Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Hey Doc ..... chiseling out already .....

you're despicable .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3Z2MP8vMWU

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Hey Doc ..... warming up .....

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Hey Doc ..... blah blah blah .....

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

In contests that result in a winner or loser I never predict what will happen. That was Wabbit, who said I would not stand a chance against him. I only say that I would be honored to play him, so let's get it on. As to playing you, if we did that it would be to find out who the winner is.

Extreme one on one competition, like boxing and chess, when practiced with a mature attitude brings confidence, not arrogance. Ironically, it also results in a sort of humility. The best can be brought down when a lesser competitor encounters the right kind of luck, or puts together the effort of a lifetime. The best do not remain at the top forever, and even when they are there, they know that during their victories their opponents did not capitalize on their vulnerabilities.

I am not on top in chess. I just do not shy away from competition. What I like about one on one contests that produce a clear winner and loser is that unlike in debate, the one who was pounded cannot fraudulently claim victory.

rts2568

To gessman
From rts2568

You surprise me guessman. You have so much experience, as per you inference of going back to before built in meters. This leaves me wondering why you actually ask same as you should know why. However I don't know anything about you other than what you have to say and I haven't seen anything yet that you've taken.

Nonetheless, I add here, something about the reason why a good photographer will use the manual settings, so that your question isn't interpreted by the beginners or general inexperienced, that only the camera knows what you want the correct settings to be. Wrong! Very wrong indeed!

As much as automation is useful, certainly, but is often wrong, sometimes very wrong.

All of the following points I make are adversely affected by camera movements when the camera is set on automatic. A movement to the left or the right or up or down or etc, alters the subject area being used by the automation to make a balanced choice of settings. All four settings can be set incorrectly as a consequence and knowing the possibility of this will necessitate manually over-riding the automation. This set of mis-settings can occur whether the camera is hand held or on a tripod

Focus is often wrong because the modern, automated cameras often can't shoot through glass, or dust on windows etc. Manual setting is often essential in such cases. Some compacts often can't take a correctly focused shot because it can't be manually focused and many examples have been displayed on this UHH sites over the very short time I've been here.
Focus is often unacceptable also, when the camera setting is not set on spot, or matrix or whatever and the subject is only a small part of the full subject area, where the foreground or the background is outside of the depth of field set as a result of the aperture set, by the automation in the camera where the brain of the camera doesn't realize that you actually only want to have in focus, the small area you have framed, in only a small part of the full image area. Many images uploaded on UHH show evidence of this. I’ve had to point this out to a short time student of mine who took a shot of a granddaughter in a kitchen. The child’s face was out of focus because the aperture only allowed a very narrow depth of field and because the automation was trying to balance focus on everything in the frame, it got it wrong. The user refuses to think that his camera can’t cope, so he remains with automatic because he refuses to believe that the camera he bought as an automatic top range camera, can’t be perfect. Missed photographs will continue with him because he has been led to believe that the modern automation in a camera is always superior to the human behind the camera.

Most modern cameras find it almost impossible to focus on low contrast areas and that can be disastrous to the photographers’ attempts if they are not made aware of this and how to overcome it. Some photographs simply can't be taken by many compacts on automatic, simply because they can't be manually focused. And etc

Only by emphasizing the benefits of manual focusing can we teach and instruct in a constructive and useful way to the beginners.

Aperture settings are the control factor for depth of field, amongst others. Unless the aperture is set to display the desired depth of field, in a manual mode of some sort, the attitude of the learner will rely too much on the automation which may be way out.

The speed setting controls such things as motion blur, which a photographer may want (slow speed), or indeed may not want (fast speed). Automation will rarely get this right and if that's what the photographer wants, they are often going to be dissatisfied if they are told, only to rely on the automation.

ISO settings also have a multi purpose, giving flexibility to speed and aperture settings in particular, but also for low or high lighting situations and for reducing noise, or indeed, increasing noise when desired etc. Not knowing the purpose of setting manually, the most appropriate settings for a shoot situation, leads to failures and leads to many of the reasons that learners seek help from the likes of UHHers because their photographs fail in one way or the other.

From this very brief set of pertinent points, I do so hope that your questions in future are more positive and echo what I feel, should be coming from the depth of experience which you imply you have.

