Specific question about "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson

[JerryPH]

Remember, this book is aimed at those wishing to learn about exposure; many would be, I presume, beginners.
Or maybe I was the only one confused by this.

The book is aimed at beginners. Proper flash usage is not what I would call a beginner concept. Basic understanding of ISO, aperture, shutter and the interplay is what I would call the basics. The book doesn't even have the words flash or strobe once in it anywhere (I scanned my book into PDF format for my own personal usage and just searched, so I am 100% sure about that). It is not a topic even remotely discussed or touched on.

It is non-sequitor to say that the picture is incorrect, becuase within the context of the book, within the confines of what the author is discussing and trying to teach at that moment, he is 100% technically correct.

Without a flash, because there is zero discussion about a flash in this book, if your subject is back-lit and you want to get a proper exposure of your subject in the current location because you cannot move them for whatever reason, there is NO OTHER way to get that proper exposure of your subject unless you blow out the background.

But just like anything in photography, there are many ways to skin a cat, and just becuase it is not in that book, doesn't make it wrong or right... it just means it is not in that book and in this case, context is everything. You cannot really criticize Bryon Peterson for not discussing flash, this was a conscious decision he made when the book is written. It is about shutter speed, ISO and aperture... and how to use these 3 things to get an exposure... nothing else.

 

[Gaerek]

Gaerek I have to disagree - whilst film has its limitations so to does digital - infact digital cameras still don't have the same dynamic range that film cameras are capable of. ITs got a lot better than it was but still for the averge person the digital camera does not have as great a dynamic range as the film camera. Thus today things are actually harder on the digital photographer than before (all the photoshop in the world can't get back details in a blown out sky or underexposed shadow - all the camera records is white or black in those cases - thus no details to restore to).
There are tricks, like double exposures and then using tonemapping/hdr to combine them into a single exposure, but still we are limited if we take a single exposure in the same way as film is limited.
As for the book whilst it was originally written in the film era it has had serveral revisions since then so a new copy bought today fully takes into account the digital world - the lessons of film still very much appy since digital is still working with the same laws of physics.

I have to disagree with you in regards to saying that film has a higher dynamic range than a digital sensor. According to the research I've done, film has a DR of around 7 stops whereas a good digital sensor can have a DR over 10 stops. Even a so-so sensor has a DR advantage over film. One website that confirms this, with research is Clarkvision: Film versus Digital Summary. Scroll about half way down. There are certainly other advantages of film over digital, but dynamic range isn't one of them.

However, this issue goes beyond dynamic range. When I was referring to features of digital, my point was that it was easier to get the exposure right in camera with digital. In addition, with the tools we have available now (ACR, photoshop, etc.) it's a lot easier to bring details out of the shadows and highlights than with film. Of course, people who used dark rooms extensively had those options available also.

Personally, I agree with the consensus. If the exposure turned out how you wanted it, you have correct exposure. Simple as that.

 

[Baaaark]

OP here...

I understand what everyone is saying, and I don't really disagree with it.

I do feel, however, that the author could have done a better job explaining much of what was explained in the posts above. Instead, it was more like, "Here - this is a good exposure," with no acknowledgment at all of the horribly over-exposed building, nor an explanation of why, in this case, it is acceptable.

Remember, this book is aimed at those wishing to learn about exposure; many would be, I presume, beginners.

Or maybe I was the only one confused by this.

Jon

You aren't. Like I said, with a guy who is as good as him, and someone who has tons of awesome photos he could have picked from, he could have put a photo in there that wouldn't make people question him.

But its a great book anyway. One moot point is hardly enough to keep me from saying this book is awesome.

 

[Jon_Are]

It is non-sequitor to say that the picture is incorrect, becuase within the context of the book, within the confines of what the author is discussing and trying to teach at that moment, he is 100% technically correct.

Yeah, I get that. And you'd know I got it if you had read my last post (the one you quoted from).

My point (again) is this: it might have been helpful if he had explained as much. Something along the lines of Now at first glance, this image seems to be an incorrect exposure; however, due to the conditions and limitations blah blah blah...

That would have been a good lesson for a beginner.

But its a great book anyway. One moot point is hardly enough to keep me from saying this book is awesome.

I totally agree.

Jon

 

[Overread]

Gaerek I am sure I have read that film was closer to 12 stops of dynamic range but honestly its going beyond what I know solidly. All I can say is that the idea of film being more forgiving with dynamic range is one that I have read a lot from many film/digital shooters.

As for the easier digital it seems, a bit, as if your comparing those who didn't do much darkroom work with film to those who do comparativly more digital editing today. I will agree with you that its far easier and quicker to do editing today than it was in the past, but I think it unfair to compare edited a non-edited shots - especailly when film shooters today can scan film into computers and then perform digital editing on those results. Remembering of course that pure blacks and Pure whites (from a digital shot) have no details to restore.
As for exposure I am sure noone will disagree that digital is far easier to get in camera perfection with histograms and the like

 

[Dao]

My point (again) is this: it might have been helpful if he had explained as much. Something along the lines of Now at first glance, this image seems to be an incorrect exposure; however, due to the conditions and limitations blah blah blah...

