Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I am trepidatiously about to open an ancient can of worms and set off a poop storm of polemic. Before I light the fuse, let me hasten to say that if it ain’t broke don’t fix it! If it’s working for you, stay the course. Stick with the plan. That said…

Why do folks insist that Manual is Better?

I have done due diligence and read back over many, many previous threads on this subject. I get that it is as controversial as Sunni vs. Shia or Protestant vs. Catholic or even RAW vs. Jpeg and can lead to blood feuds.

Probably 99% of my pictures are made in pretty much auto-everything. I adore auto-focus. 90% of the time my camera is in P (Programmed Auto) mode. I’ll guess that 99% of my shots “come out.” 90% of those are terrible, but that’s my fault for having no vision. That said, I know how and when to override all of it. I use Programmed Auto (or what-ev-er) because it lets me concentrate on the shot rather than the how-to-get-it. I read about the spot metering and the this and the that, and I wonder if the whole mountain got up and walked off while some folks were still futzing with their exposure triangle, and I know that eagle didn't wait around..

Before the rocks and bottles come over the wall, let me hasten to tell you that I fully get that understanding exposure is totally essential. What I don’t get is why so many seem to think/insist that the only way to understand correct exposure is to slavishly shoot only in Manual. Correct exposure is correct exposure is correct exposure. 1/125 @ ƒ/16 is 1/125 @ ƒ/16 is 1/250 @ ƒ/11 is 1/500 @ ƒ/8 whether you set it or the camera sets it.

The thing is, I do (understand exposure). I know all about the exposure triangle &c &c ad infinitum ad nauseam. I also fully get that not everyone does. I did not at one time. But I do now.

What I read again and again and again on all the threads on this powder keg of a subject is Creative Control! If you are not shooting in manual, you don’t have it (creative control).

Why not?

One of my mentors long ago said, ”What all photographers ultimately want is to be able to load film between their ears and blink.” To my way of thinking, the modern digital camera comes the closest to that ideal that I have ever experienced. Sometimes I cannot believe the utter sense of freeeeedom!

When I was in school, for the first entire year we were required to make all our assignments with a 4x5” camera and turn in the negatives with the assignment so we couldn’t cheat. We quickly learned “Sunny-16” and all its variants. We learned to use those horrendous old press cameras like Weegee. We got as close as we could with that doddering technology to film-between-the-ears-and-blink. Eventually they allowed us to use our twin-lens 6x6’s and even 35mm. We went into the world and tried to earn a living. Spot meters arrived. Flash meters arrived (thank goodness). Auto focus arrived, slow, klutzy, frequently missed the mark (still does), but it was all getting closer to The Ideal.

My beloved Nikons were stolen from my studio (they walked right past the Hasselblads, presumably because they did not know their value). I had to replace them and discovered that, being self-insured, I couldn’t afford Nikons. I bought a matched pair of Canon T-90’s.

The T-90s had P.S.A.M.!! (Well, TV and AV or something—I forget…) O frabjous day! We were now a giant-leap-for-mankind closer to film-between-the-ears. The cameras even read the bar codes on the film cassettes so I couldn't screw up and forget to reset the ISO. I learned to be especially taken (pun intended) with Programmed Auto (P). It instantly reduced the-client-is-going-to-sue-me screwups by 100%. Need depth of field? Roll the wheel to a smaller ƒ/stop. The camera compensates the shutter, exactly like the coupled shutter/aperture rings on my Zeiss lenses on my Hasselblads. Need action-stopping power? Roll the wheel t’other way. WAY fewer blown exposures due to not paying close attention to the Exposure Triangle. YES absolutely you must know your stuff, but why should it matter if you can just lift the camera and shoot, as opposed to o-mi-gosh is it 1/420 at ƒ6.1 and oh-lordy-a-cloud-just-came-over-I-think-I-am-having-a-stroke… :)

Nowadays I just shoot for fun, but I’m still making memories and blown shots make me blow my top. Now, admittedly I have memorized the manual and know how to use every bell-and-whistle on the camera. I know how to quickly bias an exposure, sometimes by the simple expedient of spot metering somewhere other than the center of the frame, or just rolling the little bias wheel. But I only use manual when the camera refuses to cooperate any other way. I just can't help but wonder at manual-is-the-only-way…errm, rigidity? Strictness?

Okay. I think I’m ready… :mrgreen:

Nightski

Gosh Chuck, if you don't know, then you shouldn't worry your aging little head over it. If you have lost the passion to create the photo, instead of letting the camera do it for you, then what more is there to say?

John Lawrence

I'll go first so you won't get hurt right out of the box. I think everyone who has ever picked up a camera has their own reasons, their own goals and their own style of shooting. Although everyone likes to think their way is the best way, there really is no right or wrong way for taking pictures.

Many people tend to become polarized in their thinking and feel they have found the one true path. We see this in politics and religion so it's no surprise when we see it in photography. Many true believers believe it's their mission to tear down the false idols and proclaim theirs as the only true way.

