Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: feppe on August 26, 2007, 05:30:42 am
-
We started a discussion on another thread on how it's unnecessary to know how to expose manually with modern cameras, and how that affects photography. The argument appears to go: you should know how to expose manually to be a complete photographer. I disagree.
Camera tech has gone forward faster than in any time in history in the past ten years. Yet camera UIs seem to be stuck in late film days. Neither Canon or Nikon have fully customizable bracketing - ISO, exposure and f-stop bracketing -, user-definable presets, or even easy-to-use and fast menus. Nikon has some rudimentary parametric exposure settings which appears to be the only "advanced" UI enhancement in prosumer or pro cameras. I don't know how the upcoming cameras are advancing UI design, but I have a feeling we're still stuck with the arcane controls we had with film cameras 20 years ago.
The strangest argument when talking about UI is the "learn to use your camera" -argument. Some people seem to think that making a camera harder to use makes it a more serious instrument. This might have been the UI design paradigm years ago, but Apple has shown us that usability and performance can fit in the same design, and industries where people's lives rely on tech has, too - military, police and firefighting. If only Canon, Nikon etc. would embrace the same mindset.
People who do know how to use different manual settings will continue to do so. If somebody can get good results by using presets or (semi)automatic modes, more power to her. Nobody cares if she took the shot using a pre-set, and nobody will ever ask. And even if they do, a great shot is a great shot, whether it's taken with a pinhole or a Hassy.
Sure, it's nice if people could expose perfectly every time in manual mode, but why should we be required to learn that just to satisfy some arbitrary and outdated standard? There's so many different ways proper UI design could make cameras better, while keeping their manual controls for those situations and people who require them. I want my camera to fit my needs as much as possible, leave me more time to think about the artistic approach to a scene, and not to get in the way by requiring manual settings when it's just rote memorization, and could be done faster and easier by a computer.
-
Light and the world are not standardised. The camera doesn't not have the capacity to deal with the huge number of variables, and that's just for a 'correct' exposure. What happens when the scene exceeds your dynamic range? Your camera, left to it's own devices, will probably give you an average losing detail at both ends.
Photography is about control. Letting the camera decide takes away half the fun and most of the satisfaction.
-
Light and the world are not standardised. The camera doesn't not have the capacity to deal with the huge number of variables, and that's just for a 'correct' exposure. What happens when the scene exceeds your dynamic range? Your camera, left to it's own devices, will probably give you an average losing detail at both ends.
I agree completely. That's why there's no reason to get rid of the manual controls, and I doubt anyone here would like an automatic-only camera. But having the choice would be a great benefit, especially for those who need to shoot fast.
Photography is about control. Letting the camera decide takes away half the fun and most of the satisfaction.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135574\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That sounds like the "it's my way or the high way" argument. While you think it's half the fun, others think fiddling with manual controls in some shooting situations is pointless.
-
I don't understand your argument at all. Almost every SLR made since the 1970's has an auto mode that's no more difficult to use than the auto mode on a point and shoot camera. My D200 even has an auto ISO, and several semi-automatic modes that are there if you want a little more control without going fully manual.
It also has an enormous range of manual controls that are there if I want to use them. Sure, those settings can confuse people who don't know what they do, but those people are also free to ignore them altogether.
Just to make things even simpler, Nikon has a camera with the same sensor and image processing as the D200 that makes things even easier, the D80, with little icons for "portrait," "landscape," "sports," etc. Doesn't get much easier than that! But even my D200 came out of the box set to auto everything, so a novice can just charge the battery and use the camera without knowing the first thing about photography.
Thanks to modern technology, the auto modes in most cameras can produce perfectly usable results in every situation, every time. If that's all one wants to use that's great, have at it. It's always been about the users creativity anyway, and it's great that people can take advantage of extremely advanced technologies without knowing the first thing about them.
The only thing I can parse from your argument is that the manual over rides should be dispensed with because they aren't necessary to get the most from your camera, which is patently ridiculous; they give a knowledgeable user the controls required to optimize the camera's behavior to better suit certain situations that the camera can't figure out on his own, and/or to get the most out of their own creativity by manipulating the controls to get a specific result since, of course, no camera can read someone's mind.
As for a digital camera's UI sure, they've gotten more complicated than film cameras by necessity because there's more you can tweak if you want to, but it's optional. DX film cameras automatically set the ISO so all you had to do was load film, set the knob to auto, and shoot. The photo lab would take care of the color issues at print time, so pesky things like white balance weren't necessary to be aware of.
But users can still do that, they can take a flash card to a minilab if they want some human intervention, or plug it into a kiosk which further automates the process and can even remove red eye. But they can also, if they want, manipulate some things at the camera to gain more control over the output.
If you don't want to use manual controls, don't want to think about ISO or color balance, then leave them at the defaults and shoot away. If anything, photography has never been simpler than it is today. It certainly isn't more complicated as you seem to suggest.
