BOOKS!!!!

[Shafty]

Typically when this question is asked you'll get a recommendation for Petersen's book Understanding Exposure. So as not to embarrass someone I'll get this thread started by saying, don't read that worthless book. It's full of too many errors. For one the author doesn't understand exposure.

Joe

P.S. Realizing that it would be good if I had something constructive to suggest I just went to Amazon and searched on Photography books. I'm on page 7 and I got nothing. Lord help me Photography has turned into Fauxtography!!

So some good authors from the past:
Davis (Phil)
Stroebel
Hedgecoe
Blaker

And yet it has constantly been a best sell with stellar reviews with the reviewers praising the book and how it improved their photography. Go figure.

More photos are taken with an iphone than any other camera.
Donald Trump was elected president.
One third of Texans believe dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.

Do you need a longer list?

Joe

OP The First Book to Read.
View attachment 141442

You have got to get over you measure bating problem, or write your own book then.

I suggested some good authors. Just trying to be helpful to the OP. Would you suggest the OP read incorrect information?

Joe

Incorrect is in the eye of the beholder or in this case the reader. It seems to work for many, many people. Results are what matters.

I don't think correctness is in the eye of the beholder. if the beholder believe 1+1=3 and maths proves him wrong then he is incorrect.
Now his fact may be ill informed, thats a different story, but it is still incorrect.

 

[Shafty]

I prefer the older John Hedgcoe books. Many used ones can be had for under a buck, used on Amazon. They refer to film but all the info is in there as it applies to photography.

Amazon.com: john hedgecoe - Used

YES, I have been recommending the various Hedgecoe books for years now. They have good illustrations and charts and are wonderful TEACHING books! There are 32 titles to choose from. Ignore the film references (unless using film!): you now have multiple "films" in every digital camera...through post processing and ISO switching! photography basics have not changed much from film to the digital capture era: his lessons are timeless.

His illutrations and clear text are fantastic LEARNING tools!

Thanks mate, I'll have a look at them.

OP, the best books are the ones you find useful. There are tons of books out there, far more than is financially obtainable for most. The best thing to do is go to your public library, or to Libraries Ireland and find the photography book(s) that interest you and borrow them. If you find a book or two that you really like then those are the ones to buy for you personal collection.

For me The Camera, The Negative and The Print by Ansel Adams are all on my shelf. As an long time film shooter I have an appreciation for those books that modern day digital shooters would not have. Light Science & Magic is another one in my collection. Understanding light and using light, all forms of light, is essential to the photographer as well as The Moment it Clicks by Joe McNally. My McNally collection also includes Sketching Light: An Illustrated Tour of the Possibilities of Flash. I have The Art of Photography by Bruce Barnbaum as well as
Monte Zucker's Portrait Photography Handbook.

Another one that might be useful to the beginner is Light and Lens: Photography in the Digital Age by Robert Hirsch.

The point is, there are a lot of resources out there. Some you will like or find useful, others you won't. You need to find what works for you and as I said, the public library is a good place to start since it can be quite a money saver.

I've never actually considered the library, I'll pop down to my local one and see what they have in stock.
There are a lot of resources out there and as a beginner it can be quite difficult to find the books that are tried and tested by yourself, this makes it difficult without knowing anything what is true and what is bull****.

 

[table1349]

Measure bating is still measure bating. I have retained my algebra skills after all these years. Can I name the correct theorem for each and every equation. #*!! no. Theory is good, but practice and results are what count.

I don't give a R@%$ @$$ what the exact proportions the DOF is in front or behind the subject. I want the SUBJECT in focus. No matter the subject there are always going to be the Sheldon Coopers (American TV show titled The Big Bang Theory) that can't see the forest for the trees.

It's like light, all light is made up of protons. The visible light that we are capable of seeing is a very thin slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, from wavelengths of about 400 to 700 billionths of a metre. When it comes to photography do I care. NO. What I care about is understanding and using the properties of light as it relates to photography.

 

[trevburley]

I have a pile of photography books which I really never gained anything from if I'm honest. Understanding Exposure is one of them and I would tend to agree that it is not that great.

Personally I learn better from videos and have found some great personalities to learn from in the past, a few of which are:

Matt Granger (even if you are a Canon user)
Adorama
DigitalRev TV

There are others but these are the ones that stood out to me. Adorama from memory seems to be the most 'tutorialised' of them all with various playlist aimed at different levels of experience.

Hope that helps - Trev

 

[Ysarex]

And yet it has constantly been a best sell with stellar reviews with the reviewers praising the book and how it improved their photography. Go figure.

More photos are taken with an iphone than any other camera.
Donald Trump was elected president.
One third of Texans believe dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.

