/22. Yes this is true if you want everything around the subject to be in focus use f/22 I don't doubt that, but the fact of how its presented can be confusing to new photographers and need to be explained a bit more. He should just say deep depth of field instead of story telling IMO.

 

[AnthonyL]

Horrible advice in that book. I can't even read it w/o getting a headache. It would be more accurate to say ALL storytelling is best done through shallow DOF. I mean, storytelling is isolating a subject and showing a relationship. And his advice for setting all this up is funny, as is the photo that is supposed to illustrate something. I mean, he's talking about telling a story using everything in focus and he's got a field of flowers out of focus.

He repeatedly say that telling a story requires maximum DOF. Not once, not twice, but multiple times, yet he doesn't say why and his own examples contradict what he's saying. He defines "story telling" as having a foreground, a middle, and a background. Yeah, right. A blurred background or foreground can never "tell a story?" What nonsense.

And the example photos he supplies, such as that of his daughter on page 34, are shallow DOF. Actually, I don't think a single one of his photos "tell a story." Pretty compositions. A sunset with a flower, and old lady, a pretty girl. Not a story, no one is interacting with anything.

"When you wish to create a story telling exposure, you will most likely use your wide angle lens."

Again, in the example photo of his daughter, he seems to prefer the telephoto version. I know I do.

Exposure has nothing to do with FL. FL has nothing to do with story telling. Composition and shutter blur tells a story. And he doesn't have anything on composition. Bad choice of phrases on his part.

I wouldn't classify the book as horrible, as I got some bits and pieces from it (particularly exercises and was able to quickly understand aperture as it was one of the first books I read a long while back when I started out).

But I think this idea of a "story telling aperture" (which isn't entirely Bryans creation as I've seen it discussed by many photographers) is subjective and depends on what type of story you're trying to tell. For some, that might be 2.8 (with a longer FL) to really isolate your subject, to others it might be f/22 at a shorter FL to show an entire scene in focus.

As I understand it, and I have a 2008 printed version, "story telling" is showing the subject within its surroundings and hence f/22 and deep dof. He has a separate section called "Singlular-Theme Apertures" where he is isolating the subject with wide apertures and shallow DOF.

If I get round to it I'll post an image of an old lens with the DOF scale that along with decent viewfinders on film SLRs were relevant in the days that Peterson was doing most of his photography (and earning money from it).

I have a copy of the book, although it's likely a newer copy as I got it about 5 years ago, but I don't think he updates the actual wording that much because those concepts don't change, but then again, I haven't looked at it in probably 4 years.

I've read that section and I know what he's discussing, but I guess what I'm saying is that he's wrong in that regard (at least IMO) to make beginners think to have a story telling aperture, you have to be at f/22. Yes this is true if you want everything around the subject to be in focus use f/22 I don't doubt that, but the fact of how its presented can be confusing to new photographers and need to be explained a bit more. He should just say deep depth of field instead of story telling IMO.

In the days of full frame film cameras (35mm) you'll see that a lot of his samples were at f/22 and at least one at f/32. He was not wrong when he was saying it. I have only just read it* (got it from the library) and if I hadn't started with film all those years ago I'd have found the book a harder read. It is not one I'd recommend to anyone starting out with a digital camera even though there is a lot to admire in the book.

* I primarily got it to read about the "Exposure triangle" that is attributed to him and I intend at some stage also to comment on that.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

Horrible advice in that book. I can't even read it w/o getting a headache. It would be more accurate to say ALL storytelling is best done through shallow DOF. I mean, storytelling is isolating a subject and showing a relationship. And his advice for setting all this up is funny, as is the photo that is supposed to illustrate something. I mean, he's talking about telling a story using everything in focus and he's got a field of flowers out of focus.

He repeatedly say that telling a story requires maximum DOF. Not once, not twice, but multiple times, yet he doesn't say why and his own examples contradict what he's saying. He defines "story telling" as having a foreground, a middle, and a background. Yeah, right. A blurred background or foreground can never "tell a story?" What nonsense.