BTW, my Nikon does have user definable presets, customizable bracketing, and a quick, intuitive UI that surpasses every else in the industry I've used before. And FWIW, asking for those things as if they didn't exist contradicts the rest of your argument!
Kevin
-
That sounds like the "it's my way or the high way" argument. While you think it's half the fun, others think fiddling with manual controls in some shooting situations is pointless.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wouldn't buy a sports car that drove me around without letting me have any input apart from the destination, no matter how economical or fast it was. If I wanted that I would choose alternate transport (point and shoot).
Then there's the argument of craftsmanship. There is a reason why handmade items still generally command more than mass produced items. Anyone can point a camera and get an image, but having the skill to manipulate what you are seeing into something unique is what keeps photographers in business in this age of camera phones.
-
The only thing I can parse from your argument is that the manual over rides should be dispensed with because they aren't necessary to get the most from your camera, which is patently ridiculous; they give a knowledgeable user the controls required to optimize the camera's behavior to better suit certain situations that the camera can't figure out on his own, and/or to get the most out of their own creativity by manipulating the controls to get a specific result since, of course, no camera can read someone's mind.
You read wrong. The point is that the current controls, which you describe, have stayed the same for, what, 20 years or so. There's so much that could be done to make things even more easier, but isn't being done. Getting rid of manual controls would be, as you said, patently ridiculous at this point in tech.
BTW, my Nikon does have user definable presets, customizable bracketing, and a quick, intuitive UI that surpasses every else in the industry I've used before. And FWIW, asking for those things as if they didn't exist contradicts the rest of your argument!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135588\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do Nikons have customizable exposure/ISO/f-stop bracketing? I don't know how sophisticated their parametric settings are, but there are no other dSLRs I know which allow even basic parametric exposures. And there are other manufacturers than just Nikon. I haven't used Nikons, but from what I understand they have as much room for improvement as other manufacturers - maybe not in the same areas, though.
-
Then there's the argument of craftsmanship. There is a reason why handmade items still generally command more than mass produced items. Anyone can point a camera and get an image, but having the skill to manipulate what you are seeing into something unique is what keeps photographers in business in this age of camera phones.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When was the last time a customer cared about or even asked whether you used a pre-set, automatic mode or manual mode?
-
When was the last time a customer cared about or even asked whether you used a pre-set, automatic mode or manual mode?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's true. But I like to be satisfied as well. Auto modes also get it wrong too often.
-
There's also the question of blind faith- Yours in this case that the camera will always get it right. Sorry, but that boat leaks.
I shoot both ways, opting one or the other depending on the demands of a shoot, and often both when time allows, as well as using a couple of handheld light meters for comparison. Basically if "close enough" is good enough, I can trust most current cameras to do a good job. But on shoots when results are really critical, manual shooting can usually beat the camera's decisions, especially for fine tuning.
A growing proportion of my contracts are reshoots, both for clients who thought their brand new auto-everything camera could allow them to bypass hiring a pro, and for clients who hired photographers who believed the same as you.
Please continue to spread your gospel. It's lining my pockets, and I thank you!!!!!
-
You read wrong. The point is that the current controls, which you describe, have stayed the same for, what, 20 years or so. There's so much that could be done to make things even more easier, but isn't being done. Getting rid of manual controls would be, as you said, patently ridiculous at this point in tech.
Excuse me for misunderstanding you then. The only SLR's and DSLR's I'm familiar with are Nikon and Canon, so my comments are based on using them both regularly.
Regarding the D200, if you're referring to the physical buttons and dials on the body than ya, they haven't changed all that much in decades in terms of basic locations and functions from other Nikon bodies since the F5 introduced. Electronics were incorporated on even older cameras for metering and viewfinder displays (and automatic exposure), but it was the development of embedded micro CPU's that allowed for significant changes in both the F5 and EOS-1 interface that haven't changed much to this day.
As one example, I can change the shutter speed and aperture without taking my eye off the view finder; on older cameras one had to set those things by looking at the camera. That was a major change that not everyone liked (Leica users) but most people liked the new paradigm quite a bit.
Digital bodies have more buttons, but Nikon has always done a better job with their implementation than Canon, IMHO dating back to the film days.
If you have some better ideas than what's worked well enough for the legion's of photographers, let us know. There's a few things I would change about my Nikon's, and there's a million things I'd change about my studio mate's 1Dmk2, but I can still use either camera system without too much difficulty.
But if you prefer, almost everything the buttons and dials do can also be done on screen these days, with usability that's on par with in iPod or video game controller. Thoroughly modern, and consistent with other well designed electronic devices.
It's an order of magnitude better than Canon's on screen interface, though I hear they've made some improvements in their newest models. I don't believe they've made improvements to the buttons on the body, though, so overall, the D200/D2x has much better ergonomics overall than any digital Canon I've used to date.
