Piffey.net - Writing

Mirror of Fred Parker's Ultimate Exposure Computer

Sun, 25 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This is a mirror of Fred Parker's Ultimate Exposure Computer, originally published at fredparker.com. The original site appears to be offline, and this guide is too valuable to lose. All credit goes to Fred Parker.

I first came across Fred Parker's Ultimate Exposure Computer thanks to a post on Analog Photography Users Group (now Photrio) and it changed the way that I shot photography. Up to that point I'd been dedicated to metering every scene, trying to keep my values in my head. Once I listened to Fred Parker's advice and threw out my meter to rely solely on my brain, my exposures and my photographs improved immensely as I stopped spending so much of my time thinking about the exposure values and spent more time thinking on the shot.

In any case, I was speaking to a young photographer who was just getting their start and mentioned this guide as a pivotable point for me. They went looking for it and could not find it since Fred Parker's site is now offline. I luckily had an old PDF and have decided to mirror it here for others as it's too good to lose.

The Ultimate Exposure Computer

A Guide for Nature Photographers

Contents:

Introduction
Why Your Light Meter Lies To You
Exposure Value, Film Speed, Shutter Speed and f/stops -- What Are They?
How To Use The Ultimate Exposure Computer / Throw Away Your Light Meter!
A Typical Day In The Life Of A Nature Photographer
Planning Ahead
Using The Ultimate Exposure Computer Wisely
The Final Step
Where on Earth Are You?
Exposure Value Chart
Exposure Factor Relationship Chart
Useful Photographic Exposure Guidelines
Handling Tricky Lighting Situations
EV, Footcandles and LUX

Introduction

Imagine an exposure computer so advanced that it uses your eyes as a sensor. The processing unit is as powerful as your brain. The computer is accurate over a light range from reflected starlight through the light produced in a hydrogen fusion reaction. This computer weighs nothing and operates without batteries. It comes with instructions to allow you to implant the capabilities of the computer directly into your own memory so you can accurately judge a correct exposure by simply looking at the type of light that the subject is in. You are using this computer right now!

Everything I've said above is true. However, I'm sure you've noticed that the only thing before your eyes is a World Wide Web page. An entire photographic industry has been built by convincing consumers that the subject of photographic exposure is so arcane, difficult and impossible to understand, that it is best left up to technology. This, of course, allows companies to sell billions of dollars worth of equipment to figure it all out for you.

The fact is that the concept of photographic exposure is extremely simple. It can be mastered by anyone who can multiply or divide by two. Everything you need to know is contained on these few Web pages.

Knowledge of photographic exposure is essential to controlling the creative side of the photographic process. This knowledge increases the chance that the photograph that comes back from the lab is the one you envisioned when you pushed the shutter release. Your camera or light meter can not make creative decisions for you. If you want to control the creative side of photography, you need to understand the interrelationship of Exposure Value, film speed, aperture and shutter speed. You must have this understanding even though you own the most sophisticated equipment available. I have watched photographers (amateur and professional) struggle with this subject for a number of years, confused by the misinformation that abounds in the photographic press. I decided to publish this document to clarify, simplify and demystify the issue.

Why Your Light Meter Lies To You

Light meters can be less accurate than you might imagine. Their response to various colors of light may not match that of your film. Their response in low light and high light conditions may not match response at the mid-range of light. But the worst characteristic, for practical purposes, is that all reflected light meters make one basic (erroneous) assumption. They are calibrated to render an exposure that will make the subject look like a middle tone in the resulting photograph.

How do you compensate for the fact that your meter is lying? You have to lie to your meter. If you are photographing a light toned subject, such as snow or sand in bright light, you must convince your meter that it is looking at something even lighter than your subject, so that the meter's attempt to make it a middle tone will result in the right tone. The same is true for dark objects. You must tell your meter that the object is darker than it really is so that the meter's compensation will register the correct tone in the photograph.

You can tell this white (or black) lie to your meter in a couple of ways. You can meter a middle-toned area in the same light as your subject and manually set your camera accordingly. You can lie to the camera outright by telling it that it is using film of an ISO rating different from what is actually in the camera. For instance, if you are using ISO 100 film and are photographing a light subject, you would tell the meter that you have ISO 50 film. If you are photographing a dark object, tell your meter that you have ISO 200 film in the camera. This method works well for cameras in automatic exposure modes. Be careful to tell your camera the truth if you move to a middle toned subject.

Another way to get the right exposure from a lying meter is to politely ignore it. Switch from automatic to manual exposure (a good idea anyway) and simply move to the next larger aperture or the next slower shutter speed (for a light object) or to the next smaller aperture or faster shutter speed (for a dark object).

So it goes. Your meter deceives you, so you deceive it. But what kind of relationship is this? The Ultimate Exposure Computer does not make erroneous assumptions, because you tell it what type of light your subject is in. As long as you tell it the truth, it will not lie to you. Definitely a better relationship.

There is a chance that the preceding section may have confused you. If that is true, don't worry about it. The next section defines Exposure Value, film speed, shutter speed and aperture (f/stop) and describes the interrelationship among these factors. After you've read the next section, revisit this section again, because the concept is important.

Exposure Value, Film Speed, Shutter Speed and f/stops -- What Are They?

Each of these four factors is represented by a series of numbers. Your camera may have only a portion of each series indicated.

Exposure Value

In most light meters, photons of light that are reflected from your subject put pressure on a photo-sensitive receptor in your light meter and are converted into electricity (this is why some meters do not require batteries). The greater the number of photons, the greater the electricity that is produced. Internationally accepted standards specify exactly how much light pressure equals a certain EV number. This value is measured by the following number series (for ISO 100 film):

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

Easy! However, even though this appears to be a linear progression, each number represents twice as much light as the numbers increase. This provides an easily memorized scale to clarify the concept of "absolute value of the amount of light falling on a subject". This term is related to illuminance, footcandles and lumens. But it doesn't matter. If you are using a light meter this number is irrelevant, and you can ignore it. You may never see these numbers, because the meter uses them internally to calculate a set of combinations of shutter speeds and apertures. However, knowledge of Exposure Value can significantly enhance your ability as a photographer. The Ultimate Exposure Computer gives you the knowledge to take control of your photographs. See the section "Throw Away Your Light Meter!" for details.

In order to be useful, this Exposure Value number must be converted into an f/stop and shutter speed combination that will provide the proper exposure for the film speed you have chosen. The relationship between these four elements is represented in the Ultimate Exposure Computer.

Film Speed

Film speed is a number that indicates the sensitivity of film to light. Film sensitivity is measured by a set of standards established by the American Standards Association (ASA) or the International Standards Organization (ISO). For all practical purposes, the ASA and ISO numbers are interchangeable. In general, films with a higher sensitivity (larger number) have coarser grain and do not register detail as well as films with lower sensitivity (lower number). The number series for film speed is:

25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200

Pretty straight forward! Moving to the right, each number is twice the preceding number, and represents twice the sensitivity to light as the preceding number. There may be some intermediate steps (such as 64 or 125) on your dial. Set the light meter or camera for the same number that is on the film. Your camera may do this automatically.

This leaves only two things to adjust to achieve the correct exposure while making a photograph; shutter speed and aperture (f-stops). Shutter speed and aperture are very important to the creative photographic process.

Shutter Speed

Shutter speed indicates how long the camera shutter remains open to let light onto the film. The number series for shutter speed is:

15, 8, 4, 2, 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000

This looks more complicated, but it's actually straightforward. These numbers are whole seconds or fractions of seconds. They aren't expressed on your shutter speed dial as fractions to save space, so they should read as below:

15, 8, 4, 2, 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000, 1/2000, 1/4000, 1/8000

Again, each number moving to the right is half the value of the preceding number, and represents half as much light as the preceding number.

There is an important rule regarding shutter speeds:

If your shutter speed is slower than the reciprocal of the focal length of your lens, you must use a tripod.

For example, if you are using a 200 mm lens, your shutter speed must exceed 1/200 second (I.E. 1/250 or faster). If not, you should use a tripod. If your subject is moving, double this shutter speed. If you are moving (such as in a boat or plane) triple the speed. If you are doing macro work (.25 magnification or greater), always use a tripod. If you're using a format larger than 35mm, use a tripod. To be safe, weld your camera to the tripod. If you are a serious nature photographer you will always use a tripod, anyway. A tripod will allow you to make photographs with slower film speeds. Slower film speeds equate to better detail and sharpness in your photographs. More important, using a tripod makes you slow down and allows you to examine your composition more carefully. Modern electronic cameras may lack certain features of the older, mechanical cameras (such as a button that allows you to see the depth of field that will be present in your photograph), but every camera has a tripod socket. You'll make better photographs if you use it.

Aperture (f-stops)

Aperture refers to the size of the opening inside the lens that the light must go through to reach the film. Aperture is measured in f/stops as indicated in the series below:

1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45

This looks tougher, but the solution is the same as for the shutter speeds. These are actually fractions. They should read as follows:

1/1, 1/1.4, 1/2, 1/2.8, 1/4, 1/5.6, 1/8, 1/11, 1/16, 1/22, 1/32, 1/45

Like the shutter speed series, each progression represents half as much light (moving to the right) as the preceding number. But why do the numbers look so odd? I recommend that you ignore it, because it doesn't matter anyway. Just accept that each progression represents half as much light as the preceding number.

If you are curious as to how we got to such a seemingly illogical progression of numbers, read the following three paragraphs. If you aren't curious, you can safely skip them.

The numbers represent the ratio of the focal length of the lens to the diameter of the lens diaphragm opening. That's why it's called an f(ocal)/number. The designation "f/2" means that the diameter of the aperture is 1/2 the focal length of the lens. The designation f/32 means that the diameter of the aperture is 1/32 the focal length of the lens. f/2 on a 100mm lens means that the diameter of the diaphragm opening is 100/2, or 50mm. Unfortunately, the amount of light reaching the film is dependent on the SURFACE AREA of the opening NOT the DIAMETER. As you no doubt learned in high school, the method of calculating the surface area of a circle is Pi times the radius, squared (Pi is approximately 3.14; the radius is half the diameter, squared means that the number is multiplied by itself). Therefore, in our example, the surface area of the opening would be 3.14X25X25, or approximately 2000 sq. mm.

Now, let's look at the next f/stop, which is f/2.8. 100/2.8=35.7mm. The surface area would be 3.14X17.85X17.85. If you multiply it out, you will see that the surface area is now approximately 1000 sq. mm, or HALF the surface area of f/2. Therefore, each succeeding smaller aperture lets in half as much light as the previous f/stop.

The reason we use the ratios instead of the actual surface area of the diaphragm opening is that the actual surface area would be quite different between lenses of different focal lengths. Photographers would have to memorize a series of numbers for each focal length lens they owned. Think about what you'd have to do with a zoom lens! Ratios allow us to use the same number series for all of our lenses. f/2 on a 100mm lens lets in exactly the same amount of light as f/2 on a 500mm lens. Trust me, f/numbers are the best way to do this. I would still recommend that you simply accept that each successive f/stop represents a doubling (or halving) of light. However, since you've read this far, I'll give you a hint about how to memorize the f/number series. The good news is that you only have to remember two numbers; 1 and 1.4. Double each one alternately and you will have two series:

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 1.4, 2.8, 5.6, 11, 22

So, combining the two sequences in numerical order gives the full sequence:

1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32

What you need to remember is that, within each factor, as you move from one number to the next, the amount of light is either doubled or halved. Some cameras may include numbers between the numbers mentioned above. Those numbers represent half or third stops. For the purpose of what you are learning here, ignore the in-between numbers.

How To Use The Ultimate Exposure Computer: Throw Away Your Light Meter!

Well..... maybe not. But you could if you wanted to. The purpose of this section is to show you how Exposure Value, Film Speed, Aperture and Shutter Speed are interrelated, and why you don't need a light meter to know the proper exposure.

