Understanding Exposure -- book sucks

[clanthar]

I started hanging around this forum last summer -- so for about 6 months now.

A board like this is going to have "themes" or characteristic traits because of the participation of long-term members. One of those traits on this board is the constant recommendation that beginners get the book Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.

So I had an opportunity to pick up a copy the other day. I read it. It sucks.

Granted it's cheap, has lots of pretty pictures and Peterson does a fair to mediocre job of explaining basic exposure controls which is why I assume the book is suggested. AND when someone asks me, well what do you recommend instead; I have nothing to offer that is likewise inexpensive and, like this book, targeted to an audience well below the "dummies" series. I will say that this website is much better than Peterson's book and it's free: Cambridge in Colour - Photography Tutorials & Learning Community and although they cost twice as much, the popular Stone/London books at least don't contain blatantly wrong information.

Understanding Exposure contains critical errors, strange off-the-mark analogies and just plain nonsense. For example:

"What exactly influences depth of field? Several factors come into play: the focal length of the lens, the distance between you and the subject you want to focus on, and the aperture you select. I feel strongly that of these three elements, aperture IS the most important." Peterson has strong feelings -- that's nice. In a how-to-book facts should trump feelings. In this statement his feelings are wrong.

"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." Woah! One fourth + one half = three fourths. This is complete nonsense. In fact as you focus closer the distribution of DOF tends to even out; he's claiming the opposite, and his statement that in regular photography the distribution of DOF is one third/two thirds is just wrong.

"During the spring, the clarity of the light in the countryside results in delicate hues and tones for buds on plants and trees. This same clear light enhances the stark beauty of the autumn landscape." Spring and autumn light have "clarity" that the light of summer and winter lacks?!! Rubbish and nonsense.

There's lots more; this book sucks.

Joe

 

[Boomn4x4]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it sucks... but you are dead on when you say that this website is better, as are the vast variety of other information out there on the Internet. By the time I had browsed around the Internet long enough to think that I wanted to read a book... I had already learned pretty much everything that was in the book.

I bought the book, I read it, I gave it away.

 

[Stradawhovious]

I read Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson when I first started.

I learned a lot from Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson as have countless other people.

I recommend reading Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.

It doesn't suck.

 

[mwcfarms]

Opinions are like @ssholes everyone has one. Happy Holidays. :lmao:

 

[clanthar]

I read Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson when I first started.

I learned a lot from Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson as have countless other people.

I recommend reading Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.

It doesn't suck.

A how-to book shouldn't contain blatant factual errors (in my opinion) -- you must disagree.

Joe

 

[KmH]

... but you are dead on when you say that this website is better...

He was referring to www.cambridgeincolor.com, not TPF.

 

[Stradawhovious]

I bet Sean McHugh read Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.







Just sayin'

 

[kasperjd4]

There was a great video series on youtube called "perfect exposure for perfect photography" that was excelent. But, for some reason I can't find it anymore.

 

[Stradawhovious]

A how-to book shouldn't contain blatant factual errors (in my opinion) -- you must disagree.

Joe

Whatever it contains, it helped me quite a bit, and gave me a better understanding and more confidence in regards to exposure, as I'm sure the cambridge in color site would.

You get to choose what you get out of life. I choose to learn from the resources I have at hand, absorb what makes sense, and leave behind the stuff I disagree with...... not nitpick and criticize award winning and vastly published photographers with infinitely more experience and knowledge than myself.

I'm sure we will not see eye to eye on this one.

It is what it is. :cheers:

 

[heyjoe]

The photo of Peterson's wife in a bikini is worth the book's cost alone :lmao:

 

[Robin Usagani]

Never read it.. Green box has treated me well

 

[Geaux]

Not gonna lie, I bought the book after several recommendations here. While it's a decent book, it's not the HOLY GRAIL of books as this site puts it on to be. I've enjoyed and learned a little bit from it though, so no real complaints.

 

[clanthar]

You get to choose what you get out of life. I choose to learn from the resources I have at hand, absorb what makes sense, and leave behind the stuff I disagree with......

Here's the problem: You take a brand new beginner who wants to learn photography. You start them off by telling them this is how it works and the info you give them is flat-out wrong. Without the understanding to leave behind the stuff they disagree with they're going to accept the errors -- not helpful.

NOTE: I didn't claim I have opinions that differ with the book or that I disagree with the book. I said the book presents as fact information that is wrong. That's on a different level than a disagreement or an opinion. If you can prove I'm wrong -- by all means. I can prove the book is wrong.

Joe

 

[PerfectlyFlawed]

Not gonna lie, I bought the book after several recommendations here. While it's a decent book, it's not the HOLY GRAIL of books as this site puts it on to be. I've enjoyed and learned a little bit from it though, so no real complaints.

Read it,+1 to this. ( execpt I Checked mine out from the Library...) May not be the best book out there... But hey, if you learn one or two more things you didnt know before... then :thumbup:

 

[Stradawhovious]

Here's the problem: You take a brand new beginner who wants to learn photography. You start them off by telling them this is how it works and the info you give them is flat-out wrong. Without the understanding to leave behind the stuff they disagree with they're going to accept the errors -- not helpful.

It made my pictures better (to me anyways), and I haven't had to relearn any of the information I retained from it due to any perceived misinformation. As a matter of fact, the basics I read in that book make perfect sense to me, and work in practice. For example...... As it turns out, the three things he said affect DOF that you pointed out in the OP......... actually affect DOF. Who'd a thunk it?

I'm sorry that you didn't have the same experience.

Maybe your anger would be better directed at Bryan personally, rather than by way of a intertube site he more than likely doesn't visit... He does have a "contact me" link on his site. I'd bet he would be more than happy to discuss this with you. He may even have some explainations for you that will make better sense of the information in his book that you feel is so harmful to new photographers.

And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

I promise, this will be the last of my posts in this thread. :cheers: