My trick for memorizing f/stops

[bribrius]

big tpf hugs all around. lol

My only point was, while this will help in a "approximate" i wouldn't read it like the bible.
At some point like sunny 16 you have to come to the terms of knowing your camera and lens and admitting you are "winging it"

 

[table1349]

Here is an idea, not a new idea, just an idea.

Download.........Print........Put in Camera Bag for Reference.

Nothing left to see here folks. Move along, move along.

 

[pjaye]

big tpf hugs all around. lol

My only point was, while this will help in a "approximate" i wouldn't read it like the bible.
At some point like sunny 16 you have to come to the terms of knowing your camera and lens and admitting you are "winging it"

I'm trying to find d the part of the original post where it says that his way is the only way, and should be read like the bible. Can't seem to find that part. Can you point it out to me please?

All I see is someone new posting one of their tips that might just help another new photographer. But it seems new people aren't allowed to do that.

 

[Alexr25]

I don't calculate out that f/16 is 3 stops difference from f/8. I just know it. But at one point I did have to use the trick to get there instead of it being purely memorized.

Err ... f8 to f16 would be 2 stops ?!?!?!?

Do you consider yourself a beginner ?

Well... probably not, though many here have more experience and skill.

But I just dont think you need that much help to learn this. All you ever need in practice is about f/1 to f/32. And thats few enough steps that you remember the numbers by heart very quickly.

Again, the thing that really helped me understand f-stops is that they are:

focal lenght / entry pupil size

After that, its very obvious/intuitive that its the diameter of an area, thus you need a 2x difference in f-numbers for 2 stops (4 times the amount) difference in light (etc), and sqrt(2) ~ 1.4 difference for 1 stop (2 times the amount) difference in light (etc) [because sqrt(2)*sqrt(2) = 2 by very definition of sqrt/square root].

It would be an interesting question if one couldnt use a more "intuitive" scale. Say you would invent the "inverse light parameter" which would just state how much the light is reduced, like:

ilp 1 = f/1
ilp 2 = f/1.4
ilp 4 = f/2
ilp 8 = f/2.8
ilp 16 = f/4
ilp 32 = f/5.6
ilp 64 = f/8
ilp 128 = f/11
ilp 256 = f/16
ilp 512 = f/22
ilp 1024 = f/32

For me as a programmer this wouldnt be very hard, but I guess thats (a) hard to write on a lens and (b) not so easy to memorize for any non-programmer.

What COULD make the whole system a lot easier is if we would use EV (exposure value) for all 3 variables:

ISO 3 = FEV -5
ISO 6 = FEV -4
ISO 12 = FEV -3
ISO 25 = FEV -2
ISO 50 = FEV -1
ISO 100 = FEV 0 (FEV = Film/Sensor Exposure Value)
ISO 200 = FEV 1
ISO 400 = FEV 2
ISO 800 = FEV 3
ISO 1600 = FEV 4
ISO 3200 = FEV 5
ISO 6400 = FEV 6
ISO 12800 = FEV 7
ISO 25600 = FEV 8
ISO 51200 = FEV 9
ISO 102400 = FEV 10
ISO 204800 = FEV 11
ISO 409600 = FEV 12

But this would have the problem that companies could no longer broast about the ISO capabilities.

A: "My camera manages ISO 800 well !"
B: "My camera manages ISO 1600 well !"
A: "Whow ! I need that camera, too !"

vs

A: "My camera manages FEV 2 well !"
B: "My camera manages FEV 3 well !"
A: "Meh. I'm already almost as good as you are !"

f/.5 = AEV -2
f/.7 = AEV -1
f/1 = AEV 0 (AEV = Aperture Exposure Value)
f/1.4 = AEV 1
f/2 = AEV 2
f/2.8 = AEV 3
f/4 = AEV 4
f/5.6 = AEV 5
f/8 = AEV 6
f/11 = AEV 7
f/16 = AEV 8
f/22 = AEV 9
f/32 = AEV 10
f/44 = AEV 11
f/64 = AEV 12
f/88 = AEV 13
f/128 = AEV 14
f/172 = AEV 15
f/256 = AEV 16

I guess that would actually work quite smoothly.

