# 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

Stradawhovious said:


> 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

Boomn4x4 said:


> ... 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

clanthar said:


> 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

Stradawhovious said:


> 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

Geaux said:


> 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

clanthar said:


> 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:


----------



## Darkhunter139

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## guitar guy

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

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

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

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
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## white

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

NO WAI


----------



## reznap




----------



## 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

ababysean said:


> 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

erose86 said:


> ababysean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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"
Click to expand...

 

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&#8217;m not a beginner, and I&#8217;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&#8217;t cause his audience to do really big screw-ups.

The depth-of-field quote&#8230;  it&#8217;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&#8217;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 &#8220;cloudy&#8221; setting to warm up the pictures.  That&#8217;s a personal preference.  He suggested using the &#8220;tungsten&#8221; setting to get really deep blues&#8230;  also something worth experimenting with to decide if it works for you.

As for factual errors &#8211; all books have them, including textbooks.  No news there.  I&#8217;m willing to bet that when we compare internet information, we&#8217;ll find many more mistakes&#8230;  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

ababysean said:


> 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

Bitter Jeweler said:


> You should write a book then.


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


----------



## traylorc

white said:


> 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

JAFO28 said:


> 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

reznap said:


> JAFO28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Sarcasm is a wonderful thing.


----------



## pbelarge

JAFO28 said:


> 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.


 

Just what the world needs, much better photographers...


----------



## reznap

JAFO28 said:


> Sarcasm is a wonderful thing.



I'm much better at picking up on it in spoken vs. written words.  /shrug


----------



## cfusionpm

Seekwence said:


> But his videos are so awesome!
> 
> YouTube - Creative Macro Photography with Bryan Peterson


 
_Orange_ slice against _Blue_ paper?!?!?!  HERESY!


----------



## 12sndsgood

clanthar said:


> ababysean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

 

did he offer up the pieces you have problems with as being fact and being absolutes? or did maybe he just not go into more detail on the subject explaining things more to your liking. maybe he decided when writing the book that he would go into the general guidelines of the whole 1/3 3/4 deapth issue in a very basic way and he felt for his readers and this book that he didnt want to get too in deapth with the subject and risk confusing the reader.


----------



## jake337

It's just a starter book, like the ones people get with their D5000's and whatnot.  You can also just learn by what the camera does


----------



## Robin Usagani

Thats it.. im growing out my hair.


----------



## bazooka

He reminds me of a used car salesman. That aside, I liked the video.


----------



## Bram

Then why don't you write a book? Become famous, rich, and a great "author". ???


----------



## DVC Mike

Stradawhovious said:


> I recommend reading Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.


 
I agree. It's a great book for people learning photography.


----------



## usayit

stop reading....  use the tools you got to shoot and experiment with different exposures and light.   Heck... it's easier now than ever since you can instantly see the results of subtle changes during the experimentation.


----------



## subscuck

usayit said:


> stop reading.... use the tools you got to shoot and experiment with different exposures and light. Heck... it's easier now than ever since you can instantly see the results of subtle changes during the experimentation.


 
While I mostly agree with this, many people, myself included, need points of reference, base lines, etc., when learning any new skill. Books like Peterson's supply these. I also regularly recommend any and all books by Kelby. For the pro or advanced ammy, there's not a whole lot there. For the total noob or person just starting to put it all together, Kelby's books are great. There are also people on teh internets who dislike Kelby. Easily 80% of what I can do with Photoshop is thanks to Kelby, the other 20% is from other books/forums/people I know/playing around with it. I guess what I'm trying to say is, the learning curve is steeper for some than others. Books written for the former will generally disappoint the latter. You have to find the tools that fit your location on the learning curve.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

To stop reading books is about the stoopidest thing I ever heard.


----------



## kundalini

I have a tendency to read my users/owners manual first.

This is a BS thread started by someone who just wants to stir the $h1tpot with a paddle. For beginners, the book Understanding Exposure is a damn good start. The analogies brought up in the OP are suspect to begin with. There certainly can be omissions at this level, WTF do you expect from a beginners book?


----------



## usayit

My point was that any of these instructional books are about the technical parts of Taking a photo....  better photography comes from practice and experimentation .  Obviously the book isn't the right level of reading for the OP.

Just like buying a nice camera doesn't making you a better photographer neither does reading a book


sheesh ...  yes.  the tpf has ceased to amaze me,


----------



## magkelly

I found Peterson's books and video to be very useful. In his defense he says his "rules" are suggestions and that he feels they are meant to be broken. That's just how he works sometimes, against what you're supposed to do. It works for him, obviously.  

In his books he talks a lot about being technically perfect versus being artistically creative. About making the choice to be imperfect basically. For what it's worth I sometimes agree with that approach, though not always. Some of his suggestions are a bit unorthodox, but I've found a few of them produce results that are interesting in actual practice.  

Don't know Rockwell so I'm not going to comment there. Kelby I like, but more so to read than watch. His videos, the ones he actually does tend to be on the boring side sometimes, I think. I admittedly sometimes find them a bit hard to watch regardless of the validity of the information presented. 

Peterson's actually not trying to be technically perfect. 

To his credit he often says so.


----------

