# My trick for memorizing f/stops



## fjrabon (May 19, 2015)

I told somebody about this a few days ago and they found it pretty helpful.

Most beginners, heck most intermediates, have trouble calculating equivalent exposures in their head. It's a useful thing to be able to do, but they just get lost in the math. For most people shutter speed and ISO are easy enough. They're intuitive numbers. 1/100 of a second is obviously twice as fast as 1/50 and this lets in half as much light. That is, it's a stop difference. Same thing with ISO. Obviously 200 is half 400, so 400 is twice as bright and thus a stop different.

But for many photographers, things go sideways when it comes to aperture. They don't have a clear, intuitive sense of the relationship between f/8 and f/5.6.

Most experienced photographers manage this by simply having memorized f/stops through years of experience (especially when they were set tactilely on the lens and you were forced to look at the actual number each time). They know 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22 like the back of their hand. Is the only solution to just memorize these?

You only need to memorize two f/stops and then you can use a simple trick to get all the rest.

Start with f/1.4 and f/2. Have those memorized. They're 1 stop apart, meaning f/1.4 lets in twice as much light.

Then you just alternate doubling each. So the next stop after f/2 is f/2.8 which is double f/1.4. Next is f/4 (double f/2).

See the alternating pattern: 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45

Now you'll note the pattern gets broken twice. But it actually doesn't. f/11 should really be f/11.2, but the .2 is such a tiny difference in light that we round it off because it's easier to write on lenses. f/22 should be f/22.4, again it's just rounded down. Then f/45 should be f/44.8.

It also works for third stops too, but you have to memorize 4 additional starting points then.

Honestly I could do without third stops for the most part. I tend to think of them more as "strong" and "weak" standard stops. Historically they were really more because a lens was either messed up or was a prime on the bleeding edge of its capabilities.

Anyway, I generally find that f/stops are the last thing keeping people from being able to find equivalent exposures in their head, which can come in incredibly handy at times when you can't simply use the camera's built in light meter.

Star photography for example. Changing from a f/2.8 wide angle to a f/2 prime? Gotta be able to do the equivalent exposure in your head because light meters are useless with star photography.

Anyway, hope somebody find that little trick helpful.


----------



## 480sparky (May 19, 2015)

Too much math.  I just memorize the numbers.


----------



## Gary A. (May 19, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Too much math.  I just memorize the numbers.


LOL


----------



## KmH (May 19, 2015)

It doubles every other f-stop because the 2x or 1/2x as much light a full stop change of aperture lets in is based on the square root of 2 - 1.41421356 - which multiplied by itself = 2.

Like so many things in life, doing math in your head takes practice.
"If you don't use it, you lose it."


----------



## fjrabon (May 19, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Too much math.  I just memorize the numbers.


Sure, that is exactly what I said most people who have done it for years do, in the post. This post obviously wasn't addressed at you. This post was addressed at people who haven't memorized the stops and need a trick to help them get the hang of it.


----------



## limr (May 19, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Too much math.  I just memorize the numbers.



I have to agree here. For me, of course. I think it's really useful information to help beginners and intermediates even grasp the relationship between the f-stops and exposure, and help them think about what they're doing. For my own purposes, however, when it comes time to shoot, it feels a little fussy and it often ends up confusing me.

I remember figuring out my own little trick formula for going from Celsius to Fahrenheit when I was living overseas. I'd see the temperature read "16" and I'd do the calculations in my head to figure out the Fahrenheit equivalent. Then one day, I thought, "Why don't I just start associating the sensation with the new numbers? So it's 16 degrees...what does that feel like?" and I started skipping the Fahrenheit middleman.

I feel the same way when it comes to f-stops and exposure. Instead of doing calculations based on how much light is proportionally being allowed through the lens, I associate the numbers with certain looks and effects. I find that works just fine for me.

Of course everyone is different. Again, I want to repeat that I think it's a really really useful post and those who are more technically or mathematically inclined will surely benefit.