1/8000 sec = TEV -14
1/4000 sec = TEV -13
1/2000 sec = TEV -12
1/1000 sec = TEV -11
1/500 sec = TEV -10
1/250 sec = TEV -9
1/125 sec = TEV -8
1/60 sec = TEV -7
1/30 sec = TEV -6
1/15 sec = TEV -5
1/8 sec = TEV -4
1/4 sec = TEV -2
1/2 sec = TEV -1
1 sec = TEV 0 (TEV = Time Exposure Value)

Now thats extremely non-intuitive for obvious reasons, plus one would have to use negative numbers all the friggin time.

Anyway then one could just compute

EV = FEV + AEV + TEV

That would be easier for a newbie.

F-stops are for babies, call me when you get into t-stops.

Just for the record, the "t" of T-stop is always written uppercase.

f stands for "focal length".

T stands for "transmission".

You're on the right track but not quite there, the real EV system is somewhat simpler. See Photographic Science Exposure for a good description of how the EV system really works.

 

[limr]

I don't calculate out that f/16 is 3 stops difference from f/8. I just know it. But at one point I did have to use the trick to get there instead of it being purely memorized.

Err ... f8 to f16 would be 2 stops ?!?!?!?

Do you consider yourself a beginner ?

Well... probably not, though many here have more experience and skill.

But I just dont think you need that much help to learn this. All you ever need in practice is about f/1 to f/32. And thats few enough steps that you remember the numbers by heart very quickly.

Again, the thing that really helped me understand f-stops is that they are:

focal lenght / entry pupil size

After that, its very obvious/intuitive that its the diameter of an area, thus you need a 2x difference in f-numbers for 2 stops (4 times the amount) difference in light (etc), and sqrt(2) ~ 1.4 difference for 1 stop (2 times the amount) difference in light (etc) [because sqrt(2)*sqrt(2) = 2 by very definition of sqrt/square root].

It would be an interesting question if one couldnt use a more "intuitive" scale. Say you would invent the "inverse light parameter" which would just state how much the light is reduced, like:

ilp 1 = f/1
ilp 2 = f/1.4
ilp 4 = f/2
ilp 8 = f/2.8
ilp 16 = f/4
ilp 32 = f/5.6
ilp 64 = f/8
ilp 128 = f/11
ilp 256 = f/16
ilp 512 = f/22
ilp 1024 = f/32

For me as a programmer this wouldnt be very hard, but I guess thats (a) hard to write on a lens and (b) not so easy to memorize for any non-programmer.

What COULD make the whole system a lot easier is if we would use EV (exposure value) for all 3 variables:

ISO 3 = FEV -5
ISO 6 = FEV -4
ISO 12 = FEV -3
ISO 25 = FEV -2
ISO 50 = FEV -1
ISO 100 = FEV 0 (FEV = Film/Sensor Exposure Value)
ISO 200 = FEV 1
ISO 400 = FEV 2
ISO 800 = FEV 3
ISO 1600 = FEV 4
ISO 3200 = FEV 5
ISO 6400 = FEV 6
ISO 12800 = FEV 7
ISO 25600 = FEV 8
ISO 51200 = FEV 9
ISO 102400 = FEV 10
ISO 204800 = FEV 11
ISO 409600 = FEV 12

But this would have the problem that companies could no longer broast about the ISO capabilities.

A: "My camera manages ISO 800 well !"
B: "My camera manages ISO 1600 well !"
A: "Whow ! I need that camera, too !"

vs

A: "My camera manages FEV 2 well !"
B: "My camera manages FEV 3 well !"
A: "Meh. I'm already almost as good as you are !"

f/.5 = AEV -2
f/.7 = AEV -1
f/1 = AEV 0 (AEV = Aperture Exposure Value)
f/1.4 = AEV 1
f/2 = AEV 2
f/2.8 = AEV 3
f/4 = AEV 4
f/5.6 = AEV 5
f/8 = AEV 6
f/11 = AEV 7
f/16 = AEV 8
f/22 = AEV 9
f/32 = AEV 10
f/44 = AEV 11
f/64 = AEV 12
f/88 = AEV 13
f/128 = AEV 14
f/172 = AEV 15
f/256 = AEV 16

I guess that would actually work quite smoothly.

1/8000 sec = TEV -14
1/4000 sec = TEV -13
1/2000 sec = TEV -12
1/1000 sec = TEV -11
1/500 sec = TEV -10
1/250 sec = TEV -9
1/125 sec = TEV -8
1/60 sec = TEV -7
1/30 sec = TEV -6
1/15 sec = TEV -5
1/8 sec = TEV -4
1/4 sec = TEV -2
1/2 sec = TEV -1
1 sec = TEV 0 (TEV = Time Exposure Value)

Now thats extremely non-intuitive for obvious reasons, plus one would have to use negative numbers all the friggin time.

