Understanding Exposures not Understood

[Helen B]

So what is the exact correct terminology? I hear aperture referred to in so many ways. I realize that f/22 is the smaller opening, but even peterson referred to that as a large aperture. Technically since it's a reciprocal, f/22 would be a small value, so what SHOULD I call it.

Where does he call it a large aperture? He says it gives you maximum depth of field. He also says that even when it's set to f/22 the image in the viewfinder is seen at a wide open aperture (f/2.8) until the shutter is pressed.

If he does call it a large aperture it's a typo because it is a small aperture which is proven when he calls f/2.8 a wide open (large) aperture.

Confusion: Confusing aperture nomenclature?
Yes, he gives bad information that does not help with understanding.

It's simple. The number is known as the f-number, not the 'aperture number' - which is vague and undefined. It is correct to say 'The aperture is f/22, so the f-number is 22. As the aperture gets smaller the f-number gets larger.'

Doesn't Peterson explain that and use it in his text - he should, because it is kinda simple to explain and use, and it is a fundamental concept. Beginners should have it laid out clearly, simply and correctly.

Confusion: Circle of confusion
Don't forget that you guys are referring to the 'maximum acceptable circle of confusion', not the circle of confusion. use shorthand if you want, but do not confuse 'circle of confusion' with 'maximum acceptable circle of confusion'. Of course you haven't got them confused, so you know the difference, right? Beginners might not have the concept clear, so help them and don't use shorthand (or use it after you have explained it).

 

[EchoingWhisper]

That's why I wasn't amazed when I read the book. I do admit that I myself have recommended the book at one point, maybe not in the forum, because all the 'professionals' here says its good.

 

[bazooka]

To me, Peterson has come across as someone who has learned photography from spending 6 months on a forum and then decided to write a book. He's talented, but he either doesn't have a full understanding of the technical aspects, or he is a poor communicator.

 

[EIngerson]

To me, Peterson has come across as someone who has learned photography from spending 6 months on a forum and then decided to write a book. He's talented, but he either doesn't have a full understanding of the technical aspects, or he is a poor communicator.

I didn't have any problems grasping what he taught in the book. I guess there's no middle ground, people either like his books or hate his books. What I still think is funny is when people try to discredit his applications, yet his images show exactly what he says his method will achieve. A lot of "I would do/say it different, so I'm right." going on in here.

 

[MTVision]

Confusion: Confusing aperture nomenclature?
Yes, he gives bad information that does not help with understanding.

It's simple. The number is known as the f-number, not the 'aperture number' - which is vague and undefined. It is correct to say 'The aperture is f/22, so the f-number is 22. As the aperture gets smaller the f-number gets larger.'

Doesn't Peterson explain that and use it in his text - he should, because it is kinda simple to explain and use, and it is a fundamental concept. Beginners should have it laid out clearly, simply and correctly.

Confusion: Circle of confusion
Don't forget that you guys are referring to the 'maximum acceptable circle of confusion', not the circle of confusion. use shorthand if you want, but do not confuse 'circle of confusion' with 'maximum acceptable circle of confusion'. Of course you haven't got them confused, so you know the difference, right? Beginners might not have the concept clear, so help them and don't use shorthand (or use it after you have explained it).

But he does explain it exactly like you just did. In the very beginning of the book - " the smaller the f-stop number, the larger the lens opening; the larger the f-stop number, the smaller the lens opening."

The other stuff I posted was because I was trying to find a spot where Peterson called f/22 a large aperture. And the information about aperture number is not confusing in the least if you actually read what he writes. He does explain it clearly and simply.

He also goes on to say f/22 is a small aperture a few times in the book.

 

[MTVision]

I didn't have any problems grasping what he taught in the book. I guess there's no middle ground, people either like his books or hate his books. What I still think is funny is when people try to discredit his applications, yet his images show exactly what he says his method will achieve. A lot of "I would do/say it different, so I'm right." going on in here.

I'm with you. I didn't know anything about photography before his book. After his book I understand exposure and went from full automatic to manual the day I read his book. It was a super easy read, for me, I read it in one day. I think it's a good starting off book for some people.

 

[ph0enix]

I didn't have any problems grasping what he taught in the book. I guess there's no middle ground, people either like his books or hate his books. What I still think is funny is when people try to discredit his applications, yet his images show exactly what he says his method will achieve. A lot of "I would do/say it different, so I'm right." going on in here.

I'm with you. I didn't know anything about photography before his book. After his book I understand exposure and went from full automatic to manual the day I read his book. It was a super easy read, for me, I read it in one day. I think it's a good starting off book for some people.

That was pretty much the case with me as well. I think the book is a great start for most beginners.