I don't use auto bracketing, but here's what I call tell you about the D200:
Auto mode bracketing choices - choose from: AE + flash, AE only, flash only, or white balance only.
Manual mode bracketing choices - flash+speed, flash+speed+aperture, flash + aperture, or flash only.
ISO is not part of the auto bracketing choices on the D200, nor is auto focus. No matter to me since if I do bracket (rarely) I just do it manually with the on camera controls, but I can certainly see why they'd be useful additions in some cases.
And just so you know, the D200 has 4 memory preset banks, where every change you make from default is automatically stored. I have my preferences set on "A" and my studio partner has his set on "B" which makes sharing the camera quite easy and painless. When I use his 1Dmk2 I spend far too much time fiddling around to tailor it to my liking, and he isn't happy setting it all back because it's so freakin' convoluted.
And FWIW, the more you know about what all those manual controls actually do, the better equipped you are to take better pictures - technical knowledge enables greater creativity.
Kevin
-
We started a discussion on another thread on how it's unnecessary to know how to expose manually with modern cameras, and how that affects photography. The argument appears to go: you should know how to expose manually to be a complete photographer. I disagree.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree--with you, that is.
I learned photography on a minolta 101 over 30 years ago. This was about the same time I was learning how to use a slide rule in my Physics class. The following year, my father got a calculator and I never needed the slide rule again.
I recently got a 10D and even more recently, a 5D. When I shoot portraits in my studio I'll set the camera to manual as I use a studio strobe. For almost all other situations I shoot in Program mode. P mode is god's gift to photographers who are more about the composition than all the dials.
My typical shooting "workflow" once I've spotted something I like the looks of is to fire off a shot or two right away. Then I look at the f-stop and shutter speed info in the viewfinder of the last shot I took. Then I re-shoot (assuming whatever I was shooting is still there) if I'm not happy with the settings--making adjusments with the top wheel on the camera. If I notice the lighting requires the same sort of adjustments (in P mode) from shot to shot I might switch to Av mode or even to Manual. But I always start out in P.
Many of the subtle changes you can give an image in-camera with exposure tweeks can be done in photoshop.
For me photography is not about control. For me it's about the final image and how well it expresses my creative idea. For me photoshop, like my camera, is a tool that helps me express my intent.
An interesting note on sports cars: Those who race sports cars for a living look for ANY way to go faster. Power steering, power brakes, semi-automatic and even full automatic transmissions are welcomed with open arms if it will make them go faster.
-
In our business it's a question of time allocation. Photshop manipulation is ex-budget unless by prior agreement. "Shoot now and Photoshop later" is a fair mantra if the extra computer time fits your circumstances or your budget, but it's a formula for unbudgeted and uncompensated hours in a photography business run on the clock. I suspect that even in fine art photography where income is generated exclusively through print sales, time in front of the computer can impinge on time available to be out following your muse. If Photoshop is a part of your creative process, then by all means it's valid to rely on it to make up for lapses in camera technique and technology. But ultimately reliance on Photoshop is a choice between hours in the field and hours at the computer.
-
OK, I'm going to get bitten on this one but what the hell .
I think we mostly agree getting the image that we're envisioning involves our knowing how to set up (control) the camera to achieve it and we don't want the camera to decide for us altogether, for good reasons. For me that involves several things: a- familiarity with the behavior of the exposure metering mode with the film / sensor I'm using, b-measuring the proper area, and c-control of the shutter speed / lens opening to be used.
Current cameras can provide many aids to help with b- and c-, call it the "suggested exposure", but we want to have the ultimate decision, and that is the exposure compensation control.
I have not, except for some extenuating situations, used manual exposure since the mid-70s when I got a Contax RTS, the first camera in the world to come up with an intelligent exposure compensation control that was not only usable but expedient while shooting through the viewfinder. That gave me the control I needed, once I was familiar with how the metering system reacted in the various conditions. Of course spot metering made that familiarity much easier. With spot-metering and exposure comp I can nail the exposure I want in either shutter-speed or aperture automation. This is of course contingent with it being within the range of adjustability of the comp system, but even that could be tricked by choosing the proper measuring spot. Use a couple of bracketing shots for fine tuning and you're home safe.
So should we do away with pure manual control? Hell no, there's always some odd situation you'll need it for, but for me, give me good metering info, shutter-speed or aperture-preferred automation (I prefer aperture-preferred myself,YMMV), and an effective exposure compensation control, and I'm a happy camper who can only blame his own stupidity if he gets a bogus exposure.
But no matter what, it always comes back to "you need to be familiar with how the camera system behaves" to one extent or another.
-
but Apple has shown us that usability and performance can fit in the same design,[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are kidding right? This is the company that came out with the iMac puck mouse; avoiding implementing a second mouse button or a scrolling wheel for years and when Apple finally adopted a second button, they hid it on the 'mighty mouse' and it is turned it off by default in the OS [most mac users don't even know their shiny new laptop/destop has a simple context click now]; the lack of forward delete on laptops [without using two hands!] is also very annoying.
