Why is auto exposure so useless?

[BernardLanguillier]

Just came across this thread. I don't remember having an image unrecoverably screwed because of exposure issues for many many years.

There are some lighting conditions, typically in extreme WB cases, where it is good practise to dial in a -0.7 on the D810. Not doing it isn't a major issue in most cases but doing it results in a better file which may matter since those are often low light images where DR is reduced due to higher ISO being used.

Anyway, I still always check the histogram in flat mode but it is very very rare I have to reshoot.

Cheers,
Bernard

[pegelli]

What's your problem, do you want to share it with us?

No problem on my side, nothing to share.
And we can read about your "problems" on your website, so no need to repeat them here either  

[Justinr]

Just came across this thread. I don't remember having an image unrecoverably screwed because of exposure issues for many many years.

There are some lighting conditions, typically in extreme WB cases, where it is good practise to dial in a -0.7 on the D810. Not doing it isn't a major issue in most cases but doing it results in a better file which may matter since those are often low light images where DR is reduced due to higher ISO being used.

Anyway, I still always check the histogram in flat mode but it is very very rare I have to reshoot.

Cheers,
Bernard

With time and dedication a lot of images can be recovered, but what is of concern is that these things take time and patience and that is not always available. I have found that it's better to ignore AE and its various adjustments and just go with the histogram as a guide to exposure, but that is outrageously shameful conduct it appears.

[Justinr]

No problem on my side, nothing to share.
And we can read about your "problems" on your website, so no need to repeat them here either  

Ah, so you've visited my website, jolly good, the more visitors the better. Not sure about the problems though, would you care to explain?

[dwswager]

I have found that it's better to ignore AE and its various adjustments and just go with the histogram as a guide to exposure, but that is outrageously shameful conduct it appears.

No, not shameful, but it assumes that the profile set in the camera is what you want.  A RAW histogram would almost never be what you wanted for the output and any converted histogram (what cameras provide) is based on the set profile.

The question is are we looking for the best we can get out of camera or are we discussing the best exposure for a RAW or JPEG/TIFF for post processing file?  They are 2 different things.

[fdisilvestro]

The question is are we looking for the best we can get out of camera or are we discussing the best exposure for a RAW or JPEG/TIFF for post processing file?  They are 2 different things.

What? This is LuLa, so we should only discuss RAW!!

On a serious note, the distinction is important, but I would suggest to use raw only if you plan to post process.

[Otto Phocus]

I used to point camera at my palm which I always had with me unlike a grey card

That is a handy trick that has served me well for many years.  Is that technique even taught these days?

[dwswager]

On a serious note, the distinction is important, but I would suggest to use raw only if you plan to post process.

Impossible to do otherwise for the RAW data must be converted to be useful.

I am assuming the original poster is looking for "Out of the Camera" results as it makes no sense to get too excited about absolute exposure with a raw file.  Sure, we all want to do as little work as possible, but with a RAW file there will be multiple "Good" exposures depending on your needs.  But an 8bit JPEG has a lot less range to it and makes proper exposure more critical so the highlights don't get blown.

[Justinr]

Impossible to do otherwise for the RAW data must be converted to be useful.

I am assuming the original poster is looking for "Out of the Camera" results as it makes no sense to get too excited about absolute exposure with a raw file.  Sure, we all want to do as little work as possible, but with a RAW file there will be multiple "Good" exposures depending on your needs.  But an 8bit JPEG has a lot less range to it and makes proper exposure more critical so the highlights don't get blown.

Well of course I want quality 'out of the camera results' from a top end DSLR, that's why I bought it. Are you suggesting that one should not expect decent well exposed images from a flagship camera? I really haven't the time to be messing about with RAW, the job just doesn't pay enough for that to be honest.

Now if I may also refer back to the original post I might mention that I met up with another photographer today who does editorial work, in fact he is now an editor himself, and he too said that AE on DSLRs is "brutal" and a "waste of time". Like the rest of us he simply doesn't bother with it and does it all manually nowadays. He noted as well that he's actually bought a point and shoot for non commercial work as that gives him a far more reliable exposure.

So that's four of us poor lost souls, we really are in a terrible state.

Anyway, here's a pretty picture to take our minds off such vexations.

[luxborealis]

There I was standing in the middle of field covering a major classic tractor event for a couple of magazines. It was an overcast day that threatened rain although it was the middle of summer and yet, despite the multitude of settings I tried to obtain a reasonable exposure, nothing seemed to be working. I turned to a fellow writer who I know is also very fussy about his cameras and images, he too was struggling while a third colleague also confessed that only a fraction of his pictures were useable due to poor exposure. Thinking about it afterwards I decided to try manual and rely on the good old histogram and since that happy moment around 90% of my pictures are now 'keepers'  (how I hate that word!). Using flash is going to be a problem as I can't see anyway of selecting an intensity setting on my flash head and adjusting aperture or ISO to achieve the desired result, but for all other purposes taking a few test shots to get the right exposure seems to work just fine. Just for the record I was using a Nikon and the others Canon and to further rub salt into the wound many people were getting better exposures on their smart phones!