The truth is there isn't one true way to take good pictures. There isn't a person with a camera who doesn't take their share of good pictures, fair pictures and bad pictures. The only thing that differs is the number of shots in each category. Happiness is taking good pictures by any means you may choose.

Thanks for getting my engine going this slow morning. I'm ready now to face the world for yet another day. I'll expect a daily post from you from now on to start my morning.

John

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

Real simple, depends on what your trying to achieve with your photography. If as you imply you want it ALL automatic then simply ditch everything you have and get a good point & shoot, the quality will be the same.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Thanks, John, but Nightski already hammered me: "Gosh Chuck, if you don't know, then you shouldn't worry your aging little head over it. If you have lost the passion to create the photo, instead of letting the camera do it for you, then what more is there to say?"
Jeepers, Nightski, I expected controversy, but personal insults? That's a little over the top. I have not "lost passion." I am simply saying that I don't think you have to shoot manual if you already know how. So long as you know what the camera is doing and what you are doing, why not let the thing do some of the work so you can concentrate on the picture? :-)

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I never implied that I wanted it all automatic. I am merely questioning why everything has to be manual when photographers have spent most of a century trying to get away from it. It's about shortcuts. The Sunny-16 rule is a shortcut. Hyperfocal is a shortcut. It's all intended to free the photographer from what amounts to drudgery. I sometimes wonder if all-manual is sometimes just a conceit. :|

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

Perhaps I was in error when I used the term you, did not mean to imply you personally Chuck. No offense meant.

Nightski

Chuck, I think you will be okay. LOL

This attitude makes me flaming mad. I had my first DSLR for 5 years, used it in auto, because my husband and my sons didn't think "mom" could figure out how to take advantage of the full capabilities of the camera. I had no idea what they meant. All I knew, is that I wasn't taking the photographs that I thought I would be able to take when I got the camera.

A friend finally told me I needed to get it out of Auto, and directed me here. I am so happy I came across people who took the time to show me what I could do with my camera in manual, and encouraged me to experiment, and not to be too hard on myself. Because they did that, I have discovered something so wonderful. It has opened up a whole new world for me.

I am glad I didn't listen to the people who told me to put it in av or worse yet, auto. I never would have learned anything. Sometimes I even wonder if people who tell everyone to put the camera in auto, are just trying to hold new photographers back on purpose.

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

If you make any statement at all on this forum all too often it will be misinterpreted to assume something Chuck!
And yes, manual is a conceit! So are a few other things such as RAW,Nikon,Canon,just for starters...

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Chuck...nicely written.

I can only say this:

Whatever mode a person shoots in, if they are controlling the 3 elements of exposure, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, then I guess it doesn't matter if it's manual or P or whatever.

The issue (I think) is that people don't realize (really realize) why a person would want to control those elements manually...

I shoot both ways and just like anything else, they both have their place.

Fair enough?

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Gosh. Any post that begins with "trepidatiously" makes me scurry for my second cup of coffee....
I shoot a lot of macro, which I shoot almost entirely using all manual: exposure, focus-- heck even my diffused flash is set to manual. Why? precise control over everything. The rest of the time I shoot Aperture Priority.
I know why I do my specific type of photography the way I do it. Nothing else should matter. I like to think about what I'm doing and why I'm doing it when I do photography. Occasionally I break out the rangefinder. This involves thinking about everything-- including the relationship between aperture and DOF (think hyper focal focusing on steroids).

I like to think about what I'm doing and focus on the process as well as the intended image. Whatever floats your boat. A lot of times "purists" are just full of themselves. I wouldn't worry too much about the impending S-storm.

Have a second cup, and proceed trepidatiously.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

No offense taken, Up. I know I ran off at the keyboard trying to explain myself, so it's probably confusing. What I am trying to say is, why not use automation as a tool? We no longer dig trenches by hand (and all the other examples you can think of), so why miss shots while you are twiddling dials when you know the exposure, the ISO is set, all you really want is to decide depth-of-field or action stopping or something in between. Correct exposure is correct. It does not matter to me how it is arrived at, but as an OLD pro (yeah, looking at You, Nightski :thumbup: ) my passion was always getting the picture. Right now! No hesitation! So I'm thrilled to have tools that let me do that without having to think 'cuz since I'm OLD I don't do that so good no more. :lol:

Nightski

See, this is exactly what I mean, Chuck. When you view any part of operating your camera as drudgery, then you've lost your passion. I feel exhilarated every time I hold my camera. I love messing with my settings. I don't care if I wrecked the shot, because then I can go back out and try it again. I love going back out and trying again. I can't wait for the next time that I can get out and shoot. No conceit here, Chuck. I'm not good enough for that. It's just an unbelievable passion for the hobby. That's all.

damdannyboy Loc: Rhode Island

Chuck, funny did you get a new can opener? I think I'll put on another pot coffee and stand back watch this debate from the wings. :lol:

damdannyboy

Nightski

This says it all!

I wish I had the chance to learn to use a range finder. That sounds amazing.