Why is auto exposure so useless?

[Justinr]

Are you a full time professional photographer or do you have other employment?

I'm sorry, but you really are an ignorant and ill mannered little twerp. Oh, and rather stupid to. A little research would answer that question, it's simply a matter of clicking on a link or two.

[stamper]

This is a genuine problem encountered not just by me but by others working in the same area using the other big name in cameras. Trying to apply the reasoning of hobby photographers (nothing against them, I was one myself) to a commercial situation is not helping to define, clarify or answer the difficulties encountered.  

No point in asking a hobby photographer his opinion because you have left their ranks? You should have stated that at the outset and there would have been a lot less posts to read. BTW some of the hobby photographers might just be more knowledgable than your good self?

[Justinr]

No point in asking a hobby photographer his opinion because you have left their ranks? You should have stated that at the outset and there would have been a lot less posts to read. BTW some of the hobby photographers might just be more knowledgable than your good self?

Boo hoo.

[stamper]

I'm sorry, but you really are an ignorant and ill mannered little twerp. Oh, and rather stupid to. A little research would answer that question, it's simply a matter of clicking on a link or two.

Quote Justin Reply# 17

Been doing photography on a pro basis for around 12/13 years now, never full time admittedly, but I started off  doing weddings on a Bronica with said light meter for Wedding Services in the UK, a company owned by Kodak at the time

[spidermike]

So Nikon championing the marvels of their AE system is not to be taken as any sort of suggestion or indication that they think it is any good [1]? You may also note that I said the camera trade, or industry if you prefer, suggests it is bombproof, not the public [2]. So kindly get your accusations straightened out before presenting them.

 

[1] 'Being good' is not the same as 'bombproof'
[2] You precise words were "Who knows, if it were generally recognised that AE was not as bombproof " so if when you said 'generally recognised' you were not referring to the general public who were you referring to?

So I think my assertions were correct

[Petrus]

By providing an exposure compensation dial (or similar) camera makers recognize that AE systems are not bombproof. What else there is to it?

[Justinr]

Quote Justin Reply# 17

Been doing photography on a pro basis for around 12/13 years now, never full time admittedly, but I started off  doing weddings on a Bronica with said light meter for Wedding Services in the UK, a company owned by Kodak at the time

Where have I contradicted that?

You need to move on my friend, the days of just sticking to one trade in the media are pretty much over, it happens if you are lucky but the number of full time pro photographers is well down and unlikely to recover.

I have also pointed out on this thread that I am a writer and in the past I have made it quite clear on LuLa that photography is just part of the package that I offer my customers. I have also stated that since I started selling myself as a writer I have never been busier with the camera!

A camera is an essential tool of my trade and I have many years experience in using one, which is why I am busy selling my product into various magazines.

And you? Other than posting pretty piccies  on Fliker that is. Have you ever gone out with the responsibility of having to return with the goods? Ever done a wedding for instance where the models can't be re-booked for the next day?  Covered a story that a publication or company is paying you to get right?  The world isn't quite so straightforward when you only have the one chance at  a job.

[Justinr]

By providing an exposure compensation dial (or similar) camera makers recognize that AE systems are not bombproof. What else there is to it?

Oh I see, pity that's never made clearer when the cameras are being sold or 'reviewed', which is much the same thing. Perhaps it should be?

[Justinr]

[1] 'Being good' is not the same as 'bombproof'
[2] You precise words were "Who knows, if it were generally recognised that AE was not as bombproof " so if when you said 'generally recognised' you were not referring to the general public who were you referring to?

So I think my assertions were correct

The intent of the language used is to suggest that AE is all you need. Argue the semantics if you like but it is nothing more than an admission of quasi misrepresentation

[telyt]

May I suggest a more agreeable topic?  UV filters, for example.  Or Canon vs. Nikon.  PC or Mac?

[Justinr]

May I suggest a more agreeable topic?  UV filters, for example.  Or Canon vs. Nikon.  PC or Mac?

You left out the eternal pro/am argument. 

[spidermike]

Oh I see, pity that's never made clearer when the cameras are being sold or 'reviewed', which is much the same thing. Perhaps it should be?

You mean from my 7D2 manual "Exposure compensation can brighten (increased exposure) or darken (decreased exposure) the standard exposure set by the camera"
Who cares if the AE is bombproof - if the picture varies from what you want you can adjust it no matter what the reason.

[spidermike]

The intent of the language used is to suggest that AE is all you need. Argue the semantics if you like but it is nothing more than an admission of quasi misrepresentation

It is you reading the inference and the intent. Nothing more. I just take the text at face value and work with the information.

[Justinr]

You mean from my 7D2 manual "Exposure compensation can brighten (increased exposure) or darken (decreased exposure) the standard exposure set by the camera"
Who cares if the AE is bombproof - if the picture varies from what you want you can adjust it no matter what the reason.

That does not indicate that that the AE is fallible, only that it may be altered.

[Justinr]

BTW, anybody know how the old film cameras managed without 30,000 reference images?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

BTW, anybody know how the old film cameras managed without 30,000 reference images?

By using center-weighted or spot metering. Options still available in today's digital cameras.

[Justinr]

By using center-weighted or spot metering. Options still available in today's digital cameras.

I'm not entirely sure that dSLR's are completely free of interference in those modes, but I've argued enough for the day. 

[telyt]

I've never been interested in making my photos so predictable that the camera could look up the exposure scenario and pick the right one.

[Petrus]

BTW, anybody know how the old film cameras managed without 30,000 reference images?

Worse.

The latest film models did have matrix metering with some sort of budding intelligence built in.

[Justinr]

Worse.

The latest film models did have matrix metering with some sort of budding intelligence built in.

My recollection of the old Zenits I kicked off with was that the meter wasn't entirely unreliable and certainly good enough to produce some well exposed prints. But film was a lot more forgiving.