Understanding Exposure - is it pish? (rant)
- Thread starter aberal
- Start date
foodpoison
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,253
- Name
- Sean
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Let's ask The Sky Brothers.
Perhaps Brother Blue Sky, or Brother Backlit Sky, not forgetting Brother Dusky Blue Sky, and last but surely not least, Brother Reflecting Sky.
What?!
The guy is either on medication, or he should be.
I found all of the strange personification very condescending.
He is a great photographer, but a complete hippy whackjob!
Same here, I bought the book after about 6 months in, read it and thought, yeah this is great because it's just confirming I know my stuff. But by then I knew it all already. Big waste of time and money if you know ANYTHING about photography, but useful for a complete beginner.
I couldn't disagree more with the OP. As a complete photography novice about 18 months ago, I bought this book as it was well regarded by LOTS of people. I found it great at drilling home the exposure triangle (aperture, shutter speed, and ISO). It was perfect and the repetitive nature really worked for me.
robshaw
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 39
- Name
- Robert
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Although not a complete beginner, I'm by no means knowledgable. I bought this after reading recommendations from folk on here and have found it worth every penny.
Yes, all the info is available for free on forums etc, and yes, the author does come across as being a bit odd occasionally, but I found it much easier to read and understand than most of the free online stuff. (I really do appreciate all the free superb online stuff people post on forums etc btw, its just as a previous post stated, its sometimes better to have it in a book in front of you)
I know this thread has probably expired but I felt I had to add my opinion for the benefit of anybody reading it with the intention of possibly buying the book.
Yes, all the info is available for free on forums etc, and yes, the author does come across as being a bit odd occasionally, but I found it much easier to read and understand than most of the free online stuff. (I really do appreciate all the free superb online stuff people post on forums etc btw, its just as a previous post stated, its sometimes better to have it in a book in front of you)
I know this thread has probably expired but I felt I had to add my opinion for the benefit of anybody reading it with the intention of possibly buying the book.
mrtoad
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 18,182
- Name
- Geof
- Edit My Images
- Yes
i think light acts in the same way now we are digital
collecting it and doing something with it requires certain basic controls still found in 'digital' lenses
one has to start somewhere...we werent born with advanced menu protocols or knowledge...those came with the equipment
a measure of humility perhaps and some understanding of what faces a complete beginner...even the clueless type..could help in assessing basic books
collecting it and doing something with it requires certain basic controls still found in 'digital' lenses
one has to start somewhere...we werent born with advanced menu protocols or knowledge...those came with the equipment
a measure of humility perhaps and some understanding of what faces a complete beginner...even the clueless type..could help in assessing basic books
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't think anyone objects to a "basic" book, aimed at beginners. What people object to is a book full of padding and waffle that does not explain things well, or accurately, and which fails to acknowledge the features of modern day equipment for establishing exposure before the shot and confirming the exposure afterwards. Basically, the way the book approaches things is not how things are done today - IMHO. Maybe some of it is semantics, but even though I know what he means to say, I would not choose the words he does in the order he presents them in order to describe the process he goes through. I do not consider it helpful instruction aimed at somebody struggling to learn. I consider it obtuse.
Take this example from page 22 of the book....
OK, he chooses 8 seconds for his exposure in order to blur traffic. That's fine. But look at the next bit. He says "I adjusted my aperture until the camera's light meter indicated f/11 as a correct exposure....". Well, I'm sorry, but that comes over to me as nonsense. Surely he adjusted the aperture until the meter indicated a correct exposure and that turned out to be with an aperture of f/11, which (hopefully) satisfied his wishes regarding DOF. He should have been watching the meter initially, not the aperture. The aperture was the result, not the input. Furthermore, there is no mention of what the meter reading was, simply that it was "correct". So what was correct? Was it 0? +1? -1? Something else? Who knows? The whole section is completely useless. Of course, we get treated to some nonsense about parking tickets. Very bloody useful, not. There was no useful lesson here whatsoever, just useless drivel.