Step One: Put Your Camera on Manual

Automatic cameras are designed to give an average photographer a better chance of getting properly exposed pictures while shooting average subjects in average light, without a tripod to steady the image. These cameras work well for family pictures and many urban subjects. Automatic focus and exposure (especially TTL flash) are extremely useful for some specialized types of photography, such as sports or photojournalism.

Nature photography is a different matter. Many of your subjects will not have "average" tonality. Most of your subjects will not be located in "average" light. Many times your subject will not be in the center of the frame (where an automatic camera takes its light readings). However, the most important reasons for putting your camera on manual while photographing natural subjects are:

1) There are times when you will want to stop motion, such as a flower waving in the breeze. Other times you may want to exaggerate the effect of motion, such as when photographing flowing water. Decisions about these matters address APPARENT SUBJECT MOTION. This is controlled by the shutter speed. Faster shutter speeds stop action better than slower speeds (1/1000 second will stop most motion, while 1/8 second will blur even slow moving subjects).

2) Sometimes you will want everything in focus, such as a foreground flower AND a distant mountain. Sometimes you will want the flower to be in focus while keeping a busy background softly out of focus. When you make this type of decision, you are considering DEPTH OF FIELD (the distance in front and behind of the subject that is acceptably in focus). The aperture (f/stop) controls the depth of the image that is acceptably in focus (f/32 keeps more of the subject in focus than f/2).

You must make these aesthetic choices. The camera has no way of knowing what you want the photograph to look like. Remember that the camera's automation is designed to make technical decisions based on average subjects in average light. It is not designed to make aesthetic choices regarding natural subjects (which are rarely "average").

Because of these factors, the same camera that will give you dozens of perfect photographs of your children opening birthday presents will churn out dozens of badly exposed nature photographs that look nothing like what you experienced in the field. The only way for you to get good results in nature photography is for YOU to make the choices.

Get your camera. Purchase two sets of batteries and install one set in the camera. Do this even if you changed batteries last month. Keep the spare set with the camera, always. Keep a copy of the Ultimate Exposure Computer with the camera and the batteries.

Find your instruction manual. Now comes the hardest part of the entire process (unless you've lost the manual). You must find out how to set your camera body to its "manual" setting. I can't help you here. Good luck and congratulations! You've just taken the first step toward becoming a serious nature photographer!

Step Two: A Tour Around the Ultimate Exposure Computer

CHART A: Take a look at Exposure Value Chart A. The left column of the chart contains the Exposure Value (EV) numbers. The right column of the chart contains some lighting situations that equate to EV numbers. The chart ranges from EV -6 to EV 23. This represents a range of light from below reflected starlight to the brightest light in the Solar System.

Notice that most daylit subjects fall within a narrow range from EV 11 to EV 15. It is a good idea to memorize the characteristics of these daylight Exposure Value factors. Pick a favorite lighting situation, note the EV and turn the Ultimate Exposure Computer over to Chart B.

CHART B: Exposure Factor Relationship Chart B shows how Exposure Value, film speed, aperture and shutter speed are related.

On the left side of this chart, along the top row, are the ISO/ASA film speed numbers. Pick the film speed you use most often. Starting with that film speed, move down the column until you reach the EV number that you chose from Chart A. Now move to the right along the row until you cross the double line. To the right of the double line is a row of shutter speeds. As you will recall, a fast shutter speed stops motion, while a slow shutter speed enhances the effect of motion. Choose an appropriate shutter speed for your subject. Now, move straight up the column to the top row to find the aperture (f/stop) for use with the shutter speed. Enter your chosen shutter speed on your camera and set your lens to your chosen f/stop. It's that easy!

Example 1 -- A Typical Day In The Life of a Nature Photographer

Suppose you are in the field photographing with ISO 100 film, and the battery in your camera just failed. You can't take any light readings, and you only have one mechanical shutter speed (1/125 second). This situation is extremely unfortunate, since you just stumbled onto an extremely rare species of flowering plant that blooms for one hour every hundred years. It's in full bloom. The sky has started to cloud over and things look bleak. Have no fear! Your Ultimate Exposure Computer will save the day! You already know from Chart A that subjects under heavy cloud cover are at EV 12.

Look on the left-hand side of Chart B. Locate ISO 100 film along the top row. Look down the column until you find EV 12. Look along the row to the right of EV 12 (across the double line) until you find the shutter speed you are looking for (your mechanical 1/125 second). Move straight up the column and find that the aperture of your lens should be set to f/5.6. Easy! No light meter required!

But wait! Suppose the f/stop you landed on isn't on your lens. Or perhaps the f/stop you landed on offers too much or too little depth of field (the distance in front and behind of the subject that is acceptably in focus). In that case, move to an appropriate f/stop along the top row to achieve your desired result. Then move down the column to the row represented by your original choice of film speed and EV number. At that intersection you will find the appropriate shutter speed for the desired aperture.

Perhaps this exercise indicates a very slow shutter speed that cannot be hand held. That means one of two things. You must put the camera on a tripod (where it should have been to begin with), or you need to determine the proper film speed to use for your photographic situation.

Example 2 -- Planning Ahead

The Ultimate Exposure Computer is useful for several photographic tasks, such as planning a shooting session. For instance, you may know that you are going to be shooting scenics of a field of flowers with mountains behind. It will be a sunny day (EV 15), but the wind will be gusting to twenty miles per hour. You need a small aperture to get the greatest depth of field (the distance in front and behind of the subject that is acceptably in focus), but you will also need a fast shutter speed to stop the motion of the flowers in the wind. What ISO film speed will you need to do the trick?

Go to the upper right of the Table B. Find f/22 aperture for maximum depth of field. Go down the column until you reach a shutter speed fast enough to handle the flowers in the wind (1/125 second). Move to the left along the row (across the double line) until you find the correct Exposure Value (15). From there, move up the column and find that ISO 200 speed film will solve your problem.

Step Three: Use the Ultimate Exposure Computer Wisely

The Ultimate Exposure Computer is designed for use in existing light. If you need to use flash, or you are taking bellows shots, by all means use a camera with a through-the-lens meter. When using flash, use the manufacturer's dedicated flash unit that allows through the lens control of the flash. Those situations are excellent reasons to use the meter in your camera. Some of the lighting situations described in Chart A occur outdoors during daylight. In these cases it is assumed that the sun is at an elevation greater than forty-five degrees. If the sun's elevation is less than forty-five degrees, you can use the next lower Exposure Value, although you'll probably like the results of using the chart without modification. For some films, exposures involving shutter speeds in excess of several seconds may require additional exposure because the film's sensitivity decreases with continued exposure to light for long periods (this is called "reciprocity failure"). Light meters do not correct for this phenomenon, because it varies according to the type of film. Consult the manufacturers' specifications for details. There are some tricky exposures where you can improperly expose the film whether you are using a camera meter or the Ultimate Exposure Computer. Many of these situations are addressed in "What to do in Tricky Light Situations" in Appendix A.

The Final Step: Throw Away the Ultimate Exposure Computer!

The Ultimate Exposure Computer is easy to use and extremely accurate. But there is an easier way. Why not memorize the whole thing? It's a lot easier than you may think. This section will show you how.

There is a rule called the "Sunny f/16 Rule". It says:

On a bright, sunny day, the correct exposure for any subject is f/16 at the shutter speed nearest to the reciprocal of the film speed.

For example, if you are using ASA/ISO 100 film, the correct exposure would be 1/100 second (or rather the closest available shutter speed - 1/125 second) at f/16. The next three paragraphs address this example.

We know that a bright, sunny day equals EV 15. The "Sunny f/16" rule gives us an anchor point to use in mentally calculating the entire contents of Chart B, since it contains all four elements of exposure: Exposure Value (EV 15), film speed (ISO 100), aperture (f/16) and shutter speed (1/125).

From that anchor point, it is easy to calculate any other set of correct exposures. We know that each step up or down in one variable represents a doubling or halving of the amount of light required to make a correct exposure. For example, an overcast day would halve the light falling on the subject (EV 14). If the light reaching the film is cut in half, ONE other variable needs to be changed to increase (double) the amount of light. In this case the shutter speed could be reduced to 1/60 second OR the aperture could be increased to f/11 OR the film speed could be increased to ISO 200. Any ONE of these corrections would provide the correct amount of light. Make the correction that best suits your photographic purpose (decreased depth of field -- the distance in front and behind of the subject that is acceptably in focus -- or enhanced apparent subject motion).

In the same sense, a change in any of the variables can be offset by a reciprocal change in any other variable. For example, you may need a faster shutter speed to stop some action. If you choose 1/500 second, the light will have been reduced by two steps (cut in half from 1/125 to 1/250 and cut it in half again from 1/250 to 1/500). You could compensate for this by opening up the aperture two steps (from f/16 to f/11 will double the light and f/11 to f/8 will double it again). You could make the same correction by increasing the film speed by two steps (from ISO 100 to ISO 200 doubles the light and from ISO 200 to ISO 400 doubles it again). Or, you could increase the aperture to f/11 AND increase the film speed to ISO 200. Again, make the adjustment that best suits your purpose.

Now, let me say that the "sunny f/16" rule is one of the most misunderstood rules in photography. I have heard very competent professional photographers say that the rule is based on reflected light. Nonsense! The rule is based on the light falling on the subject (incident light) not the light reflected from the subject. The rule gives precisely the same measurement that you would get from an incident meter or a reflected meter using a perfect gray card. If your subject is very light or dark, you will need to adjust exposure to bring it within the five stop range of transparency film. But you would also have to make an adjustment from a reflected reading in the same circumstance. The difference is that an incident light measurement is a consistent anchor from which to adjust. A reflected measurement is much more subjective and prone to error. I have also heard that the "sunny f/16" rule doesn't work for backlit or sidelit subjects. This is also false. Just open up a half stop, and make a series of exposures in half stop increments one and a half stop above and below the correct exposure. This is called "bracketing" and it is an important concept. You should always bracket in difficult situations. Anyone who says differently is misleading you. See the section on "Difficult Exposures" for guidelines.

The "sunny f/16" anchor point, combined with your knowledge that each change of one step in a factor doubles or halves the exposure, makes it easy to select a correct exposure for any photographic situation you may be confronted with.

Practice this technique with the Ultimate Exposure Computer in hand. Look at (or imagine) a photographic situation and try to mentally figure out the correct exposure using the "Sunny f/16" anchor point and any adjustments you feel are necessary. For the purpose of this exercise, it is best to concentrate on EV 11 through 16 (where most of your outdoor photography will occur). As you perfect your accuracy in this range, you can move on to more exotic lighting situations. Write down the factors (Exposure Value, film speed, aperture and shutter speed) that you believe will make the best exposure. Consult the Ultimate Exposure Computer to assess the accuracy of the calculations you made mentally.

With a little effort you will soon be achieving close to 100% accuracy, without the use of a light meter or any other exposure aid. The more you practice with the Ultimate Exposure Computer, the sooner you will be able to simply look at a lighting situation and immediately know the correct exposure for the job.

Once you have mastered this technique, you can use it to judge the accuracy of the light meter in your camera (or anyone else's). You will be able to amuse and edify your photographic friends by accurately stating the correct exposure in any situation before your friends can take a reading with their meter!

When you reach that point, the real Ultimate Exposure Computer will be YOU!

Where on Earth Are You?

I get e-mail from all over. Photographers use this document on every continent. Even Antarctica. People taking photographs far to the north or south of my sunny San Diego, California (USA) location (32d N) have asked me to make charts adapted to extreme (from my perspective) latitudes. Here's why: If you live anywhere between the equator and about 50 degrees north or south, the charts and tables in the Ultimate Exposure Computer should work fine for you (remember to bracket). Just move on and don't read the next few paragraphs. If you live further north or south, it should work for you in summer. But things aren't so simple if you live toward the poles. Light from the sun is diminished by traveling farther through the atmosphere or blocked by the curvature of Earth. Look at it this way: near a solstice, natural light at mid-day can range continuously from "Sunny f/16" at the equator to near dark at one of the poles. So you have the variables of latitude and season and time of day to consider. There are other variables such as altitude and snow cover (partially counteracting the effect of latitude and season).