Having recently read some of your worthwhile points, this question of yours is very disappointing and I hope that an adequate explanation will be forthcoming from you, if for no other reason than to make it clear to those learners out there, that understanding how to manually over-ride the automatic settings will only improve their results overall.

rts2568

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

To rts3566

I found your long list of reasons why one needs to always shoot in manual very shot full of holes - First a question - how long did you use an auto Point & Shoot or a quality Bridge Camera.
If at all why did you not learn to use it right so you would not be spouting all these negative statements as well as some that are just not true.
they can shoot thru glass - stand at an angle that eliminates the glare/reflection
will not shoot thru dirty window - B.S. I do it all the time for great bird shots in my yard.
Same goes for the camera setting focus, exposure and ISO (can you change rolls of film every time you want to change ISO - I think not)- sure it may mess up once in a while but seldom - just like the operator making their own decisions on settings. I was at an indoor expo yesterday and the DSLR & SLR guys were going crazy in the changing light and most forgot their tripods.
In short I feel you really know manual cameras and a lot about photography - but little about the cameras and people you are bashing. Many are good photographers who have found they get quality photos shooting auto when they have learned basic photography skills and know their camera.
LMHO
Harvey

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Who in the name of HCB resurrected this old topic? Are we back to this again? Of course some manual settings are justified, but like Harvey says, those who have learned to trust the automatic features of their cameras are able to concentrate on matters such as composition. Harvey, I believe I was at the same indoor expo and the one thing I noticed about people with complex photographic equipment was their indecision, the delays it cost and the imposition on others. There was one venue in which the best shot has to be taken of a particular scene from a particular point. I was there for more than four hours today, and it was obvious that the shooters with P&S and bridge cameras were able to get their shots and clear the area for others while the shooters with DSLRs had to fiddle with settings, taking an inordinate amount of time and then gripe like mad if someone stepped in the way or said something about the delay. I would advise all who wanted this particular shot how to pose the subject, the position from which to take the shot and, most important, whether or not to use flash (shooting down on the subject in auto mode required no flash; shooting low and pointing the camera up required fill flash to counter back-lighting. The majority took my advice and got good shots; the "expert" shooters ignored me, told me to mind my own business or tried to explain how they knew what they were doing. They were a pain in the rear end. I knew what I was doing, not because I am a great photographer, but because I shoot the same shots of the camera owners with their cameras several dozen times a week. Aieeeeeee, I go on too much. God bless the moms shooting their little darlings in auto mode; give me some relief from the I-will-take-my-own-sweet-time "experts". There is more to be considered here that technical accuracy; there is also common courtesy!

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

To the OP. Shooting in manual is a good way to learn the basics of exposure control. I recommend a beginner use manual mode until he understands what is going on. Then I suggest using aperture priority until he trusts the camera. Then use shutter priority for the same reason. I would suggest that using automatic mode or even program mode gives up too much control to the camera, but others would disagree. Once you know that your camera's aperture and shutter modes produce what you want the only time to go back to manual is when conditions are such that the automatic systems won't work. As for manual focus - there is a time and place for it, but shooting fast moving wild things is not the time.

rts2568

To harvey
From rts2568

Firstly Harvey,

The point asked was “…why is it better for you to set your camera than to let the camera do it for you …” not to never use auto. This makes your accusation of “…one needs to always shoot in manual very shot full of holes…” your comment is clearly invalid. I can only suggest that you read and understand before you jump in negatively with both feet and make accusations you can’t justify because you’ve missed the point.

Your question of how long and “…why did you not learn to use it right…’ Since 2003 and, this camera is still used very successfully, though not much anymore because it has been replaced with a Nikon P7000 and others in the past and because that original camera eats batteries faster than I used to go through film – as I have mentioned before on this site; thank you Harvey for asking. However your suggestion that I should learn how to use it correctly, ‘use to learn what part of it that you are suggesting I don’t know about?’

Yes, you are however right, about these compacts shooting through glass, but all of them, without exception don’t do so correctly all the time, with regards focus. Your implication that they always do, simply misguides those trying to learn and become aware of some of the drawbacks of automation, something it might seem here that you don’t know how to do or want to learn! Moving the position/angle of the camera is too often not practical because of what you want to photograph and that subjects position.

The only person herein “…spouting all these negative statements as well as some that are just not true. …” is, very unfortunately, you Harvey.

You suggest that I have made “…some that are just not true …” but you don’t point out what you think is wrong.

“…(why not) shoot thru dirty window …” Reread what I said in the correct context and learn something about why they often don’t won’t and become a more competent camera user, if camera user is what you are, as doubtful as your statement here makes you sound like.

“…can you change rolls of film every time you want to change ISO - I think not …” Why not? But what is the point of your accusation, I didn’t suggest this? Not that I ever did it often Harvey, because yes in fact, I often did in the old days of film, especially when I didn’t have a second body with me, though not too often because of the inconvenience, but what are you talking about here, we are talking digital cameras and I suggest therefore that if you read any instruction books for a digital camera, you’ll soon come to understand that they don’t use film. It is clear that you have never heard of changing bags and that says something about your ignorance in photographic technique when film was the thing of the day. The rest of that paragraph of yours about the expo, I simply have no idea what you are trying to say, point out or suggest. Your sentence simply doesn’t make sense and clearly you are continuing to make words into sentences without knowing how they should be organized, dyslexic maybe?