And the example photos he supplies, such as that of his daughter on page 34, are shallow DOF. Actually, I don't think a single one of his photos "tell a story." Pretty compositions. A sunset with a flower, and old lady, a pretty girl. Not a story, no one is interacting with anything.

"When you wish to create a story telling exposure, you will most likely use your wide angle lens."

Again, in the example photo of his daughter, he seems to prefer the telephoto version. I know I do.

Exposure has nothing to do with FL. FL has nothing to do with story telling. Composition and shutter blur tells a story. And he doesn't have anything on composition. Bad choice of phrases on his part.

I wouldn't classify the book as horrible, as I got some bits and pieces from it (particularly exercises and was able to quickly understand aperture as it was one of the first books I read a long while back when I started out).

But I think this idea of a "story telling aperture" (which isn't entirely Bryans creation as I've seen it discussed by many photographers) is subjective and depends on what type of story you're trying to tell. For some, that might be 2.8 (with a longer FL) to really isolate your subject, to others it might be f/22 at a shorter FL to show an entire scene in focus.

As I understand it, and I have a 2008 printed version, "story telling" is showing the subject within its surroundings and hence f/22 and deep dof. He has a separate section called "Singlular-Theme Apertures" where he is isolating the subject with wide apertures and shallow DOF.

If I get round to it I'll post an image of an old lens with the DOF scale that along with decent viewfinders on film SLRs were relevant in the days that Peterson was doing most of his photography (and earning money from it).

I have a copy of the book, although it's likely a newer copy as I got it about 5 years ago, but I don't think he updates the actual wording that much because those concepts don't change, but then again, I haven't looked at it in probably 4 years.

I've read that section and I know what he's discussing, but I guess what I'm saying is that he's wrong in that regard (at least IMO) to make beginners think to have a story telling aperture, you have to be at f/22. Yes this is true if you want everything around the subject to be in focus use f/22 I don't doubt that, but the fact of how its presented can be confusing to new photographers and need to be explained a bit more. He should just say deep depth of field instead of story telling IMO.

In the days of full frame film cameras (35mm) you'll see that a lot of his samples were at f/22 and at least one at f/32. He was not wrong when he was saying it. I have only just read it* (got it from the library) and if I hadn't started with film all those years ago I'd have found the book a harder read. It is not one I'd recommend to anyone starting out with a digital camera even though there is a lot to admire in the book.

* I primarily got it to read about the "Exposure triangle" that is attributed to him and I intend at some stage also to comment on that.

That part I probably just sort of took as "if you wanted a wide dof, then shoot at f/22" and left it at that. I didn't read his books word for word though, as some chapters I would skim over (like those on shutter speed) once I figured out the exposure triangle.

He's the one photographer I like to recommend, but then again sometimes I don't want to.

However, most beginners will come across his name, along with people like Scott Kelby at some point. At least with Peterson, he gives you the true technical explanation, whereas Kelby sometimes just tells you this is what it is, and that's it, or this is how to do something, and that's it (he might go briefly into why, but not as much as other people).

 

[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."

that is attributed to him and I intend at some stage also to comment on that.

Misattributed. The one he suggested is " the photographic triangle”.

 

[RedFox88]

Hello,

Sorry for digging out such an old topic, but my case is really related with this, so I don't want to start a new one.

I'm reading 'Understanding Exposure' by Bryan Peterson but I use M43 system (G85 Lumix), so I have some doubts:

- as you said it seems that F22 rule applies only to FF systems (I guess that this is not stated in the book, even that my edition is 2014)

From my experience for M43, focal length for everything in focus is F11, F16-F22 is noticeable softer.

I’m sure it is with 35 mm film too, but then people weren’t making huge enlargements from film like 100% zoom on a large computer screen is akin to

- accordingly for aperture called 'who cares?' I think that I should apply something like 5.6, instead of recommended F8-F11, right?

Another case is focus mode for everything in focus. I do not have distance indications depicted for my lens (12-35 lumix), so is the good idea instead:

- set aperture to F11, switch to manual mode and set infinite?

No, you need to understand depth of field

Thanks a lot!