"So," you say, "You've taken me this far and it turns out this won't work for me?" I say, the Ultimate Exposure Computer will NOT let you down. "Well then," you say, "Are you going to give me some complicated, hashed-up chart that tries to fit in the five variables you talked about?" Well... Actually I DID try to do this. What a mess! I'm striving for simplicity here, not trying to model the light falling on every square inch of Earth! Fortunately, the solution is simple, because I know something about you that you've never admitted to me. You DIDN'T throw away your light meter, did you!!? Hah! I knew it! Good! Read on!

You can easily calibrate the Ultimate Exposure Computer to fit your exact location. Go outside and take a meter reading (preferably incident or reflected from a standard gray card). Use whatever light is available, but it is best if it's full sun on a bright day (Sunny f/16). Take a few readings and average them. How many stops difference between your reading and the "Exposure Value Chart"?

Print out two copies of the "Exposure Value Chart" (below). Using a sharp implement (your choice) cut one chart apart, separating the "EV" section from the "Type of Lighting Situation" section. If, for example, your metered reading was two stops below "Sunny f/16" you would slip the "EV" section down two rows. Tape it in place. You now have a chart customized to your latitude, season, time of day, altitude and any other variable you can think of (remember to bracket). You'll need to repeat this exercise as the seasons and conditions change. This is only necessary for sunlit subjects. Other subjects in the chart will work using the copy you didn't deface. There are limitations. Here's just one example: If you're at McMurdo Station on June 21, you'll need to find another way to calculate exposure. Drop me an e-mail and tell me how you make photographs. For most of you intrepid poleward photographers. enjoy!

Exposure Value Chart

EV	Type of Lighting Situation
-6	Night, away from city lights, subject under starlight only.
-5	Night, away from city lights, subject under crescent moon.
-4	Night, away from city lights, subject under half moon. Meteors (during showers, with time exposure).
-3	Night, away from city lights, subject under full moon.
-2	Night, away from city lights, snowscape under full moon.
-1	Subjects lit by dim ambient artificial light.
0	Subjects lit by dim ambient artificial light.
1	Distant view of lighted skyline.
2	Lightning (with time exposure). Total eclipse of moon.
3	Fireworks (with time exposure).
4	Candle lit close-ups. Christmas lights, floodlit buildings, fountains, and monuments. Subjects under bright street lamps.
5	Night home interiors, average light. School or church auditoriums. Subjects lit by campfires or bonfires.
6	Brightly lit home interiors at night. Fairs, amusement parks.
7	Bottom of rainforest canopy. Brightly lighted nighttime streets. Indoor sports. Stage shows, circuses.
8	Las Vegas or Times Square at night. Store windows. Campfires, bonfires, burning buildings. Ice shows, football, baseball etc. at night. Interiors with bright florescent lights.
9	Landscapes, city skylines 10 minutes after sunset. Neon lights, spotlighted subjects.
10	Landscapes and skylines immediately after sunset. Crescent moon (long lens).
11	Sunsets. Subjects in deep shade.
12	Half moon (long lens). Subject in open shade or heavy overcast.
13	Gibbous moon (long lens). Subjects in cloudy-bright light (no shadows).
14	Full moon (long lens). Subjects in weak, hazy sun.
15	Subjects in bright or hazy sun (Sunny f/16 rule).
16	Subjects in bright daylight on sand or snow.
17	Rarely encountered in nature. Some man made lighting.
18	Rarely encountered in nature. Some man made lighting.
19	Rarely encountered in nature. Some man made lighting.
20	Rarely encountered in nature. Some man made lighting.
21	Rarely encountered in nature. Some man made lighting.
22	Extremely bright. Rarely encountered in nature.
23	Extremely bright. Rarely encountered in nature.

Exposure Factor Relationship Chart B

This chart shows how Exposure Value, film speed, aperture and shutter speed are related. Find your ISO on the left, move down to your EV, then move right to find shutter speed/aperture combinations.

How to Read the Chart

Find your ISO/Film Speed column on the left
Move down that column to your Exposure Value (EV)
Move right across that row to find Shutter Speeds
Move up from any shutter speed to find the corresponding Aperture (f/stop)

	ISO 25	ISO 50	ISO 100	ISO 200	ISO 400	ISO 800	ISO 1600	f/1.4	f/2.0	f/2.8	f/4	f/5.6	f/8	f/11	f/16	f/22	f/32
EV
1	0	-1	-2	-3	-4	-5	-6	4s	8s	15s	30s	1m	2m	4m	8m	16m	32m
2	1	0	-1	-2	-3	-4	-5	2s	4s	8s	15s	30s	1m	2m	4m	8m	16m
3	2	1	0	-1	-2	-3	-4	1s	2s	4s	8s	15s	30s	1m	2m	4m	8m
4	3	2	1	0	-1	-2	-3	1/2s	1s	2s	4s	8s	15s	30s	1m	2m	4m
5	4	3	2	1	0	-1	-2	1/4s	1/2s	1s	2s	4s	8s	15s	30s	1m	2m
6	5	4	3	2	1	0	-1	1/8s	1/4s	1/2s	1s	2s	4s	8s	15s	30s	1m
7	6	5	4	3	2	1	0	1/15s	1/8s	1/4s	1/2s	1s	2s	4s	8s	15s	30s
8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	1/30s	1/15s	1/8s	1/4s	1/2s	1s	2s	4s	8s	15s
9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1/60s	1/30s	1/15s	1/8s	1/4s	1/2s	1s	2s	4s	8s
10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	1/125s	1/60s	1/30s	1/15s	1/8s	1/4s	1/2s	1s	2s	4s
11	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	1/250s	1/125s	1/60s	1/30s	1/15s	1/8s	1/4s	1/2s	1s	2s
12	11	10	9	8	7	6	5	1/500s	1/250s	1/125s	1/60s	1/30s	1/15s	1/8s	1/4s	1/2s	1s
13	12	11	10	9	8	7	6	1/1000s	1/500s	1/250s	1/125s	1/60s	1/30s	1/15s	1/8s	1/4s	1/2s
14	13	12	11	10	9	8	7	1/2000s	1/1000s	1/500s	1/250s	1/125s	1/60s	1/30s	1/15s	1/8s	1/4s
15	14	13	12	11	10	9	8	1/4000s	1/2000s	1/1000s	1/500s	1/250s	1/125s	1/60s	1/30s	1/15s	1/8s
16	15	14	13	12	11	10	9	1/8000s	1/4000s	1/2000s	1/1000s	1/500s	1/250s	1/125s	1/60s	1/30s	1/15s

Some Useful Photographic Guidelines

Sunny f/16 Anchor Point: On a bright day (EV 15) the correct exposure for any subject is f/16 at a shutter speed nearest to the reciprocal of the film speed (I.E. ISO 100 film = 1/125).

Doubling Rule: Within any exposure factor (Exposure Value, film speed, aperture, shutter speed) each step is double (or half of) the preceding step.

Tripod Rule: Use one for every photograph. If your shutter speed is slower than the reciprocal of the focal length of your lens (I.E.< 1/200 sec. with a 200 mm lens), use a tripod. If your subject is moving, double this shutter speed. If you are moving (such as in a boat or plane) triple the speed. If you are doing macro work (.25 magnification or greater), always use a tripod. If you're using a format larger than 35mm, use a tripod. To be safe, weld your camera to the tripod.

Film Speed: As you increase film speed, problems with grain and sharpness will increase.

Apparent Subject Motion: Increasing shutter speed will reduce apparent subject motion. Decreasing shutter speed will increase apparent subject motion.

Depth of Field (the distance in front and behind of the subject that is acceptably in focus): Increasing aperture (lower f/stop #) will decrease depth of field. Decreasing aperture (higher f/stop #) will increase depth of field.

Appendix A: What to Do in Tricky Light Situations

Front Lighting: Follow directions given in this document.

Side Lighting: Expose for front lighting, exactly as described herein. Bracket in half stop increments to one and a half stops over exposure. No need to bracket on the underexposure side. Alternatively, use a reflecting surface to bounce more light into the shadows. Make decisions based on the tonality of the subject. With a light subject your first exposure should be your best. With a darker subject your last exposure should be correct.

Back Lighting: Where possible, shoot subject in front of a dark background. Use EV 12 as your starting point (there are three stops difference between sun and shade) and bracket in half stop increments one and a half stops to the underexposure side (no need to bracket to the over exposure side -- EV12 takes care of it for you). If you must shoot into a light background, your best bet is to shoot a silhouette. Examples are backlit fog on a lake with fishermen in boats in the shot. In this case, start with EV 15 and bracket in half stop increments to three stops on the under exposure side. Your backlit photography will be better if you use a long lens (with an appropriate lens shade!). Make sure your lens is scrupulously clean. If you are shooting people, use a warming filter (such as 81B), and adjust exposure by increasing exposure by 1/2 to one stop.

The Ultimate Backlight -- Sunrises & Sunsets: When the sun is in your shot, go for silhouettes. Begin with EV 15 and bracket in full stops to four stops under.

Night Shots: Don't shoot them at night, shoot at dusk. Look through your camera with the aperture fully stopped down. This has the effect of taking color out of the scene and allowing you to judge tonality more accurately. When your subject and the sky seem to be the same shade of gray, open up the lens and make your exposure. With a middle tone subject, this will usually take place 30-45 minutes after sundown. Use EV9 as a basis for exposure. Bracket in half stop increments to two stops over and two stops under. You will like at least half of the shots.

Shoot the Moon With a Long Lens: Use EV14. Bracket in half stop increments to one stop over and one stop under.

Shooting Scenics in Woods or Where There Are A Lot of Shadows: Shoot under overcast (EV12 or 13) situations.

Fast Moving Subjects -- Sports, Etc.: Pick a vantage point that lets you shoot in front light, if possible. Utilize a dark background if available. Use a telephoto lens and a tripod, if possible. Use Chart B to select a film speed that will allow you to use a shutter speed TWICE the reciprocal of your focal length (i.e. a 300mm lens at 1/500 sec).

Shooting from an Airplane or Boat: Use Chart B to find a film speed that will let you shoot at THREE times the reciprocal of the focal length (i.e. 1/1000 sec for a 300mm lens).

Macro or Micro Shots: Make adjustments for loss of light due to extension of the lens or bellows, as given in the instruction manual, or on the lens barrel. Better yet, use your in camera meter! It will need the exercise.

Excessively Long Exposure Times: Times above 10 seconds or so. Here you run into reciprocity failure (a fancy name for "it will take a LOT longer than you think!") Follow the directions that come with every film package. You will run into this problem whether you are using a meter or not. Bracket liberally!

Appendix B: EV, Footcandles and LUX

Those of you who have been involved with photography for some time may have heard the terms "Foot-candles" or "LUX". You may find these referred to on some light meters. These measurements are used in the film industry, television and industrial lighting. There is a relationship between these numbers and EV numbers. Since you've already learned about EV numbers, this section will allow you to edify and amaze your friends with your knowledge of light!

Relationship

Is there any intuitive relationship between EV, Foot-candles and LUX? The answer is "not really". EV numbers are a linear progression that is convenient to use for memorization of relative light levels. Footcandles and LUX proceed in a doubling manner, which better illustrates the doubling (or halving) of light at each step. To get to LUX, simply multiply the foot-candles by 11. The table below better represents the relationship:

EV (ISO 100)	Footcandles	LUX
-3	.03	.31
-2	.06	.63
-1	.12	1.3
0	.23	2.5
1	.46	5
2	.93	10
3	1.9	20
4	3.7	40
5	7.4	80
6	15	160
7	30	320
8	60	640
9	120	1300
10	240	2600
11	480	5100
12	950	10000
13	1900	20000
14	3800	41000
15	7600	82000
16	15000	160000
17	30000	330000

The Ultimate Exposure Computer: An Exposure Guide For Professional and Advanced Nature Photographers

How I Learn Languages

Sun, 18 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Language learning is hard. Learning them as an adult is even harder. There are times when you will feel like it has been months since you have made any progress matched by days where you will feel your target language pours out your mouth with native ease. Over the last six years and across two new languages, I've gone through piles of language learning content to find what works for me. I want to share my routine that steadily shows progress, in both immersion and without.