“…they have learned basic photography skills and know their camera …” This statement is plainly incompetent and registers your failure to correctly read what I wrote. If anyone has learned “…basic photography…” then they will be aware that manual settings are part of accurately taking photos, even when they have the easier to use, modern digital cameras.

I’ll ask you a question Harvey. If there is no need for setting a digital camera on manual occasionally – compact, bridge or fully fledged DSLRs or medium format, then why do such as the best and most enlightened camera manufacturers go to the expense and inconvenience, to them, of building in a complete over-ride set? Perhaps you’ll have the courtesy of answering me this?

I won’t suggest that you go back and read my well intended and accurate comments, because it is clear to me from your unjustified criticisms that you are unable to learn! I will ask you however, like guessman has done in his justifiable pleadings elsewhere, for less pointless and misleading accusations or pointless comments which do nothing more than detract from the value of learning by those who really are interested in learning how better to take photographs and who are prepared to read accurately what is being offered to them, and stick with it – so to speak, long enough to comprehend what was written.

You’ve certainly dragged in the mud with your irreverent and stupidly misleading criticisms with the likes of ‘Mogul’ who follows your totally unncecessary and time wasting reply. Try to be a bit more constructive, even though it is clear from your entry that you have very little actual experience.



rts2568

rts2568

To mcveed
From rts2568

Almost all right, mcveed,

You are clearly thinking about what you are doing but I'll ask you to think about the fast moving object/subject. If you are following a fast moving subject, just lets suggest a horse in a paddock here, what is the background and foreground doing?

It may become evident that the light is changing and may adversely effect the cameras settings at the time of the shutter firing. At such times it is ofen better to set your aperture and speed manually to get the correct exposure and effect you are anticipating. Not always of course, sometimes you simply don't have the time to set manually and then have to rely on post processing if the exposure for instance turns out too dark or too light.

Sometimes for example here, it is worth knowing in advance what you expect from your subject and setting up accordingly. This is why familiarising yourself with over-riding the auto makes you more capable of the getting the best from your camera/s

rts2568

rts2568

to Harvey
From rts2568

Hadn't read this one before replying to you earlier harvey. I would be surprised if any photographer who chooses to over-ride automatic, as you state, will do it all the time and it is time you stopped suggesting this is so! No Photographer I have known or currently know, other that those exclusively in studios, some of whom may very well be in manual modes all the time. There are many other specialist Photographers who might never think of using auto either, but only those who know enough about exposure and etc enough, to know they have to use manual for their specialist subjects.

For someone who claims to: “…I loved doing all my setting on my SLR …” I can only point out that it is a great pity that you didn’t learn something instead of just having fun with the “…settings…”. A pity indeed.

Light meters, flash, spot, incident etc are still made and wisely bought by those who know Photographic requirements intimately: have you asked yourself why this is so Harvey? No, I don’t suppose you have!

Oh, incidentally, “…aragent…” harvey, is correctly spelled ‘arrogant’. Thought this might help in the future as it appears it is one of your favourite words, certainly used more than the word photography – but that’s longer, isn’t it? If you are able to learn to spell it correctly, you’ll find your recipients will understand you better. Oh please, don’t rely on my offering harvey, go to a dictionary if you have the time to think properly.

rts2568

rts2568

To gessman,
From rts2568

Hey, like your new avatar incidentally. As good as your wife's painting of you was, this one is more realistic and more up to date.

rts2568

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

My apologies for being so defensive on this post - you are very well versed in the use of cameras as well as an intellectual who is proficient with words. I would never be able to even come close to being able to debate any subject on the use of cameras with you.
But - darn I hate that word - I gets under my skin when you continually state - this may happen or this could happen when the same thing happens with manual setting - mistakes or bad decisions happen use of both types of cameras "good" photographers don't always make proper decisions. Or take perfect photos every time.
IMHO
Harvey

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

To mcveed
From rts2568

Almost all right, mcveed,


It may become evident that the light is changing and may adversely effect the cameras settings at the time of the shutter firing. At such times it is ofen better to set your aperture and speed manually to get the correct exposure and effect you are anticipating.

Sometimes for example here, it is worth knowing in advance what you expect from your subject and setting up accordingly. This is why familiarising yourself with over-riding the auto makes you more capable of the getting the best from your camera/s

rts2568[/quote]
Words! words! words!, I'm so sick of words! (quotation from My Fair Lady). Read your first paragraph above again. Does it really make sense to stop and adjust your manual exposure when the light suddenly changes at the time of the shutter firing? I don't think so. That's exactly when automated systems are most valuable. I shoot in Aperture priority 90% of the time and I keep my eye on the shutter speed - if it gets too slow for the action I adjust the ISO. I rarely, but sometimes, use shutter priority when shutter speed is critical - then I keep my eye on the aperture and adjust ISO when needed to give me a good exposure. I have used a fully manual camera and a hand held light meter many years ago and I welcomed the advent of built-in match-needle light meters, auto exposure control and auto focus. Anything that helps me concentrate on light and composition is welcome.

rts2568

To Harvey
From rts2568 2nd Oct 12

Of course you are correct Harvey, Photographers make mistakes; whether using automation, manual or a combination, that's the nature of human beings and pretty much every other animal. If we make a mistake and survive it, then hopefully we ‘learn’ from it? And isn't that the premise on which this forum was established, for anyone interested in Photography to learn something they didn’t know? Let's just get on with the learning, shall we.