----------



## fjrabon (May 19, 2015)

KmH said:


> It doubles every other f-stop because the 2x or 1/2x as much light a full stop change of aperture lets in is based on the square root of 2 - 1.41421356 - which multiplied by itself = 2.
> 
> Like so many things in life, doing math in your head takes practice.
> "If you don't use it, you lose it."


Yeah, 2x2 = 2^2 is such an interestingly useful fact.


----------



## 480sparky (May 19, 2015)

If you want to get technical, the actual sequence is:

1.4142135623730950488016887242097
2
2.8284271247461900976033774484194
4
5.6568542494923801952067548968388
8
11.313708498984760390413509793678
16
22.627416997969520780827019587355
32
45.25483399593904156165403917471


----------



## Solarflare (May 19, 2015)

Hu ?

I have no trouble knowing the f-stops ?

f1
f1.4
f2
f2.8
f4
f5.6
f8
f11
f16
f22
f32

Twice as much light, half the depth of field with every step upwards, half as much light, twice as much depth of field downards. And thats about all one ever needs.


Since the f-number is the ratio between focal length and pupil diameter, the lower bound for that diameter is easily computed as well:

28mm f2.8 => diameter is 28mm / 2.8 = 10mm

50mm f1.0 => diameter is 50mm / 1 = 50mm

200mm f2.0 => diameter is 200mm / 2 = 100mm

400mm f2.8 => diameter is 400mm / 2.8 ~ 140mm

Thus a 400mm f2.8 has to be a quite huge lens.


Its the same with binary, really. Every programmer can write down 2 times n easily:

1
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
1024
2048
4096
8192
16384

And thats the first time I really have to think about the next step. All the other numbers I already know by memory.


----------



## fjrabon (May 19, 2015)

limr said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Too much math.  I just memorize the numbers.
> ...


Sure, the ideal method is to just know them. In the same way that the ideal way to know your multiplication tables is to just memorize them. But the title is "trick to memorizing" this is aimed at getting people to the point of memorizing them.

Most people if you give them a set of 10 random numbers can't memorize them effectively without MASSIVE repitition unless they can see a pattern. The kids who learn their multiplication tables the fastest are the ones who understand the underlying pattern first. Then at some point they no longer use the pattern, they just know the result by heart.

I don't calculate out that f/16 is 3 stops difference from f/8. I just know it. But at one point I did have to use the trick to get there instead of it being purely memorized.


----------



## fjrabon (May 19, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> Hu ?
> 
> I have no trouble knowing the f-stops ?
> 
> ...



Do you consider yourself a beginner?  

Wish I didn't have to keep repeating "this isn't for people who have already memorized f/stops" the title is clearly "trick for memorizing f-stops"

If there was a thread titled "trick for kindergarteners to memorize how to tie their shoes" would you chime in "I have no trouble remembering how to tie my shoes?"


----------



## Braineack (May 19, 2015)

i just pull out my phone and go here: F-number - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I also cheat and have my function button setup as "1 step spd/aperture"  so I can quickly dial in/out a step of light without thinking.


----------



## fjrabon (May 19, 2015)

480sparky said:


> If you want to get technical, the actual sequence is:
> 
> 1.4142135623730950488016887242097
> 2
> ...


Why would I want to get that technical in a post aimed at helping people who are having trouble memorizing f/stops. 

For someone who has trouble memorizing them "just memorize them" isn't a solution, it's circular. I gave one thing that helped me, and seems to have helped some beginners I know. It may not be useful to everyone, as I clearly stated. For some, even multiplying by two may be too much math. For some it has been helpful and maybe some other beginner will find it helpful. This is the beginner's forum right? 

Not sure what your issue here is.


----------



## Dao (May 19, 2015)

Honestly, those numbers automatically stuck in my head after using the camera for awhile.


