Dont quite understand

HornetSting

HornetSting

Messages
321
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Im reading 'Understanding Exposure' by Bryan Peterson, and am having a bit of trouble understanding something, not sure if its specific to my camera or not (D5000).

It says about being in 'manual' mode and setting the aperture size and then adjust your shutter speed until the 'correct exposure is indicated in the viewfinder'. Thats whats getting me, what will the viewfinder be saying to let me know that it is the correct exposure?

I just cant quite get my head around it, just dont really know what I am looking for, and am presuming that my camera will tell me this when it is correct.

Can anyone shed a little more light on it, so that I can start to experiment and help me to understand what I am doing.

Thanks
 
Is there not a bar or little graph which moves? A good way to test is look through the viewfinder, out your window, and turn to face a dark corner of your room. If something moves on the internal display, chances are it's your light meter indicating exposure accuracy :)

In my Nikon D3, the exposure bar runs down the right hand side of the internal display, it has an arrow pointing skyward, then lots of wee bars, down to an arrow pointing down. Their is a sliding scale which moves depending on the light detected :)

Gary.
 
Last edited:
most DSLR's have a small bar
(heres what it looks like on a canon 1000D)
vf.png

and there should be a little bar that moves across that range as you adjust your exposure settings (speed, iso etc)
so when its to the left - underexposed
when its to the right - overexposed
(i think thats correct anyway)
and when its bang in the middle - spot on with the exposure. :)

hope that helps

Matty
 
Last edited:
HornetSting said:
Thanks guys. Nice one Tony, I was just having a look at that, and realised that it would indicate under/over exposure, and figured that if its in the centre then the exposure is correct!?
Click to expand...

thats correct :)
hope that solves your problem
 
Curious to know Ben, whats the book like - just that I was thinking of getting it, but didn't quite know anyone who has actually got it... You read reviews on the likes of Amazon but then they're mainly about price & delivery etc etc or rant about other things....

Do you find it easy to understand (silly question really after the post you've made - but apart from that, any good) :shrug:
 
Hi Steve, yeah I think its pretty good. It explains it pretty well, and uses examples to make understanding it easier. To be honest the reason I was struggling was nothing to do with the book, it was more to do with me not reading properly my camera manual and remembering all the info in the viewfinder.

I havent read it all yet and I am reading several books at the same time. So far its good, and he tells you to take a certain shot and then change settings and see how the pics differ from each other.

I think for the money you can get it from Amazon for then its worth buying.

I also like the Scott Kelby books too, I like the way he writes and explains things.

Hope this helps.
 
Yep it does - cheers Ben :thumbs:
 
HornetSting said:
Thanks guys. Nice one Tony, I was just having a look at that, and realised that it would indicate under/over exposure, and figured that if its in the centre then the exposure is correct!?
Click to expand...

'Correct' as far as the camera knows. If you pointed the camera at snow, it would want you to 'meter correctly' so that the snow was actually grey, as this is how meters work, by averaging anything out to a medium grey. Over time you will learn how to compensate for that. In most situations though, using evaluative metering, and metering to the middle point will get you a well exposed picture, it's only in extreme situations where you have to compensate a bit.
 
Ol' Bacon Chops makes a good point - correct exposure as far as the camera thinks. In which case, you might as well use one of the auto modes and let the camera do that for you.

The point about using manual is because either you want to set the exposure to something different, or you want to lock it - manual should really be called Set & Lock. If you want to alter the exposure away from the camera's recommendation, then you can either use manual or, IMHO, using +/- compensation in either Av or Tv is a better way. I think you learn more than way too, but that's just an opinion.

I don't rate that Bryan Peterson book at all. He used some strange examples and references, plus the book is written for film users and there's only a couple of pages tacked on the back about digital. He doesn't mention histograms or using 'blinkies' at all! However, it is undeniably popular. I would stick to Scott Kelby.
 
