Understanding Exposure

mumof2

Ive ordered the book, so hope to learn something from it. I thoroughly enjoyed today, was out 3 hrs took different images several times with different settings to learn the difference between them and which would be best to use in future. Not sure if im more confused now, but will go through the photos in the morning and sort them. Then I wil post a few n see what ye think!

Thanks again for all help so far.:)

charybdis

Lots of people seem to love Understanding Exposure, but I really dislike it.

The problem is that I'm not exactly sure what to suggest as an alternative. I suspect a limited and well thought out introduction to the principles of exposure isn't really a marketable book.

You could try asking here. What do you want to know about exposure?

magicbastarder

charybdis wrote: »

Lots of people seem to love Understanding Exposure, but I really dislike it.

please to explain?
i haven't read it - let alone seen it on bookshelves, i think? so i'd be curious as to what its shortcomings are, especially given its popularity around here.

charybdis

magicbastarder wrote: »

please to explain?
i haven't read it - let alone seen it on bookshelves, i think? so i'd be curious as to what its shortcomings are, especially given its popularity around here.

It's just a very poor explanation of the basic principles of exposure. It's very light on detail and heavy on things of very questionable relevance (like the two pages dedicated to describing how you can use a hose or sprinkler to make it look like it's raining). It doesn't really say much about exposure, just he secondary effects of changing shutter speed or aperture (which isn't exactly complicated). There are lots of images in the book, but very few of them (if any) illustrate the point the book is trying to make.

That's not to say I think it's bad because I think it doesn't cater to the more technically-interested. I think it's a poor choice of material for anyone, even an absolute beginner.

I think the biggest indictment of the book is the delta between its popularity and the number of people who actually understand exposure. Understanding Exposure is well-liked not because it is a good book on the subject, but because it's easy reading and gives you the illusion you're now well-versed in the book's subject.

What I am trying to say is: even if you're very familiar with Understanding Exposure, you're probably very far away from actually understanding exposure.

ozymandius

Well I liked it. Still consider myself a beginner, but learnt lots from it. I think the problem with the book is that it doesn't make sense - until it does. It's a lot better than the books that tell you the history of SLRs, how sensors work, different types of macros lenses, etc. That can come later. This book is about taking photos.

Good as a guide to get started on Manual mode. Explains the reasons for and effect of choosing different aperture or shutter speed. Stressing all along that there is no 'right' exposure. It's what you want. Maybe his style is not for everyone.

Particularly found the blue jeans and brother sky bits cringy, but very helpful. What's the green one?

Finally, the book first came out in the film era. Maybe that holds against today.

Worth a look though.

pullandbang

I'd disagree with charybdis here. I've read it a few times and yes, it is an easy read but it certainly gives plenty of detail on how exposure works in your camera.
Ok, it doesn't blind you with science, but any beginner reading (and re-reading) it will learn plenty.

The secondary effects of changing your aperture and shutter speed are exactly what effect your exposure - you don't need to know the exact technical values (unless you're doing a degree in photography).

I'd certainly recommend it as a good read for any beginner or dare I say, experienced tog.....

I thought Understanding Exposure was a great read. Definitely helps explain the basics.

What puzzles me, though, is that Peterson has an "Understanding Photography Field Guide" book, which pretty much covers everything in Understanding Exposure (word for word, mostly) and a whole lot more, like design, pattern, people, etc.

I find it incredibly odd that Understanding exposure is recommended over Understanding Photography. They're both similarly priced (less than €1 more for the photography field guide on the Book Depository) but The Photography has much, much more content.

daycent

It one of those things trotted out automatically like a mantra, along with; "You must get a tripod", as something essential if you've just bought a camera. Truth is, there are many sources (possibly better) out there on the net, for free. Buying a book is such an old school approach to a new hobby

Also, I'd say about 1 in 3 people on here use a tripod.....*










*completely unsubstantiated guess

Freddie59

charybdis wrote: »

Lots of people seem to love Understanding Exposure, but I really dislike it.

