Understanding Exposure -- book sucks

[icassell]

I don't think anyone has suggested that it is the 'holy grail'. It does, however, orient the newbie to the exposure triangle in a practical fashion. It is also easy to read. For those reasons I will keep recommending it to someone just starting out.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Will this forum ever cease to amaze?

 

[ababysean]

One question I have, I admit I have not read it cover to cover but I've glanced at it in several sittings here and there....

Someone that I know said the book says to set your WB to Cloudy and it works all the time... WTF? really? Does it REALLY say that?

 

[12sndsgood]

did you guys know there are errors in school books too??

anyway. its a book that goes over basic principles written in a way that is easy to understand for allot of people. because you personally didnt get anything out of it then maybe he's not for you. diffrent people learn diffrent way. what he said may not be 100% all the time info but more a guideline. those that care to improve will go on to reading allot more and getting allot more in deapth. those that are casual probably won't. and i doubt it will hurt photography as a whole or even as a half.

the way you explain something to a beginner isn't the way you explain somone with allot of working knowledge in the field.

 

[reznap]

Someone that I know said the book says to set your WB to Cloudy and it works all the time... WTF? really? Does it REALLY say that?

This actually works if you live near Cleveland.

 

[12sndsgood]

One question I have, I admit I have not read it cover to cover but I've glanced at it in several sittings here and there....

Someone that I know said the book says to set your WB to Cloudy and it works all the time... WTF? really? Does it REALLY say that?

I don't remember it saying that... but I also don't remember it word for word either. But the fact that I didn't *try* it ever, makes me think that your friend mis-read something... because had it said that, I probably *would* have tried it to see what he was talking about.

The only thing I've ever read in reference to using "cloudy" WB on a non-cloudy day was that it makes the colors in a sunset pop... and I didn't read that in Understanding Exposure... I read that in "Total Digital Photography"

he said something to that effect. along the lines of he uses the cloudy wb setting most of the time and because he uses raw he can change it in post if it doesnt work out. i think it was more of his preference if your the type of person that doesnt want to adjust it all the time.


books are like the internet. you dont have to know every single fact and detail to write a book, same with the internet, you read diffrent things and pick up bits from here and there.

 

[pgriz]

Personally, I like his book. I’m not a beginner, and I’m certainly not going to take everything he says at face value. He explains many concepts very well, and the errors in his book won’t cause his audience to do really big screw-ups.

The depth-of-field quote… it’s correct for some conditions, wrong for others. But it has the benefit of getting beginner photographers to at least think about depth-of-field. He suggests using f/22 for its great depth-of-field, and he minimizes the diffraction effects. Well, I may disagree with him, but I’ve done tests that tell me when f/22 is usable and will be good, and when I should avoid going there. If someone uses f/22 and gets a great image with depth-of-field that is slightly soft due to diffraction effects, no big deal.

He suggests using “cloudy” setting to warm up the pictures. That’s a personal preference. He suggested using the “tungsten” setting to get really deep blues… also something worth experimenting with to decide if it works for you.

As for factual errors – all books have them, including textbooks. No news there. I’m willing to bet that when we compare internet information, we’ll find many more mistakes… But most people know to take what they find on the internet with a grain of salt.

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the book does more good than harm, and if the average photographer takes the information it presents and uses it intelligently (ie, with some experimentation of each concept), then it will certainly advance their skills.

 

[clanthar]

Someone that I know said the book says to set your WB to Cloudy and it works all the time... WTF? really? Does it REALLY say that?

Here's the quote: "I prefer my images warm. And that brings me to my one white balance setting. As is always the case, I leave my white balance set to Cloudy."

But this is fine because he goes on and appropriately explains what he's doing and why -- not a problem. His explanation is understandable and acceptable. My problem is with statements in the book offered as fact that are wrong, or facts identified and incorrectly explained.

Joe

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

You should write a book then.

Or at least write the author and tell him how wrong he is.
Maybe he'll fix it.

 

[clanthar]

You should write a book then.

I'm working on it -- on my to do list since I retired.

 

[traylorc]

You mean to say a book targeted for uber-newbies is guilty of over-simplification?

NO WAI

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

I know...can you believe it!!

 

[JAFO28]

Well if everyone would just stick to Ken Rockwell's site, and not bother reading all these books, then the world would be full of much better photographers.

 

[reznap]

Well if everyone would just stick to Ken Rockwell's site, and not bother reading all these books, then the world would be full of much better photographers.

Stop giving Rockwell kudos, everyone, please.. he's full of misinformation as well.

 

[Seekwence]

But his videos are so awesome!

 

[JAFO28]

Well if everyone would just stick to Ken Rockwell's site, and not bother reading all these books, then the world would be full of much better photographers.

Stop giving Rockwell kudos, everyone, please.. he's full of misinformation as well.

Sarcasm is a wonderful thing.