Do you need a longer list?

Joe

OP The First Book to Read.
View attachment 141442

You have got to get over you measure bating problem, or write your own book then.

I suggested some good authors. Just trying to be helpful to the OP. Would you suggest the OP read incorrect information?

Joe

Incorrect is in the eye of the beholder or in this case the reader. It seems to work for many, many people. Results are what matters.

I see. Here's a direct quote from Understanding Exposure: "The depth of field in close-up photography extends one-fourth in front of and one-half beyond the focused subject, while in regular photography the depth of field is distributed one-third in front of and two-thirds beyond the subject." (pg.66)

I'm really interested to hear your explanation of how 1/4 + 1/2 = 1. When you get that explained I'd like additional explanations; for starters he's saying that DOF distribution is increasingly disproportional in close-up photography -- news to me, please explain. Feel to free to call Kellyanne for help.

Joe

Sorry, but measure bating over triviality is your fetish. The concept that this is a book for bare bones beginners eludes you.

The concept that it's OK to patronize beginners with incorrect information is elitist BS. What is your good reason for why it's OK to present beginners with false info when they're trying to learn? Explain how that helps them. I understand it's a beginners book -- explain why, being a beginners book, it's OK for it to contain inaccuracies.

Oh yeah and I still really want to know how in your beholding eyes 1/4 + 1/2 = 1.

Joe

 

[Shafty]

I have a pile of photography books which I really never gained anything from if I'm honest. Understanding Exposure is one of them and I would tend to agree that it is not that great.

Personally I learn better from videos and have found some great personalities to learn from in the past, a few of which are:

Matt Granger (even if you are a Canon user)
Adorama
DigitalRev TV

There are others but these are the ones that stood out to me. Adorama from memory seems to be the most 'tutorialised' of them all with various playlist aimed at different levels of experience.

Hope that helps - Trev

Massive help, appreciate it.
I cannot stand digitalREV, they are like Topgear(which I enjoy) but it feels fake.

 

[trevburley]

I have a pile of photography books which I really never gained anything from if I'm honest. Understanding Exposure is one of them and I would tend to agree that it is not that great.

Personally I learn better from videos and have found some great personalities to learn from in the past, a few of which are:

Matt Granger (even if you are a Canon user)
Adorama
DigitalRev TV

There are others but these are the ones that stood out to me. Adorama from memory seems to be the most 'tutorialised' of them all with various playlist aimed at different levels of experience.

Hope that helps - Trev

Massive help, appreciate it.
I cannot stand digitalREV, they are like Topgear(which I enjoy) but it feels fake.

Yes, they do have a very similar style to TG, you either love or hate it.

Trev

 

[tecboy]

Sometimes, I prefer taking classes as well.

 

[table1349]

More photos are taken with an iphone than any other camera.
Donald Trump was elected president.
One third of Texans believe dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.

Do you need a longer list?

Joe

You have got to get over you measure bating problem, or write your own book then.

I suggested some good authors. Just trying to be helpful to the OP. Would you suggest the OP read incorrect information?

Joe

Incorrect is in the eye of the beholder or in this case the reader. It seems to work for many, many people. Results are what matters.

I see. Here's a direct quote from Understanding Exposure: "The depth of field in close-up photography extends one-fourth in front of and one-half beyond the focused subject, while in regular photography the depth of field is distributed one-third in front of and two-thirds beyond the subject." (pg.66)

I'm really interested to hear your explanation of how 1/4 + 1/2 = 1. When you get that explained I'd like additional explanations; for starters he's saying that DOF distribution is increasingly disproportional in close-up photography -- news to me, please explain. Feel to free to call Kellyanne for help.

Joe

Sorry, but measure bating over triviality is your fetish. The concept that this is a book for bare bones beginners eludes you.

View attachment 141464

The concept that it's OK to patronize beginners with incorrect information is elitist BS. What is your good reason for why it's OK to present beginners with false info when they're trying to learn? Explain how that helps them. I understand it's a beginners book -- explain why, being a beginners book, it's OK for it to contain inaccuracies.

Oh yeah and I still really want to know how in your beholding eyes 1/4 + 1/2 = 1.

Joe

Well I guess you are going to have to measure bate till you shutter gets hairy because I don't care. The concept of DOF is a simple one. For practical purposes the ratio is meaningless.

 

[KmH]

Which books would you guys recommend to read as a beginner?

That's been asked, and answered many, many, many times before.

TPF has a search feature. It's amazing how few new members to most forums bother to use it.
Search Results for Query: Which books + recommend books | Photography Forum

 

[Ysarex]

You have got to get over you measure bating problem, or write your own book then.