The problem is that I'm not exactly sure what to suggest as an alternative. I suspect a limited and well thought out introduction to the principles of exposure isn't really a marketable book.

You could try asking here. What do you want to know about exposure?

You have to appreciate that many people who bought/buy the book (myself included) are coming from a P&S/Bridge scenario, where you had the camera permanently set to auto. DSLRs (Canons anyway) don't really cut it in auto.

Thus the book. It is concise, not overly technical, and perfect for those stepping up.

What do I want to know about exposure? Everything I can.

Freddie59

daycent wrote: »

I
Also, I'd say about 1 in 3 people on here use a tripod.

A guess alright. But hard to know. I only use it when doing landscapes (in some instances) or long exposures.

superflyninja

Ive read Perfect Exposure by Martin Freeman. Found it excellent.

AnCatDubh

I like it and think it's worth the money for a read.

It won't make you a rocket scientist. meh.... don't wanna be one.

Yes, you could learn as much through google, but there is something very nice about being able to disconnect from the matrix for just a little while and absorb stuff.

Unfortunately while connected (and i'm as guilty as anyone else here so hands up here), you tend to get opinion put across as fact - maybe nothing wrong about that and sometimes it can be quite relevant and factual but a thousand monkeys typing can also lead to more inaccuracies. Wikipedia is a prime example. Content improves to a point where it disimproves. You still learn lots along the way.

I think Understanding Exposure is a worthwhile read but there is a science behind what is in it which doesn't get taken out for a spin in the book. That may be one of the biggest flaws of the book. Then again, its target isn't for someone looking for the science but attempts to use simple (yes, perhaps sometimes lame) concepts for someone with beginner to moderate knowledge.

note to self - must take it out and read it again

Promac

The thing about Understanding Exposure is that it's a "limited and well thought out introduction to the principles of exposure".

It's not a text-book. It's not a reference on the science behind photography. It's a helping hand for people who have just gotten away from full auto and are a bit lost.

The title is nothing more than a hook - anyone going into a book shop looking for this kind of thing is going to be looking for something that will explain the basic concepts like exposure and aperture. Obviously, "Understanding Exposure" will stand out from a mile away and that's just good salesmanship.

charybdis

pullandbang wrote: »

I'd disagree with charybdis here. I've read it a few times and yes, it is an easy read but it certainly gives plenty of detail on how exposure works in your camera.
Ok, it doesn't blind you with science, but any beginner reading (and re-reading) it will learn plenty.

The secondary effects of changing your aperture and shutter speed are exactly what effect your exposure - you don't need to know the exact technical values (unless you're doing a degree in photography).

I'd certainly recommend it as a good read for any beginner or dare I say, experienced tog.....

It's not even a very good explanation of the secondary effects of exposure parameters. Again, look at the delta between the number of people who've read Understanding Exposure and the number of people who understand depth-of-field.

Freddie59 wrote: »

You have to appreciate that many people who bought/buy the book (myself included) are coming from a P&S/Bridge scenario, where you had the camera permanently set to auto. DSLRs (Canons anyway) don't really cut it in auto.

Thus the book. It is concise, not overly technical, and perfect for those stepping up.

I'm not sure "concise" is the right word, I'd say "short". I don't think it's a good book for beginners as it is misleading about some fundamental aspects of exposure.

Freddie59 wrote: »

What do I want to know about exposure? Everything I can.

I'm afraid you're going to have to read a lot more than Understanding Exposure.

superflyninja wrote: »

Ive read Perfect Exposure by Martin Freeman. Found it excellent.

So have I. It's actually pretty good and I think it would make a much better blanket recommendation than Understanding Exposure.

Promac wrote: »

The thing about Understanding Exposure is that it's a "limited and well thought out introduction to the principles of exposure".

It's not a text-book. It's not a reference on the science behind photography. It's a helping hand for people who have just gotten away from full auto and are a bit lost.

The title is nothing more than a hook - anyone going into a book shop looking for this kind of thing is going to be looking for something that will explain the basic concepts like exposure and aperture. Obviously, "Understanding Exposure" will stand out from a mile away and that's just good salesmanship.

