My Nikon DSLRs have several metering modes such as matrix plus more than one center-weighted and spot option. The exposure you get in these modes can be very different, and you HAVE to choose one. I'm starting to realize the power of that little "bracket" button on the body. Bracketing is an old concept that still has value, even if you're shooting manual. And by the way, if you shoot in the manual mode and just rely on the onboard metering, you've accomplished nothing but doing what the camera wanted you to do in the first place and wasted a lot of time doing it yourself. Manual metering requires some thought. Think of the zone system.

You are right! You mentioned the various meterig modes while I was writing about them.

Bracketing, whenever possible, is always a good idea. Even going, back to the film days some fols thought it wasn't the "macho" thing to do and THEY were alwa gonna hit it on the first and only shot. That is until they didn't. Even if your exposure technique is very precise and you are purposely shooting to the right or left by shooting in RAW and including a post-processing strategy as you shoot. It never hurts to have some variations. It's definatly is reminiscent of the Zome System.

You are right! You mentioned the various meterig modes while I was writing about them.

Bracketing, whenever possible, is always a good idea. Even going, back to the film days some fols thought it wasn't the "macho" thing to do and THEY were alwa gonna hit it on the first and only shot. That is until they didn't. Even if your exposure technique is very precise and you are purposely shooting to the right or left by shooting in RAW and including a post-processing strategy as you shoot. It never hurts to have some variations. It's definatly is reminiscent of the Zome System.

My Nikon DSLRs have several metering modes such as matrix plus more than one center weighted and spot option. The exposure you get in these modes can be very different, and you HAVE to choose one. I'm starting to realize the power of that little "bracket" button on the body. Bracketing is an old concept that still has value, even if you're shooting manual. And by the way, if you shoot in the manual mode and just rely on the onboard metering, you've accomplished nothing but doing what the camera wanted you to do in the first place and wasted a lot of time doing it yourself. Manual metering requires some thought. Think of the zone system.

I agree that bracketing can be useful and even sometimes necessary. And there have been a couple of near-priceless discussions here involving Exposure Compensation. Bracketing is trivially easy to set up and use (with a number of variations) on all of my cameras after about 5 minutes spent with the manual on the subject. I have a default amount of EC dialled into all of my cameras, but it is a quick, one-handed job to change it if called for by the situation. And that is done based on metering mode, regardless of the exposure mode I happen to be using.

Every photography class I have taken began with the first week devoted to "calibrating" our individual exposure systems...from the meter (internal or external) to the film to the aperture and shutter speed (of each lens to be used) to the processing to the resulting negative density. Obviously, this whole process is no longer needed. But you do need to know what your meter is seeing, how it is putting the parts together, and if it is even correct and accurate in order to get the best results.

I'm not as worried so much whether people use manual or automatic means as long as they understand how they got where they were going.

Ed--I agree with you in principle. In my experience, photography is an endeavor which is quite straightforward at its core, but which can be pretty complex in "full flower." It is further complicated by a society in which everyone wishes to be an "instant expert," and no one seems to have time or energy to devote to the necessary learning process. And maybe the equipment does contribute to that, but I don’t think it's totally fair to let it serve as an excuse.

My first camera was a borrowed Hawkeye Brownie. No adjustments, except it did have a lever that would engage "Bulb" setting for the shutter. So the only thing to learn was to make a "go or no go" decision before pressing the shutter release.

Next, when I was about 12, I was allowed to use an Argus C4. It had split-image focusing, but no exposure meter. Our "family film" was original Kodachrome. ASA 10. Shutter speed was always 1/50, and the insert that came with the film was my best friend. The only apertures that usually mattered were f/8 and f/5.6. Sometimes I'd go way out on the edge to f/4 or f/11, but that was pretty rare. I still have a lot of good transparencies from that era.

When my dad got a Minolta SR-7, I got his Voightlander Vitomatic II. Wow! It had a built-in match-needle exposure meter, but I lost the rangefinder and had to learn how to estimate distance.

The first camera I bought for myself was a Minolta SRT-201. It made photography a whole lot easier, but didn't really cause a lot of improvement in my photographs. Neither did my final string of film cameras, an Olympus OM-1n, OM-2n, and OM-2s. I did take some college photography courses during this time that did provide additional understanding of what I was supposed to be doing and accomplishing.