HoppyUK said:
I don't rate that Bryan Peterson book at all. He used some strange examples and references, plus the book is written for film users and there's only a couple of pages tacked on the back about digital. He doesn't mention histograms or using 'blinkies' at all! However, it is undeniably popular. I would stick to Scott Kelby.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. The book is about understanding exposure and that is independent of the recording material, so that fact it was written using a film camera is irrelevant - you either understand the exposure triangle ... or you don't :)

Also, when he says to adjust the settings to get the correct exposure that could also be interpreted as meaning "for the situation/intended result".
 
Bristolian said:
I think you're missing the point. The book is about understanding exposure and that is independent of the recording material, so that fact it was written using a film camera is irrelevant - you either understand the exposure triangle ... or you don't :)

Also, when he says to adjust the settings to get the correct exposure that could also be interpreted as meaning "for the situation/intended result".
Click to expand...

No, I'm not missing the point. The fundamentals of exposure may be the same for film and digital, but the way they are applied is different. And how you can possibly sell a 160-page book today, claiming to be all about exposure, but without even mentioning histograms at all is verging on the irresponsible.

That is one thing. The other thing is the surreal examples and descriptions he uses - check out his reference to the Sky Brothers :shrug: There's a whole family of them, apparently.

If you want to understand exposure properly, you will need to buy another book as well.
 
So what about the new updated version of this book with 174 pages - woes that have this missing info :shrug:
 
Trig's said:
So what about the new updated version of this book with 174 pages - woes that have this missing info :shrug:
Click to expand...

Ah, now you've got me there! There appears to be a new edition, published only yesterday! It seems to be extensively updated to include more digital in general and a new chapter on it :thumbs:

It's obviously more relevant now. I'll have to get a new copy and see if he's dropped some the of the more fanciful stuff ;) It's here £11.19 with free delivery http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Photographs-Camera/dp/0817439390
 
HoppyUK said:
No, I'm not missing the point. The fundamentals of exposure may be the same for film and digital, but the way they are applied is different. And how you can possibly sell a 160-page book today, claiming to be all about exposure, but without even mentioning histograms at all is verging on the irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Histograms are a post-exposure analysis tool anf are not particularly important to the understanding of exposure. Hell, there are still folks out there producing excellent pictures without the benefit of a histogram. It's hardly irresponsible to not mention something that may not even have been available when the book was written ... unless you credit the guy with a crystal ball :)

His surreal examples and uses of oddball examples help to make what can be, for some people, a daunting subject easier to remember.

Anyway, it would appear that his latest incarnation addresses your concerns. I'll wait until I've had the chance read it to see if it actually makes the understanding of exposure any easier.
 
Bristolian said:
Histograms are a post-exposure analysis tool anf are not particularly important to the understanding of exposure. Hell, there are still folks out there producing excellent pictures without the benefit of a histogram. It's hardly irresponsible to not mention something that may not even have been available when the book was written ... unless you credit the guy with a crystal ball :)

His surreal examples and uses of oddball examples help to make what can be, for some people, a daunting subject easier to remember.

Anyway, it would appear that his latest incarnation addresses your concerns. I'll wait until I've had the chance read it to see if it actually makes the understanding of exposure any easier.
Click to expand...

With respect, that's simply not true.

The histogram is primarily an exposure analysis tool, a gift from the digital Gods. To come anywhere near the exposure accuracy available from the histogram and blinkies, in just a glance, is exceedingly difficult by any other means.

It would take a very experienced practitioner a long time with a very accurate spot meter taking multiple readings to come anywhere near it. And without it, you will never make the most of the full exposure potential of a digital sensor, which behaves differently to any type of film.

I'm sure this will not have escaped Mr Peterson in his new edition. He certainly knows what he's talking about, but in the previous editions (which is all anybody has seen so far) he sometimes puts things over in an obscure way, verging on the surreal, and the book was originally written pre-digital in the 1990s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top