Why is auto exposure so useless?

[Justinr]

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.

Well it certainly didn't appear that way, perhaps you need to work on your style, perhaps I do, but anyway, the constant allusion to me not knowing what I'm doing or I am somehow ignorant of the very basic facts of photography begins to really annoy after a while. If you want to see whether I might have just the teeniest weeniest idea about what I'm doing my website is shown below, I take it you have a gallery of work somewhere we can view?

 

[Justinr]

For those of you with a tinfoil hat to hand I've just had this mad idea about the camera manufacturers fixing their software so that the cameras won't work as well with third party lenses. I know that such an idea as big multinational corporations cheating in such way is utterly ridiculous, as the chap down at the VW garage was saying just a week or so ago, but......

Just a thought.

[razrblck]

I feel like you expect a perfectly exposed picture when you have a scene with too many stops between highlights and shadows. The issue here is not in auto exposure, but in the limitations of the sensor.

[stamper]

The real issue is a closed mind.

[Justinr]

I feel like you expect a perfectly exposed picture when you have a scene with too many stops between highlights and shadows. The issue here is not in auto exposure, but in the limitations of the sensor.

No. I just what consistently exposed images, not half of them over or under done to the extent that they are not recoverable, as do several of my colleagues.

It can be done with point and shoot, so why not dSLR's?

[Justinr]

The real issue is a closed mind.

Indeed, and wouldn't it be fantastic if folk were actually brave enough to consider the fact that cameras may not be quite so incredibly faultless we are constantly told!

[pegelli]

Indeed, and wouldn't it be fantastic if folk were actually brave enough to consider the fact that cameras may not be quite so incredibly faultless we are constantly told!

I think Stamper is right, nobody here ever claimed AE to be faultless.

[Justinr]

I think Stamper is right, nobody here ever claimed AE to be faultless.

Oh I see. But what's that got to do with closed minds?

[razrblck]

It can be done with point and shoot, so why not dSLR's?

I don't know which kind of magic point and shoot you have that takes perfect exposures every single time.

There are differences between metering through an external sensor (like in SLR designs) and metering straight from the image sensor (like mirrorless, p&s, phones, etc). The latter can give you more consistent results because you can pass the whole image through your software and pick the best settings, while using a 1000 or 2000 color pixel sensor isn't exactly the same thing. But there are limitations even to that, like pointing your phone at a beautiful sunset with mountains in shade and end up with a blown out sky and silhouetted mountains because it has less dynamic range than a Vidicon tube from the 1960s.

AE has never been and never will be a perfect system. It's good enough for most situations, but it's not the be all end all of exposure. It should be up to the user to know when it can be used effectively and when it doesn't cut it, just like when it's the right time to use a hammer or when a screwdriver is better.

[Justinr]

I don't know which kind of magic point and shoot you have that takes perfect exposures every single time.

There are differences between metering through an external sensor (like in SLR designs) and metering straight from the image sensor (like mirrorless, p&s, phones, etc). The latter can give you more consistent results because you can pass the whole image through your software and pick the best settings, while using a 1000 or 2000 color pixel sensor isn't exactly the same thing. But there are limitations even to that, like pointing your phone at a beautiful sunset with mountains in shade and end up with a blown out sky and silhouetted mountains because it has less dynamic range than a Vidicon tube from the 1960s.

AE has never been and never will be a perfect system. It's good enough for most situations, but it's not the be all end all of exposure. It should be up to the user to know when it can be used effectively and when it doesn't cut it, just like when it's the right time to use a hammer or when a screwdriver is better.

Sigh!

Which end of the egg should I be sucking first?

At least we can agree that AE is less than perfect.

Can we agree that part of that lack of perfection is inconsistency?

[mouse]

At least we can agree that AE is less than perfect.

Yes we can.  Not a single post in this long thread disputes that point.

Can we agree that part of that lack of perfection is inconsistency?

No.  Many measurement systems can display a high degree of consistency while being imperfect.  That said, I suspect the even the best AE systems available today are neither perfect nor consistent.  But these flaws do not make them useless. 
The usefullness of AE, like any tool, depends on the skill of the user.

[Justinr]

Yes we can.  Not a single post in this long thread disputes that point.

No.  Many measurement systems can display a high degree of consistency while being imperfect.  That said, I suspect the even the best AE systems available today are neither perfect nor consistent.  But these flaws do not make them useless. 
The usefullness of AE, like any tool, depends on the skill of the user.

1. If AE is less than perfect then it is giving incorrect results. If the degree of error varies then it is inconsistent and cannot be satisfactorily compensated for without adjustment to each frame. If you are having to adjust each frame, or batch of frames, with exposure compensation then you are, to all intents and purposes, shooting manually anyway.

2. If AE is less than perfect then there is a scale pf imperfection from 99% right (ie acceptable) to 100% wrong. At what point on that scale does the rate of error become so significant as to render it too ineffective to be of practical use? If it is of no use, ie the percentage of frames that are not exposed within an acceptable range becomes too great, then it is 'useless' in that situation.

Now I don't know what sort of photography you do but for my area I have to be quick, and reliability of exposure is critical. I, and several others who do the same sort of editorial work,  find that AE is simply not consistent or effective enough to be used and we have all reverted to manual. Is this acceptable on top end cameras? Maybe you think it is, I happen not to, if that makes me a crap photographer in the eyes of those who have time to faff around with with exposure compensation, 101 metering modes or whatever takes their fancy then so be it, some of us have a job to do and simply cut out the middleman. The histogram and screen are our meters and funnily enough we get the results, shameless, unskilled  snappers that we are.

[Justinr]

Does it have images that show autoexposure is useless ?

?

[Isaac]

?

You started a discussion asking "Why is auto exposure so useless?".

If your website has photographs which are your examples of auto exposure being useless, we should look at your website to see what you mean; otherwise you don't seem to be doing anything more than trying to drive traffic to your website.

[jjj]

BTW, isn't one of the major points of AE not needing to understand exposure?

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

That made me laugh out loud.
Nail. Head Hit.

[jjj]

I don't know which kind of magic point and shoot you have that takes perfect exposures every single time.

I have to say that GoPros always really impress me with their ability to get a good exposure.

[tom b]

 Raw files, plus auto exposure and exposure compensation. I'm happy!

Cheers,

[razrblck]

I have to say that GoPros always really impress me with their ability to get a good exposure.

I've been very impressed as well, their engineers even managed to make smooth exposure adjustments in real time which you often can't spot in a video.

By the way, someone can explain to me why shooting tractors is so much harder than shooting sports?

[Justinr]

You started a discussion asking "Why is auto exposure so useless?".

If your website has photographs which are your examples of auto exposure being useless, we should look at your website to see what you mean; otherwise you don't seem to be doing anything more than trying to drive traffic to your website.

Isaac.

Just what do you think the purpose of a commercial website is? Do you honestly think that any potential customer gives a flying fig about the  usefulness or otherwise of AE?

[Justinr]

Ah! That does explain all your posts on this topic.
  That made me laugh out loud.
Nail. Head Hit.

Sigh!

In your desperate attempts at superiority you missed the basic point, but never mind, we all know how clever you are because you keep telling us.