"Understanding Exposure" - Old Copy (pre-digital)

Hi, I was just given the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. I see many here have listed it as a must read book. My question is, my copy has a 1990 copyright date (although I think the book is actually much newer than that) and chapter 5 is titled "Film". I suspect that there has been some updating since this came out, and I know that that the film chaper is now titled "Film versus Digital".

Does anyone know how much this book has changed and whether the version I have is worth reading before (if) I buy a new copy?

Thanks

i don't think it's worth it to get a new copy. check your local library or you can just spend a few hours at your local bookstore to read the sections that have been added.

If you were "given" the book as you say, then your not going to loose anything if you do buy the current version.

My copy is entitled "Understanding Exposure, Revised Edition" with a copyright date of 2004. The sub-head says "How to shoot great photographs with a film or Digital Camera". My guess is that this edition includes more about digital than your 1990 edition.

If you are considering books on exposure, I would also recommend Jeff Wignall's book "Exposure" in the Photo Workshop series:

http://www.photoworksh​op.com/books/exposure

I think it is much more comprehensive and detailed than Peterson's book.

Exposure is exposure. The theory behind it stays the same whether you use film or digital. Ok maybe with digital you can change the ISO more easily but the overall theory stays the same. I mean books by Ansel Adams are still good books to read even though his books deal only with film.

Basic photographic principles haven't changed, it's just that silcon has replaced film as the recording medium.

Like Tawcan said, exposure is exposure. Doesn't matter the format that the light is getting saved on.

Thanks guys, I appreciate the feedback.

Tgara, yeah, that's the version that is available on Amazon now, seems to be the next release after the one I have. Sounds like even the author feels exposure is exposure as he hasn't found many reasons to update the book.

I think I'll start here, and maybe as banpreso suggested, look inthe library to see what is "new and improved".

Rob2278, I think it will cost me the same to buy a new copy, whether the copy I have was purchased, gifted, or stolen. Just trying to figure out it it is worth buying a new copy to get updated information. I had to laugh though, your comment reminded me of all the AT&T "rollover minutes" ads on tv. I don't want to throw away or replace a good book just because it's "old". Us old guys have to stick together......

TaDa wrote in post #9450216
Like Tawcan said, exposure is exposure. Doesn't matter the format that the light is getting saved on.

That is not correct. The film (or sensor) and developer matter a lot in selecting the correct exposure. I've read the older versions of "Understanding Photography", and there were many parts that were suboptimal for digital photography. For example, in film it's suboptimal to overexpose if you're only planning to print down (e.g. pull 2 stops), whereas in digital it's the ideal technique.

I'm sure a newer version of the book is improved.

Daniel Browning wrote in post #9450427
That is not correct. The film (or sensor) and developer matter a lot in selecting the correct exposure. I've read the older versions of "Understanding Photography", and there were many parts that were suboptimal for digital photography. For example, in film it's suboptimal to overexpose if you're only planning to print down (e.g. pull 2 stops), whereas in digital it's the ideal technique.

I'm sure a newer version of the book is improved.

I said how the light hits the medium, not how it's post processed. If you're overexposing by 2 stops on film or on digital, blown will be blown and unrecoverable. The ideas of exposure will remain the same.

TaDa wrote in post #9450598
I said how the light hits the medium, not how it's post processed.

First of all, even if you only consider how "light hits the medium", that alone is enough to expose film and digital differently. Linear is a whole different game.

Second, that is only half the story. Even with film there was a limited amount of control over the image in the developer. It is necessary to choose exposure based on what kind of developer you are planning to use for the film. In the same way, it is necessary to choose digital exposure based on what kind of raw converter and settings you are planning to use for the raw file.

TaDa wrote in post #9450598
If you're overexposing by 2 stops on film or on digital, blown will be blown and unrecoverable. The ideas of exposure will remain the same.

That is not correct. Whether anything is blown or not depends on scene contrast and choice of middle gray. In digital, middle gray is wherever you decide it is: 3.5 stops below saturation is a normal choice, but you can make it 1.5 stops or 7 stops -- whatever the best fit for the scene contrast is. If the best choice is 1.5 stops, then overexposing by 2 stops on digital will not cause any highlights to be blown, but will reduce noise and increase color depth.

TaDa wrote in post #9450598
I said how the light hits the medium, not how it's post processed. If you're overexposing by 2 stops on film or on digital, blown will be blown and unrecoverable. The ideas of exposure will remain the same.

Black and white film over exposed two stops and given N-2 development will capture much more of the range of a high-contrast scene than normal exposure and normal development. So your statement is not true. "Post" processing was always a significant part of advanced negative film photography, just as it is with advanced digital photography.

Moreover, the rigid tonal linearity of the digital sensor actually introduces an entirely new exposure game compared to the variable tonal curve of film, particularly black and white film. With film, both the angle and the length of the straight-line portion of the tonal curve is variable by development. That's why exposure was usually "pegged" at the center--middle gray.

The digital tonal line, first, isn't curved--which makes an extreme difference in how tones are compressed (or not) at the ends of its range. Second, the digital sensor meets a hard ceiling at the top end of its range (where film "rolls off" more gently). That hard ceiling is the optimum point to determine the anchor of digital exposure--you want to place the "brightest highlight that must retain detail" immediately below that point.

This makes Zone VIII the most important tone to place properly in digital photography, whereas Zone V was the most important tone to place properly in film photography.

You may wish to look at Michael Freeman's Perfect Exposure.

http://www.amazon.com …oks&qid=1264254​720&sr=8-1

Excellent sections on histogram which you will not find in film only books.

Points are fair enough and taken. I didn't shoot film that much, and never processed it myself, so I bow out of this conversation. OP, get a new book

I don't have the older version, but I don't think there's much difference from the revised version. It's still very much geared towards film anyway... but the difference is that you don't have to change film to change ISO with digital, the rest applies to photography in general.