 

[AnthonyL]

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."

You never reached out for a faster film then?

that is attributed to him and I intend at some stage also to comment on that.

Misattributed. The one he suggested is " the photographic triangle”.

Yes, many people seem to attribute "Exposure triangle" to him - hence why I decided to read it from the horses mouth.

Throughout his book, with just the very occasional exception, he shoots at ASA/ISO 100. The majority of his shots are film, just a couple with digital.

He may have been wiser leaving digital out and I don't know how much he understood, then, about what you are so conversant with now. But in any event much of what you say certainly goes over my head regardless of how right you are.

And his book is starting with folk who were not conversant with the "interrelation between aperture, shutter speed and film that is - and has always been - at the heart of every exposure. Together, these three elements make up what I affectionately call the photographic triangle" (p11).

I've posted before, you don't start learning about the laws of motion then dismiss Newton because Einstein's theory of relativity shows them to not be a fully accurate.

 

[AnthonyL]

Hello,

Sorry for digging out such an old topic, but my case is really related with this, so I don't want to start a new one.

I'm reading 'Understanding Exposure' by Bryan Peterson but I use M43 system (G85 Lumix), so I have some doubts:

- as you said it seems that F22 rule applies only to FF systems (I guess that this is not stated in the book, even that my edition is 2014)

From my experience for M43, focal length for everything in focus is F11, F16-F22 is noticeable softer.

I’m sure it is with 35 mm film too, but then people weren’t making huge enlargements from film like 100% zoom on a large computer screen is akin to

- accordingly for aperture called 'who cares?' I think that I should apply something like 5.6, instead of recommended F8-F11, right?

You've already said F11 works well and with a crop factor of x2 that would, as I understand it, work well depending on the lens. On my 10-22 I will get diffraction at smaller than F8.

Another case is focus mode for everything in focus. I do not have distance indications depicted for my lens (12-35 lumix), so is the good idea instead:

- set aperture to F11, switch to manual mode and set infinite?

No, you need to understand depth of field

Correct, or at least understand how to use it. Plenty of material out there and you can punch figures into https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Many lenses in film days had distance scales as you can see below on Minolta 50mm f/1.7 lens .

The bottom ring rotates so I've set it to F8 (aligning with the red mark). I can then move the top ring around and read the range that will be "in acceptable focus". In the example I've set the far distance to Infinity, and if I look to the left of the red line I can see that the near focus will be at about 6' with the actual focus distance at 10'. If I wanted 3' to infinity you can see I'd have to dial in F16. F4 would give me about 5'-10'.


Showing DOF scales on older lens.

 

[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."

You never reached out for a faster film then?

I do, and I also push film when necessary. Should I encounter bees?

that is attributed to him and I intend at some stage also to comment on that.

Misattributed. The one he suggested is " the photographic triangle”.

Yes, many people seem to attribute "Exposure triangle" to him - hence why I decided to read it from the horses mouth.

There is no exposure triangle. There is a density (lightness in digital) triangle. Film speed can compensate for density, but not for the exposure. With faster emulsions, same exposure results in a potentially higher intensity of latent image. No bees involved. Same light is gathered irrespective of the film speed, because the amount of light depends only on the light that reaches the film and time (shutter speed).

Film doesn't have speed before it is processed (nether does digital). The number on the box corresponds to the speed after the standard development resulting in the standard characteristic curve. That's not always the goal. More, some films are designed to be pushed in processing. In most cases film spec sheet you can find in the box includes a table of speeds vs. development conditions.

Throughout his book, with just the very occasional exception, he shoots at ASA/ISO 100. The majority of his shots are film, just a couple with digital.

I have his edition 4 and counted 9 shots with Nikon D800E on the first few pages. In total, this camera is mentioned more than 100 times throughout the book.

He may have been wiser leaving digital out and I don't know how much he understood, then, about what you are so conversant with now. But in any event much of what you say certainly goes over my head regardless of how right you are.