----------



## limr (May 19, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Sure, the ideal method is to just know them. In the same way that the ideal way to know your multiplication tables is to just memorize them. But the title is "trick to memorizing" this is aimed at getting people to the point of memorizing them.
> 
> Most people if you give them a set of 10 random numbers can't memorize them effectively without MASSIVE repitition unless they can see a pattern. The kids who learn their multiplication tables the fastest are the ones who understand the underlying pattern first. Then at some point they no longer use the pattern, they just know the result by heart.
> 
> I don't calculate out that f/16 is 3 stops difference from f/8. I just know it. But at one point I did have to use the trick to get there instead of it being purely memorized.



Oh I totally get it. I actually see patterns pretty easily - more often with words and shapes than with numbers, but that's the kind of thing my brain seems to do all on its own. Like I said, I think your post was really helpful for people still sorting out f-stops and their relationship to the image. I just thought I'd offer a variant to that for those beginners who might get freaked out by math  Rather than looking at mathematical relationships between the f-stops and seeing _that_ pattern, they could also link those f-stop numbers to images and establish a different kind of pattern.

Edit: I suppose it's not really a 'variant' but a corollary perhaps? "Once you have an understanding of the relationship between these numbers, start looking at how changing those numbers affects your images and understand _that _relationship."


----------



## 480sparky (May 19, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to get technical, the actual sequence is:
> ...



You seem to have issues about other's perceived issues.

I'm just posting facts.  If that doesn't help someone, that's _their _issue.


----------



## fjrabon (May 19, 2015)

limr said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, the ideal method is to just know them. In the same way that the ideal way to know your multiplication tables is to just memorize them. But the title is "trick to memorizing" this is aimed at getting people to the point of memorizing them.
> ...


Yeah, I totally agree there. At some point you stop thinking in technical terms and start thinking in terms of how the image feels. I don't think in terms of field of view, depth of field, shutter speed, etc. I think in terms of feeling of depth, feeling of motion, etc. but you have to have the sort of underlying, at this point reflexive, underlying knowledge of the basics. 

Like you stated, at some point you stop having to worry about how to calculate the numbers and can move to understanding how those numbers feel.


----------



## fjrabon (May 19, 2015)

480sparky said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


Oh, so writing non rational numbers out to an arbitrarily long and unreasonably precise degree wasn't an attempt at being snarky?  My mistake then.


----------



## DandL (May 19, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to get technical, the actual sequence is:
> ...





fjrabon said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to get technical, the actual sequence is:
> ...



Who would have thought trying to be helpful to beginners would have generated all this discussion? The point of this thread is to provide an alternate method for learning something that a lot of beginners struggle with. I thought the method was informative, and if it helps just one beginner, then it accomplished it's objective.


----------



## fjrabon (May 19, 2015)

DandL said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


Yeah, should have just not responded. But, eh, it's tpf, if we didn't argue some random not important point into the ground this place wouldn't have its charm, right? Maybe?  Derrel and Buckster have had the same argument about Chinese flashes for like 8 years.


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2015)

F-stops are for babies, call me when you get into t-stops.


----------



## fjrabon (May 19, 2015)

runnah said:


> F-stops are for babies, call me when you get into t-stops.


The first thing I thought when I hit the submit button on this thread is "somebody is going to start with t-stops aren't they?"


----------



## DandL (May 19, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> DandL said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



The charm is why I hang out here. I wouldn't miss it for the world!


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > F-stops are for babies, call me when you get into t-stops.
> ...



Well give me a call when you want to play with the big boys!


----------



## fjrabon (May 19, 2015)

runnah said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


You know me, just swimming over here in the beginners pool, talking about beginners things with beginners.


----------



## table1349 (May 19, 2015)

Focus Versus Exposure f-Stops T-Stops and Lenses for Video - Tuts Photo Video Article

And so the battle is joined!


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



Maybe someday I can tell you about the super secret "z-stops".


