bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I'm of that opinion too. Pixel peeping may prove you've spent a lot on your gear. Or it may prove you need to spend more. But the image and story come from composition.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Ultimately, all that matters is that you end up with the image you want. Which mode used doesn't really matter, as long as it gets you there. The viewer doesn't care if the image was captured using manual mode, shutter priority, fully automatic or whatever.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

The light meters in cameras are very good, especially if they have a spot mode. The only time I use a hand held meter is for studio flash. I use manual when time isn't an issue, especially with lighting conditions that might fool the camera auto functions. It's never a guess. For moving subjects and changing lighting conditions, I use one of the auto modes.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Yes. I agree that camera light meters are very good. Even the light meter in the 40+ year old film Minolta SRT-101 was excellent to me. I don't do studio photography. But, I would see why you would need a light meter for that type of photography. As you said, lighting condition can sometimes fool the camera auto function. I discovered that, when I first shot an indoor basketball game, that had rules against a camera flash. Poor lighting, and wrong type of lens used.. I don't shoot indoor basketball games anymore. Outdoor daylight sports only now.

User ID

`



Gotta agree. Conversationally at least, the word itself
has no single agreed-upon meaning anymore. This in
itself would be no problem. Language evolves and it
also devolves.

The problem is tied to the "Mode Dial" which features
amongst its various markings an "M".

Even the "M" has a newer meaning. Before auto-ISO,
the "M" on an AE-able camera meant that if you set
a certain exposure, you would get the result of that
setting. The film would not magically change its ISO
to ensure a decent exposure.

Now we still have that same "M" on the dial, but it
no longer means that "what you set is what you get"
... unless you DISABLE the auto ISO.

So the word has changed meaning cuz the letter on
the dial changed function. "M" still equals "manual",
whateverthehell "manual" means lately :-)

Noobies should NOT use M. It was not put there for
them. It's there for users who would never ask that
question that noobies ask. So ... NOOBIES ! ... never
ask WHAT the "M" is for. Do ask WHO is it for. Then
the answer is simple: "Somebody else, not you". It's
the same as when you tell your kids, "Ask me again,
when you're older".

.

dione961

Hi Jim, just got back from 3 days shooting the Iditarod. Your post here is 100% spot on - for me. I shot a bunch in Auto ISO & set ap & ss myself (1/500s to 1/1250s) trying to learn what would give me good exposure in varying light, & using aperture for composition as well. I also shot a bunch where I set all 3 (ISO, ap & ss); & in shutter priority (boy, those dogs get moving!).

The best shots are those where I lucked good focus; ie, the exposure settings didn't matter as much as whether I got focus right. Of course exposure matters but by far my biggest challenge by was controlling where the point of focus was compared to where I wanted it & wanted to move it second by second as the sleds approached. I'm basically left with some well exposed but poorly focused shots - not surprising, being a rookie. Turns out, in the months before the shoot, I focused too much on exposure & not enough on focus. D.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

There is no best way to shoot. But there are differences. Depending upon the situation I will one mode or another, but mostly shutter priority to control camera shake (Tremor in left hand). But almost never manual focus. Because todays zoom lenses have a very short "throw" which makes manual focus difficult. In difficult lighting instances a meter can be "fooled" so auto of one kind or another just won't give good results. So you have to set exposure up or down a step or so, or do it yourself. Manual. There is actually a good reason why the camera has all those modes available. It even has an on/off switch But most importantly-for those of us for whom photography is a bobby, it's fun. For that matter, why should I use the setting that some engineer at Canon thought is best. Sometimes it's wrong.

Jim1938

John, if you use your light meter at all, is the exposure really “manual”?

User ID

`


How many angels can dance on
the genitalia of a jelly fish ?

.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Of course. I take a manual meter reading, and apply the settings manually. Does the fact that old fully manual film cameras had meters mean they weren't really manual? Do you think manual means guessing the exposure?

Jim1938

The intent of my original question was to get a definition of “manual”. I thought it meant setting a camera on M and guessing the proper aperature, shutter speed and ISO.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Having to guess exposure defeats the purpose of manual in my mind, which is to know how to use your camera meter manually to determine your settings rather than depending on the camera's auto exposure modes, which can be fooled by tricky lighting.

User ID

Guessing is OK. A well informed guess
is more than OK. A meter informs you.
The piece of paper packed with the film
was also informative, but they don't do
that with the sensor.


*Cue Parrot*
"Sunny 16 ! Awwwwrk ! Sunny 16 !"

*Cue Geeky Troll*
"More exactly it's Sunny f:14.3 ....."

.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

You are still thinking in film photographer mode. With digital cameras, pixels are free, so you have the freedom to bracket until the Cows come home to get the right exposure.