I don't think it's well though out.

Just to be clear: I think it's great if Understanding Exposure helps people better understand photography, but I don't think it's a good book for anyone (including beginners) and it doesn't deserve the level of recommendation it enjoys.

jpb1974

It's a book... and some people find it useful... FFS get over it.

The debate around here really scrapes the barrel at times.

Thecageyone

I never even knew there were 'secondary exposure parameters' and I get by ok without knowing Sometimes I do wonder are people too concerned with the mathematics/rules/regulations of simple photography, rather than just , I dunno, enjoying it!? Trying to be over technical about an ... art.

I read a great piece a while back on humble beginnings. In it the author asked you to take your mind back to when you began to get into photography proper, as a hobby. When you actually take the time to do this, you realise you enjoyed it a hell of a lot more back then, because you weren't so restricted by how you thought you should shoot. You were breaking all kinds of rules, but you were enjoying it, and your images were probably none the worse for it.

Your eye is the most important tool.

Uh oh, there I go thinking I know everything again ... :P Just saying ...

That book is supposed to be alright for beginners, it seems it's more of a burden to the more advanced.

Freddie59

Thecageyone wrote: »

I never even knew there were 'secondary exposure parameters' and I get by ok without knowing Sometimes I do wonder are people too concerned with the mathematics/rules/regulations of simple photography, rather than just , I dunno, enjoying it!? Trying to be over technical about an ... art.

I read a great piece a while back on humble beginnings. In it the author asked you to take your mind back to when you began to get into photography proper, as a hobby. When you actually take the time to do this, you realise you enjoyed it a hell of a lot more back then, because you weren't so restricted by how you thought you should shoot. You were breaking all kinds of rules, but you were enjoying it, and your images were probably none the worse for it.

Your eye is the most important tool.

Uh oh, there I go thinking I know everything again ... :P Just saying ...

That book is supposed to be alright for beginners, it seems it's more of a burden to the more advanced.

Agree 100% Cagey. I thought it was about enjoyment and (if you can) helping others. it's not about one book being better (or worse) than another (Canon v Nikon:D) it's about how much it has helped you along the way.

liamo

Everyone who has read the book is probably going to have an opinion on it. So here's mine ....

The book is not aimed at those who already know the subject material. It's aimed at those who don't.

I believe the test of success is to ask those latter readers if they understand more about the subject after reading the book than they did before they read it.

As for me, I did find the book a little condescending in places (eg the worker bees analogy when explaining ISO) but at the end of the book I understood the relationship between shutter speed, aperture and ISO. Not a difficult concept but one I didn't understand before I read the book.

Maybe there are better books but, based on my own experience of it, I have been happy to recommend this book to others who need that little kick-start of knowledge.

Promac

charybdis wrote: »

the usual ...

The measure of a good book is people saying they liked it or that they learned from it what the author was attempting to teach. The vast majority of people who talk about Understanding Exposure say they liked it and they learned what they set out to learn from it.

<SNIP>

mumof2

ok then...........I'd just like to add that I cant give my opinion yet as it hasn't arrived and wont for another few days. Then Ive got to find time to read it!!

I don't understand the shutterspeed thing (only thing I know is the faster the shutter speed the less light come in), but at which end of the numbers is faster/slower I still don't know. Herein lies my problem, I don't know which way to turn the dial to blur and image in AV mode yet let in enough light at the same time.

You'll see what I mean in my next C&C post, which will contain flowers.

I hope the book will explain shutterspeed and Aperature and how it affects light and exposure. I am a beginner, and I don't have time to research Google all the time - and prefer book format that I can take to bed and read. There is too much info online at times, and one doesn't know where to start!:(

BTW I use a tripod only when necessary, I prefer handheld, as I can get into any position necessary to take a picture, in which a tripod is very restricting.

Thecageyone

Not a big tripod lover here either. I do use it for night shots of course, and for portrait sessions. It's just handy to keep the framing while I'm assing about with other things, reflectors/lights etc ...