I suggested some good authors. Just trying to be helpful to the OP. Would you suggest the OP read incorrect information?

Joe

Incorrect is in the eye of the beholder or in this case the reader. It seems to work for many, many people. Results are what matters.

I see. Here's a direct quote from Understanding Exposure: "The depth of field in close-up photography extends one-fourth in front of and one-half beyond the focused subject, while in regular photography the depth of field is distributed one-third in front of and two-thirds beyond the subject." (pg.66)

I'm really interested to hear your explanation of how 1/4 + 1/2 = 1. When you get that explained I'd like additional explanations; for starters he's saying that DOF distribution is increasingly disproportional in close-up photography -- news to me, please explain. Feel to free to call Kellyanne for help.

Joe

Sorry, but measure bating over triviality is your fetish. The concept that this is a book for bare bones beginners eludes you.

View attachment 141464

The concept that it's OK to patronize beginners with incorrect information is elitist BS. What is your good reason for why it's OK to present beginners with false info when they're trying to learn? Explain how that helps them. I understand it's a beginners book -- explain why, being a beginners book, it's OK for it to contain inaccuracies.

Oh yeah and I still really want to know how in your beholding eyes 1/4 + 1/2 = 1.

Joe

Well I guess you are going to have to measure bate till you shutter gets hairy because I don't care.

We see you don't care; explains why you're no longer posting.

The concept of DOF is a simple one. For practical purposes the ratio is meaningless.

DOF gets a whole chapter in Petersen's book and features prominently in the subsequent 4 chapters. Take a break from shoveling your elitist BS and try answering a simple question. Again, what is your good reason for why it's OK to present beginners with false info when they're trying to learn? So far you're saying because the info is meaningless? But then why is that info in Petersen's book more than once if it's meaningless? Math challenged and logic challenged; you've got to stop hanging out with Kellyanne.

Joe

P.S. I agree DOF isn't rocket science, so leave it to Petersen to get it wrong and then put his mistakes in print. Oh, and it's not like this is the only mistake in the book -- I just picked one to start.

 

[chuasam]

the course schedule at your local college to see when they're having photography classes

 

[table1349]

I suggested some good authors. Just trying to be helpful to the OP. Would you suggest the OP read incorrect information?

Joe

Incorrect is in the eye of the beholder or in this case the reader. It seems to work for many, many people. Results are what matters.

I see. Here's a direct quote from Understanding Exposure: "The depth of field in close-up photography extends one-fourth in front of and one-half beyond the focused subject, while in regular photography the depth of field is distributed one-third in front of and two-thirds beyond the subject." (pg.66)

I'm really interested to hear your explanation of how 1/4 + 1/2 = 1. When you get that explained I'd like additional explanations; for starters he's saying that DOF distribution is increasingly disproportional in close-up photography -- news to me, please explain. Feel to free to call Kellyanne for help.

Joe

Sorry, but measure bating over triviality is your fetish. The concept that this is a book for bare bones beginners eludes you.

View attachment 141464

The concept that it's OK to patronize beginners with incorrect information is elitist BS. What is your good reason for why it's OK to present beginners with false info when they're trying to learn? Explain how that helps them. I understand it's a beginners book -- explain why, being a beginners book, it's OK for it to contain inaccuracies.

Oh yeah and I still really want to know how in your beholding eyes 1/4 + 1/2 = 1.

Joe

Well I guess you are going to have to measure bate till you shutter gets hairy because I don't care.

We see you don't care; explains why you're no longer posting.

The concept of DOF is a simple one. For practical purposes the ratio is meaningless.

View attachment 141470

DOF gets a whole chapter in Petersen's book and features prominently in the subsequent 4 chapters. Take a break from shoveling your elitist BS and try answering a simple question. Again, what is your good reason for why it's OK to present beginners with false info when they're trying to learn? So far you're saying because the info is meaningless? But then why is that info in Petersen's book more than once if it's meaningless? Math challenged and logic challenged; you've got to stop hanging out with Kellyanne.

Joe

P.S. I agree DOF isn't rocket science, so leave it to Petersen to get it wrong and then put his mistakes in print. Oh, and it's not like this is the only mistake in the book -- I just picked one to start.

 

[fmw]

Which books would you guys recommend to read as a beginner?

The basics aren't complex. Any of the recommended books are probably great. What makes an effective photographer, though, is not reading. It is shooting images. Get whatever basics you feel you need and then go shoot and then shoot some more.

 

[JPI]

Books are like the codex set forth by Morgan and Bartholomew, they are simply guidelines; You'll learn by doing and get creative when you step outside the box. (or book)

Read anything and everything you can stomach and remember to venture off. The guys that wrote the books you read started off asking what's the best book to read.