Well, the name of the book is "Understanding Exposure". I am sure after you read the book, and raise this question, you already understand the exposure. And this is what this book is all about. Now you can proceed to the "Understanding Exposure with advance lightning"


Imaging a beginner do not understand anything. Bought this book and start reading. He/she see all the photos/example in the book are super good because every one of them use advance techniques and post processing. Do you think the beginner will understand how the author achieve the result? Maybe yes, or most likely no.

I think that photo is a good example to show the reader what is the meaning of proper exposure.

 

[Jon_Are]

I think that photo is a good example to show the reader what is the meaning of proper exposure.

Yeah, I get that. But it would have been a more useful example if he had just explai.....

....ah, nevermind. :banghead:


Jon

 

[Gaerek]

Gaerek I am sure I have read that film was closer to 12 stops of dynamic range but honestly its going beyond what I know solidly. All I can say is that the idea of film being more forgiving with dynamic range is one that I have read a lot from many film/digital shooters.

As for the easier digital it seems, a bit, as if your comparing those who didn't do much darkroom work with film to those who do comparativly more digital editing today. I will agree with you that its far easier and quicker to do editing today than it was in the past, but I think it unfair to compare edited a non-edited shots - especailly when film shooters today can scan film into computers and then perform digital editing on those results. Remembering of course that pure blacks and Pure whites (from a digital shot) have no details to restore.
As for exposure I am sure noone will disagree that digital is far easier to get in camera perfection with histograms and the like

First off, I think this is a great conversations. Unfortunately, I think we're hijacking a bit, but it's somewhat related to the context of the thread. As I said, dynamic range has less to do with this whole issue than other factors. For every source (with research and experiments) that says film has a better DR than digital, there's a source (with research and experiments) that says digital has better DR than film. I'll call it a wash and say they are about equal in that area. Anyway, I digress.

Here is what I've learned about the book, from reading through this thread. It's for beginners. These are people with very little gear, and limited resources as far as post production. It even assumes all you have is a camera. Whether you shoot digital or film, without post processing, without spilt neutral density filters, without fill flash, etc, the author seems to be showing that you need to make sure your subject is exposed correctly. It is virtually impossible to get your subject and background properly exposed if they are lit differently. Even though your camera (film or digital) can properly expose the entire dynamic range of the shot, if the foreground and background are more than one stop (technically, any difference in lighting) apart, you cannot expose both properly.

In the end, the proper exposure is what you envisioned. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people tell me something is improperly exposed. It's an artistic choice as much as it is a technical choice. I tend to like shots that are a bit underexposed. Some people like shots that are a bit overexposed. In the end, if the author of that book says the shot is properly exposed, then it is properly exposed because he was the photographer, and he got the exposure he wanted.

 

[Gaerek]

I think that photo is a good example to show the reader what is the meaning of proper exposure.

Yeah, I get that. But it would have been a more useful example if he had just explai.....

....ah, nevermind. :banghead:


Jon

I think you're of the thinking that there is always a proper exposure. Maybe that would be nice for a beginner, but at the same time, he shouldn't have to explain it. If he says the shot is properly exposed, guess what, it's properly exposed. Maybe he's trying to show there's different interpretations of what's properly exposed. Without the book for context, I couldn't tell you. Maybe he wants people to question whether it's properly exposed, so he can explain himself (albeit, indirectly) later in the book.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Proper exposure is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Jon_Are]

I think you're of the thinking that there is always a proper exposure.

No, I'm not. I'm really not. There is not just ONE exposure that is correct. It is artistic, it is subjective. If the shooter acquires the image he or she is after, it is a successful exposure. I cannot tell you that your exposure is 'wrong', because it is probably 'right' for you. I get it. I do. I really do.

My point is this: Because this is an entry-level book, a sentence explaining the above would have been helpful to me.

At this point I'm just repeating what I said way back in posts #14, #19 and #22.

Jon

 

[Moglex]

I think you're of the thinking that there is always a proper exposure.

No, I'm not. I'm really not. There is not just ONE exposure that is correct. It is artistic, it is subjective. If the shooter acquires the image he or she is after, it is a successful exposure. I cannot tell you that your exposure is 'wrong', because it is probably 'right' for you. I get it. I do. I really do.

My point is this: Because this is an entry-level book, a sentence explaining the above would have been helpful to me.

At this point I'm just repeating what I said way back in posts #14, #19 and #22.

Jon

Jon, if it's any consolation I can see exactly what you getting at and I agree entirely.

There's a known problem with experts reviewing books for beginners in that the expert already knows in some detail exactly what the book is about and so what to the target audience appears to be a confusing text with important chunks of information missing or glossed over appears to the expert as a masterful and precise introduction to the subject.

 

[Jon_Are]

Jon, if it's any consolation I can see exactly what you getting at and I agree entirely.

Thanks, Moglex. Now I'll let it drop. I promise. :mrgreen:

Jon