----------



## Derrel (May 19, 2015)

Today, many people will never have a lens that opens wider than f/2.8, so they need to learn 2.8 to 4, and then 4 to 5.6, then 8, and 11.   So...basically, a mere five different settings for the lens aperture   2.8..4..5.6..8..11

I shot all day yesterday with two lenses, a 24mm f/2.8   and a 50-135mm f/3.5...I shot 90% of everything at f/5.6 or f/8...for the kit lens brigade, the choices are similar over much of the range, with no access to the wider stops, but f/5.6 being a major point of departure, from which the decision is usually a simple, "Ehhh, time to go to f/8."


----------



## table1349 (May 19, 2015)

Z-Stop zinc strips roof moss algae prevention zinc strip for roofing materials and shingles

Opps, my bad.  Cat's out of the bag.


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Focus Versus Exposure f-Stops T-Stops and Lenses for Video - Tuts Photo Video Article
> 
> And so the battle is joined!



Yeah back when shooting on super expensive 35mm film using the t-stops was critical as you didn't want to waste a few hundred feet of film. Nowadays it's still important but not as crucial.


----------



## astroNikon (May 19, 2015)

I tried memorizing that light stuff before.  One reason I stopped shooting film eons ago.  

Now with my camera I basically select the aperture that I want for the shot (which requires understanding DOF), then the shutter speed that I need (requires understanding stopping motion with the subject) and put ISO to AUTO (or manual set it).  I usually don't have any issue when I do that, and I get the photo that I want.


----------



## fjrabon (May 19, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> I tried memorizing that light stuff before.  One reason I stopped shooting film eons ago.
> 
> Now with my camera I basically select the aperture that I want for the shot (which requires understanding DOF), then the shutter speed that I need (requires understanding stopping motion with the subject) and put ISO to AUTO (or manual set it).  I usually don't have any issue when I do that, and I get the photo that I want.


yeah, that's more or less how I shoot with my Fuji, because it has a dedicated exposure comp dial, love manual control over Aperture and SS, auto ISO and a dedicated exposure comp. To me that's 99% of the time the perfect way to shoot.  With Nikon I usually shoot in either full manual or aperture priority mode with easy exposure comp.  Sometimes I'll use auto ISO, with manual, but then you have to press a button to get exposure comp, which just annoys me.


----------



## astroNikon (May 19, 2015)

What I also do, is auto iso, then I take it off of auto iso and set it where I want to, then compensate with the Shutter/Aperture until I get the exposure using the exposure indicator in the viewfinder, or exposure button & dial.
I'm kinda starting to learn change ISO then change shutter steps, etc.  But I don't do it often enough not to use the exposure indicator (on the viewfinder or LCD)


----------



## baturn (May 19, 2015)

Maybe you should teach reading skills before math!


----------



## Bebulamar (May 19, 2015)

If you look at the list by Sparky it's accurate and the correct rounding off of f/5.6 should be f/5.7 but we are all used to f/5.6. So it's best to remember the full stop sequence and next remember the 1/3 sequence. Or better yet forget about them all.


----------



## snowbear (May 19, 2015)

I just look on the lens barrel or in the viewfinder if it's a "G" Nikkor.


----------



## snowbear (May 19, 2015)

Double post . . . jammin' phone.


----------



## unpopular (May 19, 2015)

I've always found the clicks distracting anyway. I love lenses without stops, and even removed the stops from a few of my lenses completely - but, I also stop-down meter exclusively.


----------



## Solarflare (May 20, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> I don't calculate out that f/16 is 3 stops difference from f/8. I just know it. But at one point I did have to use the trick to get there instead of it being purely memorized.


 Err ... f8 to f16 would be 2 stops ?!?!?!?





fjrabon said:


> Do you consider yourself a beginner ?


 Well... probably not, though many here have more experience and skill.

But I just dont think you need that much help to learn this. All you ever need in practice is about f/1 to f/32. And thats few enough steps that you remember the numbers by heart very quickly.