What he should have done was to set a shutter speed to portray motion as he wished, then set an aperture to provide the DOF he desired, and then set the ISO to allow him to get a correct exposure with those two constraints in place. He should have told us the metering mode, where exactly he was metering in the scene and what meter reading he was aiming for, and why. Still, I'm sure someone finds it useful to know that the bridge in in Hamburg and he has made over $4,000 from that picture. Personally I couldn't care less about those trivial details. This book is supposed to be teaching us how to set an exposure. FAIL!
Here's how I might have written it....
I wanted to photograph this bridge scene, with wonderful light in the sky from the setting sun. I knew it would be impossible to pull out detail in the bridge itself so I was happy to let the bridge become a silhouette. In order to make long light trails from the traffic I set a longish exposure of 8 seconds. Since I was using a long lens (300mm) I knew I would need to stop down in order to have sufficient DOF. I figured I'd need f/11. Finally I had to make sure my exposure was correct. I switched to spot metering and aimed the camera at the sky just above the bridge. I didn't want the scene to look too bright, and I didn't want to overexpose the light trails from the traffic, so I chose to set an exposure with the sky at +0 on the meter. To do this I needed to use 400 ISO. With the exposure set manually I then recomposed the scene and took my shot. I checked my histogram to make sure I was happy with the result and spotted small areas of blinking highlight warnings for the street lamps. I was happy with those. The trails from the car headlamps were barely showing clipping and I was happy with the shot. Here is the histogram for this shot.... ..... You will note the peak on the extreme left, which relates to the dark areas of the bridge in silhouette. There is also a small peak on the extreme right, which is for the road lighting and car headlights. The broader peak in the centre is for the various tones of the sky, which was set to +0 on the meter, but extends a little to either side.
Now, that's hardly creative writing, but it conveys the full thought process of setting up the shot, the sequence of operations of the camera, and the final confirmation that I got the results I expected. I'm sure that those are "instructions" that anyone could follow. They might find they need something other than 400 ISO, but otherwise it should all fall into place and could be practiced and results compared, like a mini exercise. There really is no need to know what I was driving, how much fuel was left in the tank or what I ate for breakfast.
Take this example from page 22 of the book....
OK, he chooses 8 seconds for his exposure in order to blur traffic. That's fine. But look at the next bit. He says "I adjusted my aperture until the camera's light meter indicated f/11 as a correct exposure....". Well, I'm sorry, but that comes over to me as nonsense. Surely he adjusted the aperture until the meter indicated a correct exposure and that turned out to be with an aperture of f/11, which (hopefully) satisfied his wishes regarding DOF. He should have been watching the meter initially, not the aperture. The aperture was the result, not the input. Furthermore, there is no mention of what the meter reading was, simply that it was "correct". So what was correct? Was it 0? +1? -1? Something else? Who knows? The whole section is completely useless. Of course, we get treated to some nonsense about parking tickets. Very bloody useful, not. There was no useful lesson here whatsoever, just useless drivel.
What he should have done was to set a shutter speed to portray motion as he wished, then set an aperture to provide the DOF he desired, and then set the ISO to allow him to get a correct exposure with those two constraints in place. He should have told us the metering mode, where exactly he was metering in the scene and what meter reading he was aiming for, and why. Still, I'm sure someone finds it useful to know that the bridge in in Hamburg and he has made over $4,000 from that picture. Personally I couldn't care less about those trivial details. This book is supposed to be teaching us how to set an exposure. FAIL!
Here's how I might have written it....
I wanted to photograph this bridge scene, with wonderful light in the sky from the setting sun. I knew it would be impossible to pull out detail in the bridge itself so I was happy to let the bridge become a silhouette. In order to make long light trails from the traffic I set a longish exposure of 8 seconds. Since I was using a long lens (300mm) I knew I would need to stop down in order to have sufficient DOF. I figured I'd need f/11. Finally I had to make sure my exposure was correct. I switched to spot metering and aimed the camera at the sky just above the bridge. I didn't want the scene to look too bright, and I didn't want to overexpose the light trails from the traffic, so I chose to set an exposure with the sky at +0 on the meter. To do this I needed to use 400 ISO. With the exposure set manually I then recomposed the scene and took my shot. I checked my histogram to make sure I was happy with the result and spotted small areas of blinking highlight warnings for the street lamps. I was happy with those. The trails from the car headlamps were barely showing clipping and I was happy with the shot. Here is the histogram for this shot.... ..... You will note the peak on the extreme left, which relates to the dark areas of the bridge in silhouette. There is also a small peak on the extreme right, which is for the road lighting and car headlights. The broader peak in the centre is for the various tones of the sky, which was set to +0 on the meter, but extends a little to either side.