I've attached a few taken using manual exposure.

Sorry Justinr, but this is a no-brainer... There is nothing "wrong" with auto exposure that can't be corrected in the same way you "corrected" the exposure using manual and the histogram. Auto exposure does not mean correct exposure anymore than manual exposure does. Auto (not Program) simply means you only need to change either shutter speed or aperture, not both, whereas with manual, you are free to change both or either.

Auto is not some magic bullet; nor is manual - both require thought by the photographer for exposures to be correct. With auto, you put the thought into exposure compensation based on your histogram. In manual, you do the same thing, just directly with the shutter speed or aperture.

[Justinr]

Sorry Justinr, but this is a no-brainer... There is nothing "wrong" with auto exposure that can't be corrected in the same way you "corrected" the exposure using manual and the histogram. Auto exposure does not mean correct exposure anymore than manual exposure does. Auto (not Program) simply means you only need to change either shutter speed or aperture, not both, whereas with manual, you are free to change both or either.

Auto is not some magic bullet; nor is manual - both require thought by the photographer for exposures to be correct. With auto, you put the thought into exposure compensation based on your histogram. In manual, you do the same thing, just directly with the shutter speed or aperture.

Err no, but I've got a days work ahead so we'll argue the toss some other time.

[dwswager]

Well of course I want quality 'out of the camera results' from a top end DSLR, that's why I bought it. Are you suggesting that one should not expect decent well exposed images from a flagship camera? I really haven't the time to be messing about with RAW, the job just doesn't pay enough for that to be honest.

There are times for Auto and times for Manual.  Key is to know when and how to use each.  Also, there are mutiple metering modes and one must pick the appropriate mode.  You will get a different exposure with each one!

Every Nikon has about 7 profiles that determine how the image is rendered.  They all revolve around a consistent exposure, but they will give totally different results.  That is another factor that affects the out of camera experience.  No profile is usually correct for all images, though a custom calibration would be most usable if you have one made.

[jjj]

Metering your palm is fine if it is in the same light as your subject.  Otherwise it is detrimental.

Why would you even think to do otherwise?

[jjj]

Well of course I want quality 'out of the camera results' from a top end DSLR, that's why I bought it. Are you suggesting that one should not expect decent well exposed images from a flagship camera? I really haven't the time to be messing about with RAW, the job just doesn't pay enough for that to be honest.

If you think shooting raw takes up more time, then you obviously do not know how to use modern software. I find jpeg slower if anything, because it's much harder to fix difficult shots. Mixed colour balance or high dynamic range images for example, which are common problems.

[Justinr]

You don't know how to use AE!

   Yes I do!

No you don't!

   Yes I do!

No you don't!

   Yes I do!

Lads lads lads.

A small incident in the press tent made me laugh yesterday when I was talking to a fellow, the details needn't bother us here but his cameras were firmly set to manual.

[SZRitter]

If you think shooting raw takes up more time, then you obviously do not know how to use modern software. I find jpeg slower if anything, because it's much harder to fix difficult shots. Mixed colour balance or high dynamic range images for example, which are common problems.

Horses for courses. If I shoot "reportage" type of things, think quick things to throw up on Facebook or Instagram for my employer, JPEG is just fine and has a fairly quick turnaround time. If I am doing any kind of editing or difficult situations, then I would tend towards RAW.

That said, anything I shoot for myself is almost exclusively RAW.

But, shooting RAW doesn't make up for understanding how your exposure system functions, to understand when to trust or when to override it.

[Justinr]

Horses for courses. If I shoot "reportage" type of things, think quick things to throw up on Facebook or Instagram for my employer, JPEG is just fine and has a fairly quick turnaround time. If I am doing any kind of editing or difficult situations, then I would tend towards RAW.

That said, anything I shoot for myself is almost exclusively RAW.

But, shooting RAW doesn't make up for understanding how your exposure system functions, to understand when to trust or when to override it.

That's easy, just don't trust it at all, you know where you stand then.

BTW, isn't one of the major points of AE not needing to understand exposure? There was a time when being to set exposure without even looking at a meter was considered the mark of a proper photographer, and now you ain't even a crap snapper unless you can turn the AE on!

[Justinr]

If you think shooting raw takes up more time, then you obviously do not know how to use modern software. I find jpeg slower if anything, because it's much harder to fix difficult shots. Mixed colour balance or high dynamic range images for example, which are common problems.

You are indeed a tremendously clever chap and the the lollipop will be with you shortly.

[Justinr]

Ah! That does explain all your posts on this topic.

No Issac, It means that I have fed up with the self aggrandizing buffoonery of those who would go round trying to be clever and delight in trying to put others down.

[Isaac]

No Issac, It means that I have fed up with the self aggrandizing buffoonery of those who would go round trying to be clever and delight in trying to put others down.

Those who answer your "Why is auto exposure so useless?" with a straightforward -- "It isn't" -- and those who actually have the temerity to try to understand and help with whatever difficulty it is you have been complaining about so loudly?

I started-off with curiosity about the situation you apparently experienced (and as someone who uses MF all the time, some sympathy) but now afaict Colorado David was correct.