I missed in his original post, him ever claiming to know a better way or the "correct" way. He simply said he hasn't found a reason to use AP, as manually setting exposure has worked better for him and asked if anyone sees it as a better option, to explain why. He didn't ask the question and then start shooting responses out of the sky. For whatever reason you and a few others started going after him like those in Salem in the 1690's for his "sorcery!" If you don't want his book... don't buy it. I doubt seriously anyone cares. I hope the next time you thugs ask a question someone else sees as silly or "rhetorical"... someone, or a team absolutely start blasting your a**es! As for his question being "rhetorical"... I believe he was genuinely wanting input... making that invalid. He was very clear that he wanted to include some content on AP and wanted examples of its use over manual. God bless his legs for asking a question, how dare he?!

Read the whole thread, and John was jumped long before he ever replied. I wouldn't buy your book this, and I can't believe you're asking that... I don't blame him for defending his stance... I would too! As often as he's been hounded in this thread, he has yet to talk down... or say a cross word to anyone. I mean insinuating that he's basically a phony? Gimme a break... acting like this is some mystery... "what's John really up to"... it's elementary Watsons.... the man asked a freaking question. That's it... it's not some cryptogram... or is John really reprogramming my mind by pretending he doesn't know why people prefer AP? Maybe you guys are right... maybe he's sending subliminal messages in the form of seemingly simple questions, and all the analysts and code crackers utilizing the enigma machine that I don't have access to have this figured out... and I'm brainwashed into oblivion. I really did think he was just asking an innocent question...

As someone new to photography and new to this (or any other) forum, it's disheartening but expected to see this type of response. I believe that photography is art, and there are many ways to get the same result, the "artists" desired result. It seems to me that an expert or professional photographer asking opinions of others should be welcomed. Just because he doesn't often use, or see a great need for aperture priority doesn't mean he doesn't think there is one... he was asking why those that do use it or find it necessary, use it or find it necessary. Just because I learned one way to wipe my gully and have done it that way my entire life, doesn't mean I don't recognize that there are other ways to do it that I might want to include in a book on how to wipe your gully! I applaud the OP for being humble enough to ask other's opinions instead of assuming his is the only way and ignoring the alternatives. Seems like it would make for a better book... should anyone who doesn't like alternatives or differing ways to reach the same result choose to read it.

What I said in the book years ago is likely true. I do believe most photographers probably prefer aperture-priority (perhaps as they do today), and so did Barbar back then. I tried it years ago when I first went to digital in 2003, but the problems it created were so serious I soon abandoned it. And I have rarely used it for any reason since. Prior to 2003, I only used manual with film, so I did not find out how often light in the viewfinder caused underexposure. I avoided that problem accidently by just using manual exposure with film, but digital made the pitfalls readily evident. So back to manual, especially for landscapes for many reasons. If you don't think you have a light through the viewfinder problem with your system, try this test. Put the camera on any auto mode and a polarizer over the lens. Point the camera at a dark area in the shade, but arrange the camera so sun can shine into the uncovered viewfinder. Look at the auto exposure that is set by the camera. Now cover the viewfinder with your hand or close the curtain. If there is a difference, that is the problem. If the unblocked viewfinder says 1/8 second at f/16, and the covered viewfinder says 1/30 at f/16, that means the image will be seriously too dark with auto exposure due to ambient passing into the viewfinder.

After the obvious, where he states that he is researching for a second revision of his book, his ulterior motives are very clear.
After 40 years of professional photography, being published by National Geographic and commended by NANPA, publishing four books, and taking students on worldwide photo tours, John's insecurity about aperture priority has finally caught up to him. Solution? Get a bunch of amateurs on an anonymous internet forum to vehemently disagree with him about technique. Some may actually offer quotable opinions that he can use in print as justification for having disseminated differing instruction. Add two paragraphs in a 40 page chapter illustrating the benefits of AP to the amateur who has learned less than John may have forgotten and book sales will skyrocket!!!
And if that doesn't work, he can claim the CIA wiretapped his Idaho cabin and stole his gold bouillon accumulated from years of selling photos produced with manual exposure that was intended to feed the displaced brown bears of Alaska for 100 years, while oil companies drilled in the Artic Circle! So you see fellow Hogs, it is up to us to buy the book and save the spawning salmon!

After the obvious, where he states that he is researching for a second revision of his book, his ulterior motives are very clear.
After 40 years of professional photography, being published by National Geographic and commended by NANPA, publishing four books, and taking students on worldwide photo tours, John's insecurity about aperture priority has finally caught up to him. Solution? Get a bunch of amateurs on an anonymous internet forum to vehemently disagree with him about technique. Some may actually offer quotable opinions that he can use in print as justification for having disseminated differing instruction. Add two paragraphs in a 40 page chapter illustrating the benefits of AP to the amateur who has learned less than John may have forgotten and book sales will skyrocket!!!
And if that doesn't work, he can claim the CIA wiretapped his Idaho cabin and stole his gold bouillon accumulated from years of selling photos produced with manual exposure that was intended to feed the displaced brown bears of Alaska for 100 years, while oil companies drilled in the Artic Circle! So you see fellow Hogs, it is up to us to buy the book and save the spawning salmon!