CLF Loc: Raleigh, NC

Joe, you said it. "It pays to keep an open mind".

Greg

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

--Bob

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I might have to try that on my 6000.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

. In over 50 years of showing my images, other than on this forum, no one has asked or cared about the camera settings.

It pays dividends to keep an open mind...one more tool for my arsenal.[/quote]

You know that's right, no one ever asked me the settings, I do wonder how the custom started, the first camera magazine I purchased (Popular Photography) had all the exposure info printed under the photo and that was back in the 50's, Bob.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

You know that's right, no one ever asked me the settings, I do wonder how the custom started, the first camera magazine I purchased (Popular Photography) had all the exposure info printed under the photo and that was back in the 50's, Bob.[/quote]

I was exposed to Pop Photo a few years later. I think the magazine infected me with GAS and still there is no cure in sight.

jpgto Loc: North East Tennessee

The experimentation paid off, beautiful image.

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

A good light ballance, pleasing image!
I think it is good - from time to time to explore other ways so we don't fall into a mechanical habbit?
BTW I have asked you and some other UHH members for technical data.
I am always interested in.
I think it is a useful information for a better image apreciation and also for learning.

What focal length lens did you use, did you take it from a tripod, Joe?
Cheers!

rcarol

I've been giving your statement some thought hence the delay in responding. Many people believe as you that when shooting in auto you are letting the camera make all of the decisions. That is certainly one way of looking at it. The other way might be to simply assume that the camera is making an informed suggestion to you and it's your responsibility to either accept or reject the suggestion. If you decide to reject it, you can switch to another mode to override the suggested settings. I like the idea of using Intelligent Auto because I'm fairly certain that I will walk away with a usable image with no intervention on my part. I have to wonder if I took 200 images, 100 using Intelligent Auto and another 100 using any of the other modes available to me, which would provide a higher percentage of usable images. This looks like an experiment waiting to happen.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

The experiment would be most valid if you include scenes with good even lighting, but also some with very contrasty lighting, back lighting, or subjects which are predominantly light tones or dark tones - in other words, exposure situations with the potential to fool Auto. The you can see how "intelligent" it is.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

rcarol

I agree. It seems that this is an experiment worth doing. But to get significant results, the experiment would have to be carefully crafted so as not to bias the outcome. I'm not sure that I have the appropriate disposition to pull this one off.

smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL

I would submit that with the all the modes you would have an equal number of good images in each; if the composition and lighting are good then the image will be good. What the modes do is to offer alternate (shorter) routes to the best exposure for the image, particularly if the lighting is tricky or the subject is moving - or at least to less effort in post.

smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL

When I started photography the best you could get was a semi-automatic meter on a camera - most of them were averaging, some were center waited. Either way by blindly centering the indicator you could have an equivalent of S and A. I got (and everyone I knew then) got better results if you took the meter output as a starting point and adjusted from there.

Over time - decades - I've used A, S, P, and M (and their predecessors). Over this time I accumulated knowledge on what works best for me (your mileage will vary) in a given type of situation. Its not all the same - some situations I think auto is the best thing that ever happened and get really good results - in other situations I won't go near it because I know it can't get results.

I know how to use the tools available to me to make the art I want to make. Changing my procedure to make use of a more advanced technology is good because either I like the results and use it or don't like the results and don't use it, either way I learn something. In addition to all the metering modes available on a camera I've also use incident light meter and telescopic spot meter with great results, particularly in really bad lighting. Knowing the zone system really helped me with all of this. I think thats the point here - it shouldn't matter what you use if it works for you - if it gets you what you want.