And his book is starting with folk who were not conversant with the "interrelation between aperture, shutter speed and film that is - and has always been - at the heart of every exposure. Together, these three elements make up what I affectionately call the photographic triangle" (p11).

I've posted before, you don't start learning about the laws of motion then dismiss Newton because Einstein's theory of relativity shows them to not be a fully accurate.

Your analogy doesn't work too, you are overcomplicating things. No, exposure is nothing like Newton's mechanics, Einstein's relativity, or rocket science.

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

 

[photonut2008]

Where focal length plays a role is...

* with a larger aperture (like f/2.8), and a short focal length (like 15mm) depth of field is still fairly large (larger than the example below)

That depends on focus distance. If you move closer with a shorter focal length to keep the FOV (i.e., magnification) at the focus distant constant then at any given aperture focal length will have (at most) a minimal effect on DOF.

* with a larger aperture (like f/2.8) and a longer focal length (like 200mm) your depth of field is decreased because of the compression.

"Compression" comes from perspective, not from focal length.

As you can see here, moving the camera closer or farther from the subject (in this case, the King) expands or compresses the relative size of the background.

He is basically telling you to get the entire scene in focus, shoot at f/22 and probably a medium focal length, like 35mm or 50mm.

Unless you're shooting a flat subject, you should try to focus about 1/3 into the frame (what you see in the view finder) to get maximum DOF because generally 1/3 of the scene in front and 2/3 of the scene behind where you focus, will be in focus (and fall within the DOF).

See the first example above. This only applies to shorter focal lengths, and certainly not to 35-50mm focal lengths.

f/22 is pretty forgiving in many cases because it's DOF is generally pretty big, especially at shorter focal lengths and by this I mean you can be off a little on where you focus, say at 15mm at f/22 and most of the scene will still appear in focus.

Apertures smaller than f/16 should be avoided unless you want everything in the frame to be within a rather large CoC definition of DOF (i.e., you aren't viewing it very closely). The problem with that large CoC is that there is no smaller CoC in the shot, so if you print or view it at a larger size nothing would be in a more critical CoC.

My experience on the beach shooting the Golden Gate Bridge in the background has been that without tilting the focus plane I have to choose between not getting too close (both literally as well as virtually) to the sand in the foreground and having the bridge in the background be critically sharp.

--
Internet Interlocuter

 

[AnthonyL]

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."

You never reached out for a faster film then?

I do, and I also push film when necessary. Should I encounter bees?

that is attributed to him and I intend at some stage also to comment on that.

Misattributed. The one he suggested is " the photographic triangle”.

Yes, many people seem to attribute "Exposure triangle" to him - hence why I decided to read it from the horses mouth.

There is no exposure triangle. There is a density (lightness in digital) triangle. Film speed can compensate for density, but not for the exposure. With faster emulsions, same exposure results in a potentially higher intensity of latent image. No bees involved. Same light is gathered irrespective of the film speed, because the amount of light depends only on the light that reaches the film and time (shutter speed).

I wasn't asking for an explanation, I was looking to see how Peterson was expressing it, why, and it what context.

Film doesn't have speed before it is processed (nether does digital). The number on the box corresponds to the speed after the standard development resulting in the standard characteristic curve. That's not always the goal. More, some films are designed to be pushed in processing. In most cases film spec sheet you can find in the box includes a table of speeds vs. development conditions.

I wonder how well, or otherwise film would cope with being pushed 4 stops. In any event I mostly shot slides.

How do the results of an ISO 100 film shot at 200 compare to the same shot with 200 film?

I always put more "worker bees" in my camera when I came back to the UK and less in when I returned to Australia. Was that wrong?

Throughout his book, with just the very occasional exception, he shoots at ASA/ISO 100. The majority of his shots are film, just a couple with digital.

I have his edition 4 and counted 9 shots with Nikon D800E on the first few pages. In total, this camera is mentioned more than 100 times throughout the book.

Might be interesting to know how his views changed over the years. Mine is I think First edition (2004) Revised - Date unclear. I believe your Edition 4 is the latest. Not easy to find edition dates. The first digital photo he shows was taken with a Nikon Coolpix 5700 at 60mm, f/4 for 1/30s. ISO not mentioned. Perhaps it is relevant for folk to clarify which edition they have when they make comment.