Now, that's hardly creative writing, but it conveys the full thought process of setting up the shot, the sequence of operations of the camera, and the final confirmation that I got the results I expected. I'm sure that those are "instructions" that anyone could follow. They might find they need something other than 400 ISO, but otherwise it should all fall into place and could be practiced and results compared, like a mini exercise. There really is no need to know what I was driving, how much fuel was left in the tank or what I ate for breakfast.
tijuana taxi
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,748
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And you didn't do too well, it should be froopnees, no self respecting eastender would say freppence, more like froopence
OptimusBri
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,604
- Name
- Briony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Oh dear...I slightly wish I hadn't stumbled upon this thread now. After reading on here that quite a lot of people recommended it, I asked my boyfriend to buy it for me for Christmas! :bang:
- Messages
- 6,171
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ignore this miserable bunch Briony, the book's ok. This lot just need some Christmas Spirit in them! 
- Messages
- 6,171
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well I've had six pints of Guinness for lunchI'm feeling more headachey than festive.
Nothing like Guinness for a nutritious meal 
Rovers_Andy
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,021
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't think anyone objects to a "basic" book, aimed at beginners. What people object to is a book full of padding and waffle that does not explain things well, or accurately, and which fails to acknowledge the features of modern day equipment for establishing exposure before the shot and confirming the exposure afterwards. Basically, the way the book approaches things is not how things are done today - IMHO. Maybe some of it is semantics, but even though I know what he means to say, I would not choose the words he does in the order he presents them in order to describe the process he goes through. I do not consider it helpful instruction aimed at somebody struggling to learn. I consider it obtuse.
Take this example from page 22 of the book....
OK, he chooses 8 seconds for his exposure in order to blur traffic. That's fine. But look at the next bit. He says "I adjusted my aperture until the camera's light meter indicated f/11 as a correct exposure....". Well, I'm sorry, but that comes over to me as nonsense. Surely he adjusted the aperture until the meter indicated a correct exposure and that turned out to be with an aperture of f/11, which (hopefully) satisfied his wishes regarding DOF. He should have been watching the meter initially, not the aperture. The aperture was the result, not the input. Furthermore, there is no mention of what the meter reading was, simply that it was "correct". So what was correct? Was it 0? +1? -1? Something else? Who knows? The whole section is completely useless. Of course, we get treated to some nonsense about parking tickets. Very bloody useful, not. There was no useful lesson here whatsoever, just useless drivel.
What he should have done was to set a shutter speed to portray motion as he wished, then set an aperture to provide the DOF he desired, and then set the ISO to allow him to get a correct exposure with those two constraints in place. He should have told us the metering mode, where exactly he was metering in the scene and what meter reading he was aiming for, and why. Still, I'm sure someone finds it useful to know that the bridge in in Hamburg and he has made over $4,000 from that picture. Personally I couldn't care less about those trivial details. This book is supposed to be teaching us how to set an exposure. FAIL!
Hit the rather big nail on the head their Tim
Exactly my gripe with this book
OptimusBri
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,604
- Name
- Briony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ignore this miserable bunch Briony, the book's ok. This lot just need some Christmas Spirit in them!
Haha thanks
Well I'll wait until I've read it all to add my opinion!
Rovers_Andy
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,021
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ignore this miserable bunch Briony, the book's ok. This lot just need some Christmas Spirit in them!
Ill be getting plenty of Christmas
TriggerHappy
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,729
- Name
- Jamie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The self promotion of his books reminds me of "Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from such films as...". Simpson fans will know exactly what I'm talking about.
OptimusBri
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,604
- Name
- Briony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have now read over half of this book and have found it very useful!
I'm really glad I asked my boyfriend to get it for me and I'm looking forward to finishing the rest of it.
I'm really glad I asked my boyfriend to get it for me and I'm looking forward to finishing the rest of it.