from here to infinity bryan petersons understanding exposure
Jun 24, 2015 07:52:34 #
I've heard the recommendations but recently decided to start reading the book. I'm glad I did.
I kind of thought I knew exposure after all its a balance to get the correct amount of light on to the sensor, right.
Well as he puts it there are usually around 6 ways to achieve that balance and well i thought I knew that too but not all of them are creative and interesting.
I like his f-stop definitions
The larger apertures f5.6 f4 f2.8 ... and larger he refers to them as singular subject or isolation exposures.
f8 and f11 who cares exposures
f16 f22 story telling exposures these are most interesting and i've tended to avoid using them for fear of diffraction effects.
I've noticed he isn't afraid of breaking the don't shoot slower than 1/focal length rule either many of his pictures use less than the focal length timings like 1/15th or 1/30th are used to get the correct exposure. If your using a tripod and possibly a shutter release your not going to be jiggling the camera too much, movement can be interesting and creative.
He also has a liking for short lenses, which gives greater depth of field.
Which leads me back to the title of this post. Those story telling apertures where you have the near the mid and far elements they work best with massive depth of field.
I wasn't quite getting his set the focus at 2 feet and use f22 but really he is using the hyperfocal distance for the lens and aperture combination to get the maximum depth of field (the near point will be half the hyperfocal distance). Of course when we look through the view finder it will look out of focus because we are seeing the scene with a wide open lens but it should be fine once its stopped down.
With a lens with distance markers e.g f22,f16,f11,f8 either side of the middle line if you line the infinity mark with the f22 and shoot f22 then you should have focus from the near point to infinity. The shorter the focal distance of the lens the nearer the near point will be.
An interesting point is that sensor size comes into play the smaller the sensor the closer the near point is. In fact point and shoot camera's have an advantage over DSLR's as their f8/f11 corresponds with a much smaller aperture on 35mm like f22 f32 and smaller giving huge depth of field and faster shooting speeds. I never thought there could be an advantage to a point and shoot but seems there is for some shots at least.
I've found Bryan Petersons book to be a revelation, breaking the 'rules' how often do we take pictures with those don't care apertures :)
It's well worth reading the book, and trying out some different settings. We often talk about story and think of it a bit like television happening at a fixed distance from us, where really it can be nearly at our feet and ranging out to the horizon.
There is a lot more to his book than the little i've tried to convey but hopefully, you might try some of those lesser used apertures and shutter speeds and find something new.
Ok I know there is a whole bunch of people here, reading this, saying i know that already and maybe i've summed up badly but i'm sure they will correct me and enhance this topic.
I kind of thought I knew exposure after all its a balance to get the correct amount of light on to the sensor, right.
Well as he puts it there are usually around 6 ways to achieve that balance and well i thought I knew that too but not all of them are creative and interesting.
I like his f-stop definitions
The larger apertures f5.6 f4 f2.8 ... and larger he refers to them as singular subject or isolation exposures.
f8 and f11 who cares exposures
f16 f22 story telling exposures these are most interesting and i've tended to avoid using them for fear of diffraction effects.
I've noticed he isn't afraid of breaking the don't shoot slower than 1/focal length rule either many of his pictures use less than the focal length timings like 1/15th or 1/30th are used to get the correct exposure. If your using a tripod and possibly a shutter release your not going to be jiggling the camera too much, movement can be interesting and creative.
He also has a liking for short lenses, which gives greater depth of field.
Which leads me back to the title of this post. Those story telling apertures where you have the near the mid and far elements they work best with massive depth of field.
I wasn't quite getting his set the focus at 2 feet and use f22 but really he is using the hyperfocal distance for the lens and aperture combination to get the maximum depth of field (the near point will be half the hyperfocal distance). Of course when we look through the view finder it will look out of focus because we are seeing the scene with a wide open lens but it should be fine once its stopped down.
With a lens with distance markers e.g f22,f16,f11,f8 either side of the middle line if you line the infinity mark with the f22 and shoot f22 then you should have focus from the near point to infinity. The shorter the focal distance of the lens the nearer the near point will be.
An interesting point is that sensor size comes into play the smaller the sensor the closer the near point is. In fact point and shoot camera's have an advantage over DSLR's as their f8/f11 corresponds with a much smaller aperture on 35mm like f22 f32 and smaller giving huge depth of field and faster shooting speeds. I never thought there could be an advantage to a point and shoot but seems there is for some shots at least.
I've found Bryan Petersons book to be a revelation, breaking the 'rules' how often do we take pictures with those don't care apertures :)
It's well worth reading the book, and trying out some different settings. We often talk about story and think of it a bit like television happening at a fixed distance from us, where really it can be nearly at our feet and ranging out to the horizon.
There is a lot more to his book than the little i've tried to convey but hopefully, you might try some of those lesser used apertures and shutter speeds and find something new.
Ok I know there is a whole bunch of people here, reading this, saying i know that already and maybe i've summed up badly but i'm sure they will correct me and enhance this topic.
