Understanding Exposure -- book sucks

Darkhunter139 · Dec 22, 2010

As a complete beginner I learned a ton from this book a year ago and will continue to recommend it. Just because you disagree with some things he says does not mean it sucks. Out of the three examples you gave I would not fall any of them "factual errors".

JDRoth · Dec 22, 2010

I am very new to serious photography. And I can not say whether or not the factual claims that the OP quoted are correct or not. However I do agree with the OP's sentiment that any book that makes blatant factual errors seriously brings down the quality of the book. And, if it is a how to book in general, especially one that is well regarded, it has a responsibility to be correct, and where it is not fixed in later editions and corrected immediately on its website. Amateurs in all fields eat that stuff up like candy, and accept it as holy scripture. Accepting bad information brings down the field as a whole, and should be weeded out as fast as possible.

IF the OP is correct about what he is claiming, he is correct in saying that it is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it is a matter of fact or fiction. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Moynihan If the statements made by the author are incorrect they are incorrect. Period. And it shouldn't be tolerated. People call each other out when they are factually incorrect on this forum all of the time. It should be no different for a book just because it has the lofty position of being published. So was mothergoose, the cat in the hat, and going rogue.

clanthar · Dec 22, 2010

Darkhunter139 said:
As a complete beginner I learned a ton from this book a year ago and will continue to recommend it. Just because you disagree with some things he says does not mean it sucks. Out of the three examples you gave I would not fall any of them "factual errors".

"...in regular photography the depth of field is distributed one-third In front of and two-thirds beyond the subject." That is a factual error. It's a common colloquial error and it keeps getting passed around by poor quality books for one. People pick this stuff up and believe it and act on it; and then they take inferior photos because they've been misinformed. And that's all I'm saying.

Joe

Canon AE-1 · Dec 22, 2010

I have to say i purchased this book on ebay for 1.00 + 2.00 shipping.
I have found many errors in it but it's still a good place to start and get familiar with the components of the camera and how to use it. While it's about 1% of the info out there it's still a good place to start for a noob such as my self. Take the info and go on to the next book or website. No information is totally inferior.

OrionsByte · Dec 22, 2010

clanthar said:
"...in regular photography the depth of field is distributed one-third In front of and two-thirds beyond the subject." That is a factual error. It's a common colloquial error and it keeps getting passed around by poor quality books for one. People pick this stuff up and believe it and act on it; and then they take inferior photos because they've been misinformed. And that's all I'm saying.

Joe

So using a DOF calculator I plugged in values that I would tend to use for "normal" photography (what does "normal" even mean?). Using a Nikon D70, 55mm lens, and f/8 with a subject 20 feet away, the DOF is 34% in front of the subject and 66% behind. Which part is specifically factually inaccurate there?

At higher focal lengths the DOF tends to get closer to 50/50, and that may be your beef with part of what you quoted in your original post. I don't have the book in front of me though, so I hesitate to make any further comments without making sure that my facts are straight.

I agree with what others have posted here - the book isn't necessarily the best thing in the world for every photographer everywhere, but there are certainly things worth learning from it. Photography is full of generalizations and mantras ("Sunny 16", "f/8 and be there", etc.) that are designed to give us a starting point for reference but are not hard and fast rules that apply to every single situation. I tend to see Understanding Exposure from that point of view - there are a lot of little tips in that book that will at least get you close to where you need to be, and a little trial and error can help you zero in. With experience, you need those tools less and less, but if it helps a beginner to imagine the DOF 1/3 in front and 2/3 behind even if it doesn't always apply exactly, what's the harm in that? If they want to know the exact DOF they can use a calculator, like I did, and over time, with experience, they'll develop an instinct for it.

cfusionpm · Dec 22, 2010

I had much better luck picking things up through Scott Kelby's books. I think he's up to Volume 3 in his The Digital Photography Book series. It doesnt teach too much in technical details, but he walks you through what kind of lenses and settings to use to get certain typs of shots and explains why you would do it that way to get the effect. It's kind of a learn-through-doing style of book, which I like a lot more than a bland textbook type.