Again, the thing that really helped me understand f-stops is that they are:

focal lenght / entry pupil size

After that, its very obvious/intuitive that its the diameter of an area, thus you need a 2x difference in f-numbers for 2 stops (4 times the amount) difference in light (etc), and sqrt(2) ~ 1.4 difference for 1 stop (2 times the amount) difference in light (etc) [because sqrt(2)*sqrt(2) = 2 by very definition of sqrt/square root].

It would be an interesting question if one couldnt use a more "intuitive" scale. Say you would invent the "inverse light parameter" which would just state how much the light is reduced, like:

ilp 1 = f/1
ilp 2 = f/1.4
ilp 4 = f/2
ilp 8 = f/2.8
ilp 16 = f/4
ilp 32 = f/5.6
ilp 64 = f/8
ilp 128 = f/11
ilp 256 = f/16
ilp 512 = f/22
ilp 1024 = f/32

For me as a programmer this wouldnt be very hard, but I guess thats (a) hard to write on a lens and (b) not so easy to memorize for any non-programmer.

What COULD make the whole system a lot easier is if we would use EV  (exposure value) for all 3 variables:

ISO 3 = FEV -5
ISO 6 = FEV -4
ISO 12 = FEV -3
ISO 25 = FEV -2
ISO 50 = FEV -1
ISO 100 = FEV 0 (FEV = Film/Sensor Exposure Value)
ISO 200 = FEV 1
ISO 400 = FEV 2
ISO 800 = FEV 3
ISO 1600 = FEV 4
ISO 3200 = FEV 5
ISO 6400 = FEV 6
ISO 12800 = FEV 7
ISO 25600 = FEV 8
ISO 51200 = FEV 9
ISO 102400 = FEV 10
ISO 204800 = FEV 11
ISO 409600 = FEV 12

But this would have the problem that companies could no longer broast about the ISO capabilities.



> A: "My camera manages ISO 800 well !"
> B: "My camera manages ISO 1600 well !"
> A: "Whow ! I need that camera, too !"



vs



> A: "My camera manages FEV 2 well !"
> B: "My camera manages FEV 3 well !"
> A: "Meh. I'm already almost as good as you are !"



f/.5 = AEV -2
f/.7 = AEV -1
f/1 = AEV 0 (AEV = Aperture Exposure Value)
f/1.4 = AEV 1
f/2 = AEV 2
f/2.8 = AEV 3
f/4 = AEV 4
f/5.6 = AEV 5
f/8 = AEV 6
f/11 = AEV 7
f/16 = AEV 8
f/22 = AEV 9
f/32 = AEV 10
f/44 = AEV 11
f/64 = AEV 12
f/88 = AEV 13
f/128 = AEV 14
f/172 = AEV 15
f/256 = AEV 16

I guess that would actually work quite smoothly.

1/8000 sec = TEV -14
1/4000 sec = TEV -13
1/2000 sec = TEV -12
1/1000 sec = TEV -11
1/500 sec = TEV -10
1/250 sec = TEV -9
1/125 sec = TEV -8
1/60 sec = TEV -7
1/30 sec = TEV -6
1/15 sec = TEV -5
1/8 sec = TEV -4
1/4 sec = TEV -2
1/2 sec = TEV -1
1 sec = TEV 0 (TEV = Time Exposure Value)

Now thats extremely non-intuitive for obvious reasons, plus one would have to use negative numbers all the friggin time.

Anyway then one could just compute

EV = FEV + AEV + TEV

That would be easier for a newbie.




runnah said:


> F-stops are for babies, call me when you get into t-stops.


 Just for the record, the "t" of T-stop is always written uppercase.

f stands for "focal length".

T stands for "transmission".


----------



## bribrius (May 20, 2015)

this entire thread pretty much went over my head. I just woke up and have a headache now. i shouldn't have opened it. lol
i just shoot
somehow it seems to come out.


