Why is auto exposure so useless?

[pegelli]

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

Did I ever claim I had any? I'm afraid you need to take a good look in the mirror

[stamper]

Matrix was commented on a few posts back and colour was commented on when calculating exposure. The reason I don't use matrix- I prefer centre weighted - is that when a camera calculates exposure then colour doesn't come into the equation. It only calculates luminosity, shades of grey and black so any reference to a colour image in it's bank would be futile??? Colour is added after the luminosity and grey and black has been calculated???

[stamper]

Did I ever claim I had any? I'm afraid you need to take a good look in the mirror

Justin the tone of your posting has been one of "superiority" in this thread imo. Even Isaac's post was imo a helpful one?

[Justinr]

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?

That really is the cheapest and bitchiest comment on this thread.

What point, exactly, are you trying to make?

[Justinr]

Justin the tone of your posting has been one of "superiority" in this thread imo. Even Isaac's post was imo a helpful one?

It was helpful to you?

[Petrus]

Note to myself: "When shooting farm equipment framed against the sky remember to use manual exposure. In other cases use matrix metering".

[Justinr]

Note to myself: "When shooting farm equipment framed against the sky remember to use manual exposure. In other cases use matrix metering".

It's a start, but there is a little more to it than that.

[Justinr]

Y'know folks, I'm getting the distinct impression that somebody somewhere doesn't like it being pointed out that AE is not always the best thing since sliced bread.

[Petrus]

Y'know folks, I'm getting the distinct impression that somebody somewhere doesn't like it being pointed out that AE is not always the best thing since sliced bread.

I have noticed that when using studio flash AE tends to overexpose badly. Manual exposure seems to work better...

[Justinr]

I have noticed that when using studio flash AE tends to overexpose badly. Manual exposure seems to work better...

In the studio, when in total control of the light,  I only use manual although I do very little studio work nowadays anyway.

[stamper]

Y'know folks, I'm getting the distinct impression that somebody somewhere doesn't like it being pointed out that AE is not always the best thing since sliced bread.

That is your opinion.....others differ?

[Justinr]

That is your opinion.....others differ?

Glad to hear it. It would be a dull old world otherwise, it also greatly expediates progress. Who knows, if it were generally recognised that AE was not as bombproof as suggested by the camera trade (see examples above) then they might get their finger out and attend to the problem rather than trying to set a narrative that distracts from this awkward fact.

[spidermike]

On reason I like AE is that it is a good starting point. If I have taken a picture with AE I know that if I want to take a grab shot a few minutes afterwards under different circumstances there is a very good chance the output will be usable. If I have had it set on manual and want to take a grab shot a few minutes later those different circumstances may well render the image unusable without having twiddled a dial or two. And in the time it takes to do that I may well miss the shot.
With AE plus compensation I effectively have manual exposure - all I need to decide is whether I agree with what the camera says not think what settings I want. In both cases I am still assessing the scene, it takes the same amount of understanding and experience and I end up with the same result. And because I have that understanding I can decide if I need to go to full manual.

[spidermike]

Who knows, if it were generally recognised that AE was not as bombproof 

You keep on coming up with this claim that the general public considers AE to be bomb-proof - do you have any evidence for this? A more likely explanation is that if you went up to someone and said 'you do realise that AE is flawed' the likely response would be a shrug of the shoulders and 'So. It gives perfectly acceptable images to me'.

Nor have you given any real examples of the camera trade suggesting it is bombproof other than your inference of what they say.

[Otto Phocus]

Perhaps the best thing we can do is just agree with Justinr so we can move on. 

[Justinr]

You keep on coming up with this claim that the general public considers AE to be bomb-proof - do you have any evidence for this? A more likely explanation is that if you went up to someone and said 'you do realise that AE is flawed' the likely response would be a shrug of the shoulders and 'So. It gives perfectly acceptable images to me'.

Nor have you given any real examples of the camera trade suggesting it is bombproof other than your inference of what they say.

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? You may also note that I said the camera trade, or industry if you prefer, suggests it is bombproof, not the public. So kindly get your accusations straightened out before presenting them.

 

[Justinr]

Perhaps the best thing we can do is just agree with Justinr so we can move on. 

Please don't. I'm all for disagreement but cheap jibes as such as Stamper sneering about my employment situation (which he has failed to explain) are indeed something we could do without.

[Petrus]

I guess "intelligent" matrix metering IS the best the camera industry has been able to come up with so far. Sometimes it fails, and for professionals it fails more often than for amateurs because the camera knows if the operator is getting paid. amateurs tend to take easier pictures and are more content with what the camera delivers.

I work only part time now, waiting for retirement, so apparently I am not considered a professional anymore, so AE mostly with matrix works 100% of the time for me for reportage situations (no studio flash), spiced with some exposure compensation at times.

Here are some samples, ALL of them taken with AE matrix metering: https://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/albums

and of course ALL of them have been shot in RAW and processed, including exposure adjustment, in LightRoom.

[stamper]

Please don't. I'm all for disagreement but cheap jibes as such as Stamper sneering about my employment situation (which he has failed to explain) are indeed something we could do without.

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

[Justinr]

On reason I like AE is that it is a good starting point. If I have taken a picture with AE I know that if I want to take a grab shot a few minutes afterwards under different circumstances there is a very good chance the output will be usable. If I have had it set on manual and want to take a grab shot a few minutes later those different circumstances may well render the image unusable without having twiddled a dial or two. And in the time it takes to do that I may well miss the shot.
With AE plus compensation I effectively have manual exposure - all I need to decide is whether I agree with what the camera says not think what settings I want. In both cases I am still assessing the scene, it takes the same amount of understanding and experience and I end up with the same result. And because I have that understanding I can decide if I need to go to full manual.

Quite so, it has its uses but I look at the situation like this.

A camera is very much a tool as far as I am concerned, it is one I enjoy using but even so it has to prove effective at its purpose.

When I cover a story/feature/event I need that that to tool to work at it's optimal capacity, or as near as for 100% is hardly likely to be achieved.

The major reasons for deletion of shots is incorrect exposure, therefore I need to maximise the percentage of shots that are either correctly exposed or near enough for them to be easily and satisfactorily adjusted back on the computer.   

At a guess, but after some consideration, I would say that the yield of acceptable shots using AE alone was never more than 50%. By using manual that yield is greatly increased, probably nearer to 80 or 90% (excluding test shots which are never intended to be kept).

Is it really acceptable that a tool costing thousands of dollars can only achieve such a success rate when left to its own devices?  Others on here have expressed their satisfaction with AE, which is fair enough, it seems that their work might conform more to what is generally regarded as press photography and the camera's firmware can more happily deal with it.  I have found myself specialising in machinery (not just tractors) and here it seems that cameras struggle to perform as they would in other situations.

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.