The first thing I forced into my [some would say tiny] brain when I decided I wanted to learn manual controls, was the trio of Shutter speed/Aperture/ISO and how they all relate to one another and affect the shots. Just concentrate on those 3 things and it will click eventually

relichd

To learn how to use your DSLR camera in full manual mode I'd recommend Karl Taylor's DVD called Introduction to Digital Photography DVD.

He explains all of the basics very nicely and puts things into perspective.

The link is http://karltaylorphotography.co.uk/introduction-to-digital-photography-dvd.htm

Just in case somebody wonders: NO, I am in NO way affiliated to this guy. I've got no money out of recommending it to you. It's just in my personal experience -I bought two of Karl's DVDs so far- it helped me a lot and might help you as well...

Thecageyone

Going to disagree there, as I borrowed Karl Taylor's Dvd and from the off he jumps into mad expensive lighting set ups [it was portraiture based]

He seemed to be all for the tonnes-of-gear pro. Maybe his book is different? But I didn't like him at all.

relichd

Thecageyone wrote: »

Going to disagree there, as I borrowed Karl Taylor's Dvd and from the off he jumps into mad expensive lighting set ups [it was portraiture based]

He seemed to be all for the tonnes-of-gear pro. Maybe his book is different? But I didn't like him at all.

Yeah, that's what you get in the Pro series. But if you really need to learn the basics, the DVD I linked to is an ideal start!
This is the line up of topics on this beginner DVD:
- Creative Composition
- Understanding Light
- Apertures & Shutter Speeds
- How Cameras Work
- Landscape Photography
- Capturing Action
- Optics, Lenses & Focus
- Depth of Field
- Using Your Camera in Manual
- ISO and Resolution

mumof2

Thecageyone wrote: »

Going to disagree there, as I borrowed Karl Taylor's Dvd and from the off he jumps into mad expensive lighting set ups [it was portraiture based]

He seemed to be all for the tonnes-of-gear pro. Maybe his book is different? But I didn't like him at all.

Im an outdoor person, not into portraiture at all. Dont do lighting reflectors etc etc just simple "see a good shot, take it at my leisure if I can". (trying to remember which settings of course apply best in this shot all at the same time:o:D)

I think photography is something where one learns something new every day.

DutchGuy

I learned the basics from here (which was also written by Bryan Peterson). It just gives a fairly short summary of shutter speed, aperture and ISO. After that it comes down largely to practice in my opinion.

I don't understand the shutterspeed thing (only thing I know is the faster the shutter speed the less light come in), but at which end of the numbers is faster/slower I still don't know. Herein lies my problem, I don't know which way to turn the dial to blur and image in AV mode yet let in enough light at the same time.

Av mode is aperture priority, the smaller the number the bigger the aperture. This means that with a smaller number you will have a faster corresponding shutter speed to get the "correct" exposure ("correct here is subjective) and you will also get more background blur (or "bokeh" if you want to stir up some arguments on the forum;))

charybdis

Promac wrote: »

The measure of a good book is people saying they liked it or that they learned from it what the author was attempting to teach. The vast majority of people who talk about Understanding Exposure say they liked it and they learned what they set out to learn from it.

By that logic, there are a lot of "good" books. I'll leave it to your imagination to work out which ones they are.

<SNIP>

Thecageyone

mumof2 wrote: »

Im an outdoor person, not into portraiture at all. Dont do lighting reflectors etc etc just simple "see a good shot, take it at my leisure if I can". (trying to remember which settings of course apply best in this shot all at the same time:o:D)

I think photography is something where one learns something new every day.

A tripod is still very handy for landscapes say, and macro. But I'm with you in general, if I don't absolutely need the tripod, I go hand-held most times.

daycent

The following is a very good link for the basics of DSLR photography (from Canon but applicable to any DSLR):

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/enjoydslr/index.html

AnimalRights

charybdis wrote: »

Lots of people seem to love Understanding Exposure, but I really dislike it.

