# Specific question about "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson



## Jon_Are (May 19, 2009)

[FONT=&quot]If youll open your text to page 15:mrgreen:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Peterson is writing about how tricky lighting situations can fool the cameras meter. The photo he uses as an example on this page  the man in front of a brightly-lit building  is presented as a successful exposure.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I wouldnt call that exposure anything near successful. The background is horribly blown out. I would think the way to capture a correct exposure in this scene would require some fill flash.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I understand he is making a point, but it looks as though he is presenting that image as properly exposed; something to strive toward.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Comments?[/FONT]


Jon
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]


----------



## Big Mike (May 19, 2009)

I don't have the book but...

I think that sometimes we get too caught up thinking about 'what could have been done better' or with 'such & such extra equipment'.  

It wasn't all that long ago that photographers shot with film and did little or no post processing to many of their images.  (not counting darkroom dwellers).  If you had a shot with a wide range of tones, you needed to recognize that and expose for what is the most important aspect of you image.  

If the man is more important that the bright building in the background, then I'd say that it's perfectly acceptable to have the building blown out, if the man is well exposed.


----------



## Jon_Are (May 19, 2009)

> it's perfectly acceptable to have the building blown out, if the man is well exposed.



I'm genuinely surprised to learn this; I never would have thought this would be considered acceptable (particularly when it could have, I think, been avoided).

Jon


----------



## JerryPH (May 19, 2009)

I do... and it *is* a successful image of a properly exposed picture as long as you understand 2 small points:

- never ever does the book touch on anything more than ambient light exposure, so the word "flash" is not in the book and never taken into consideration.  

- The subject is a man against a brighter background.  To properly expose him, you have no choice (within the context of the conversation and the book) other than blow-out the background to get a proper exposure of the subject.  Yes, this is a perfectly acceptable practice.  If I take away your flashes... what else could you do if I pointed to that man, and gave you 3 seconds to get his picture, perfectly exposed??

Yes, we can set the camera to properly expose for the background and fill-flash the heck out of the underexposed subject to get both the foreground and background in play... but that is not the point of the exercise, since the book is not about anything other than ambient light and understanding exposure from that perspective.


----------



## Big Mike (May 19, 2009)

Maybe it could have been avoided with the use of another light source (flash or reflector etc)...but that may be well beyond the scope of the example in the book.  

Personally, I think it's important to learn what you can and cannot do with a single photographic exposure and existing light.  

Once you have a good handle on that, and then learn to use additional lighting, you should be able to recognize a situation that does exceed the dynamic range of your camera and what the best options are for capturing a more even exposure.  This is where a more advanced photographer might do better than a rank amateur.  
Like you said, it 'could have been avoided'.

Remember, this is a book called 'Understanding Exposure'...not 'Mastering Exposure & lighting'.


Also consider the circumstances.  If the opportunity happens in real time, maybe you don't have time to set up lighting, you have one second to get the shot and you don't have your flash ready (or you are out of range, or just don't want to use flash)...in this case, you need to know how to expose for the important part of the image and not worry about the rest.  

If you look at the many of 'the best' documentary and photojournalist images from round the world...they are often full of things that we might consider to be easy to avoid mistakes...but that doesn't matter, it's all about the subject and capturing a moment in time.


----------



## Baaaark (May 28, 2009)

It seems like in a beginner's book he could have used a better example, but someone told me the best photos are done when people know the rules of photos, and how to bend them accordingly.

But yeah.  I have the book too, and I went and looked at it after reading this.  He probably should have used a better example, or at least one that didn't confuse people as much.


----------



## Overread (May 28, 2009)

I agree very much with Mike and Jerry - its not that the image is confusing as its "wrong" its that its getting you to think more about what is right in an image for you. If perfect exposure over the whole image is what is correct for you first in an image then your photography will suffer since whilst perfect exposures are desirable out in the field and almost essential for studio work (where one has full control over lighting and subject) its only one half of the battle - the other is the subject itself and the composition of the image. For many this is often the key part of any shot - a shot of a bear attacking a seal - you won't care if the sky is or is not blown out - sure a perfect exposure is better and desirable, but as the others rightly said, in the field we don't always have access or time to have that higher level of control - so you either make do with what you have and get the shot, correctly exposing the key parts or you walk away


----------



## Montana (May 28, 2009)

Often times in bright daylight sports shots where flash is not allowed, I have to settle for similar "perfect exposures".  Its a matter of exposing properly the subject you intend.  My most often example of this happens at horse races during mid-day.  No flash, black horse=blown out sky.  It doesn't make for the most pleasing shots as a general rule, but it is what it is.