Very good book series:

Amazon.com: The Digital Photography Book (9780321474049): Scott Kelby: Books

Amazon.com: The Digital Photography Book, Volume 2 (9780321524768): Scott Kelby: Books

Amazon.com: The Digital Photography Book, Volume 3 (9780321617651): Scott Kelby: Books

bazooka · Dec 22, 2010

Although I won't go so far as to say the book sucks, there are many better books that I've read over the past year that I'd recommend over it for a beginner, or anyone really. I'm currently reading Photographic Composition, Creativity, and Personal Style by Briot. It doesn't talk about technical basics, but really digs into creating attractive images and I think it's going to help me alot.

gsgary · Dec 22, 2010

Never been recommended by me, too many people come back with silly questions after reading it

guitar guy · Dec 22, 2010

I bought Kelby's book "Digital Photography Book vol 1" and he lists "Understanding Exposure" in his recommended books (pg. 192). So I was tempted to pick it up, but after seeing the Cambridge Colours website I may just give that a go first, to get the basics down.

GeorgieGirl · Dec 22, 2010

I think photography is a subject that each person who is willing ought to take the time and read each and everything they can on the subject and apply it to their efforts.

I think there are so many forms of education available that anyone who wants to learn can benefit; whether be it a general overview or detailed nuts and bolts specifics.

It's there for all of us and I don't think many of us started without Understanding Exposure. I do agree though that it might be oversold as a starting point.

Hardrock · Dec 22, 2010

I think for a true beginner the book is very helpful. I believe it does a good job of explaining how the exposure triangle works and when/how to make adjustments needed for the shot. It definitely does not suck well at least to me. I would definitely recommend this book to a true beginner. If you already have a basic knowledge then I think you would need a more advanced book. It sounds like to me you needed a more of an advanced level book.

As far as you DOF issue I belive its more of a generalization to help the reader get the idea.

clanthar · Dec 22, 2010

OrionsByte said:
clanthar said:

"...in regular photography the depth of field is distributed one-third In front of and two-thirds beyond the subject." That is a factual error. It's a common colloquial error and it keeps getting passed around by poor quality books for one. People pick this stuff up and believe it and act on it; and then they take inferior photos because they've been misinformed. And that's all I'm saying.

Joe

Click to expand...

So using a DOF calculator I plugged in values that I would tend to use for "normal" photography (what does "normal" even mean?). Using a Nikon D70, 55mm lens, and f/8 with a subject 20 feet away, the DOF is 34% in front of the subject and 66% behind. Which part is specifically factually inaccurate there?

At higher focal lengths the DOF tends to get closer to 50/50, and that may be your beef with part of what you quoted in your original post. I don't have the book in front of me though, so I hesitate to make any further comments without making sure that my facts are straight.

Yes, "normal" and "regular" can be debated forever. I'd suggest that for the overwhelming majority of snapshot users the conditions that fit those terms more often end up with a lens settings that produce DOF to infinity in the back. DOF does distribute unequally around the plane of focus with more in back. The distribution is seamless beginning at 49.9% in front and 50.1% in back and ends up with X in front and infinity in back. 1/3 -- 2/3 happens but so does 1/8 -- 7/8 and 1/12 -- 11/12 and everything else in between. The distribution becomes more uneven as you stop further down and it becomes more even as you increase magnification. What it isn't is 1/3 -- 2/3. Take your 55mm lens and stop it down one more stop and focus 5 feet further into the scene and the distribution becomes 6% -- 94%.

Joe

clanthar · Dec 22, 2010

Hardrock said:
As far as you DOF issue I belive its more of a generalization to help the reader get the idea.

You're right -- it's an old "rule of thumb" that's always been wrong and always gets used when sloppy is the preferred choice over an explanation. Photography has way more than its fair share of this kind of stuff and ultimately it's not helpful. When it comes time to wright a book this kind of stuff should be avoided or appropriately notated. This book has too much of the same.

Joe