Automation is and always will be a tool of which great photographs can be produced but, only a tool, a tool that doesn’t make mistakes unless the camera goes faulty, is badly designed, has mistakes in the software or the hardware but otherwise, never makes mistakes: mistakes it was designed to avoid within its pre-designed parameters. This automation is still a tool and nothing more. Learn to use that tool of automation and you will find that it is anything but perfect. Yes, it is easier to just point and shoot and that is the way most camera users use their camera gear and yes; they can capture a good shot or two because that tool of automation has become pretty damn good in taking away the photographic decision making for them which they don’t fully understand and this most recent innovation of digital control tools, now allows a camera user to just point and shoot with far more confidence of getting a good shot than ever before, in the history of photography, they can expect to get a shot that is satisfactory to them. That’s just fine, as far as it goes but consistently achieving the best photographic results is what learning about the usage of those tools of automation is all about; otherwise we might just as well put Kodak back in production and only use a 110 P&S using film that some else processes for us.

The human element, that thing called thinking, is what makes that automated tool work better, it’s used effectively to overcome the limitations and flaws which a good photographer learns to recognize. If a plumber doesn’t understand about watertight seals, they will never make a good or reliable plumber until they have ‘learned’ to understand the principles of seal insertions or applications. Learning and thinking being the key here!

The automatic tools we use today in the form of a camera are seriously flawed, that’s why they are constantly being upgraded, updated and remodeled. The manufactures and designers are learning!

When a decision needs to be made about how best to capture a subject, the photographer makes that decision more successfully than an automated gadget incapable of thinking for itself. Thinking is something the automated tool itself is very limited in doing because it is confined and seriously restricted to its design parameters. A photographer is the one who knows, or becomes aware of the need to point the camera in a certain way, which lens to use, which filter to put on the lens to achieve whatever; the photographer having learned from instruction books and experience, how and when to override the limited functioning automation because that is what makes us special and able to ‘create’ a photograph rather than just take a photograph. We do learn from doing, watching and experience which the still very primitive electronics is far from doing on its own. No automatic camera can assess a final photograph and learn from it, what needs to be done next time, those things that will or might make it better. That automatic tool can’t decide what or how to apply the most desirable of post processing tools to use; or etc. These things are why the understanding learned about both the limitation of automation and those tools that can better be used in a manual control combination over those automated simpletons, makes it possible to create the result they want and not be satisfied with what the camera is pre-programmed to deliver. This in part at least, is why “gessman” the OP (original person), asked the original question. I feel he should have known better, expressing as he did that he was an experienced manual camera user and so should have been pointing out the benefits of manually over-riding the automatics because of his claim/inference, to superior experience than those suggesting the benefits of manually over-riding the still very limited automation. Maybe one day he will let me and all UHHers know, why he posed the question as he did.

Anyone who got involved in photography after the introduction of digital cameras in particular find it much more difficult to comprehend why manual is necessary and they will become better photographers the sooner they know two things:

a/ how to recognize the limitations and flaws in the automatic tools of today and,
b/ how best to make use of the manual over-riding tools.

Automatic or manual settings, they are only tools; tools that need to be learned about! The camera operators are the photographers, not the cameras, not the lenses or the filters or other gear used; the camera operators are and only they know, or should know, what they want to see in the photograph, if they don’t then they go out and practice and learn and hopefully improve their anticipation for a good shot and how to achieve it.

Now Harvey, you start your second paragraph with “…darn I hate that word …”? Well I can’t guess what that word is Harvey because you don’t actually declare it but with a bit of luck I’ve covered inadvertently, why “that word” is used and should be used; if not, let me know and I will either avoid using the word or give further explanation to you.

This forum Harvey is for the learner and I can assure you I am very much a learner and the that is the main reason I signed up. Yes I’ve had a lot of experience, I know quite a lot based on my experience but I have as much of an urge to pass that experience on to others willing to spend a moment or two to understand the lessons I’ve had from that experience, as much as I am in my desire to go take photographs.

Perhaps you and I can now get on with doing just that, learning from others on this site while also conveying those lessons from our personal experiences that others inquire about, including guessman, or which they might find of use to them.

rts2568