This is easily the worst book I've ever read.
Washed up retards like this need to retire
>Doesn't know about diffraction
>Gets mad when science proves him wrong and Considered Harmful
>Doesn't know the word bokeh
>Falls for honeypot modes like manual instead of aperture/ shutter priority
>Wants and uses bad in-camera post processing instead of doing it in post
>Shitty autistic analogies and cringe explanations like sky brothers
He makes Ken Rockwell look like a genius
>>2841996
Manual is the way to go in most cases.
Diffraction only causes problems when you crop waaay in. Seriously, stay away from cropping, fill the frame when you take the shot.
Bokeh is a shitty hip word for out of focus areas.
>>2842030
A common misconception is that M stands for Manual mode. In reality it stands for "i don't understand how the different Meter settings behave" mode.
3 pages in and it's already got more good content than the entirety of "Peterson embarrasses himself in print form"
>>2842030
>Boy I've sure got a high quality imaging system
>What would be good to add
>I know, let's cripple the resolution with horrific diffraction! Shoot away at f/32 XDD
>>2842045
Whoops wrong image
Now this is a good book from an artist, not a generic outdated stockshitter.
fuck phones sometimes
>>2841996
Wew lad it hasn't even been a month since last thred
Looks like someone is anal crippled for not being able to understand the exposure triangle.
>>2842063
Generally I get annoyed with that sort of thing too, but this book gets suggested here with such regularity, I'm willing to deal with a bit of redundancy and annoyance if it means more people get the message that it's a waste of money and filled with bad information.
>claims to understand exposure
>Doesnt understand danger of high fstop
This is seriously the worst high rated thing I've ever seen
>mfw he tries to how you should walk up to a person's face to fill the frame and set exposure
>Mfw this man has never learned to spot meter
>this thread
I smell underage. It's disgusting.
>>2842088
take a bath then
>It's this thread again
>>2842041
>In reality it stands for "i don't understand how the different Meter settings behave" mode.
But I don't. Or white balancing either. Or dynamic range.
Why do people shill for this garbage?
>>2842158
Because they don't know any better, were never taught good priorities or practices, or because it's easier than explaining it all yourself.
Also does this guy even know about levels in Photoshop?
I swear his brain is programmed for film or he's never used a sensor from this decade
He shoots fucking Nikon too he has NO excuse.
I think his brain would explode if someone told him about mirrorless
>>2841996
How could you possibly write an entire book on exposure?
It's literally you need X amount of light and you can either open the shutter longer, use bigger light hole or use more sensitive photosensor.
also your camera will use japanese magick to do pretty much all of it for you
the end
>>2841996
I've watched a couple of his videos on Adorama TV (or wherever) and 30 seconds watching him try to garble his way through photography basics like a mix between Micky Rourke and Sylvester Stallone made me decide I didn't need any information he may have had.
I sincerely hope he ends his own deprecated life voluntarily
I wish /p/ would write a book
