Why is auto exposure so useless?

[stamper]

If you say so me old mucker, if you say so.

It looks like the biggest problem is your attitude? You have been consistently dismissive and sneering to every member that has tried to "help" you. No doubt I am next?

[stamper]

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.

engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as an amateur.
"a professional boxer"
synonyms:   paid, salaried, non-amateur, full-time
"a professional tennis player"

Your point about "never full time admittedly" is an oxymoron. If you aren't full time then you aren't a professional?

[Justinr]

It looks like the biggest problem is your attitude? You have been consistently dismissive and sneering to every member that has tried to "help" you. No doubt I am next?

You are quite right, you are next. I made a point about AE not being anything like as handy as it's supposed to be and then get piled upon with patronising 'wisdom' about how wrong I was with a pervading assumption that I knew naff all about photography so if only I would sit down at these noble feet then all would be revealed in time! But  guess what, it emerged that I might have a case after all, at which point a deathly hush descended except for one who said he knew all along (then why didn't he say so?) and our man Isaac who went off lecturing me as if I were a newbie down at the camera club!

But you are quite wrong as well. There are those that came up with sensible suggestions and I tried to answer them in a like manner, but to those that might feel offended by a rather brash response may I suggest that they climb down of their high horses and learn to appreciate that there are many approaches to photography and no one pot of absolute truth in the craft that anyone holds the key to, which is the impression given in several cases.

  

[pegelli]

It looks like the biggest problem is your attitude? You have been consistently dismissive and sneering to every member that has tried to "help" you. No doubt I am next?

Or me  

It's very simple: learn your equipment well enough so it gives you the desired consistent results you want or accept you'll need some corrections in PP when shooting raw. Both are perfectly acceptable and easily doable (despite you dismissing both of these multiple times).

Blaming the equipment isn't going to get you anywhere, the equipment will always give the same result when being put in exactly the same situation. Your inconsistent results are probably caused by slight changes in the situation you're putting it in.

[Justinr]

engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as an amateur.
"a professional boxer"
synonyms:   paid, salaried, non-amateur, full-time
"a professional tennis player"

Your point about "never full time admittedly" is an oxymoron. If you aren't full time then you aren't a professional?

Oh good lord are you that desperate to score a cheap point! That is the hoariest old chestnut in the book and has been done to death over the years, if not the centuries!

I have a stack of mags in front of me, Oh look, there's a two page photo spread, and another, and I'm on the cover of this one as well as this, in fact that was used as an advertising poster by one company. Four pages on a Lanz Alldog in another and five on the post war history of the French Tractor industry in its sister publication, or dos the fact that I also write about what I photograph preclude me from being considered any sort of professional?

[hjulenissen]

engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as an amateur.
"a professional boxer"
synonyms:   paid, salaried, non-amateur, full-time
"a professional tennis player"

Your point about "never full time admittedly" is an oxymoron. If you aren't full time then you aren't a professional?

There is no contradiction between:
1: "Professional" meaning that activity is your _main paid occupation_
2: Not working at full time.

A family member is working 40% as a musical teacher and 60% as a musician. I would consider him a "professional musician".

I know people who work 50% as bus drivers or nurses due to a medical condition, or due to taking care of kids or parents. I would still consider these "professional" bus drivers or nurses.

Not that "professional" has a lot of positive connotation to me. In my experience, professionals are prone to do any given job "good enough", while an amateur ("lover of") will often invest what seems like irrational amounts of time and money into getting things "as good as possible".

Granted, in professions such as photography, the line between professional and amateur, occupation and "lover of" is often blurred. People may do something for a living, yet invest more effort/money than what is required by their customers. Unlike more mundane occupations, perhaps? You don't often see bus drivers or nurses doing their thing for free for a decade before deciding to start charging by the hour?

-h

[Justinr]

Or me  

It's very simple: learn your equipment well enough so it gives you the desired consistent results you want or accept you'll need some corrections in PP when shooting raw. Both are perfectly acceptable and easily doable (despite you dismissing both of these multiple times).

Blaming the equipment isn't going to get you anywhere, the equipment will always give the same result when being put in exactly the same situation. Your inconsistent results are probably caused by slight changes in the situation you're putting it in.

Spot on. And we all knew that digitals used a bank of reference images to impose a a theoretical 'correctness' upon our shooting didn't we. Well it appears in some cases that it simply doesn't work. Did you know that?

[pegelli]

Well it appears in some cases that it simply doesn't work. Did you know that?

Yes I do, and knowing your equipment will help you determine when that is the case.

[hjulenissen]

Spot on. And we all knew that digitals used a bank of reference images to impose a a theoretical 'correctness' upon our shooting didn't we. Well it appears in some cases that it simply doesn't work. Did you know that?

In this day of "big data" and "pattern recognition", it seems safe to assume that any problem of sufficient monetary interest that cannot (as of now) be solved analytically, is a candidate for number-crunching fed by databases of examples.