Anyway then one could just compute

EV = FEV + AEV + TEV

That would be easier for a newbie.

F-stops are for babies, call me when you get into t-stops.

Just for the record, the "t" of T-stop is always written uppercase.

f stands for "focal length".

T stands for "transmission".

You're on the right track but not quite there, the real EV system is somewhat simpler. See Photographic Science Exposure for a good description of how the EV system really works.

Meh. This is better. Skip to the end for the charts that can be printed and carried around. Done.

Ultimate Exposure Computer

 

[unpopular]

It doesn't matter how bright the sun is. What matters is how much light is actually reflecting off the subject, and how that subject is to be rendered in the image relative to the rest of the scene.

Photography isn't about light - it's about exposure.

 

[unpopular]

But the worst characteristic, for practical purposes, is that all reflected light meters make one basic (erroneous) assumption. They are calibrated to render an exposure that will make the subject look like a middle tone in the resulting photograph.

-ultimate exposure computer website

Is this guy serious? I mean? REALLY?

I don't even know where to begin with that. Of course it's true. But it's hardly a problem, it's the foundation of zone system measurements.

I am really confused by this website. It seems clear that this person knows his or her way around, but is all hung up on exposure compensation?!

 

[table1349]

Ok Gang everyone pick a character and three power card and let the geekie battle begin.

 

[bribrius]

It doesn't matter how bright the sun is. What matters is how much light is actually reflecting off the subject, and how that subject is to be rendered in the image relative to the rest of the scene.

Photography isn't about light - it's about exposure.

i dunno. i MIght have misunderstood this statement. say my kid is standing in a heavily shadowed section of the frame under a tree. I have fifty feet of lead up to him in the bright sun that isn't in the shadow. Am i going to meter for him, so he looks like he isn't in a shadow and blow out the entire foreground with over exposure? This seems to be what most people are doing. Me personally, would just crank up the shutter, let him remain shadowed so he looks normal and not blow out the foreground. so yeah, kind of like matrix, i do factor in the light.

 

[Derrel]

But the worst characteristic, for practical purposes, is that all reflected light meters make one basic (erroneous) assumption. They are calibrated to render an exposure that will make the subject look like a middle tone in the resulting photograph.

-ultimate exposure computer website

Is this guy serious? I mean? REALLY?

I don't even know where to begin with that. Of course it's true. But it's hardly a problem, it's the foundation of zone system measurements.

I am really confused by this website. It seems clear that this person knows his or her way around, but is all hung up on exposure compensation?!

Ummmmm...you obviously have ZERO idea of who Fred Picker was, or how astoundingly accomplished he was as a technician and photographer. Seriously, you've embarrassed yourself greatly with this post. You basically just said, "Joe Montana...is this guy serious about his on-TV NFL quarterback analysis? This guy don't know chit about quarterbacking...WTF was the network thinking about when they hired this,this,this Montana guy?"

You are basically attacking a Minor White/Ansel Adams level shooter who knew a TON about exposure,metering,and the zone system.

Maybe Google Fred Picker and Zone VI. Then get a biiiig egg-wiping bedsheet.

 

[bribrius]

here we go . i just tested this. i went outside and "guessed" looking at the light in general setting the iso, shutter and aperture. Didn't look at the exposure reading, no histogram. Set and go. Really didn't put much thought into it two seconds. (. Looks like i might have underexposed a stop but hard to tell the bird feeders are in the shade we had cloud cover. I should guess more often it is easier than doing the calculations or looking it up.... I used to actually "guess" all the time and was pretty good at it. I am slacking.

 

[bribrius]

course my outlook is different. i don't like to calculate or read chit. Much more inclined to just shoot a film camera (or whatever) and be able to "guess" about what settings i should be at and have it come out about right. In most cases it won't be any further off than the lying light meter probably better . sometimes, it seems the more thought people put into the perfect exposure the further off it is actually from the scene. Suddenly the shadows are less shadows. In camera exposure does the same thing. Hardly ever will give you exactly what you are looking at. Its idea of proper exposure is usually off from what you are seeing. So you compensate ( why not just ignore it all together?)You can light meter the seen, come out with a about "average" , in which people usually mess it up and it is not much different than matrix. In fact if you are doing that matrix is probably more accurate than whatever you come up with. Wasting your time really.
learn to guess, shoot a lot guessin, you will pick it up naturally imo to a extent.
i was pretty good at this, until i got stuck looking at exposure meters and histograms. I was better off without them in most instances. I haven't even had my light meter out in near two months now hell with it... lol
Your camera is based on fstop vs. shutter. vs. iso. It depends on these same calculations. It does make good exposed photos the majority of the time. But "good exposed" is usually far off what you are actually seeing. Usually what you are seeing is darker. why i shut that stuff off. If i am shooting something in early evening or deep in shadow i like it to look like early evening or deep in shadow. The camera doesn't let that happen so easily. And if you are going to be adjusting exposure compensation. why not just get rid of it all together?

jmo. your mileage may vary.