Consistency Is Key

I want to address the first thing. I'm about to be in my forties, I work 50+ hours a week in the American corporate hellscape, and I don't have a lot of time to study. I fit these steps in anywhere I can: the bus commute, waiting for an appointment, queueing for an event. For that reason make sure everything you setup you can do from your phone.

Second, consistency I've found is key with 15 minutes a day better than 2 hours one day a week. For that reason I've broken this down into a few loops: daily, weekly, and monthly. These loops are designed to resurface and cement core items into my memory.

Each of these have a minimum and then more on top for when I find myself on an extended bus ride or sitting at a doctor's office. What's important is to avoid scrolling in your downtime until you have done the bare minimum. From there, your pace of progress is your choice.

Before I get to the loops though lets talk the progression. I could break this down into Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels, but then I would have to explain what each CEFR level means. Instead my descriptive progression path is:

Stupid Baby
    V
Hearing Words You Know
    V
Not Being Lost Sometimes
    V
TV With Subtitles
    V
Natural Learning
    V
Unnatural Learning

Each of these levels require greater time commitment to break through and diverse times for every individual depending on the language. The last two I'll quickly explain as they may not be obvious. Natural learning is when you can ingest content and learn through regular consumption of media. Unnatural learning is when you want to reach a higher level such as academic or technical understanding, a level of language you would not find in most published media or conversation.

When you first start, Stupid Baby is fun because you pick up a lot fast. You'll be a great hit at parties as you know annoy everyone with what you're excited about having learned (they don't give a shit). Once you reach Not Being Lost Sometimes things become hard and you will have to put in the work. I didn't start doing the loops I'm about to explain until that point with my first language, but with my second I did them from the beginning. Choose your own adventure there, but I feel that I've retained more at a faster rate in the second language.

The Daily Loop

First thing is first, try to intersect your every day with your target language. As soon as you can, switch your phone. You can toggle apps one-by-one to your native language if you need in the settings, but doing this you will quickly learn days of the week, common computer settings, and a host of regularly used vocabulary. This is a freebie because you aren't going to not use your phone in your daily life and you have already memorized all the button layouts anyways so you can robotically move through the motions while picking up vocabulary.

Anki

This is the bare minimum every day. Anki is an app that's expensive but worth every penny for learning with spaced repetition (the benefits of which have been well described by Gwern). Do not download pre-canned decks and only add words as you come across them naturally. Vocabulary needs context to be useful.

I complete Anki every day, 100 notecards per language, and each takes me between 7 to 15 minutes. That's my bare minimum. I consider this stopping the bleeding when I don't have time to go deeper. Before I made this my bare minimum I would sometimes go a week or two without a lesson due to work and find I'd regressed. Not anymore.

15 Minutes of Reading

If I have more time I jump into reading. I learn best reading, you might learn best another way, but either way this is a skill we want to learn in a new language. Finding digestible content is key. In the beginning a grammar book may have this, but as you progress you can read news articles or children's books. Eventually you'll be reading real books, but on the way there consider using Generative AI, whatever free service you can find, and ask it to write you a one page essay in your target language on a topic you do not have the vocabulary for yet.

Once you can switch over all of your news consumption into your target language. Congratulations you now get to doom scroll in your target language and it counts as studying. Add any vocabulary you read and don't recognize to your Anki.

15 Minutes Listening

Listening takes the longest time to develop and I would be tempted to put it ahead of reading, but you just can't beat the ease of consuming new things in written form. Luckily, listening can be done just about anywhere. Target beginner podcasts for starters. Every language has them and it's a great way to get grammar lessons, pronunciation, and listening practice rolled into one.

Then hop immediately into music, toggling on the lyrics mode on whichever streaming app you use and adding vocabulary you do not know to your Anki. This is free reading practice too and interpreting the lyrics can make great fodder for writing prompts later. As you progress you can hop into podcasts in whatever genre you like, but personally I hate most podcasts and opt to go right for Radio Garden. Radio Garden lets you listen to live radio around the world. Leave it on in the background whenever you are able. I got this tip from a teacher and I do not know how but I absorbed better pronunciation and a more natural sound from listening to how natives use the language.

Lastly, I had some prior success with setting up a separate TikTok and YouTube account in my target language and purposefully picking only target language content. I ended up wasting too much time chasing content and filtering the feeds. Once you are to the TV With Subtitles phase you will be able to consume this content somewhat naturally along with TV and film so I wouldn't waste time trying to build the perfect feed until then.

15 Minutes of Writing

Great I've had a really open day. I honestly get this maybe three times a week unless work is slow. Just being honest. Write three paragraphs on whatever topic you like. If you have extra free time pick a topic you know you'll have to lookup vocabulary for (add it to your Anki) and use it. As you progress, write your notes and shopping lists in your target language. You're now studying for free again, good work. As soon as you're able find the subreddits for your target language and when you build up the courage start replying, get eviscerated, keep replying. Add all that rude slang they used to insult you on the internet to your Anki if you don't recognize it.

The Weekly Loop

Where the daily loop is intended to maintain and slowly ratchet you forward, the weekly loop is intended to do big leaps. If the daily loop takes about an hour a day if you get through all of it, then the weekly loop adds on about 2 hours a week of work. Only about one hour a week is a bare minimum so you are seeing about 3 hours bare minimum a week to 9 hours if you can get through it all. If you don't think you can do that look at your screen time app on your phone and tell me you haven't spent 3 hours on TikTok today alone.

One Live Lesson

This is the bare minimum each week. Do one live lesson, more if you can. Throw any dumb AI garbage where you talk with a robot out the window. The entire point of learning a language is to use it with the people. Use Preply or Italki, find a real tutor, maybe make a friend for life. One of my tutors and I have gotten so close we call each other brother and talk near daily. I stay with him when I visit. Don't skimp out on this experience and your shoe in to a good time when visiting another country. Plus if you want to actually speak the language you need to use it with a native if you can.

Finding a good tutor can be difficult, but my tips are find one first that shares your interests. Unless you're studying Cherokee or Hawaiian or something with a small speaking population there should be enough tutors that you can find one that shares your hobbies. This will make them easy to talk to and it won't feel awkward. From there look for one that teaches grammar and particularly pokes at places where you are weak. You want to feel challenged when you come out of the lesson. Listen to your gut when you feel that things are getting too easy or that you have plateaued with a tutor, then move along to another.

One Grammar Book Lesson

A tutor will cover grammar, but I cannot stress enough how much it helped me to grab textbooks and work through the exercises for each level. Concepts will be explained in a different way that may cement them in your brain better and the book will cover topics your tutor may gloss over. Additionally a grammar book lesson gives you a pile of content to ask your tutor about later, illuminating small details in the language. Sometimes I'll go every other week with this, sometimes two a week, but at least one a week is the sweet spot and where I feel I'm progressing the most.

Verb Conjugations

This is a temporary member of the weekly loop, but one that has served me well in both languages. Create a worksheet that has a blank spot for every conjugation, tense, and mood of a verb in that language. Print out 200 of them. Google the top 200 most commonly used verbs in that language. Do 5 to 10 of them a week if you can. By the time you reach 100 you will feel that you have the use of verbs down by heart. By 200 you will cement them so well that you will be rambling off conjugations in the nursing home even after the dementia kicks in.

The Monthly Loop

If the daily loop is to maintain and slowly ratchet forward while the weekly loop is big pulls of the crank, then the monthly loop is looking for the parts that fell off the machine and putting them back on. Luckily the monthly loop also ties in to your daily writing practice so does not add any additional time unless you want to do extra.

Suspended Anki Card Essays

Anki has a concept of "suspended cards" or cards that the algorithm determined that you had learned, but then got wrong when they came up again for review. The idea is that whatever situation you were in or how the card was presented made that thing impossible to learn at the time. Once a month I take 10 or more of these suspended cards, write an essay or a sentence for each, then toggle them back into the Anki rotation. The additional context of using them is usually enough to remember them going forward.

Reworking Notes

Inevitably as you are learning you will collect a pile of notes around conjugations, declensions, adjective agreement, and whatever other features your target language has that differs from your native language. Once a month I like to sit down and compress these into a single notebook or cheat sheet. Not only do you come out the other end with an excellent reference for yourself, but rearranging the rules and specifics of a language in another way is a great way to cement them in memory. I like to then copy these into my Notes app so that I can review them on the fly if I come across content and have a question about the grammar.

At some point your knowledge of the language becomes good enough that you are naturally intersecting with it most days and it no longer feels like study. If you are lucky you will have moved to the country and progressed so quickly through immersion that you are beyond all of this. For the rest of us though, continue finding structured ways to fill your downtime with language and continue making progress.

Every Company Should Use Different Threat Names

Sat, 17 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Defenders not only have to keep up with ever-evolving threats, but also with the Rosetta Stone of threat names spread across organizations. Microsoft with its types of weather, Mandiant (now Google Cloud) with its UNC/APT system, CrowdStrike with animals, Unit 42 with constellation names, and the ever-growing smattering of smaller firms with intelligence groups using their own or no naming convention at all. The fatigue this heaps on defenders has been harped on endlessly already, but I argue that keeping company reporting separate, along with the ease of maintaining the Rosetta Stone, outweighs all negatives.

The Visibility Problem

Visibility into the Operational Environment determines a threat research group's capabilities.

When we talk about the process of intelligence creation, we often reference the old but evergreen threat intelligence pipeline.

There is a lot that has been said about collection, processing, and analysis, but rarely do we talk about how visibility into the Operational Environment (OE) determines a threat research group's capabilities.

Take as an example Microsoft, with their Azure cloud they get visibility into some cloud services, but the true data mine for MSTIC is Microsoft Defender and Office365. They see little of the Android or iOS ecosystem, some of the server ecosystem, but a large chunk of end user data. In the case of AWS, almost the entirety of their visibility is into the AWS ecosystem and the same if we look at Apple who has their visibility on OS X and iOS endpoints almost exclusively.

<div class="image-tabs" id="vendor-visibility"> <div class="tab-buttons"> <button class="tab-btn active" data-tab="microsoft">Microsoft Visibility</button> <button class="tab-btn" data-tab="aws">AWS Visibility</button> <button class="tab-btn" data-tab="apple">Apple Visibility</button> </div> <div class="tab-content"> <div class="tab-panel active" data-panel="microsoft"> <img src="/images/posts/threat-names/_microsoft-visibility.png" alt="Microsoft's visibility across their ecosystem" /> </div> <div class="tab-panel" data-panel="aws"> <img src="/images/posts/threat-names/_aws-visibility.png" alt="AWS's visibility into cloud infrastructure" /> </div> <div class="tab-panel" data-panel="apple"> <img src="/images/posts/threat-names/_apple-visibility.png" alt="Apple's visibility on endpoints" /> </div> </div> </div>

Each threat research group only sees components of activity viewed through their lens.

These are different realms that have completely different actor profiles. Where Microsoft Defender may catch an end user infostealer malware running on a Windows 10 machine at a customer, AWS may then see that as C2 activity to a compromised EC2 node. Each threat research group only sees components of activity viewed through their lens. Each only gets a piece of the picture and their visibility into their respective platforms' security tooling means they can connect wholly different instances than another group or may find no connection at all.

An Example

Apple may spot a new piece of malware being delivered via a WhatsApp exploit. They can see that being exploited, know which versions of WhatsApp are vulnerable, and have a vulnerability research team investigate. With the malware they have analyzed, they see similarities across 5 different binaries and they can link this to an actor they internally track.

Meanwhile, on Azure, Microsoft is only seeing data from iOS devices filling up block storage. They are aware that this is malicious activity because they know the Azure account being leveraged is compromised and they can tie this to a whole set of other malicious activity under an actor they internally track for having compromised a number of customer accounts.