The main modifier key [cmmd] being in a really awkward place is awful ergonomics, the PC's Cntrl key is far better placed, though you can now swap the keys around on a Mac. The one size fits all for the input devices is pathetic, the mice and keyboards seem to be designed for kids, not adults. And the same crappy cramped keyboard on even the tea tray sized 17" laptop is plain cheap/lazy. I have a bigger more user friendly keyboard on my 13" Vaio than the 17" Mac and why don't Apple make a laptop as small as my Vaio anyway? I don't want anything bigger for traveling, but Apple have no MacBook Pro that compact. Duh!
AS for the Nikon/Canon usability, I still miss my OM4/2/1s for ease of use, reliable metering and compactness. And my 25+yr old [design wise] OM2 has a way bigger viewfinder than my modern cameras in a body only half the size. Progress eh?
I think Canons are very easy to use, no manual required [bar custom function list, set once and ignored for ever after]. Nikon gear I always found clunky and fiddly.
We started a discussion on another thread on how it's unnecessary to know how to expose manually with modern cameras, and how that affects photography. The argument appears to go: you should know how to expose manually to be a complete photographer. I disagree.
The Sunny F16 rule is hardly a challenge to learn. That's with no meter! And to be a complete photographer, understanding and knowing when to use manual is definitely the case. Manual can be much easier and simpler to use that Auto on occasion. And if you don't know how and when to use it, then your photographic skills are certainly deficient.
-
For me photography is not about control. For me it's about the final image and how well it expresses my creative idea.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a bit contradictory as by exerting control is how you usually express your creative idea. Otherwise it's a bit of a crap shoot as to how the image will turn out. Unless that is your creative idea.
Many of the subtle changes you can give an image in-camera with exposure tweeks can be done in photoshop.
Why not get it right in the fist place. It usually saves time and effort. Which if you were lazy in an intelligent way, you would realise is actually easier than relying on fixing in post.
I will admit to shooting at times, knowing that I will probably have to fix some aspects in post. But I'd rather not if I can help it.
With spot-metering and exposure comp I can nail the exposure I want in either shutter-speed or aperture automation. This is of course contingent with it being within the range of adjustability of the comp system, but even that could be tricked by choosing the proper measuring spot. Use a couple of bracketing shots for fine tuning and you're home safe.
Which is fine for still life, but when capturing the 'decisive moment' bracketing is not the best method really is it?
Quite often I find that by setting the exposure manually for a scene, I don't then have to faff around with exposure compensation if the background or the subject isn't the right shade of grey, which may give an varied reading even though the scene's lighting hasn't changed.
-
jjj, the bracketing I added is optional if you have time for it, and if I'm shooting people oin the run I may be using evaluative metering. The basic point I'm aiming at, which I don't believe is conflict with your basic goals, is that the use of shutter / aperture automation + exposure compensation (and probably better throw in exposure lock ) very often gives you the same amount of exact control as full manual, but in a more convenient way and with a safety net that gets you in the ball park to begin with, and which in fact makes it more appropriate for those fleeting "capture the moment" situations. But that of course may not be the case in particularly exacting situations.
The beauty of photography today is that we have many options, perhaps too many .
-
P mode is god's gift to photographers who are more about the composition than all the dials.
I've gotten to the point where i'm not actually thinking about the dials much when I shoot. From other people's accounts, this is quite common if you shoot for long enough on manual.
-
jjj, the bracketing I added is optional if you have time for it, and if I'm shooting people oin the run I may be using evaluative metering. The basic point I'm aiming at, which I don't believe is conflict with your basic goals, is that the use of shutter / aperture automation + exposure compensation (and probably better throw in exposure lock ) very often gives you the same amount of exact control as full manual, but in a more convenient way and with a safety net that gets you in the ball park to begin with, and which in fact makes it more appropriate for those fleeting "capture the moment" situations. But that of course may not be the case in particularly exacting situations.
The beauty of photography today is that we have many options, perhaps too many .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136110\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The problem with exposure compensation is that you don't always know which of the controls it's compensating with. On modern cameras you normally have a range of choices, but if you don't know how those range of choices affect your image, then you're at the mercy of the gods.
Hey, I've seen some incredible photos shot by people who don't know the first damn thing about how cameras actually work. And I've seen awful shots taken by people who know everything about how cameras actually work because they lack artistic talent.
As they say, even a blind squirrel finds a few acorns, but the best photographers without exception know exactly what's going on with their equipment, from capture to print...even if they hire someone to figure it out and tell them what's happening (I've been that guy a few times).
No matter how you get there, good photography is art + science. The best people doing it are informed by the science to help them make their best art. It's always been that way and it always will be, regardless of the medium. The best artists are always familiar with all of their tools, even if they choose to ignore the "proper" way to use them. An informed choice is always preferred over dumb luck.