Book is aimed for beginners and ur the most techinically gifted individual on this forum...square pegs round holes...

daycent wrote: »

The following is a very good link for the basics of DSLR photography (from Canon but applicable to any DSLR):

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/enjoydslr/index.html

I never bought any books/courses when learning but did read online and this site was brilliant for me and my capabilities at the time.

mumof2

DutchGuy wrote: »

I learned the basics from here (which was also written by Bryan Peterson). It just gives a fairly short summary of shutter speed, aperture and ISO. After that it comes down largely to practice in my opinion.



Av mode is aperture priority, the smaller the number the bigger the aperture. This means that with a smaller number you will have a faster corresponding shutter speed to get the "correct" exposure ("correct here is subjective) and you will also get more background blur (or "bokeh" if you want to stir up some arguments on the forum;))

I understand AV (Aperature mode) as its the one I mainly use. Sometimes I use TV mode for shots which contain movement of sorts.

Im not even going to start on the "bokeh".........:D

Buceph

I bought it, and was disappointed in it. I had already been snapping for a while and thought it would go into some depth about it, and it's definitely not for you if that's what you're looking for.

I think with a good instructor, the details of aperture, to shutter speed, to ISO could be explained in an hour. I know this because that's how they were explained to me. There was a guy from West Cork (a fairly well known landscape photographer, but I can't remember his name) giving a lecture at UCC's Photo Soc. He had a slide projector, and a few cards. He went through showing the aperture closing and opening on the cards, explained what the result would be on shutter speed, dealt with ISO levels and then he went into showing us slides. Once we got the idea that the more light left in through the aperture, the shallower the DOF, and the shorter the shutter speed, the more stopping power there would be, he was able to explain loads of different effects and why they occurred with slides.

To be honest, I think the basics of photography are fairly simple to grasp, and are easily explicable in a short amount of time. And that knowledge will be fine for a lot of your exposures. It's when you want to push things that it takes experience and research. But someone who has aperture/shutter speed down, their respective effects and their implications on each other has a pretty decent arsenal for dealing with a lot of what photography will throw at you.

And that's why I liked another book I heard about here (and elsewhere) "Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting." Because it explained what the effect of each element was, so it let you figure things out logically, rather than through voodoo or sheer force of will.

relichd

Thecageyone wrote: »

A tripod is still very handy for landscapes say, and macro. But I'm with you in general, if I don't absolutely need the tripod, I go hand-held most times.

Most of the time I do landscape pictures I take my tripod with me. Usually I go hyper-focal to have everything sharp and clear in my picture and this requires slower shutter speeds. And, when using graduated ND filter in combination with a polarising filter, it sets you back a few stops, too.

mumof2

Buceph wrote: »

I bought it, and was disappointed in it. I had already been snapping for a while and thought it would go into some depth about it, and it's definitely not for you if that's what you're looking for.

I think with a good instructor, the details of aperture, to shutter speed, to ISO could be explained in an hour. I know this because that's how they were explained to me. There was a guy from West Cork (a fairly well known landscape photographer, but I can't remember his name) giving a lecture at UCC's Photo Soc. He had a slide projector, and a few cards. He went through showing the aperture closing and opening on the cards, explained what the result would be on shutter speed, dealt with ISO levels and then he went into showing us slides. Once we got the idea that the more light left in through the aperture, the shallower the DOF, and the shorter the shutter speed, the more stopping power there would be, he was able to explain loads of different effects and why they occurred with slides.


To be honest, I think the basics of photography are fairly simple to grasp, and are easily explicable in a short amount of time. And that knowledge will be fine for a lot of your exposures. It's when you want to push things that it takes experience and research. But someone who has aperture/shutter speed down, their respective effects and their implications on each other has a pretty decent arsenal for dealing with a lot of what photography will throw at you.

And that's why I liked another book I heard about here (and elsewhere) "Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting." Because it explained what the effect of each element was, so it let you figure things out logically, rather than through voodoo or sheer force of will.

I am tempted to do a course, even if it were to meet like minded people starting off! The guy your on about wasn't Philip Pound was it? He's in West Cork too - someone I know.