By the time I got my first digital camera at work (sometime around 2004) and at home (2006), the transition was pretty seamless. But, after 40 years of "practice," I was free to focus on the new technology. And yes...I was pretty ommersed in the manuals, but they made sense, because I understood what I was trying to accomplish.

What's largely missing today is the patience to learn. Of course, since many of us are older now, many may feel that they don't have time to learn...don't have time to be patient. But in the long run, stopping to take a deep breath and learn a little bit usually shortens the path instead of lengthening it.

Each of us has our unique ways of participating and enjoying this forum. My particular kinda fun is helping folks with certain technical and aesthetic problems or issues that they are encountering in their applied photograhy. When I log in, I scan through the topics and try to find questions in areas where I can provide advice or suggestions. Frequently, I find folks trying to untangle what seems a complex problem with one of the many advanced and automated features in their cameras and/or flash equipment. Oftentimes, the answer is somewhere in the instruction manual that came along with the equipmet in question. Oftentimes again, the OP is admonished for not reading the manual or consulting Google. Sometimes the solution is a simple flip of a switch, a particular menu setting, or a small oversight on the part of the photograher. Many other times it is actually an unnecessarily complex situation of one feature cancelling out another, incompatible accessories, or an instruction manual that seems to be written some kind of linguistic code. The comprehensive manuals that accompanied someof my cameras are "thicker" than the one languishing in the glove box of my car.

The solution to the issue can be a time-consuming, complicated procedure that makes me wonder if the photographer will have any time or energy left to make photographs. I can see going through a lengthy procedure when photographing a static subject under controlled conditions, however, so many folks shoot wildlife, sports, and more animated subjects- how can they get spontaneous images with all that fussing about just to get automation to work?

I am not intimately familiar with all the latest and greatest mirrorless wonder-cameras. My question to the aficionados of these machines is, if desired, can they be switched onto MANUAL mode and enable settings strictly independent of any and all automatic systems?

I have observed that many problems arise in flash usage. It's not enough that the camera has a virtual onboard computer. The photograher mounts yet another "computer" on the hot shoe to control the flash system. At that point, nothing seems to operat properly if at all. Perhaps the entire falsh system was not purchased intact and piecemealing a system after the fact can be problematic. The question is usually something like " my ABC flash is not working with my XYZ triggering system on my QRX Camera- WHY??? More confusion ensues wehn the same gear is marked under different brand names.

Now, I am an old guy with a grey beard but I am not anti-automation- I too love my "gadgets" but more in the kitchen than in my studio. I don't pine fort he passed and old equipment and material that is long gone, however, I am reminded of someof my "old school" methods will still apply. There was a trend back in the late 1950s and 60s in wedding photography to shoot stereo slides on Kodachrome 25. That film had very little latitude. At first, we shot with flashbulbs and later on with electronic flash. We shot fast candid shots, needed to retain detail in white gowns and black tuxedos and texture in white weddg cakes. I shot with multiple flashes and learned how to control ratios. We learned to estimate distances and manually set apertures. We learn to compensate for large and small rooms and use flash fill out-of-doors. it was not "rocket science".
Modern digial equipmet is fantanstic. There are great built-in metering systems, TTL flas operation, and more but how much more complexities do we need and wehn does it get to the point where mastering all the electronics, overtakes the artistry and spontaneity?

What do y'all think?

E.L., it might also be that some simply purchase a camera and expect it to do all the photography for them. There's a certain amount of knowledge, especially of exposure, that's required of the camera operator. Add to that the lack of interest in reading the manual.

Likewise, the camera manufacturers want to sell cameras to everyone and provide equipment that takes a lot of the "need to know" away from the camera operator. Those advanced capabilities require acquiring the knowledge contained in the manual.
--Bob

Each of us has our unique ways of participating and enjoying this forum. My particular kinda fun is helping folks with certain technical and aesthetic problems or issues that they are encountering in their applied photograhy. When I log in, I scan through the topics and try to find questions in areas where I can provide advice or suggestions. Frequently, I find folks trying to untangle what seems a complex problem with one of the many advanced and automated features in their cameras and/or flash equipment. Oftentimes, the answer is somewhere in the instruction manual that came along with the equipmet in question. Oftentimes again, the OP is admonished for not reading the manual or consulting Google. Sometimes the solution is a simple flip of a switch, a particular menu setting, or a small oversight on the part of the photograher. Many other times it is actually an unnecessarily complex situation of one feature cancelling out another, incompatible accessories, or an instruction manual that seems to be written some kind of linguistic code. The comprehensive manuals that accompanied someof my cameras are "thicker" than the one languishing in the glove box of my car.