Due to legal and contractual obligations, neither security team can share all of their security data with each other. If they can it's wonderful and we see those collaborations where threat actors merge with joint reporting, but otherwise in their separate public reporting there will be a Microsoft actor that leverages compromised Azure accounts for exfiltration and an Apple actor that exploits WhatsApp bugs to steal user information. Two distinct clusters of activity on separate platforms viewed from different angles of visibility.

We see similar visibility problems with companies like Cisco or Palo Alto where the majority of their point of view is dominated by network device telemetry. They see network traffic, indicative of the behavior above, but they will not see the binary like Apple or the cluster of compromised accounts like Microsoft. They'll see patterns of maliciousness between hosts that they may be able to identify as malicious through other reporting.

Expanding Visibility

Companies also aim to strategically improve their visibility through acquisitions as we have seen with Google acquiring Mandiant. Google's prior threat intelligence group had good visibility into Android, Chrome, and GCP -- a great spread of end user to cloud computing. Now with the acquisition of Mandiant they also receive the telemetry of Mandiant professional services performing on-site incident response. This greatly expands their collections to include AWS, Azure, and a whole host of endpoint devices when it intersects with a customer paying for MDR.

<div class="image-tabs" id="google-visibility"> <div class="tab-buttons"> <button class="tab-btn active" data-tab="before">Google Visibility Before</button> <button class="tab-btn" data-tab="after">Google Visibility After</button> </div> <div class="tab-content"> <div class="tab-panel active" data-panel="before"> <img src="/images/posts/threat-names/_google-visibility-before.png" alt="Google's visibility before Mandiant acquisition" /> </div> <div class="tab-panel" data-panel="after"> <img src="/images/posts/threat-names/_google-visibility-after.png" alt="Google's expanded visibility after Mandiant acquisition" /> </div> </div> </div>

The Analytical Rigor Problem

A good analyst will never trust another company's reporting at face value.

Now that we know that different actor names exist due to differences in visibility and scope, we can talk about why we don't aim to combine them into singular groups. Threat intelligence analysts spend months if not years tracking actor activity, meticulously categorizing and cataloguing data to support their theories. When companies publish threat intelligence reporting they leave out the details, raw logs that prove how they reached their conclusions, and often times create parallel construction to not reveal sources and methods.

A good analyst will never trust another company's reporting at face value and will take the time to parse the reporting and see if they can tie any of the indicators of compromise to activity that they have witnessed in their environment. Blind trust leads to the problem of several years back where every bit of reporting was attributing broad amounts of activity sets to Kimsuky due to a couple of common, shared indicators. Being too quick to tie two clusters together doesn't help later analysis and in turn defenders who then have to wade through piles of TTPs and unrelated indicators. Tightly scoped clusters of activity improve decision making.

For example a company may report the IP address of a VPS that was used to host a dropper, but there is no instance of that IP address in the analyst's environment. While it's important to monitor for the appearance of that IP address in the future, it should not be immediately attributed to the similar cluster of activity that analyst is tracking even if there is overlap in other indicators. An analyst must work from their point of view, their visibility, and confirm that the activity aligns with their own.

The Advantageous Solution of Separate Names

Knowing the visibility behind a threat report immediately informs how you can use the information.

So companies have a valid reason to create their own naming conventions and analysts have a valid reason to not mix their visibility. What advantages do we get though from maintaining this Rosetta Stone of names? For that we have to come back to the visibility problem.

As we established, threat research groups have specific visibility and therefore capabilities and they also often hide their sources and methods in reporting. Knowing that a cluster of activity is under their threat actor naming convention gives an external analyst a starting point of where to look. Is this reporting on a ransomware group from Microsoft? You can assume you want to look for its activity in your Microsoft Windows fleet. Did AWS report on recent exploitation attempts it witnessed? Start by looking at your cloud resources for activity.

The point of a threat intelligence group is to inform and guide decision makers. For strategic intelligence, specificity matters. Incident response groups do not have time to waste chasing piles of indicators. Knowing the visibility behind a threat report immediately informs how you can use the information. More specific reporting, tightly scoped to company visibility is better than more generic, overloaded threat groups. Furthermore you can decide on a per company basis if you trust their reporting or have been able to confirm their reporting in your data in the past.

Threat naming conventions seem a jumbled mess across organizations, but they give us more visibility and insight than monolithic, overloaded actor groups. By thin slicing just what organizations can specifically see and verify, we can track and report on threat actors with increased specificity while building the amalgamations ourselves where proven.

.centered-image img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; }

.image-tabs { margin: 30px 0; border: 1px solid #ddd; border-radius: 4px; overflow: hidden; }

.tab-buttons { display: flex; background-color: #f5f5f5; border-bottom: 1px solid #ddd; }

.tab-btn { flex: 1; padding: 12px 16px; border: none; background: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: Futura, "Trebuchet MS", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 0.85rem; color: #666; transition: all 0.3s ease; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; }

.tab-btn:hover { color: #000; background-color: #eee; }

.tab-btn.active { color: #000; border-bottom-color: #000; background-color: #fff; }

.tab-content { padding: 20px; }

.tab-panel { display: none; }

.tab-panel.active { display: block; }

.tab-panel img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; display: block; margin: 0 auto; }

body.dark-theme .image-tabs { border-color: #333; }

body.dark-theme .tab-buttons { background-color: #1a1a1a; border-bottom-color: #333; }

body.dark-theme .tab-btn { color: #999; }

body.dark-theme .tab-btn:hover { color: #e0e0e0; background-color: #2a2a2a; }

body.dark-theme .tab-btn.active { color: #e0e0e0; border-bottom-color: #e0e0e0; background-color: #0a0a0a; }

body.dark-theme .tab-content { background-color: #0a0a0a; } </style>

buttons.forEach(function(button) {
  button.addEventListener('click', function() {
    const tabId = this.getAttribute('data-tab');

    buttons.forEach(function(btn) {
      btn.classList.remove('active');
    });
    panels.forEach(function(panel) {
      panel.classList.remove('active');
    });

    this.classList.add('active');
    tabContainer.querySelector('[data-panel="' + tabId + '"]').classList.add('active');
  });
});

}); }); </script>

What's A Piffey?

Sun, 11 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT

I was somewhere in my pre-teens when we first got the internet at the house. My dad had a few terminals with acoustic couplers before that, but the first time I truly remember using the internet was after that screech of the dial-up modem. After opening the browser, dad put me in front of the keyboard and told me to go visit a website, any website. Unable to decide where to go and with that bright, empty, white bar staring me in the face, I typed in my first ever URL: nfl.com. I don't think I've ever visited that site since. If you know me today, you know just how ridiculous that is as I'm not, nor have ever been, a fan of American football.

Several years later, I wouldn't be caught off guard again when I got my own internet-connected machine, a Pentium 133 that was joined up to the Windows NT domain my dad had for all of the machines in the house. We shared an OC3 (155.52 Mbps!) that he'd had hooked up for his business in the garage. I was awash in bandwidth from day one.

Earlier that year I'd found a small TV in a neighbor's trash. I'd pulled it apart, figured out how to fix it, and from then on had my own TV in my room. After that, I kept the SciFi network in the background pretty much from when I woke up to when I went to sleep. I was obsessed with Farscape, Sliders, MST3K (which dad and I woudl watch every Saturday together), and Quantum Leap. I'd seen the network's advertisements for their website and this time around, for the first website on my own machine: scifi.com.

In short order I found their Internet Relay Chat (IRC) server, The Mothership, that had a rudimentary web client. I was once again faced with a blank bar, but this time for a name of my choosing. You would think that I would have learned my lesson the first time, but instead once again, without hesitation, I typed in the first thing that came to mind: Anderson.

Once on the IRC server I found my way to a channel called #bottestlab that had a number of users in it: atlas, foo, janus, shade, and winston to name a few. I may be mixing a few of those up as iterations of the same person, but they were certainly all handles used in the channel at one point or another. This channel would be foundational for all of my interesting in computing, music I enjoyed in my teens, and nerdy sense of humor. Chatting in that channel led me to download mIRC and write some scripts (eggdrops and pokebots) -- my first foray into programming. This led to learning C, perl, and python. I would later meet foo in Southern California where he'd give me my first Linux distribution, Slackware, on a set of floppies, but that's a different story.

I can't remember who first gave me a hard time for it, but I remember someone in #bottestlab saying that "Anderson" wasn't much of a handle. As Joey says in Hackers (the cinematic masterpiece): "I need a handle, man. I don't have an identity until I have a handle." So I decided to change my name. This time I'd put into the blank bar three letters chosen at random: pfe. They has been the source of many, silly bacronyms since, but from that point forward I was pfe for another 10 or so years.

Growing up in Las Vegas and being a young hacker, I attended DEFCON every year and little by little, as I met people I knew from IRC networks (EFNet, DALnet, The Mothership, and eventually Mystic/Foozone/Xelium) or forums, they would address me by my handle, as was more customary in hacker circles then. Since it was odd to say the letters, many started shortening it to "piff-ee" and that stuck as the pronunciation, spreading as I was introduced to others. As my hobbies expanded and I later met people from bicycle and photography forums, some of which crossed over between groups, the pronunciation of "piff-ee" stuck. Fast forward a few years to university and I spent a short spell as a bicycle messenger where "piffey" was all I was ever called over the radio or at the bar and the name was further cemented across social circles.

Sometime during those years I was doing enough explaining of why it was spelled "pfe", like I'm doing here now, that I started registering "piffey" on major services. I can't tell you why I chose that spelling, but I can tell you that now 20 years on I won't be changing it. Today, my social circles are mixed enough that some know me by my given name and some by piffey -- I respond to either the same.

And that's the origin of the name.

While writing this I did some searching for artifacts from those early days and came across PrincessLeia2's history of some of those IRC servers and users from a different vantage point. I didn't spend much time in #deep13, but knew a few users that idled in both.

Analyzing Famous Photographs: Garry Winogrand

Mon, 28 Dec 2020 00:00:00 GMT

In my photographic practice I tend to be much more interested in why a photograph is impactful due to its content or what makes the photograph more beautiful than the scene that was photographed. As a researcher, this changes and I am often using OSINT sources to derive details about a photograph. I try to determine locations based on the sun and shadows, distant ridge lines, the positioning of satellite dishes, and anything else that can give me a clue. With this article I chose to turn that on its head and take the analytical approach fo research to some of my favorite photographs.

OSINT or Open Source Intelligence is the process of using open data sets such as public records, historical archives, and maps in the intelligence gathering process.

Garry Winogrand

Garry Winogrand is widely regarded as one of the most influential photographers of the 1960s. While much of his work was centered on New York City, where he grew up, he also spent later years of his life in Texas and California including a pivotal road trip in 1964 from which some of his best work emerged. Winogrand sits firmly in the cadre of photographers that I respect so heavily that I could only ever hope to imitate them at best. Perhaps by taking a deeper look at where and when he was making some of his iconic photographs can provide me with at least a slight glimpse into the life of one of the greats of American photography.

Los Angeles, 1969

This photograph is one of Winogrand's most beautiful with the light, triangle of subjects, and overall mood conveying the tail end of the 1960s. But as I mentioned above, I am not here to discuss what makes this photograph good, but to derive what knowledge I can glean from its contents.

Location

In this instance I have a fairly easy way to discover this photograph's location. From the name of the photograph itself I know this is in Los Angeles and by the 1600 block sign in the upper right I know that Winogrand is at Vine and Hollywood Boulevard. I can further confirm this by looking down on the ground and finding Louella Parsons' star which is at the 6300 block of Hollywood Boulevard. There could be some confusion here as Louella Parsons had two stars, one for radio and one for film, but her film star has her middle initial "O" in it and resides at the 6400 block of Hollywood Boulevard.

To further confirm this location I can check Google Street View and see that the fire escape, building columns, and the large building in the background to the right are all still present. That background building is now the headquarters for the Church of Scientology and resides on that corner. I'll circle back around to that a little bit later.

Time

Winogrand, like many photographers, chose to only label his photographs by year. However, several details I've already determined plus a few new ones can help me determine a near-exact day for when this photograph was made. I already know that Winogrand was at the 6300 block of Hollywood Boulevard and Vine in 1969. I know that he was facing west and that the time was approaching sunset because of how low the light is in the sky. If I take a closer look I can see that the shadows of objects are longer than the objects themselves which is an important feature. Sometimes by calculating the trajectory of the sun and the length of objects I can get an exact location and time, but in this instance I cannot see the end of any of our shadows. The final important detail is that the sun is not procluded by the large building behind. This, plus the shadows themselves, lets me draw the conclusion that our sun must be on a trajectory that doesn't block that street as it does in our Google Street View image. This should help me narrow down to at least a block of days when this was shot.

To do this work I'll use SunCalc and some manual futzing around. There are a number of tools that let you do this -- many that are specifically for mapping out potential photo shoots for photographers. SunCalc has historical data on the trajectory of the sun that I can use to brute force my way to a date range. Since everyone is in light clothing I can assume Winogrand was shooting closer to a summer month and since he was facing west and his subjects have shadows longer than the subjects themselves I know Winogrand was at a very late stage in the day. This, however, isn't enough to get us narrowed down but to a few months. I need near exact heights of objects.

Looking around the image I can see the street sign there. In the Los Angeles County code information signs are required to be 6'6" at a minimum. However, I can't find when that code came into effect and if there were any requirements for signage back in 1969 so that's an unreliable number. I'm not a car buff so can't reliably tell which models those are and calculate the rest of the heights based off of their build specifications. Perhaps if I wanted to be more precise I could reach out to a friend who is a car buff to further narrow down. Since the women in the photograph all look about the same height I can venture to guess that they are of average height. Women around their age in 1969 would have had an average height of 163cm according to historical data. This is enough for me to then map to a number that I know for sure: all Hollywood stars are spaced 6ft apart or 1.8m.

So knowing all of this I can now look at the woman on the right, whose shadow I can see the most of, and note that her legs are casting a shadow of about two Hollywood stars meaning her full shadow should be between 4m to 6m in length. Placing this into SunCalc I can see that at June 1, 1969 that the Church of Scientology headquarters building would be blocking a potential shadow of that length so I need to move dates around until I can find one that fits my parameters.

If I go forward from June 1, 1969 I notice that the building always blocks the sunlight in the afternoon and there would never be a long enough shadow so I have to go backwards. Going to April 1, 1969 the shadows are much too long and the trajectory of the sun is in the wrong direction. Traveling forward from there day by day it isn't until April 24, 1969 that I begin to see conditions that match my specifications. Stepping forward from there the upper bound looks to be about May 5, 1969 befor I fall out of those parameters again.

Given that date range I now turn to historical weather. Unfortunately, in this case I am in Los Angeles where every day is sunny and clear. I can only eliminate one day, April 24, 1969, due to heavy winds reported in historical weather for Los Angeles county.

Since no hair is whipping around in this photograph I can now say that Garry Winogrand's Los Angeles, 1969 was photographed at the 6300 Block of Hollywood Boulevard and Vine in Hollywood, California around 1800 local time between the days of April 25, 1969 and May 5, 1969.

Dallas, 1964

This photograph, sometimes called The Levitating Cowboy, was taken before Winogrand moved to Texas in 1973 to teach at the University of Texas at Austin. Looking at this photograph I can immediately see that there are not a lot of defining features that would make it easy to spot unless of course I was intimately familiar with Dallas, Texas at this time and could spot the large building behind. In any case, that will have to be my anchor for discovering our spot.

Location

This turned out to be a much harder task than I had imagined. Since none of the textual details are available in the photograph and none of the signs complete I couldn't find the spot easily on a historical map. I then turned to the Dallas Public Library, who maintains an excellent digital collection, and went through historical photographs of downtown Dallas buildings, but no luck. Lastly, I decided to resort to using Google Street View to go through the streets of Downtown Dallas one by one hoping to spot the similar features, hoping the building had not been destroyed at some point.

I decided to concentrate on the recessed columns, window structure, and the entrance to a parking garage on the far left side. The size of the building made me think that it must be a tower and since Winogrand photographed mostly people there was a large liklihood he would be at the most populous pedestrian center. After going up and down the streets I finally came across a building that looked near identical at Elm Street and Stone Place in Dallas.

I confirmed in records that this building would have been around in 1964 and on looking for more details came across this map of the American Institute of Architects 1962 convention showcasing the best architecture Dallas had to offer for the "Curious Conventioneer". At that location I could see marked, number 26, Cullum & Boren Sporting Goods.

Looking back at the photograph I could see the Sporting Goods sign in the background with the letters "Bor" at the top, making this highly likely to be our location. I still wanted one more confirmation and that came when I turned the Google Street View around and looked at the ground. Two identically spaced manhole covers just like in the original photograph. That type of city infrastructure does not change often.

Time

Now that I have the exact location and know the very curb that Winogrand was standing on when making this photograph the next step was to work on time. I know that Winogrand was facing west so this photograph must have been taken later in the day and due to the shadow of the woman on the far left of the frame being larger than she is I know that this is closer to sunset. Once again, I turn to SunCalc to determine an approximate date.

Looking at the woman in the background of the photograph I can see that her shadow is about 125% of whatever her actual height is and I decide to put this ratio to use in determining our time. Additionally, the cowboy is stepping up onto the curb of the southeast corner of the intersection and shadows are at only a very slight angle toward the southeast. With these details I'll once again brute force my way through sun trajectory and shadow data to find the upper and lower bounds of what days this photograph could fall in.

The earliest this photograph could happen would be August 10, 1964 at 1700. The latest this could happen without other buildings blocking the shadow or with shadows being too long is around August 23, 1964 at 1655. Once again I'll turn to historical weather data to try to narrow down the day. Unfortunately for me, every day during that 13 day time span was recorded as having sunny weather.

The best we can say is that Garry Winogrand's Dallas, 1964 was photographed on the southeast corner of Elm Street and Stone Place in Dallas, Texas sometime between August 10, 1964 and August 23, 1964 around 1700 local time.

New York, 1962

I wanted to chose at least one photograph from New York, Winogrand's main sphere of work, as there are so many wonderful resources for looking into things in that city. There are street view overlays from 1800s, 1940s, and 1980s New York City just to name a few. Endless resources are available online as near everything has been archived by the city in one way or another.

Location

To start with this photograph I notice the number four bus headed toward Penn Station (southbound travel) and the number 3 bus behind it. Pulling up historical information on these lines I saw that 1962 was the year that Fifth Avenue Coach Lines was taken over by the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority. This could indicate that this photograph was from earlier in the year, but it is equally possible that the buses had not yet been repainted. Anyways, these lines have run since 1832 with the same route except for in 1966 when Fifth Avenue became one way southbound and Madison Avenue became one way northbound. Looking at an archived copy of a 1970s bus route map I can see that the 3 and 4 operated together across Central Park North then south on Fifth Avenue.

Looking at the photograph further I know that this is during the winter months as everyone is wearing jackets and that the sun must be high in the sky because otherwise more of the inside of the bus and car would be filled with light from a low sun such as early in the morning. Since I know the layout of New York City and the general arch of the sun during the winter months this removes Central Park North as a potential spot for where this photograph was made. I could double-check this on SunCalc if I was unfamiliar with the area and sure enough this would line up with where shadows would be in the winter months down Fifth Avenue.

Now that I know Winogrand was traveling northbound on Fifth Avenue and that Central Park was on his left I examine the left side of the photograph and notice that there is Winogrand's main subject, the women in the car turning right, as well as a vehicle behind them and another behind that. The furthest looks like the wheel well of an old delivery truck and at first glance I thought the car in the middle was the rear of a vehicle, but that is actually the hood of what I believe to be a 1960s Ford Galaxiei Starliner -- a data point I stumbled on completely by accident. That means I have to find an exit from the park that supports at least three lanes headed eastbound.

To discover that I need only to look at a map of New York City and the Central Park exits onto 5th Avenue. This would leave me with 96th Street, 90th Street, 84th Street, 79th Street, 72nd Street, 65th Street or 59th Street as potential exits for vehicles from the park and where Winogrand could have been standing.

On first glance I can eliminate 59th Street because the view is impossible with the square and also being able to see postal service box on the right side of the photograph across the street indicates a smaller arterial. Additionally I can eliminate 65th Street as the church on that corner has bright enough exterior that the right side of the photograph, with the sun where it is, should have produced more light. As for 72nd, there are newer buildings so a possibility, but after looking at the buildings there in the 1940s it's obvious this isn't the spot either.

79th Street is the first real contender that comes along. The arterial is small allowing for the kind of angle that Winogrand would have been achieving with his 28mm lens and despite the newer construction the buildings behind line up rather well. The farthest building in the back left of the photograph has windows which are evenly spaced and the depth and features of the next closest building show brick detail that would match the shade in a monochromatic photograph. Before I run further with this candidate and try to get harder evidence I want to examine the remaining candidates in case there is an obvious winner as the trees seem to not be that different in growth and that stands out to me.

84th Street does not appear to be a good candidate as the building in the middle on that block has a distinct white brick pattern on the building's corners which would be distinguishable in the photograph. 90th Street is another toss out due to the design museum's fencing which would also be noticeable and the building in the background has a 2-1-1-2 window configuration pattern across its main floors. Lastly, 96th Street couldn't work because the building that would be the furthest in the background has windows that are spaced further apart than the width of the windows by almost double. This does not match the building in Winogrand's photograph. This leaves me with 79th Street as my only contender, but with some mediocre evidence.

So let's look to the trees. Many cities in recent years have started on tree campaigns where public websites can be used to track the cities trees. New York is no different and many of the cities trees have been catalogued on the NYC Parks Tree Map. If you look into the history of trees in New York you'll find that by 1910 the city was largely without trees (and the city had begun a tree planting campaign, particularly along Fifth Avenue. Looking at the trees across Winogrand's photograph, the 1940s street survey, and modern Google Street View I noticed that the trees looked to have similar bark, but the trunk sizes were quite the same across the board.

Normally I would think that was a sign of those trees being replaced, but I decided to go and look up the tree on the NYC Parks Tree Map and found that what lives there today is a Thornless Honeylocust which makes up a little over 8% of the trees of New York City. The American Elm used to be the king of trees up and down Fifth Avenue, but due to their susceptibility to Dutch Elm Disease many have been replaced. Most importantly is that their lifespan is about 150 years, they grow about 2 feet per year, and have a trunk diameter of around 2 feet when fully grown.

Given the photograph of 1940s New York City above showing a tree at about 20-30 years old aligning with the cities tree initiatives, Winogrand's tree in the background would be about 50, and the trees today being well into their 100s then these could indeed by the same trees and their trunk diameter would be close to a full grown tree, particularly one stunted by life in the city. While this remains a rather loose conjecture it seems near impossible that these would be the American Elms that line the rest of the traversals along Fifth Avenue since those are between 3 and 6 feet in diameter. With all of that combined I think we can safely say, with rather high confidence, that Winogrand took this photograph while standing on the southwest corner of 79th Street and Fifth Avenue.

Time

Nailing time with this photograph is going to be a lot harder than the others. If you look at the direction of the sun there are a lot of the winter months that this could be possible. I am going to work with a few assumptions and say that this is before the March 1, 1962 strike of the Fifth Avenue Coach Lines which led to the transfer of ownership to the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority. The reason for this is that the buses are still painted in the Fifth Avenue Coach Lines scheme and logos and after the 20 day strike they would have had nearly 6 months after the transfer to repaint the buses before the sun would be in line again to have short shadows that November.

My second assumption is going to be that Winogrand was shooting with a 28mm lens. He almost always did as it was his preferred focal length so then taking my own 28mm lens and lining up a regular human subject in about the same position, occupying the same area in the frame puts them at around 5 feet away. I am going to assume that Winogrand was 5 feet away due to this.