Parting shot: if you should, by chance, get a magical image with your camera on auto everything, and you're hired by someone to get that same look but don't know what your camera and lighting did to get that magical shot, you're fuct!
Kevin
-
AS for the Nikon/Canon usability, I still miss my OM4/2/1s for ease of use, reliable metering and compactness. And my 25+yr old [design wise] OM2 has a way bigger viewfinder than my modern cameras in a body only half the size. Progress eh?
I think Canons are very easy to use, no manual required [bar custom function list, set once and ignored for ever after]. Nikon gear I always found clunky and fiddly.
Interesting comment. I started with an AE1-P, then an F1, then a Nikon F100, with some EOS-1 experience mixed in just to see if I missing something. I wasn't.
After the EOS-1 experiment I settled on Nikon film bodies, until my studio mate bought a 1Dmk2. Horribly fiddly, slow camera to setup and use in every respect, and the menu system is awful beyond belief. His Canon is bad, and the D100's and D70's I was renting at the time (beause I had some great lenses) weren't always better, and often a bit worse.
The D2 Nikon's changed everything, though. The D2h, x, and 200 are much more advanced than anything I've used from Canon (though I haven't used the latest 1D or 30D which are supposed to be better). I'll reserve judgment until I have some time with them, but from what I've read and seen so far, they've definitely maintained a good deal of consistency from previous models. I suppose that's a good thing if you're a long time Canon user though, but...
Now if you're talking digicam point and shoots...I adore my little Canon SD630 and wouldn't trade it for anything Nikon, at least not right now.
-
Manual can be much easier and simpler to use that Auto on occasion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Case in point: When shooting erratic subjects like animals in a place with fairly constant light but random backgrounds including bright sky, I meter to barely not blow the sky and use manual. Then I will never have the camera suddenly deciding that that clump of trees in the background is so dark that it must blow the sky, and I don't need to keep checking the histogram. I could probably come up with more cases. The camera is a pretty good guesser most of the time, but I'm the only one who can know in advance what I want, and that's why I need to know how *and when* to use manual.
-Lars
-
That's a bit contradictory as by exerting control is how you usually express your creative idea. Otherwise it's a bit of a crap shoot as to how the image will turn out. Unless that is your creative idea.
My point about control was that there is more to an image (at least in my images) than what is controled by the dials. Whether I'm at f/5.6 or f/8 isn't going to make or break one of my photos.
Why not get it right in the fist place. It usually saves time and effort. Which if you were lazy in an intelligent way, you would realise is actually easier than relying on fixing in post.
Indeed. That is one of my goals. But my primary goal is to get the shot. If you spend too much time messing with the controls you can miss fleeting moments.
-
In our business it's a question of time allocation. Photshop manipulation is ex-budget unless by prior agreement. "Shoot now and Photoshop later" is a fair mantra if the extra computer time fits your circumstances or your budget, but it's a formula for unbudgeted and uncompensated hours in a photography business run on the clock. I suspect that even in fine art photography where income is generated exclusively through print sales, time in front of the computer can impinge on time available to be out following your muse. If Photoshop is a part of your creative process, then by all means it's valid to rely on it to make up for lapses in camera technique and technology. But ultimately reliance on Photoshop is a choice between hours in the field and hours at the computer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I price my work with post processing in mind (for portraits). It's not really an issue for shoots in my studio where I can control the lighting. But location shots can be a different story, especially with kids as they run around a lot across varied lighting conditions. I like to capture kids' spontaneity. So I've got to take what presents itself much of the time.
-
The problem with exposure compensation is that you don't always know which of the controls it's compensating with.
Unless you have a badly design camera, the control it's compensating is the one the camera can vary on that mode. By choosing Aperture-preferred, the comp is done on the shutter speed. Conversely, when choosing shutter-speed-preferred the comp system will vary the aperture.
So if you're shooting speed-sensitive stuff, choose shutter-speed preferred, and if you want control over depth of field, e.g. landscapes, then choose aperture-preferred.
Again, this is a viable option over manual that gives you excellent control while retaining automation. If you prefer manual, no problem too. But you still need to be familiar with the exposure system, unless you're using an external meter or a rule of thumb.
Know your camera and you'll do well, whatever your choice ...
-
But my primary goal is to get the shot. If you spend too much time messing with the controls you can miss fleeting moments.
Indeed. But the main reason for getting experience especially in the beginning is to let the "messing with the controls" become second nature so you don't really think about it during the shooting. But I totally agree, catching the moment is priority one. We just want to make sure the catching is printable and showable (is that even a word?)
-
Unless you have a badly design camera, the control it's compensating is the one the camera can vary on that mode. By choosing Aperture-preferred, the comp is done on the shutter speed. Conversely, when choosing shutter-speed-preferred the comp system will vary the aperture.
So if you're shooting speed-sensitive stuff, choose shutter-speed preferred, and if you want control over depth of field, e.g. landscapes, then choose aperture-preferred.
Again, this is a viable option over manual that gives you excellent control while retaining automation. If you prefer manual, no problem too. But you still need to be familiar with the exposure system, unless you're using an external meter or a rule of thumb.
Know your camera and you'll do well, whatever your choice ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136252\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure, if you're in aperture or shutter priority, EC is going to change the other one. But what's going to change in auto mode, and what's going to change when there's a flash involved? That varies by camera, and you may or may not have many options to choose from.
FWIW, a common habit of mine is to frame a scene in aperture priority, then lock in those settings in manual mode. Prevents the camera from freaking out if a glint of bright light enters the scene, or trying to expose for some shadow areas I don't care about as I move with or around the subject in otherwise consistent light.
Anyway, unless you know your system well you won't -always- know what exposure compensation is doing. That was my point - you have to know your system to know what EC is doing. Do you know how all of your cameras handle flash in shutter priority without cracking the manual? Hint: some will allow you to select a speed past the synch speed and some won't.
-
Sure, if you're in aperture or shutter priority, EC is going to change the other one. But what's going to change in auto mode, and what's going to change when there's a flash involved? That varies by camera, and you may or may not have many options to choose from.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136268\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Auto mode does not accept EC, if memory serves. On my 5D, I believe that in Program mode will step up or down through the program--adjusting shutter speed and aperture in turn.
-
In terms of (auto) exposure modes, I think it would be cool to have an automatic "expose to the right" mode. Perhaps there could be some tolerance (via a custom func) that says how many highlights pixels (or what percentage of highlight pixels) are allowed to be clipped. This wouldn't be suitable for all types of shooting, but for some of my landscape work it would definitely make things easier. We almost have it now with Live View + live histogram.
-
In terms of (auto) exposure modes, I think it would be cool to have an automatic "expose to the right" mode. Perhaps there could be some tolerance (via a custom func) that says how many highlights pixels (or what percentage of highlight pixels) are allowed to be clipped. This wouldn't be suitable for all types of shooting, but for some of my landscape work it would definitely make things easier. We almost have it now with Live View + live histogram.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136377\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is a feature I'd be willing to pay for. I expect to keep my 5D for quite a while, but if an upgrade came out with the "expose to the right" mode, I'd jump for it. Especially if it also included sensor-cleaning and maybe a mirror-lock-up button.
-
In terms of (auto) exposure modes, I think it would be cool to have an automatic "expose to the right" mode. Perhaps there could be some tolerance (via a custom func) that says how many highlights pixels (or what percentage of highlight pixels) are allowed to be clipped. This wouldn't be suitable for all types of shooting, but for some of my landscape work it would definitely make things easier. We almost have it now with Live View + live histogram.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136377\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This concept is one I love to see. Current cameras metering systems appear designed to produce satisfactory jpegs.
I personally wish I could set exposure by finding exactly what setting would max out any sensors on the chip ... perhaps something similar to live view where the mirror pops up and it actually reads the data hitting the sensor to determine "max exposure" without blowing any highlights.
Obviously you still have the opportunity to control the exposure, but now have the "optimum" exposure for the scene in front of you to render out a RAW image.
-
Auto mode does not accept EC, if memory serves. On my 5D, I believe that in Program mode will step up or down through the program--adjusting shutter speed and aperture in turn.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136312\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Again it depends on the camera. On my D200, using EC in program (auto) changes both the shutter and the aperture. If I'm trying to overexpose, it stops at the lens's minimum aperture then opens up the shutter more.
FWIW, it won't allow me to go past 1/250th with the built in flash in shutter priority, but will with an on-camera flash that supports FP (high speed sync) mode.
Also, FWIW, it always "exposes to the right" in low contrast situations, will allow some specular clipping, but closes down to hold large highlights.
-
Back to the original comment, that it's not necessary to know how to manual expose an image with today's digital cameras. . . .huh??
Virtually every image I take is exposed manually. I can can count on one hand the number of shoots, on location, I've used auto exposure. (Often, it's when light changes so rapidly, my assistant can't get a reading long enough for me to change the camera, so I give up and resort to auto -- with very mixed results.) And needless to say, studio shoots are ALWAYS manual. The only time I use auto is if I'm traveling and shooting for myself and I feel lazy. But I still often override the camera's "suggested" exposure.
Perhaps I'm one of those archaic photogs who believes one SHOULD know how to use the equipment, SHOULD know how to work with the images on the computer, SHOULD know more than my assistants, and doesn't believe that just because there are now digital cameras, one is a photographer. I've had a few clients think they could now shoot things themselves because they just bought a new digital camera. Why would they feel they are any better at photography with digital than with film? Usually a few months go by and they give me a call, "Hey, can you do a shoot for us?". As the world turns. . .
-
Why would they feel they are any better at photography with digital than with film?