----------



## fjrabon (May 20, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > I don't calculate out that f/16 is 3 stops difference from f/8. I just know it. But at one point I did have to use the trick to get there instead of it being purely memorized.
> ...



Some people do have trouble memorizing f/stops.  I guess you get a gold star because you had no trouble, but others do.

Again, would you feel compelled to write this many words on a thread entitled "how to tie your shoes" (well, it is you, so yeah, maybe you would, you'll write a thousand words on anything, except actual pictures).

THE THREAD IS NOT AIMED AT PEOPLE WHO HAD NO TROUBLE MEMORIZING F/STOPS, IT IS AIMED AT PEOPLE WHO DO HAVE TROUBLE.  Just because you had no trouble doesn't mean others didn't/don't.


----------



## Braineack (May 20, 2015)

everyone should tie their shoes like this:


----------



## Dave442 (May 20, 2015)

My first lenses stopped down as the aperture ring on the lens was closed, that made it much easier to associate what was happening as one changed the aperture. That camera also came with a little Gossen Pilot handheld light meter so it was easy to see the shutter speed and f/stop relation and play with that without having to take a picture.

Then my SLR had a depth of field preview button so I could not only see the aperture blades close down, but also the effect on how much was in focus. As that SLR did not have the aperture numbers in the viewfinder it was obvious a simple approach was to memorize the f-numbers on the lens so with each click you knew your f/stop without looking.

These days it's hard to actually see the relation between the f/stop and shutter speed right on the camera. One option is to put it in P mode and cycle through the numbers, and use the depth of field preview if available.


----------



## bribrius (May 20, 2015)

meh.... educating guessing. Depends on lens.  When i change fstops does the iso change to the same equivilent or light change to that actual equivilent. NO. Change your fstop and watch your light meter or iso. This isn't a exact science.


----------



## pjaye (May 20, 2015)

I don't understand by some people have to be such dick heads just because someone posts something that doesn't apply to them. It's really quite pathetic and is a huge reason why people have stopped coming here.  Seriously, if it doesn't apply to you, move on. This is the beginners forum and as such is aimed at beginners.  

New people don't want to post at the risk of getting ridiculed like what happened on here.  The op said MANY times that this was directed to beginners. Some of you need to work on your reading comprehension and your manners.


----------



## bribrius (May 20, 2015)

big tpf hugs all around. lol

My only point was, while this will help in a "approximate" i wouldn't read it like the bible.
At some point like sunny 16 you have to come to the terms of knowing your camera and lens and admitting you are "winging it"


----------



## table1349 (May 20, 2015)

Here is an idea, not a new idea, just an idea.

Download.........Print........Put in Camera Bag for Reference. 






Nothing left to see here folks.  Move along, move along.


----------



## pjaye (May 20, 2015)

bribrius said:


> big tpf hugs all around. lol
> 
> My only point was, while this will help in a "approximate" i wouldn't read it like the bible.
> At some point like sunny 16 you have to come to the terms of knowing your camera and lens and admitting you are "winging it"



I'm trying to find d the part of the original post where it says that his way is the only way, and should be read like the bible.  Can't seem to find  that part.  Can you point it out to me please?

All I see is someone new posting one of their tips that might just help another new photographer. But it seems new people aren't allowed to do that.


----------



## Alexr25 (May 20, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > I don't calculate out that f/16 is 3 stops difference from f/8. I just know it. But at one point I did have to use the trick to get there instead of it being purely memorized.
> ...


You're on the right track but not quite there, the real  EV system is somewhat simpler. See Photographic Science Exposure  for a good description of how the EV system really works.


----------



## limr (May 20, 2015)

Alexr25 said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



Meh. This is better. Skip to the end for the charts that can be printed and carried around. Done.

Ultimate Exposure Computer


----------



## unpopular (May 20, 2015)

It doesn't matter how bright the sun is. What matters is how much light is actually reflecting off the subject, and how that subject is to be rendered in the image relative to the rest of the scene.

Photography isn't about light - it's about exposure.