Lastly, I did not know the height of Garry Winogrand and could not find that online. Instead I used a 1972 Bell Service Manual that described the dimensions of common phone booths that I found on a library archive, then compared the most common dimensions of phone booths with the image of Winogrand hunched over making a telephone call, did a little fuzzy math, and calculated him to be between 5'8"-5'10". I am going to assume 5'9" or 1.75m since that's close to average male height for his generation.

So back to the photograph at hand I see Winogrand's shadow enter the frame at the lower left and he does not appear to be bending over at all. The rear of the vehicle due to the angle would be about 6 feet away so Winogrand's shadow here, without doing too much more math, is at least 6 feet long then about an additional 2 to 3 feet (.6 to .9 meters) up the side of the car. This means I am looking for between an 8 and 9 foot (2.4 to 2.75 meters) long shadow by our best estimates. Again, this is all rather loose because of my assumptions.

Plugging this in to SunCalc and doing my brute force method I can determine that this photograph would have been taken around 1400 hours local time between February 23rd and March 1st, 1962. Turning to weather records, unfortunately, does not show any days with precipitation during that time frame so the best I can do is say that this photograph was likely shot around 1400 hours local time between February 23rd and March 1st, 1962 on the southwest corner of 79th Street and Fifth Avenue in New York City.

Conclusions

As you can see many photographs, even older ones, contain enough data points to place them in relatively decent time frames. Given more time and more of a dedication to accuracy one could get down to just a few days span by intently measuring the shadows in the frame or by getting lucky and having a day of interesting weather conditions. Looking at photographs in this way for historical data can be a good distraction for anyone involved in OSINT, but I would highly recommend any photographer not get too hung up on the historical details behind a photograph and instead examine what makes that photograph impactful. Garry Winogrand himself put it best when he said:

You've got to deal with how photographs look, what's there, not how they're made. - Garry Winogrand

My Archival System

Fri, 27 Nov 2020 19:50:40 GMT

I put this definition of my system here in the hopes that anyone struggling to develop one can find some direction in it. I highly recommend playing around with what works for you and covers the technologies you are most comfortable with in your day-to-day usage. This method gave me the hybrid approach I sought, but your mileage may vary.

Over the years I've developed a hybrid approach to how I handle and deal with my archive of negatives. While I want to be able to print everything in the darkroom I want the ease of a digital archival system. I want to be able to view my contact sheets on the go, critique my photographs, mark them up, and think about what I want to print after I get to my darkroom after a long commute. This is a few iterations deep and I think I have finally settled on a highly functional hybrid system that can withstand changes to underlying technology. This process inserts in between the developing and printing process that I have defined in the article on my process.

Negatives

After my negatives have dried and they have been cut and slipped into PrintFile archival sleeves then the next step has always been to make a contact sheet. The contact sheet represents the entire roll shot and can show a lot about your thought process around a scene or shoot. Reviewing contact sheets is an essential skill in critiqueing and improving your own photography. I label each of my contact sheets by year and roll shot, not usually caring for the exact date of the roll just the order in which it was developed. I don't find knowing that something was shot on February 21, 2018 versus March 12, 2018 to be that consequential. If the event is significant enough you will be able to tell from the content of the photograph and the year what time the photograph was made. So for example the 30th roll developed in 2019 would be a contact sheet labeled as 2019-R30.

I then scan each contact sheet as a JPEG. The reason for this is that the JPEG is a widely used format that has a lot of tooling around the format for editing and converting in the event the JPEG image format was ever retired. JPEGs also scan much quicker than TIFFs or other RAW formats and the purpose of the contact sheet is just to be able to review the negatives. I used to print all physical contact sheets and enjoyed the process of marking them up with a red marker, but found this hybrid approach unique in that it enabled me to bring my entire archive with me on my commute without bringing stacks of paper. After scanning, I upload all of the negatives to iCloud so they sync immediately with my iPhone with an album name of the same year.

Now, with my contact sheets on my phone, I can review them any place and at any time. Commuting home on the light rail, riding the bus, waiting for friends at happy hour -- you name it, I can think about any roll I've ever shot from the palm of my hand. From there I review each new contact sheet and use the Apple Photos markup feature to make notes drawn directly on the image as I would have done with a physical contact sheet. Every few days I synchronize the Apple Photos repository to an Amazon S3 bucket for cheap, archival backup storage.

As I review each contact sheet I append to a text file the contact sheet label (ex. 2020-R355) and the tags I would like to be able to find this contact sheet on. Location, people in the contact sheet, specific events, and just anything that comes to mind. I let this be rather free form on purpose and sometimes come back to add more tags later as I see fit. The reason I started doing this is because initially I used various software to catalog and tag the contact sheet images themselves, but found that as the software change my tags would sometimes be erased or wouldn't be able to be read by other programs. A plain text file will always be the same and I can always search for any tag easily inside of a text file. Additionally, a plain text file can be read and edited on any computing device.

2020-R301,family|christmas|hawaii|me|dolphins|ilford|fp4
2020-R302,hawaii|dad|vintage car|beach|swimming|ilford|hp5|6x6
2020-R303,seattle|washington|pike place market|ilford|hp5

This now presents me with a convenient way to find and decide what I want to print in the darkroom. I can quickly search for say "hawaii" to find all rolls shot while in Hawaii, then pick out the negatives from those contact sheets I want to print. I then go ahead and add those specific negatives I want to print to an issue tracker. You can read more about how I track what to print in my article on how I treat my printing like a software project.

Prints

After my prints have been toned and dried they all get sorted by a rough category. Depending on how many categories I think a print will fit in I'll print that many copies on my first run of final prints. This ties in with my numbering system mentioned in the article on my process. I loosely number my prints based upon the printing session so prints made in Q1 of 2020 will have the naming schema "2020Q1 Print 2 of 7" for instance. I do this as I believe each printing of a negative is a new interpretation and if anyone wants to go through my prints in the future I want that to be taken into account.

Prints then get sorted into categorical archival boxes for potential "projects" with loose themes like Daina (my wife), Photographers, Seattle, and Lithuanian-American Community. These match the loose projects I have in my head when I'm photographing. Boxes are then labeled by project and the years of prints they contain for example "Seattle 2018-2019" then are stored up off the ground to make sure if the basement darkroom ever floods that I will have time to wade into the water and save my work (fingers crossed I never experienced flooding or a fire).

Summary Without Commentary

<div class="tile is-ancestor"> <div class="tile is-parent"> <div class="tile box is-child"> <div class="content is-small"> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>negatives</th> </tr> <tbody> <tr> <th>archiving</th> <td>Each roll in an individual PrintFile archival sheet. Do not care for exact date or month as any significant enough event can be discovered. <br><br>For example: 2020-R205<br><br>This signifies the 205th roll developed in 2020. </tr> <tr> <th>contact sheets</th> <td>Scanned digitally.<br><br>Uploaded to Apple Photos and backed up to Amazon S3.<br><br>Annotated using Apple Photos markup feature. </tr> <tr> <th>tagging</th> <td>Tagged using a plaintext file with a new line for each roll. Plain text tags allows you to search over rolls no matter the technology or if software is discontinued.</td> </tr> </tbody> </thead> </table> </div> </div> </div> <div class="tile is-parent"> <div class="tile box is-child"> <div class="content is-small"> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>prints</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th>print numbering</th> <td>Example: 2020Q1 Print 2 of 7<br><br>Signifies I printed 7 prints of that negative in Q1 of 2020 and that this is the 2nd print in that series.</td> </tr> <tr> <th>print archiving</th> <td>Archival boxes by category/project and year.<br><br>Make enough prints to fill each categorical box a print could possibly fit in so I don't have to hunt them down later.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> </div> </div> </div>

My Process

Thu, 26 Nov 2020 22:41:42 GMT

This is a common question when meeting new photographers both experienced and budding. I've decided to answer this question as thoroughly as possible here along with some of my thoughts around that thinking it will be useful to someone or perhaps just as an easy way to share with others when they ask. I intend to treat this as a bit of a living document as I continue to learn as a photographer and explore what my eye is drawn to in the world.

Process is what separates the hobbyist from the dedicated in any exercise. When you've experimented enough to develop a preferred flow, choosing to diverge from what you learned in books or from mentors is when you have found your own process. This is not to say that process should not be constantly evolving as it's important not to let your dedication to methods become an unrelenting religious exercise. Experimentation is key to remaining fresh and to getting yourself out of a rut, but there is a method you develop over time to consistently achieve the results you want in your work.

Outlined below is the process I follow for 99% of my photography to achieve negatives that are easy to print in the style I enjoy. I've settled on this after nearly a decade of experimentation and I highly suggest that if you are here for advice you don't take any of this as gospel, but instead cherry pick, experiment, and discover on your own. Of course after that I am going to tell you all of the gospel I follow, but I want you to know that I wasted far too much time trying to copy other photographers when truly just the act of shooting, developing, and printing as often as possible and reexamining the results was all I needed to find my preference. That would be my first bit of advice if you are reading this trying to find your way in photography: just shoot, develop, and ask questions of your failed prints.

Secondly, and perhaps even more important, comes from a wise teacher in my high school photography and darkroom class whom I sadly cannot even remember the name of now. He told us that creativity flourishes in restriction. There are so many technical aspects to photography that get in the way of actually engaging in the moment and making a good photograph. Paring down until you have a single camera, a single lens, a single film, a single development process, a single paper, and a singular printing style removes all of the minor variables. In the end all of the choices get in the way of your purpose in photography: a final, impactful image.

Lastly, I'll say to try and avoid any groups of photographers you meet who jump to speaking about cameras and equipment instead of inspiring photographs and photographers. The obsession with equipment, sometimes referred to as Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS), is a dangerous pit to fall into. Not only will a new camera not make you a better photographer, but photographers that constantly need to chase the next camera body or lens often spend too much time in catalogues and on review sites and not enough time training their eye. If you're going to burn your money on something photography related you're better off purchasing a book from a photographer you respect so you can flip through the book on occassion and ask the important questions of what you can learn from their work.

Shooting

Shooting for me is about immersion. I like to observe and find humor in the things that are around me and not spend too much time futzing with the camera, settings, or technology. Purposefully I have chosen to make photography an analog disconnect from a largely digital existence elsewhere. For me the act of creating the final print in the darkroom brings me the most joy and for that simple reason I shoot film. While the process is not always economical, shooting from film and processesing all the way to final print maintains the connection and interest in photography that I lose when working digitally. I will write more on this later in a future post on why I continue to shoot film and how it has maintained my interest in photography.

The Tools

I shoot the majority of my work on my Leica M6 TTL though I also have a Leica M2 after an unfortunate drop with the M6 onto concrete caused the main circuit board to quit working. The poor design of the M6 TTL requires a functioning circuit board and battery to have the hot shoe function and since I occassionally pair with an off camera flash I needed an alternative. Although the M2 requires an adapter for the flash to work the fact is I had always wanted a Leica from the 1950s and could not afford a brand new MP or M-A so figured why not purchase an older model from a collector and put the dinosaur to use. Both function wonderfully after some work by DAG and honestly get me excited to go out and shoot once they're in my hand. I shoot with rangefinders because of their ease of use, rapid focusing mechanism (pre-focus is faster then autofocus), and the small form factor lets me wrap them up on my wrist and almost always have one connected to my person without hassle. You would be hard pressed to find a photograph of me where I do not have one of these cameras around my neck or wrist. I have a number of other cameras, but the only one I use with any frequency outside of the 35mm Leicas is my Rolleiflex 3.5F and that's once a month at best and usually as a diversion when I need a change to kickstart my regular work.