The same basic tennets pretty much apply - just change "know thy film" to "know thy sensor". And of course the "know thy camera" still applies ...
-
The same basic tennets pretty much apply - just change "know thy film" to "know thy sensor". And of course the "know thy camera" still applies ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right, or as I tell people, the only thing digital changed is that it replaced film. Everything else is -exactly- the same (except for printing of course, but that's another topic), which is to say that you still need to know the same technical stuff about exposure, shutter speed, lighting etc. as you did with a film camera.
BTW, just to raise an obvious point, but modern film SLR's already automated most of this stuff pretty darn well a long time ago. Nikon's matrix metering, DX film, etc. made it easy for non-photographers to get perfectly great film images long before digital.
So in the grand scheme of things, nothing much has changed except that a novice can now meet or beat 35mm film quality with a $1000 camera and lens. Big deal.
Kevin
-
Kind of. Due to the (near) linear response of sensors, as opposed to the decidedly non-linear response of film, there are some technical differences between how digital and film work underneath in terms of optimal data representation. Sure, the basic concepts of aperture, shutter, ISO, etc. still apply (with the exception of reciprocity failure, perhaps). But for those wishing to really optimize the capture quality, there are enough significant differences that the rest of the system needs to be tweaked as well -- from lenses to auto-exposure modes.
-
Kind of. Due to the (near) linear response of sensors, as opposed to the decidedly non-linear response of film, there are some technical differences between how digital and film work underneath in terms of optimal data representation. Sure, the basic concepts of aperture, shutter, ISO, etc. still apply (with the exception of reciprocity failure, perhaps). But for those wishing to really optimize the capture quality, there are enough significant differences that the rest of the system needs to be tweaked as well -- from lenses to auto-exposure modes.
Indeed, know thy sensor! But I reminisce that when exposing film I would "expose to the left" for diapositives to get better saturation, whereas I would "expose to the right" for negs for the same reason, how much depending on the characteristics of the particular film, e.g. Fuji Reala had a very noticeably wider dynamic range than say, Kodak 400. Similarly how much you may expose a digital camera to the right should depend on the characteristics of the particular sensor. And obviously in all cases you take the attributes of the image being recorded into the equation.
-
Kind of. Due to the (near) linear response of sensors, as opposed to the decidedly non-linear response of film, there are some technical differences between how digital and film work underneath in terms of optimal data representation. Sure, the basic concepts of aperture, shutter, ISO, etc. still apply (with the exception of reciprocity failure, perhaps). But for those wishing to really optimize the capture quality, there are enough significant differences that the rest of the system needs to be tweaked as well -- from lenses to auto-exposure modes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course, but it's just a matter of adjusting what you know, vs. learning everything from scratch. It's more like learning the characteristics of a new film emulsion than re-thinking the wheel.
-
With this conversation in mind I performed an experiment yesterday. My wife and I were contracted for a very high dollar wedding involving 12 hours of shooting from noon to midnight in three locations: A clifftop meadow overlooking the ocean and surrounded by mountains; the seaside grounds and indoors of a winery; and very large white tents with both windows and artificial lighting. The wedding party was dressed in the usual mix of very subtle (and expensive) shades of white, black tuxes and midtones.
The cermony was conducted looking out over the brightly sunlit sea with subjects ranging from fully backlit to side lit or frontally lit, depending on our location. Leading up to that we shot formals with subjects partially frontlit to take advantage of the background scenes. Everything else was shot from constantly changing lighting angles depending on our changing locations and the movement of the action.
At the winery it was much the same but in and out of the shadows from the structures and large trees, with the light and lighting changing dramatically according to subjects, location and shooting angles. Over the course of the tent shooting, the balance of sunlight from the windows and artificial light changed by the minute and hour, as did shooting angles and subjects.
In all locations we augmented as required with camera mounted flash, remote flash, and full light kits, filtering the cameras as needed while also filtering all three varieties of strobes, as well as managing white balance. In essense it was an evolving mix of scenic or landscape shooting, action shooting, and studio style shooting.
As time permitted I switched my cameras from manual to program mode for comparative shooting, mostly to see if I was making too much of the question in my own mind. Why work so hard if I could do a good job while letting the cameras make the decisions?
We did a preliminary run through of my shots last night, but I didn't tell my wife that programmed shots were in the mix. She observerd "Boy, you really blew it on some of your stuff. What the heck was going on?"
Offending or failing images were shot on program, most typically with strong or partial backlighting, in direct sunlight with strong shadows, and late in the evening when whole scenes were in shadow but the sky was still bright. Some shots were "useable" but by no means professional, and certainly not without considerable photoshop work. "Action" shots were okay and some were quite good, especially with direct and uniform frontal lighting, provided I successfully compensated (+/-) for the range of tones in the scene. Frankly, in that fast-moving circumstance it would be a relief to rely more on programmed shooting, but I would have to preselect my shooting position relative to backgrounds and lighting angles and preset my compensation setting depending upon subjects.