----------



## Gaerek (May 28, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> > it's perfectly acceptable to have the building blown out, if the man is well exposed.
> 
> 
> I'm genuinely surprised to learn this; I never would have thought this would be considered acceptable (particularly when it could have, I think, been avoided).
> ...



I don't have the book, but I did a quick search for it and learned it was originally written in 1990. Digital photography was in it's infancy (as in, there were no commercially available consumer level digital cameras) and so everyone from the newest photographer to the best pro was shooting film. As Big Mike said, since there was little post processing done by shooters who didn't have access to a dark room, if you didn't have the right equipment with you, you basically had to expose for what was important to you in the image. Today, with photoshop, digital cameras with histograms and built in flashes, that would probably not be considered a great photo (I haven't seen the photo, so I can't make my own real judgement).

Let me entertain you with an anecdote. I first got into photography my Junior year of high school when my Dad gave me his old Canon AE-1 that he had bought a few months before I was born (early 1981). This is a nearly completely manual SLR (though it had a rudimentary version of shutter priority). Manual focus, manual shutter, manual aperture, no on board fill flash, etc. Because I had chosen photography as my Senior project, I had to find a mentor. I talked to a local pro photographer, and he took me under his wing for the next year or so. During my first 5 or 6 rolls of film, I started seeing a trend that was very frustrating to me. It was that in many cases either my subject or my background was properly exposed, not both. I thought I was doing something wrong, so I went and talked to my mentor about it. He told me that the only thing I could do was choose what was important to me in the photo and expose for that. I was frustrated with his answer, but I got over it and realized that was a limitation of the medium.

The bottom line is, that book is very good, from what I understand, at giving you the basics of exposure. But it was written in a different time, with a different medium. 20 years ago, that would probably have been considered good exposure.


----------



## epp_b (May 28, 2009)

A "successful exposure" is any exposure that gives you the photo you imagined before you pressed the shutter button.

For example, I intentionally blew out the light coming from doors in the following photo by spot metering one of the darkest points in the photo.  The result is exactly what I imagined this photo to be before I even pressed the shutter:


----------



## Dagwood56 (May 28, 2009)

I have this book and just looked at the photo on page 15 - I've looked at it many times in the past without really even noticing what you mention because the man is properly exposed and he is what I looked at. Now if the shot had been taken at a greater distance away, instead of up close as it was, then I agree the blown out building in the background would be a issue, but as is I feel its acceptable.


----------



## Overread (May 28, 2009)

Gaerek I have to disagree - whilst film has its limitations so to does digital - infact digital cameras still don't have the same dynamic range that film cameras are capable of. ITs got a lot better than it was but still for the averge person the digital camera does not have as great a dynamic range as the film camera. Thus today things are actually harder on the digital photographer than before (all the photoshop in the world can't get back details in a blown out sky or underexposed shadow - all the camera records is white or black in those cases - thus no details to restore to).
There are tricks, like double exposures and then using tonemapping/hdr to combine them into a single exposure, but still we are limited if we take a single exposure in the same way as film is limited. 
As for the book whilst it was originally written in the film era it has had serveral revisions since then so a new copy bought today fully takes into account the digital world - the lessons of film still very much appy since digital is still working with the same laws of physics.


----------



## Overread (May 28, 2009)

epp_b said:


> A "successful exposure" is any exposure that gives you the photo you imagined before you pressed the shutter button.



I agree though remember people it takes a lot of experience in the field to that one understands what the camera is capable of - it has limits - understanding those lets you accuratly envision the image before you press the shutter.


----------



## Jon_Are (May 28, 2009)

OP here...

I understand what everyone is saying, and I don't really disagree with it.

I do feel, however, that the author could have done a better job explaining much of what was explained in the posts above. Instead, it was more like, "Here - this is a good exposure," with no acknowledgment at all of the horribly over-exposed building, nor an explanation of why, in this case, it is acceptable.

Remember, this book is aimed at those wishing to learn about exposure; many would be, I presume, beginners.

Or maybe I was the only one confused by this.

Jon


----------



## Overread (May 28, 2009)

I think its just that the views expressed here are what I understood as the general aim of the whole book - I think you have to read it all then go back and look again for the specific examples to really make sense rather than to just see them alone.


----------



## JerryPH (May 28, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> Remember, this book is aimed at those wishing to learn about exposure; many would be, I presume, beginners.
> Or maybe I was the only one confused by this.



The book is aimed at beginners.  Proper flash usage is not what I would call a beginner concept.  Basic understanding of ISO, aperture, shutter and the interplay is what I would call the basics.  The book doesn't even have the words flash or strobe once in it anywhere (I scanned my book into PDF format for my own personal usage and just searched, so I am 100% sure about that).  It is not a topic even remotely discussed or touched on.  