 

[astroNikon]

everyone should tie their shoes like this:

Yeah, but he cheated.
He already did the bottom knot !!

It doesn't matter how bright the sun is. What matters is how much light is actually reflecting off the subject, and how that subject is to be rendered in the image relative to the rest of the scene.

I was going to make a joke that I take pictures of objects that have NO light reflecting off of it ... the sun (and other stars) it generates it's own light.

 

[Philmar]

Too much math. I just memorize the numbers.

Too much brain power required to memorize the numbers. I have a tattoo.

 

[Derrel]

Interesting shot that tells a story (sic).

course my outlook is different. i don't like to calculate or read chit. Much more inclined to just shoot a film camera (or whatever) and be able to "guess" about what settings i should be at and have it come out about right. In most cases it won't be any further off than the lying light meter probably better . sometimes, it seems the more thought people put into the perfect exposure the further off it is actually from the scene. Suddenly the shadows are less shadows. In camera exposure does the same thing. Hardly ever will give you exactly what you are looking at. Its idea of proper exposure is usually off from what you are seeing. So you compensate ( why not just ignore it all together?)You can light meter the seen, come out with a about "average" , in which people usually mess it up and it is not much different than matrix. In fact if you are doing that matrix is probably more accurate than whatever you come up with. Wasting your time really.
learn to guess, shoot a lot guessin, you will pick it up naturally imo to a extent.
i was pretty good at this, until i got stuck looking at exposure meters and histograms. I was better off without them in most instances. I haven't even had my light meter out in near two months now hell with it... lol
Your camera is based on fstop vs. shutter. vs. iso. It depends on these same calculations. It does make good exposed photos the majority of the time. But "good exposed" is usually far off what you are actually seeing. Usually what you are seeing is darker. why i shut that stuff off. If i am shooting something in early evening or deep in shadow i like it to look like early evening or deep in shadow. The camera doesn't let that happen so easily. And if you are going to be adjusting exposure compensation. why not just get rid of it all together?

jmo. your mileage may vary.

One of your more nonsensical, silly rants in a long, long time man. Loads of silly, unfounded nonsense in this one. The "lying light meter"??? Better off without a histogram and just by guessing? Guess and somehow learn exposure? More thought leads to more incorrect exposures? What are you using? A 1965 selenium cell metering Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex? 480sparky's old, erratic, random-speed-at-any-setting Canon Ftb?

Modern matrix metering has revolutionized digital and film imaging...Nikon has been perfecting it since the mid-1980's when they introduced the FA, the camera that premiered modern, computerized, huge database analyzed light metering. We have some equally dangerous and wrong nonsense above from another poster, regurgitating the "middle gray" averaging nonsense; modern d-slr cameras measure light level, color temp, distances of objects, multiple quadrants of the scene in RGB (or in Canon's case RGB + the yellow/green mix), as well as size of objects/areas, location in the camera's memory, and time of day to arrive at almost perfect exposures without a single thought, AND WITH scene dynamic range actually factored into the exposure value....

People on this site keep making long,long technically inaccurate statements that lead one to beleive that the metering systems in modern digital cameras are metering AS IF for B&W negative film, and ONLY as an exposure and light-value setting tool; that ignores that modern digital cameras shoot "positive" images, and ALSO that they are also working with what amounts to the "developing" gamma/ color darkroom/post-processing routine already factored in as part of the exposure. Nikon calls this the SRS or Scene Recognition System. Canon now has its own system which they premiered in the mid-2000's...

None of this has much relevance though for memorizing f/stops. My suggestion has always been "learn them by rote". f/1.4, f2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f11, /f16, f/22. Nine stops one will actually encounter in a normal lifetime. A hell of a lot fewer than the 26 letters of the alphabet, or memorizing the 125 or more numbers and call letters for the commonly-watched channels on a 500 channel Cable TV package...