This applies to auto-exposure, but also to autofocus (especially head-tracking, smile-detection and such but possibly also motion tracking) auto-whitebalance. One might even try to apply it to things like tonemapping/auto-dodge-and-burn preferences.

Any automatic process will have a limited accuracy, especially when used at the edges of the tested/prioritized cases. Use when needed.

-h

[Justinr]

In this day of "big data" and "pattern recognition", it seems safe to assume that any problem of sufficient monetary interest that cannot (as of now) be solved analytically, is a candidate for number-crunching fed by databases of examples.

This applies to auto-exposure, but also to autofocus (especially head-tracking, smile-detection and such but possibly also motion tracking) auto-whitebalance. One might even try to apply it to things like tonemapping/auto-dodge-and-burn preferences.

Any automatic process will have a limited accuracy, especially when used at the edges of the tested/prioritized cases. Use when needed.

-h

A good point that. It's rather frightening to see how Big Brother (bad) has been sold to the public as Big Data (good) and the global society seems to have swallowed it whole. The pernicious collection and use of information that would hitherto have been considered private is an alarming development and one that is so vast and comprehensive that one feels quite helpless in front of it all, which, no doubt, suits its sponsors very well indeed.

[Justinr]

Yes I do, and knowing your equipment will help you determine when that is the case.

If you would like to tell me the model of your major camera then I'll prepare an exam based on its manual. Doubtless you'll score 100%.

[pegelli]

If you would like to tell me the model of your major camera then I'll prepare an exam based on its manual. Doubtless you'll score 100%.

Haha, don't bother, you're better off spending the time learning your own camera, not from the manual but from practice in the field.

[Justinr]

Haha, don't bother, you're better off spending the time learning your own camera, not from the manual but from practice in the field.

Err, righto.

Any more senseless jibes?

[pegelli]

Err, righto.

Any more senseless jibes?

Why should I? You don't want to be helped anyway.

[Justinr]

Why should I? You don't want to be helped anyway.

Honestly mate, you need to grow up.

Why are you carrying on like this?

[pegelli]

Honestly mate, you need to grow up.

Who needs to grow up?

Every sound advice in this thread has been countered with "doesn't work for me, too much effort, don't want to learn, it's the equipment not me"
Being called on that behavior the only thing you resort to are cynical personal attacks

But if that's the way you are fine, just don't look for my advice in the future because I genuinely tried to help but if this is how you handle this I know enough.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice ....

[stamper]

There is no contradiction between:
1: "Professional" meaning that activity is your _main paid occupation_
2: Not working at full time.

A family member is working 40% as a musical teacher and 60% as a musician. I would consider him a "professional musician".

I know people who work 50% as bus drivers or nurses due to a medical condition, or due to taking care of kids or parents. I would still consider these "professional" bus drivers or nurses.

Not that "professional" has a lot of positive connotation to me. In my experience, professionals are prone to do any given job "good enough", while an amateur ("lover of") will often invest what seems like irrational amounts of time and money into getting things "as good as possible".

Granted, in professions such as photography, the line between professional and amateur, occupation and "lover of" is often blurred. People may do something for a living, yet invest more effort/money than what is required by their customers. Unlike more mundane occupations, perhaps? You don't often see bus drivers or nurses doing their thing for free for a decade before deciding to start charging by the hour?

-h

A lot of photographers like to call themselves pros because they think they have elevated abilities. Most photographers have been paid at sometime or another. So if it isn't a full time profession then what amount of money are we talking about before the amateur/professional status changes for the leap to be made? I prefer the description.... when someone makes the bulk of their earnings from a chosen occupation then they are professional? But if a photographer is a bus driver 9 to 5 and gets paid working as a photographer a couple of hours in the evenings or on his/her day off then they aren't a professional photographer? Unfortunately Justin doesn't state what his full time job is assuming he has one?

[tom b]

I was going to suggest using EV, however this is another train wreck. I hope that it isn't going to be a common occurrence, I just closed a thread because of negative comments, LuLa has been above this negativity!

Cheers,

[Justinr]

Who needs to grow up?

Every sound advice in this thread has been countered with "doesn't work for me, too much effort, don't want to learn, it's the equipment not me"
Being called on that behavior the only thing you resort to are cynical personal attacks

But if that's the way you are fine, just don't look for my advice in the future because I genuinely tried to help but if this is how you handle this I know enough.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice ....

I fear that you may have a rather too high opinion of your abilities, knowledge and experience. 

[Justinr]

I was going to suggest using EV, however this is another train wreck. I hope that it isn't going to be a common occurrence, I just closed a thread because of negative comments, LuLa has been above this negativity!

Cheers,

EV has already been mentioned but as pointed out it relies on a consistent variation from the correct exposure. The problems I, and others, have encountered with AE are wild and apparently random variations from the 'correct' exposure. I should point out once again that I have run through a whole gamut of adjustments and settings to try and overcome this issue, including EV, but nothing appears to work satisfactorily.  If it becomes necessary to adjust EV for each frame then surely one might as well just switch to manual and rely on the histogram to ensure that the required information is captured.