It is non-sequitor to say that the picture is incorrect, becuase within the context of the book, within the confines of what the author is discussing and trying to teach at that moment, he is 100% technically correct.

Without a flash, because there is zero discussion about a flash in this book, if your subject is back-lit and you want to get a proper exposure of your subject in the current location because you cannot move them for whatever reason, there is NO OTHER way to get that proper exposure of your subject unless you blow out the background.

But just like anything in photography, there are many ways to skin a cat, and just becuase it is not in that book, doesn't make it wrong or right... it just means it is not in that book and in this case, context is everything.  You cannot really criticize Bryon Peterson for not discussing flash, this was a conscious decision he made when the book is written.  It is about shutter speed, ISO and aperture... and how to use these 3 things to get an exposure... nothing else.


----------



## Gaerek (May 28, 2009)

Overread said:


> Gaerek I have to disagree - whilst film has its limitations so to does digital - infact digital cameras still don't have the same dynamic range that film cameras are capable of. ITs got a lot better than it was but still for the averge person the digital camera does not have as great a dynamic range as the film camera. Thus today things are actually harder on the digital photographer than before (all the photoshop in the world can't get back details in a blown out sky or underexposed shadow - all the camera records is white or black in those cases - thus no details to restore to).
> There are tricks, like double exposures and then using tonemapping/hdr to combine them into a single exposure, but still we are limited if we take a single exposure in the same way as film is limited.
> As for the book whilst it was originally written in the film era it has had serveral revisions since then so a new copy bought today fully takes into account the digital world - the lessons of film still very much appy since digital is still working with the same laws of physics.



I have to disagree with you in regards to saying that film has a higher dynamic range than a digital sensor. According to the research I've done, film has a DR of around 7 stops whereas a good digital sensor can have a DR over 10 stops. Even a so-so sensor has a DR advantage over film. One website that confirms this, with research is Clarkvision: Film versus Digital Summary. Scroll about half way down. There are certainly other advantages of film over digital, but dynamic range isn't one of them.

However, this issue goes beyond dynamic range. When I was referring to features of digital, my point was that it was easier to get the exposure right in camera with digital. In addition, with the tools we have available now (ACR, photoshop, etc.) it's a lot easier to bring details out of the shadows and highlights than with film. Of course, people who used dark rooms extensively had those options available also.

Personally, I agree with the consensus. If the exposure turned out how you wanted it, you have correct exposure. Simple as that.


----------



## Baaaark (May 28, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> OP here...
> 
> I understand what everyone is saying, and I don't really disagree with it.
> 
> ...



You aren't.  Like I said, with a guy who is as good as him, and someone who has tons of awesome photos he could have picked from, he could have put a photo in there that wouldn't make people question him.

But its a great book anyway.  One moot point is hardly enough to keep me from saying this book is awesome.


----------



## Jon_Are (May 28, 2009)

> It is non-sequitor to say that the picture is incorrect, becuase within the context of the book, within the confines of what the author is discussing and trying to teach at that moment, he is 100% technically correct.


Yeah, I get that. And you'd know I got it if you had read my last post (the one you quoted from).

My point (again) is this: it might have been helpful if he had explained as much. Something along the lines of _Now at first glance, this image seems to be an incorrect exposure; however, due to the conditions and limitations blah blah blah...

_*That *would have been a good lesson for a beginner.



> But its a great book anyway.  One moot point is hardly enough to keep me from saying this book is awesome.


I totally agree.

Jon


----------



## Overread (May 29, 2009)

Gaerek I am sure I have read that film was closer to 12 stops of dynamic range but honestly its going beyond what I know solidly. All I can say is that the idea of film being more forgiving with dynamic range is one that I have read a lot from many film/digital shooters.

As for the easier digital it seems, a bit, as if your comparing those who didn't do much darkroom work with film to those who do comparativly more digital editing today. I will agree with you that its far easier and quicker to do editing today than it was in the past, but I think it unfair to compare edited a non-edited shots - especailly when film shooters today can scan film into computers and then perform digital editing on those results. Remembering of course that pure blacks and Pure whites (from a digital shot) have no details to restore.
As for exposure I am sure noone will disagree that digital is far easier to get in camera perfection with histograms and the like


----------



## Dao (May 29, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> My point (again) is this: it might have been helpful if he had explained as much. Something along the lines of _Now at first glance, this image seems to be an incorrect exposure; however, due to the conditions and limitations blah blah blah...
> _


Well, the name of the book is "Understanding Exposure".   I am sure after you read the book, and raise this question, you already understand the exposure.  And this is what this book is all about.  Now you can proceed to the "Understanding Exposure with advance lightning"


Imaging a beginner do not understand anything.  Bought this book and start reading. He/she see all the photos/example in the book are super good because every one of them use advance techniques and post processing.  Do you think the beginner will understand how the author achieve the result?  Maybe yes, or most likely no.

