My trick for memorizing f/stops

[Braineack]

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....

yeah but do you even shoot M?

 

[Derrel]

yeah but do you even shoot M?

Yeah, but do you even lift, bro?

 

[Braineack]

7 plates.

 

[fjrabon]

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. View attachment 101421 View attachment 101422

The first one is like 2 2/3 stops underexposed. The second is a picture of blacktop which makes it able to stand up to a lot of different treatments. it looks maybe okay exposed, but without knowing how dark the blacktop is, it's kind of a worthless example.

I mean I know plenty of photographers who can eyeball exposure, I agree that some photographers can eyeball exposure incredibly accurately, but these photos aren't a particularly good argument for it. If anything these are arguments for why you'd need a meter, an understanding of how the meter works and the ability to calculate equivalent exposures.

All that aside, beginners can't eyeball exposure, so why are we talking about eyeballing exposure IN THE BEGINNERS' FORUM?

 

[Derrel]

7 plates.

yeah, let me guess...all 25's. lol.

 

[unpopular]

Ummmmm...you obviously have ZERO idea of who Fred Picker was

Nope. Nor do I care.

or how astoundingly accomplished he was as a technician and photographer.

That is very evident. But at the same time he's saying that precisely the reason to use reflective [spot] meter, is the reason not to.

blahblahblah some football analogy

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

Then why on earth would he say that the problem with reflective metering is that the meter is calibrated to middle grey? This makes no sense at all. I am not really doubting that Picker knows a lot about metering. But this is not represented in these statements - which are essentially saying that eyeballing exposure will be more precise than measuring the scene and careful processing according to characteristic curve data.

It's like saying "long division in your head is more precise than using a calculator".

 

[Derrel]

A guy who asks if Fred Picker is "serious" about exposure....yeah, it is embarrassing to ridicule a legend in the photographic world on a forum! Jesus. You don't even KNOW how foolish you look attacking a guy who was as influential in Zone System use as Fred Picker...some college student from Montana taking on Fred Picker over exposure. Laugable. The hubris. The lack of knowledge of what the guy was all about.

Maybe you can point out what an idiot Einstein was too, maybe after your nap this afternoon? Maybe provide us with your unique, revelatory insights into relativity?

 

[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. View attachment 101421 View attachment 101422

The first one is like 2 2/3 stops underexposed. The second is a picture of blacktop which makes it able to stand up to a lot of different treatments. it looks maybe okay exposed, but without knowing how dark the blacktop is, it's kind of a worthless example.

I mean I know plenty of photographers who can eyeball exposure, I agree that some photographers can eyeball exposure incredibly accurately, but these photos aren't a particularly good argument for it. If anything these are arguments for why you'd need a meter, an understanding of how the meter works and the ability to calculate equivalent exposures.

All that aside, beginners can't eyeball exposure, so why are we talking about eyeballing exposure IN THE BEGINNERS' FORUM?

it isn't that far under exposed, cloud cover in shade. What you would consider the perfect exposure wouldn't be what it looked like. The black top wasn't in the shade, but was still under some serious cloud cover (had some dark clouds passing through).
Again, what you see, and what a persons or cameras idea of perfect exposure are very different things. You are correct though. This is a beginners forum. Shouldn't naturally shooting what they should be progressing toward though?

 

[unpopular]

it is embarrassing to ridicule a legend in the photographic world on a forum!

again

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.

So, yeah. I don't really care who he is or what kind of legend he is supposed to be.

This is an inherently flawed statement.

But for what it's worth, Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics.

 

[bribrius]

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...

metering has come a long way. But for those that don't want to be dependent, worry about shooting without the gimicks and accurately capturing the scene you are looking at. Anyone can put it on matrix. so what. Will it balance the scene? sorta. Come out better than most people trying to zone light meter it probably. And i do think people concentrate too much on histograms. It has come to the point they are afraid to take a shot with a uneven histogram. Instead of trying to accurately display what they are seeing, they are busy balancing the histogram. i pretty much ignore the thing unless i really think i am going to get blown highlights or something. just my thoughts though. Everyone else may differ, and that is okay.

 

[unpopular]

Oh, and BTW - I looked up Fred Picker.

He sure likes blowing hilights to smithereens, doesn't he?

 

[bribrius]

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....

yeah but do you even shoot M?

well, i admit i am really biased. wife just showed her friend photography website and i think my response was "who gives a chit she shoots everything on auto with the best lenses. she doesnt even know how to use a camera. That isn't even photography." lmao

 

[table1349]

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...

But there is no snappy little ditty to help you memorize them.

 

[bribrius]

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...

But there is no snappy little ditty to help you memorize them.

mmm.. already pretty much know them. And i have them on most of my lenses.

 

[limr]

Exactly why does this have to become a pissing match? Jeez, just give it a rest, already.

The OP offered an alternative to memorizing the f-stops. His method/formula helped explain the relationship between the stops to perhaps make it easier to remember and possibly easier then to put that information to use. Even though it was the kind of formula that I would have had a hard time with when I was a beginner (only because of my own preferences, not because it's a bad method), I still see its utility and think it was a good post.

The way I see it, the subsequent quibbling over the super-technical fine points is just a bunch of lip-flapping - all sound and fury, signifying nothing useful to the beginner. And as the OP has pointed out over and over and over again, this IS the Beginner's Forum.