----------



## unpopular (May 20, 2015)

> 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.*



-ultimate exposure computer website

Is this guy serious? I mean? REALLY?

I don't even know where to begin with that. Of course it's true. But it's hardly a problem, it's the foundation of zone system measurements.

I am really confused by this website. It seems clear that this person knows his or her way around, but is all hung up on exposure compensation?!


----------



## table1349 (May 20, 2015)

Ok Gang everyone pick a character and three power card and let the geekie battle begin.


----------



## bribrius (May 20, 2015)

unpopular said:


> It doesn't matter how bright the sun is. What matters is how much light is actually reflecting off the subject, and how that subject is to be rendered in the image relative to the rest of the scene.
> 
> Photography isn't about light - it's about exposure.


i dunno. i MIght have misunderstood this statement. say my kid is standing in a heavily shadowed section of the frame under a tree. I have fifty feet of lead up to him in the bright sun that isn't in the shadow. Am i going to meter for him, so he looks like he isn't in a shadow and blow out the entire foreground with over exposure?  This seems to be what most people are doing. Me personally, would just crank up the shutter, let him remain shadowed so he looks normal and not blow out the foreground. so yeah, kind of like matrix, i do factor in the light.


----------



## Derrel (May 20, 2015)

unpopular said:


> > 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.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ummmmm...*you obviously have ZERO idea of who Fred Picker was*, or how astoundingly accomplished he was as a technician and photographer. Seriously, you've embarrassed yourself greatly with this post. You basically just said, "Joe Montana...is this guy serious about his on-TV NFL quarterback analysis? This guy don't know chit about quarterbacking...WTF was the network thinking about when they hired this,this,this Montana guy?"

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

Maybe Google Fred Picker and Zone VI.  Then get a biiiig egg-wiping bedsheet.


----------



## bribrius (May 20, 2015)

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.


----------



## bribrius (May 20, 2015)

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.


----------



## astroNikon (May 20, 2015)

Braineack said:


> everyone should tie their shoes like this:


Yeah, but he cheated.
He already did the bottom knot !!




unpopular said:


> It doesn't matter how bright the sun is. What matters is how much light is actually reflecting off the subject, and how that subject is to be rendered in the image relative to the rest of the scene.


I was going to make a joke that I take pictures of objects that have NO light reflecting off of it ... the sun (and other stars)    it generates it's own light.


----------



## Philmar (May 20, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Too much math.  I just memorize the numbers.


Too much brain power required to memorize the numbers. I have a tattoo.


----------



## Derrel (May 20, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> Interesting shot that tells a story (sic).





bribrius said:


> 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?
> ...



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 "l*earn 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...


----------



## Braineack (May 20, 2015)

Derrel said:


> 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 (May 20, 2015)

Braineack said:
			
		

> yeah but do you even shoot M?



Yeah, but do you even lift, bro?


----------



## Braineack (May 20, 2015)

7 plates.


----------



## fjrabon (May 20, 2015)

bribrius said:


> 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 (May 20, 2015)

Braineack said:
			
		

> 7 plates.



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


----------



## unpopular (May 20, 2015)

Derrel said:


> 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 (May 20, 2015)

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 (May 20, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...


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 (May 20, 2015)

Derrel said:


> 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 (May 20, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting shot that tells a story (sic).
> ...


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 (May 20, 2015)

Oh, and BTW - I looked up Fred Picker.

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


----------



## bribrius (May 20, 2015)

Braineack said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > 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....
> ...


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 (May 20, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting shot that tells a story (sic).
> ...


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


----------



## bribrius (May 20, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Fred Berg said:
> ...


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


----------



## limr (May 20, 2015)

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.


----------



## Overread (May 20, 2015)

I think we have gone as far as beginners need to go with this topic - especially as some have decided to be immature. 

If any wish to continue to debate some of the more complex interactions and aspects of exposure and metering please head to the beyond the basics and have a new thread in there.


----------