He may have been wiser leaving digital out and I don't know how much he understood, then, about what you are so conversant with now. But in any event much of what you say certainly goes over my head regardless of how right you are.

And his book is starting with folk who were not conversant with the "interrelation between aperture, shutter speed and film that is - and has always been - at the heart of every exposure. Together, these three elements make up what I affectionately call the photographic triangle" (p11).

I've posted before, you don't start learning about the laws of motion then dismiss Newton because Einstein's theory of relativity shows them to not be a fully accurate.

Your analogy doesn't work too, you are overcomplicating things. No, exposure is nothing like Newton's mechanics, Einstein's relativity, or rocket science.

What is complicated to one is straightforward to another, it's all relative!

 

[Iliah Borg]

I wonder how well, or otherwise film would cope with being pushed 4 stops.

"KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX P3200 Black & White Negative Film ⁄ 3200TMZ is a multi-speed continuous-tone panchromatic black-and-white negative film"

"The nominal speed is ... EI 800"

"It was determined in a manner published in ISO standards. For ease in calculating exposure and for consistency with the commonly used scale of film-speed numbers, the nominal speed has been rounded to EI 800."

That's this film is designed to be pushed 2 stops.

"You can also expose this film at EI 400 and obtain outstanding shadow detail."

On top of that, one doesn't need to push film all the way during processing, as film can be further enhanced during post-processing, printing, digitization, &c.

How do the results of an ISO 100 film shot at 200 compare to the same shot with 200 film?

Depends. Have a look at Neopan 400CN or Ilford XP2 ("XP2 is also special in that you can shoot at different speeds from ISO 50 to 800 on the same roll of film and process as standard C41.")

I always put more "worker bees" in my camera

You have zero worker bees in your cameras, unless you are having an accident ))

Light is collected by the surface, not by some mythical worker bees. Same light is collected by the same surface area, regardless of the sensitivity. The effect of the light depends on the sensitivity and responsivity of the surface, and on the chosen processing (chemical, electronic, whatever it is) - because processing is where the sensitivity and responsivity are developed.

If your radio has a larger antenna, you can try the "more bees" analogy. If the size of the antenna is the same, but the sensitivity of the antenna is higher for some reason, bees go out of the window, to ether. They are not needed in any case, only complicating things by ascribing them a wrong nature, while a correct explanation is so simple.

when I came back to the UK and less in when I returned to Australia. Was that wrong?

Throughout his book, with just the very occasional exception, he shoots at ASA/ISO 100. The majority of his shots are film, just a couple with digital.

I have his edition 4 and counted 9 shots with Nikon D800E on the first few pages. In total, this camera is mentioned more than 100 times throughout the book.

Might be interesting to know how his views changed over the years. Mine is I think First edition (2004) Revised - Date unclear. I believe your Edition 4 is the latest. Not easy to find edition dates. The first digital photo he shows was taken with a Nikon Coolpix 5700 at 60mm, f/4 for 1/30s. ISO not mentioned. Perhaps it is relevant for folk to clarify which edition they have when they make comment.

He may have been wiser leaving digital out and I don't know how much he understood, then, about what you are so conversant with now. But in any event much of what you say certainly goes over my head regardless of how right you are.

And his book is starting with folk who were not conversant with the "interrelation between aperture, shutter speed and film that is - and has always been - at the heart of every exposure. Together, these three elements make up what I affectionately call the photographic triangle" (p11).

I've posted before, you don't start learning about the laws of motion then dismiss Newton because Einstein's theory of relativity shows them to not be a fully accurate.

Your analogy doesn't work too, you are overcomplicating things. No, exposure is nothing like Newton's mechanics, Einstein's relativity, or rocket science.

What is complicated to one is straightforward to another, it's all relative!

Straightforward untruths, how twisted is that

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

 

[MargoTete]

Sometimes they also sit back and have a giggle at all the hooha that continues after they have got the information they looked for.