So someone on here suggested that I read Bryan Peterson's understanding exposure. I bought the 3rd edition from 2010. But I didn't notice that a 4th one had come out the 15th of March this year. I'm half way through the 3rd edition, should I stop here and start reading the newer version now? Or will the 3rd edition suffice?
Thanks in advance.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 365 Image Height 450 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2803389
You're fine. Nothing has changed.
>>2803390
Great thanks
>>2803389
This is the exact kind of thing the stupid questions thread is for.
>>2803395
Great thanks
I don't know why people like this book that much. The whole thing can be summarised in one paragraph. His Understanding Composition book is a lot better.
>>2803433
This is idiotic bait. Ignore this troll.
>>2803435
No, it is not. The whole book is a long-winded explanation of SS-Aperture-ISO with an unnecessary amount of anecdotes that just waste the readers time and don't add any value for the learner. It's not that difficult. You literally pull levers until the image has the right brightness. The SS lever also freezes or blurs motion. The aperture lever makes background blurry or sharp. The ISO lets you get more light at the cost of noise. Congrats, you don't need to read the book now and have just saved fifteen bucks and a couple of hours that you could now use to take great pictures.
>>2803438
I was hoping you were just pretending to be an idiot, but no, you weren't. You are an idiot (as is anyone who adheres to such reductivism).
>>2803441
Bro, you're not going to appear anything other than an assblasted fanatic if you start insulting everyone who criticises whatever it is you like for lacking content. Bryan takes nice pictures, but he has the writing discipline of a teenager on fanfic.net. Get over yourself.
>>2803450
>implying I'm the one who obsessively replies to every mention of this book with
>DUR I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE LIKE THIS. I CAN TELL OYU EZPOZURE IN A SENTENCE!
>>2803451
What? This is the first time I post on account of this book. Jesus Christ, what a pathetic twat you are.
>>2803453
Sure thing guy.
>>2803455
Yes, it is.
>>2803459
I'm new to this thread and know that's not true.
>>2803460
No, you are not, but I can see why you would need to read this book, if you are so technically inept to think that anyone would believe you.
>>2803464
>even though I can see him when he closes his eyes, he can't see me when I close mine.
>>2803438
It's actually not that simple. Other details to include are exposure compensation or different metering modes. The meter is extremely important because it affects how your camera is reading the scene and calculating exposure, assuming you're doing TTL metering through the lens.
The exposure trinagle itself is not just dialing in a few settings in order to get the correct exposure. When you're setting each point on the triangle, you're making critical artistic and creative decisions, and often times you have to make some trade offs. If you're shooting in the dark without a tripod, do you raise the ISO more so the image is stopped down and sharper, albeit grainier? Or do you open up the aperture, which throws more of the image out of focus? And if you're doing a long exposure, how long should it be in order to create the desired effect? If you're trying to freeze a fast moving object or animal, how high should your ISO be, and is the necessary ISO going to create an image that's unusable?
If you don't care that much about the final image so long as it looks good or presentable, that's one thing. But if you're trying to really "own" the shot and take care when shooting it, it becomes an entirely different animal.
>>2803697
the book is shit get over it
>>2803769
>no guise really! I'm a different guy!
>>2803697
It being that simple is my only point of disagreement with you. Everything else you have said is what I summarised already, albeit longer.
>>2803441
>(as is anyone who adheres to such reductivism)
oh the irony
I don't know. I bought the older version few years back after seeing great reviews, thinking it will explain to me something I did not know. It didn't. There wasn't really anything useful in the book beyond a basic introduction.
However, then I read Adams' trilogy and it's awesome, especially if you are a technically minded person.
>>2803827
That's because it is aimed at complete newbies. You are complaining because you already knew about basics. It's like a highschooler complaining about an elementary math book not teaching anything new.
You might not be a newbie but you are a complete idiot.
>>2803827
Yeah, it's basically a slightly more detailed version of the manual. Not really sure why /p/ suggests it to everyone, because really it doesn't have anything particularly novel.
>>2803840
It's not only aimed at complete newbies, it's aimed at highly technically illiterate people with poor education. None of the concepts explained in the book are very complicated and most of the explanations used in it are a bit akin to how you would explain things to a kindergartner. You can get an equally good explanation for most of the concepts explained in the book from the vimeo video in the sticky.
>>2803903
It's probably a good book if you completely fail to understand exposure after looking at a couple of YouTube videos.
>>2803840
Sure, but based on the fact that people suggested it on photography websites, I assumed it was information useful for people that frequent those websites, which would be photographers.
As I said, that was a bunch of years ago...
>>2803943
>It's not only aimed at complete newbies, it's aimed at highly technically illiterate people with poor education.
You mean Casuals, right?
>>2803986
Just technically illiterate people. Photography does not require a great deal of education or technical abilities. This is a book precisely for this kind of person.
>>2803827
>However, then I read Adams' trilogy
Protip: it's not a trilogy, and the book that you left out is actually super relevant to this thread.