As for lenses I shoot about 90% of my work with the 28mm Leica Elmarit 2.8. I cannot recommend this lens enough to anyone looking to be immersed in wherever they are shooting. If you like to work close, among crowds, and photograph the social landscape as I do then there is no better lens you can place on your camera. This was my only lens until COVID-19 had us all standing further apart from one another. Due to the pandemic I introduced a 35mm Zeiss Distagon 2.8 which is an equally wonderful lens. The main difference I think of between these two lenses is the focal distance for a "whole average person" to fill the frame from top to bottom. With the 28mm lens that is around 1.75m (~6ft) where with the 35mm that is around 2.5m (~8ft) putting me in a decent, socially distanced position where I can still photograph the way I like.

Nearly all of my work is shot using Ilford HP5+ film. After years of experimentation I find that HP5+ provides not only easy to print negatives when developed right but also is easy to scan for when I do decide to digitize some images from negative instead of by scanning the final print. The film is extremely forgiving, easy to push, and can take a wide range of exposure mishaps and still churn out wonderful prints. I also love the classic grain structure and the look that it gives when pushed. The funniest part about settling on HP5+ is that it was the first film I ever loaded into a camera and after all the experimentation I came right back to this wonderful silver from Ilford.

The Method

When I set out my initial goal is always to judge the light. While I do occassionally carry a meter, at home I have gotten to know the light so well in Seattle that I tend to just set my camera and go though if I am traveling to any other city I try to always remember to have the meter on me. As a backup, if I'm not carrying my meter, I'm a big fan of Fred Parker's "Ultimate Exposure Computer" article and suggest every photographer learn the lighting situations listed. For metering I always meter for the shadows to ensure I pack as much data onto my negative as possible. This is something discussed by Henry Wessel Jr., an incredible American photographer, as a way to ensure you have data on the negative to print. There are a lot of people that overcomplicate this statement in books that you will read, but they essentially mean take the darkest part of any scene you want to have texture in, meter there, then raise your exposure by 2 stops. Since black and white negative film has about a 5 stop range including texture this means that you will have a printable portion of your negative in most scenes outside of extremely high contrast light. Recognizing those high contrast moments and adjusting your settings to ensure you match a good exposure for your subject takes time and practice. That's where I suggest using Fred Parker's method instead of always relying on the meter.

After that is set I set my lens to its "whole average person" distance, as discussed above, then either pick a corner to stand on or begin to walk depending on the light. If a corner has beautiful light I may linger for hours, but the time of day means there is a lot of nice light around I prefer to stay in motion and get constantly changing scenery along with exercise. I find that my best frames come from prediction so I tend to look a half block to a full block ahead and begin observing. You rarely can react fast enough to a scene or social situation directly in front of you so you have to see what is coming ahead. There are any number of styles of street photography which I won't discuss here, but this skill of prediction is essential to being ready to make an image in every single one of them.

The other essential skill is movement. When using a fixed focal length lens the only variable you have is in where you place your feet. Though where you place your feet isn't always the hardest part but rather how you get to that spot and derive how to be there at the same time that a photograph becomes viable. This takes a bit of practice, but I usually try to cross potential photographs at a diagonal if I am in motion so I can make a frame and quickly get out of anyone's way. I'm not trying to impede anyone's movement, especially when I'm photographing so close. Approaching that way I find that most people don't even recognize that you've been in front of them much less made a photograph.

Developing

Garry Winogrand had a great quote about waiting a few months before developing to disconnect yourself from the excitement of making the photograph. The visceral joy you get when selecting an image from the world and pressing the button can often times cloud your judgement. I follow a similar train of thought and work in groupings of 8 rolls since that's what fits in the largest Patterson development tank that I use. Once I've hit 16 rolls I develop the first 8 and so on. I will write another article about how I catalog my negatives at another time.

As for the actual process I use Kodak HC-110 due to its ease of use and shelf life. I prefer the simplicity of mixing liquid concentrate versus a powder and found that HC-110 got near identical results to the standard D-76 that everyone starts using in their first photography classes. HC-110 also lasts a long time so when I go through periods where I cannot develop for awhile and the rolls stack up I don't have to worry about my chemicals turning on me. In this same vein I also really enjoy the look and speed that Ilfotec DD-X but find its use cost prohibitive because of how much development I do. The same goes for Ilfotec HC which is an identical formula to HC-110, but usually costs about 150% on the dollar compared to a similar bottle of HC-110 in Seattle. From my point of view it's nice to know that I have so many alternatives that provide similar results and a discount one that gets me right where I want to be. For specific times, I develop in HC-110 Dilution B (1:31) at 20C (68F) for 9 minutes, adjusting as needed for temperature. The slightly over factory time adds additional some additional grain and contrast that I like in my final print without a perceptible shift in negative quality. I'm thankful to Andre Wagner for mentioning in an interview that he does something similar with his Tri-X and D-76 and after trying that out found I spent less time burning a piece of paper to confirm that I did want to increase the contrast filters on my enlarger.

Further along in the process I follow the standard times for Ilford's Ilfostop and Rapid Fixer, then use the Ilford rinse method to save on water. Even though I live in the always damp Pacific Northwest now, I grew up in the Las Vegas desert and can still hear the pleas from teachers to conserve water. Using the Ilford method I have never had an issue with getting the chemicals rinsed from my negatives after thousands of rolls. My only change is that I use Kodak Photo-Flo instead of the Ilford wetting agent once again due to price and availability. They are identical and interchangeable so I see no reason to spend the extra money.

Finally after all is done I hang my negatives to dry for 24 hours before I cut and catalog them in PrintFile archival sleeves. While moving sheets into archival sleeves I always use cotton gloves and brush any dust away before slipping them into their sleeves to ensure nothing scratches the back of the negatives. Since my darkroom is in a basement there is a lot of dust floating around and the particles are constantly trying to work their way in and ruin my prints. I will write another article down the road on my system for storing negatives, contact sheets, and the hybrid approach I use so that I can review contact sheets on my phone while commuting.

Printing

Ansel Adams is quoted as saying that "the negative is the score and the print the final performance." Now I don't care much for landscape photography and find the Zone System to overcomplicate making photographic work, but Adams had a great point in that printing is the unique intepretation of a negative. No two prints will ever be the same and every approach, particularly those across spans of time, will result in a different print. Whether it's your printing skills that become better or your overall view of the world, every time you approach a negative to print it will change.

The Tools

I print almost everything on Ilford Multigrade FB Glossy paper as 99% of negatives you print will look good with a few tweaks on that paper and consistency in how a grouping of images look is important. Rarely is an image so strong on its own that it should exist outside of a set. I print using the standard instructions for Ilford's Multigrade Paper developer, Ilfostop, and Rapid Fixer chemicals then wash in Eco Pro Hypowash following the manufacturer's instructions.

While many darkroom printers choose to tone their prints between the fixer and washing stages, I find that over an all day printing session that the toners will give me a headache. For that reason I wait a few days and rewet my prints when I have a enough, then archivally tone them in Selenium toner. I use a high dilution to get only the subtlest of shifts in the shadows with the primary intent being to preserve the paper as long as possible.

I use a Rollei 6x7 C XL color enlarger with a dichroic head. I prefer this dichroic enlarger as I was constantly having to replace multigrade filter sets before as I would lose or scratch them and an in-line filter is just another thing to create imperfections on your print. The dichroic color head uses a mirrored box to project light that then does the color filter shift for you with a number of dials.

My favorite easel for final prints is the Saunders 11x14 4-blade easel which is no longer available except via eBay. I have used the Beseler 4-blade in the past and find that easel just as good though possibly not as well made. I haven't had the opportunity to drop one onto concrete because I accidentally caught it with my apron strings as many times as my Saunders. I also use a couple of speed easels for smaller sized prints where I don't try and achieve that thin black border around final images but am fine with sprocket holes.

The Method

As for the actual printing I follow the simple standard chemical procedure above for any negative I want to print then let myself run with the creative part on each interpretation. I mark my prints with the date of printing and count made for tracking these interpretations with something along the lines of "2020Q1 Print 1 of 3". That way if someone has one of my prints and wants to correlate its specific interpretation to a time in my life they can do so. I don't take copious notes for prints, but rather loose ones to remind me of potential road blocks I would run into on a re-print that may waste paper. Some photographers choose to keep detailed notes of times, enlarger position, filters used, and masking sheets made, but I find that I would rather approach each negative relatively fresh outside of maybe a note like "watch out for those clouds", "remember the hand in the lower right is important", or "holy crap that block by Bryant Park is the brightest thing I've ever seen".

I start each print by determing what I think is the most important part of the image then determining an exposure for that with a test strip. Sometimes I'll find at this portion that I need to consider split-grade printing due to the contrast of the negative. I know some darkroom printers swear by split-grade for every situation, but I don't get too far into the gritty details of each print in that way. I don't have the perfectionist streak that makes me want to ensure my highlights have the most perfect texture representation along with my shadows. When following my methods above, rarely is the content of a photograph so good and the exposure so poor that I need that level of manipulation to achieve a print I enjoy.

Once I've determined a correct exposure I'll make a 5x7 and dial in any dodging and burning necessary to achieve what I want from the negative in that interpretation. I make a 5x7 so that when arranging groupings of images together later I can easily manipulate all the physical images in one place for the purpose of building out an impactful sequence. I used to do this all on RC paper instead of FB, but came to find that although you save money with RC paper you should always try and print every step of the way with the paper you want for your final print.

After my 5x7 is correct I will move to print an 11x14. I find that from 5x7 to 11x14 there is almost always somewhere in the range of a 1-stop difference. This lets me raise the enlarger, change either the time or f-stop, and print with what I learned on the 5x7 almost identically every time. Filter settings have a slight influence on this, but that is something that through repetition I've learned to interpret a few seconds in any direction intuitively.

You might have noticed that I made no mention of cropping anywhere above. I never crop a negative as I believe in doing that in the shooting portion with my feet. Call it puritanical or lazy, but I want to see the image as it was when I framed it. For that purpose I also always print a thin, black line around the outside of my images within a white border. I like the look that a thicker, 1-2" white border with a pencil thin black line gives a black and white photograph. The look to me is classic and makes the image pop for the viewer.

Summary Without Commentary

<div class="tile is-ancestor"> <div class="tile is-parent"> <div class="tile box is-child"> <div class="content is-small"> <table> <thead> <tr><th>shooting</th></tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th>cameras</th> <td>Leica M6TTL<br>Leica M2</td> </tr> <tr> <th>lenses</th> <td>28mm Leica Elmarit<br>35mm Zeiss Distagon</td> </tr> <tr> <th>films</th> <td>Ilford HP5+</td> </tr> <tr> <th>methods</th> <td> Always watch a block ahead, what's in front of you is often too hard to react to quickly. <br><br> If the light is good linger on a corner, otherwise stay in motion. <br><br> Move diagonally in front of subjects to make your frame right in front of them. <br><br> Pre-focus to the "whole average human" distance for your lens. </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> </div> </div> <div class="tile is-parent"> <div class="tile box is-child"> <div class="content is-small"> <table> <thead> <tr><th>developing</th></tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th>chemicals</th> <td> Kodak HC-110 B for 9mins@20C <br><br> Ilford Ilfostop <br><br> Ilford Rapid Fixer </td> </tr> <tr> <th>methods</th> <td> Wait to develop film until the joy of making the photograph has passed to avoid bias in your judgement of frames. <br><br> Use the Ilford rinse method to conserve water. <br><br> If you find yourself constantly printing your frames with increased contrast consider developing for longer to increase contrast in the negative for easier printing later. </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> </div> </div> <div class="tile is-parent"> <div class="tile box is-child"> <div class="content is-small"> <table> <thead> <tr><th>printing</th></tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th>paper</th> <td>Ilford Multigrade FB Glossy</td> </tr> <tr> <th>chemicals</th> <td> Ilford Multigrade Paper Developer <br><br> Selenium Archival Toner </td> </tr> <tr> <th>methods</th> <td> Print 5x7 for quick reference and 11x14 for final print. <br><br> Interpret each negative fresh per session with minimal notes more on feeling than specifics. <br><br> Crop while shooting, not while printing. <br><br> Don't waste too much time on perfection. If your shooting and developing is dialed in you shouldn't need to spend that much time on a print. </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> </div> </div> </div>