Jun 24, 2015 07:55:49 #
Jun 24, 2015 08:00:43 #
Thanks for your summation! Always good to be reminded of things we might have forgotten, or to hear a different viewpoint, read a "known" fact in a different way. Such a joyous road we're traveling.
btw, the bridge camera Canon SX50 only goes to f/8, and if you're using the wider angle end of the lens, you do indeed get a whole lotta depth of field :)
btw, the bridge camera Canon SX50 only goes to f/8, and if you're using the wider angle end of the lens, you do indeed get a whole lotta depth of field :)
Jun 24, 2015 08:08:19 #
One of the best books I have read on exposure and its creative possibilities. I recommend it to all new to photography and as you indicated it doesn't hurt to review it from time to time. ;)
Jun 24, 2015 08:20:02 #
Jun 24, 2015 08:36:18 #
Jun 24, 2015 09:06:04 #
I've read the book a few times now and each time I seem to find something I missed the first time. It seems that all his books are good but the Understanding Exposure book is a must for all beginners.
Easy to understand, a quick read and it never hurts to get someone elses view.
I was a little suprised at his take on White Balance, setting it once and leaving it alone.
Easy to understand, a quick read and it never hurts to get someone elses view.
I was a little suprised at his take on White Balance, setting it once and leaving it alone.
Jun 24, 2015 09:27:18 #
blackest wrote:
Ok I know there is a whole bunch of people here, reading this, saying i know that already and maybe i've summed up badly but i'm sure they will correct me and enhance this topic.
Ok I know there is a whole bunch of people here, reading this, saying i know that already and maybe i've summed up badly but i'm sure they will correct me and enhance this topic.
No...you did a good job describing it.
I like his books also.
He's got some free video's that go with the book...did you find them?
http://www.ppsop.com/unexvid.aspx
Jun 25, 2015 06:36:56 #
I've read it entirely once and individual chapters a number of times. I've found his other book to be worthwhile also.
Jun 25, 2015 06:39:15 #
blackest wrote:
I've heard the recommendations but recently decide... (show quote)
Take a picture at a small aperture, as he suggests. Then take the same image using the technique below. Compare the two images.
http://www.apogeephoto.com/dec2011/bsharp122011.shtml
There is no doubt that the method described in this article will provide a far better result. Small apertures are ok if you don't mind sacrificing overall image sharpness and detail for depth of field. With most current digital cameras diffraction WILL begin to soften the entire image at F11, getting progressively worse as you choose a smaller aperture. M4/3 cameras already start to show diffraction at F4 or F5.6.
Using Peterson's recommendations work great for mediurm format and larger film cameras. But not so much for full frame and smaller sensor cameras.
This is physics not opinion, and it is easily demonstrated and documented over and over again in the literature - so no, I do not agree with Mr. Peterson here.
Jun 25, 2015 06:54:56 #
I highly suggesting investing in a DoF Calculator. Simple Depth of Field can be found on iTunes ($1.99) and comparable offerings can be found for other phones (Android). It has really helped me do better with my 50MM f1.8. It also calculates the hyperfocal length as well. I too was confused with the explanation in his book.
blackest wrote:
I've heard the recommendations but recently decide... (show quote)
Jun 25, 2015 07:02:27 #
I thought his examples showing the same shot at f8 vs f22 was pretty telling about defraction. See below
blackest wrote:
I've heard the recommendations but recently decide... (show quote)
Jun 25, 2015 07:40:13 #
Gene51 wrote:
This is physics not opinion, and it is easily demonstrated and documented over and over again in the literature - so no, I do not agree with Mr. Peterson here.
This is physics not opinion, and it is easily demonstrated and documented over and over again in the literature - so no, I do not agree with Mr. Peterson here.
Actually what Mr. Peterson says is: "yes...folks will talk about diffraction and all that but in real life, it's not a concern of mine"
He's not saying that it doesn't exist...but that it doesn't bother him, and he's printed and sold bazillions of books with shots taken at f/11 and beyond so whatever he's doing, it seems to be working for him.
Jun 25, 2015 07:58:43 #
rpavich wrote:
Actually what Mr. Peterson says is: "yes...folks will talk about diffraction and all that but in real life, it's not a concern of mine"
He's not saying that it doesn't exist...but that it doesn't bother him, and he's printed and sold bazillions of books with shots taken at f/11 and beyond so whatever he's doing, it seems to be working for him.
He's not saying that it doesn't exist...but that it doesn't bother him, and he's printed and sold bazillions of books with shots taken at f/11 and beyond so whatever he's doing, it seems to be working for him.
It is a concern of mine. His method doesn't work for me. I place a high value on image sharpness - when I need it. Sharpness foreground to background is not always the goal, though.
It's really that simple.
I am not impressed by his reputation, which is largely a result of self-promotion. I am impressed by photographers who do great work. To each his own.
Jun 25, 2015 08:34:20 #
I love your quote....right on! I agree about sharpness totally. Peterson's examples of story telling frames are pretty special (great composition). I guess it depends on what the shot is for and will it be enlarged significantly for print.
Gene51 wrote:
It is a concern of mine. His method doesn't work for me. I place a high value on image sharpness - when I need it. Sharpness foreground to background is not always the goal, though.
It's really that simple.
I am not impressed by his reputation, which is largely a result of self-promotion. I am impressed by photographers who do great work. To each his own.
It's really that simple.
I am not impressed by his reputation, which is largely a result of self-promotion. I am impressed by photographers who do great work. To each his own.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.