I think that photo is a good example to show the reader what is the meaning of proper exposure.


----------



## Jon_Are (May 29, 2009)

> I think that photo is a good example to show the reader what is the meaning of proper exposure.



Yeah, I get that. But it would have been a more useful example if he had just explai.....

....ah, nevermind.  :banghead:


Jon


----------



## Gaerek (May 29, 2009)

Overread said:


> Gaerek I am sure I have read that film was closer to 12 stops of dynamic range but honestly its going beyond what I know solidly. All I can say is that the idea of film being more forgiving with dynamic range is one that I have read a lot from many film/digital shooters.
> 
> As for the easier digital it seems, a bit, as if your comparing those who didn't do much darkroom work with film to those who do comparativly more digital editing today. I will agree with you that its far easier and quicker to do editing today than it was in the past, but I think it unfair to compare edited a non-edited shots - especailly when film shooters today can scan film into computers and then perform digital editing on those results. Remembering of course that pure blacks and Pure whites (from a digital shot) have no details to restore.
> As for exposure I am sure noone will disagree that digital is far easier to get in camera perfection with histograms and the like



First off, I think this is a great conversations.  Unfortunately, I think we're hijacking a bit, but it's somewhat related to the context of the thread. As I said, dynamic range has less to do with this whole issue than other factors. For every source (with research and experiments) that says film has a better DR than digital, there's a source (with research and experiments) that says digital has better DR than film. I'll call it a wash and say they are about equal in that area. Anyway, I digress.

Here is what I've learned about the book, from reading through this thread. It's for beginners. These are people with very little gear, and limited resources as far as post production. It even assumes all you have is a camera. Whether you shoot digital or film, without post processing, without spilt neutral density filters, without fill flash, etc, the author seems to be showing that you need to make sure your subject is exposed correctly. It is virtually impossible to get your subject and background properly exposed if they are lit differently. Even though your camera (film or digital) can properly expose the entire dynamic range of the shot, if the foreground and background are more than one stop (technically, any difference in lighting) apart, you cannot expose both properly.

In the end, the proper exposure is what you envisioned. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people tell me something is improperly exposed. It's an artistic choice as much as it is a technical choice. I tend to like shots that are a bit underexposed. Some people like shots that are a bit overexposed. In the end, if the author of that book says the shot is properly exposed, then it is properly exposed because he was the photographer, and he got the exposure he wanted.


----------



## Gaerek (May 29, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> > I think that photo is a good example to show the reader what is the meaning of proper exposure.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I get that. But it would have been a more useful example if he had just explai.....
> ...



I think you're of the thinking that there is always a proper exposure. Maybe that would be nice for a beginner, but at the same time, he shouldn't have to explain it. If he says the shot is properly exposed, guess what, it's properly exposed. Maybe he's trying to show there's different interpretations of what's properly exposed. Without the book for context, I couldn't tell you. Maybe he wants people to question whether it's properly exposed, so he can explain himself (albeit, indirectly) later in the book.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Proper exposure is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Jon_Are (May 29, 2009)

> I think you're of the thinking that there is always a proper exposure.



No, I'm not. I'm really not. There is not just ONE exposure that is correct. It is artistic, it is subjective. If the shooter acquires the image he or she is after, it is a successful exposure. I cannot tell you that your exposure is 'wrong', because it is probably 'right' for you. I get it. I do. I really do. 

My point is this: Because this is an entry-level book, a sentence explaining the above would have been helpful to me.

At this point I'm just repeating what I said way back in posts #14, #19 and #22.

Jon


----------



## Moglex (May 30, 2009)

Jon_Are said:


> > I think you're of the thinking that there is always a proper exposure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jon, if it's any consolation I can see *exactly* what you getting at and I agree entirely.

There's a known problem with experts reviewing books for beginners in that the expert already knows in some detail exactly what the book is about and so what to the target audience appears to be a confusing text with important chunks of information missing or glossed over appears to the expert as a masterful and precise introduction to the subject.


----------



## Jon_Are (May 30, 2009)

> Jon, if it's any consolation I can see *exactly* what you getting at and I agree entirely.


 

Thanks, Moglex. Now I'll let it drop. I promise. :mrgreen:

Jon


----------

