The Exposure Triangle is now The Photographic Triangle: Spent about half an hour today reading thru the 4th edition of The Book. Mr. Peterson introduced The Exposure Triangle in 1975...

BebuLamar

Spent about half an hour today reading thru the 4th edition of The Book. Mr. Peterson introduced The Exposure Triangle in 1975 and now he changed it to The Photographic Triangle.
He spent about half of the book talking about the triangle and very little of the book about how to determine exposure.

DGStinner Loc: New Jersey

Exposure is more than just 3 values. Do you want a shallow depth of field? Are you trying to freeze motion or blur it?
1/8000 @ f/1.8 ISO 400 may be properly exposed image but if you're trying to blur motion and don't mind a deeper DOF, 1/60 @ f/11 ISO 100 would be more appropriate.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

BebuLamar wrote:

Spent about half an hour today reading thru the 4th edition of The Book. Mr. Peterson introduced The Exposure Triangle in 1975 and now he changed it to The Photographic Triangle.
He spent about half of the book talking about the triangle and very little of the book about how to determine exposure.

Yep. You wasted 30 minutes of what could have been quality time with your camera!

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

I haven't seen this book yet, but his book, Understanding Exposure 3rd edition is what made it all come together for me and gave me the tools to begin photographing anything and everything I wanted. If he spends half the new book explaining the exposure triangle then that is the Root of it all. Aperture, shutter speed and ISO. Not sure if your understanding the triangle or just giving a review of the book?????? Exposure to me equals viewable photograph. If it's blurred to show motion, if it's sharp to freeze movement, if it's what ever you want as a photographer to show then that's all. What else are you looking for. If you can capture a photograph and it's properly exposed then that's where the camera comes in. If you not capturing the Magic, your vision of what your trying to convey to the viewer, then that's on You...... But you have to know how to expose to know how to work your magic... Some learn thru experience, some never will...

BebuLamar

RWR wrote:

Yep. You wasted 30 minutes of what could have been quality time with your camera!

I did enjoy it and I did learn a quite a bit of things from the book. (Not exposure though).

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

BebuLamar wrote:

I did enjoy it and I did learn a quite a bit of things from the book. (Not exposure though).

Good that it wasn’t a waste of time. (Actually, after I posted I wished I’d left off the "You wasted.")

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

BebuLamar wrote:

Spent about half an hour today reading thru the 4th edition of The Book. Mr. Peterson introduced The Exposure Triangle in 1975 and now he changed it to The Photographic Triangle.
He spent about half of the book talking about the triangle and very little of the book about how to determine exposure.

LoL..., I'll bet ya ten bucks it doesn't STICK!!! LoL
I think Peterson is one of those one-hit-wonder type of guys!!!

I've never used his book, always found it too simplistic.
SS

jcboy3

DGStinner wrote:

Exposure is more than just 3 values. Do you want a shallow depth of field? Are you trying to freeze motion or blur it?
1/8000 @ f/1.8 ISO 400 may be properly exposed image but if you're trying to blur motion and don't mind a deeper DOF, 1/60 @ f/11 ISO 100 would be more appropriate.

And yet, you give an example with the same 3 values.

BebuLamar

SharpShooter wrote:

LoL..., I'll bet ya ten bucks it doesn't STICK!!! LoL
I think Peterson is one of those one-hit-wonder type of guys!!!

I've never used his book, always found it too simplistic.
SS

That's what I learned. The sucess was because he dwelled on the easy part the triangle thingy (he now changed it to photographic from exposure which is more correct as his triangle isn't about exposure) but didn't say much on how one can determine exposure. When you use the triangle you must already determine the exposure level needed for the subject. He basically said trust the meter in most cases.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

martinfisherphoto wrote:

Aperture, shutter speed and ISO. If you can capture a photograph and it's properly exposed then that's where the camera comes in. If you not capturing the Magic, your vision of what your trying to convey to the viewer, then that's on you.

I agree with Martin 100%!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

martinfisherphoto wrote:

I haven't seen this book yet, but his book, Unders... (show quote)

The problem is that Understanding Exposure, which I read last year for the first time, has a number of errors and contradictions. I would not have noticed them if I had read it earlier on when I was just learning about exposure. Nonetheless, it is a useful book, especially for newbies, but it is far from the bible on exposure that some think it is.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

I think you hit the Nail on the head, Simplistic..... Other authors which I read many books before Peterson make photography sound like you needed to be some sort of mathematical genus to understand. With Peterson the Light Bulb instantly went off for Me. Very Simple, to the heart of how to expose properly. There is an infinite amount of folks out there that own cameras and have No Ideal, how it works and struggle thru with the most basic photo aspects. I personally know folks with tens of thousands of dollars invested and still no clue. Peterson lifts the vail, removes the mystery, and makes it simple. I think a copy of his 3rd edition should come with every camera sold.
Now for the Art of Exposure, how to capture a photograph that makes one sit up and take notice is a whole different beast. This can take years of practice with no guarantee of ever grasping for many, this is the art forum, not the exposure.....

SharpShooter wrote:

LoL..., I'll bet ya ten bucks it doesn't STICK!!! LoL
I think Peterson is one of those one-hit-wonder type of guys!!!

I've never used his book, always found it too simplistic.
SS

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

BebuLamar wrote:

Spent about half an hour today reading thru the 4th edition of The Book. Mr. Peterson introduced The Exposure Triangle in 1975 and now he changed it to The Photographic Triangle.
He spent about half of the book talking about the triangle and very little of the book about how to determine exposure.

And that is the reason I would never recommend his books, though many here and in other forums hold it up as the photographic bible. It is more about promoting his own interpretation and unique ways of calling things - than providing useful information.

I can get a beginner to understand exposure much quicker than making them read a book with unique and personal "catch phrases" that just adds more confusion than clarity. Besides, these unique phrases are not commonly used, and only those who have read his books will know what they mean.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

I don't remember calling it a Bible, it's simply a short book on the most basic of photography. You have to start with exposure to learn the Art of photography. I think to book does just that...

mwsilvers wrote:

The problem is that Understanding Exposure, which I read last year for the first time, has a number of errors and contradictions. I would not have noticed them if I had read it earlier on when I was just learning about exposure. Nonetheless, it is a useful book, especially for newbies, but it is far from the bible on exposure that some think it is.

DGStinner Loc: New Jersey

DGStinner wrote:

Exposure is more than just 3 values. Do you want a shallow depth of field? Are you trying to freeze motion or blur it?
1/8000 @ f/1.8 ISO 400 may be properly exposed image but if you're trying to blur motion and don't mind a deeper DOF, 1/60 @ f/11 ISO 100 would be more appropriate.

jcboy3 wrote:

And yet, you give an example with the same 3 values.

Read my reply again. I've bolded the portion which shows that there's more to an exposure than 3 values.