I've seen the results of weddings shot in these same locations by photographers using programmed settings. I've also talked to their very unhappy clients- one of whom even demanded (and got) a full refund from the photographer in question. Without seeing my wife's shots yet, I'm confident that we're going to have some very happy clients while further augmenting our reputation and justifying our high fees compared to other local shooters. In fact, I'm likely to suggest to my wife that we once again raise our rates because additional weddings are going to result, even as the program shooters have lost business and reputation over their results.
And what about Photoshopping the "okay" images that resulted from my experiments with programmed shooting? We garnered just over 64gb of images on the shoot. If only 10% needed Photoshopping, we'd have to forego several well-paying shoots over the next few days to accomplish the task. I'd rather make money than clean up mistakes, I think.
-
OK, maybe I'm out on a limb here, but am I the only one who believes there are other alternatives between fully manual shooting, where the user has to select both aperture and shutter speed, and fully programmed automation?
Aperture or Shutter-Speed Preferred modes are still automation but let one choose preserving depth of field or motion-catching, and the use of controls such as exposure lock and compensation provide control on the fly while still being in the ballpark for a reasonable exposure. I do mostly landscape and travel, much of it on a tripod, and have never used fully programmed and seldom resort to manual.
Admitedly, if you're using an external meter, and / or if you're shooting lots of shots at the same critical light levels, then manual is the way to go, but where there are changing subjects and varying light levels, there are very effective alternatives between the two extremes ...
-
I don't think you're on a limb at all. A and S settings are just other versions of programmed shooting which let you choose which variable stays the same while the other adjusts according to the dictates of the camera's meter and programming.
In that light, they're very useful tools to have in a kit for use when needed. I frequently select one or the other over the "straight" P setting when circumstances dictate or allow use of programmed shooting. I often use A settings for example, with zoom lenses having variable apertures simply to better manage DOF when programmed shooting is dictated.
The point in my often lengthy and pointed diatribes (sorry!) is that programmed shooting is not always going to give you the results you expect, and in fact is seldom the "best" answer. To rely on it to the exclusion of learning manual skills will cost you, whether in terms of missed opportunities or loss of income and repuation. It's a matter of expectations- whether simply your own or those of clients.
-
And that, Hank, as we´ve both already discovered, is the difference in attitude between pro and amateur.
Rob C
PS Not seen any homecoming queens yet!
-
Kind of. Due to the (near) linear response of sensors, as opposed to the decidedly non-linear response of film, there are some technical differences between how digital and film work underneath in terms of optimal data representation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very true. When I switched from film to digital, there was definitely an "exposure learning curve". Where I was use to the substantial shoulder of Fuji cromes (loved the old RMS, less so Provia), I'd routinely overexpose a half to whole stop from my incident meter. Suddenly, with digital, I'm now shooting almost on the meter. It took me a shoot to realize, "We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto". It was good thing I shot RAW and not JPEG, because most of the blown highlights held. But, there were a few sweaty palms when I first opened images.
-
What happens when the scene exceeds your dynamic range? Your camera, left to it's own devices, will probably give you an average losing detail at both ends.
Bingo. I'm used to quickly flipping my 5D over to manual to get shots that aren't possible letting the camera handle things:
http://www.neutralhillsstills.ca/index.php?showimage=93 (http://www.neutralhillsstills.ca/index.php?showimage=93)
This sunset is two exposures combined into a final image. I made one exposure for the majority of the scene, and another separate exposure for the sun, which is about 5 Ev away from the rest of the scene. That's not something you can just do on Aperture Priority and spinning the back dial to lose 2 Ev in compensation.
Thing is, I've gotten all of the buttons and dials on the camera memorized now. Didn't even have to look what I was doing -- just counted clicks and fired away.
-
Very nice! And here's one where I preferred to let some highlights get blown (you can easily see where) to retain shadow detail that was more important ...
Backlit Trees (http://improbablystructuredlayers.net/Special/_E9C3332.jpg)
-
Very nice! And here's one where I preferred to let some highlights get blown (you can easily see where) to retain shadow detail that was more important ...
Backlit Trees (http://improbablystructuredlayers.net/Special/_E9C3332.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137360\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The blown out areas are hardly noticeable in this (excellent) shot. I think it works very nicely. What I hate are images where the subject of the image is a sky with big white blown out blobs of cloud. Or people's faces where half the subject's nose and forhead has been blown past 255. Yuck.
-
This is pretty ridiculous. Let's just automate everything so we don't have to do that painful thing some refer to as "thinking".
Why not just completely automate pianos and guitars and paint brushes. We can program them so we can just type in our feelings, and then the piano pumps out a catchy tune and the paint brush? What's next? How about a machine that automatically knows what we're thinking/feeling so it can tell the other machines what to do for us.
We've got the manual, we've got the auto. Creativity comes from the freedom to choose and make our own decisions.