The solution to the issue can be a time-consuming, complicated procedure that makes me wonder if the photographer will have any time or energy left to make photographs. I can see going through a lengthy procedure when photographing a static subject under controlled conditions, however, so many folks shoot wildlife, sports, and more animated subjects- how can they get spontaneous images with all that fussing about just to get automation to work?

I am not intimately familiar with all the latest and greatest mirrorless wonder-cameras. My question to the aficionados of these machines is, if desired, can they be switched onto MANUAL mode and enable settings strictly independent of any and all automatic systems?

I have observed that many problems arise in flash usage. It's not enough that the camera has a virtual onboard computer. The photograher mounts yet another "computer" on the hot shoe to control the flash system. At that point, nothing seems to operat properly if at all. Perhaps the entire falsh system was not purchased intact and piecemealing a system after the fact can be problematic. The question is usually something like " my ABC flash is not working with my XYZ triggering system on my QRX Camera- WHY??? More confusion ensues wehn the same gear is marked under different brand names.

Now, I am an old guy with a grey beard but I am not anti-automation- I too love my "gadgets" but more in the kitchen than in my studio. I don't pine fort he passed and old equipment and material that is long gone, however, I am reminded of someof my "old school" methods will still apply. There was a trend back in the late 1950s and 60s in wedding photography to shoot stereo slides on Kodachrome 25. That film had very little latitude. At first, we shot with flashbulbs and later on with electronic flash. We shot fast candid shots, needed to retain detail in white gowns and black tuxedos and texture in white weddg cakes. I shot with multiple flashes and learned how to control ratios. We learned to estimate distances and manually set apertures. We learn to compensate for large and small rooms and use flash fill out-of-doors. it was not "rocket science".
Modern digial equipmet is fantanstic. There are great built-in metering systems, TTL flas operation, and more but how much more complexities do we need and wehn does it get to the point where mastering all the electronics, overtakes the artistry and spontaneity?

What do y'all think?

Each of us has our unique ways of participating and enjoying this forum. My particular kinda fun is helping folks with certain technical and aesthetic problems or issues that they are encountering in their applied photograhy. When I log in, I scan through the topics and try to find questions in areas where I can provide advice or suggestions. Frequently, I find folks trying to untangle what seems a complex problem with one of the many advanced and automated features in their cameras and/or flash equipment. Oftentimes, the answer is somewhere in the instruction manual that came along with the equipmet in question. Oftentimes again, the OP is admonished for not reading the manual or consulting Google. Sometimes the solution is a simple flip of a switch, a particular menu setting, or a small oversight on the part of the photograher. Many other times it is actually an unnecessarily complex situation of one feature cancelling out another, incompatible accessories, or an instruction manual that seems to be written some kind of linguistic code. The comprehensive manuals that accompanied someof my cameras are "thicker" than the one languishing in the glove box of my car.

The solution to the issue can be a time-consuming, complicated procedure that makes me wonder if the photographer will have any time or energy left to make photographs. I can see going through a lengthy procedure when photographing a static subject under controlled conditions, however, so many folks shoot wildlife, sports, and more animated subjects- how can they get spontaneous images with all that fussing about just to get automation to work?

I am not intimately familiar with all the latest and greatest mirrorless wonder-cameras. My question to the aficionados of these machines is, if desired, can they be switched onto MANUAL mode and enable settings strictly independent of any and all automatic systems?

I have observed that many problems arise in flash usage. It's not enough that the camera has a virtual onboard computer. The photograher mounts yet another "computer" on the hot shoe to control the flash system. At that point, nothing seems to operat properly if at all. Perhaps the entire falsh system was not purchased intact and piecemealing a system after the fact can be problematic. The question is usually something like " my ABC flash is not working with my XYZ triggering system on my QRX Camera- WHY??? More confusion ensues wehn the same gear is marked under different brand names.

Now, I am an old guy with a grey beard but I am not anti-automation- I too love my "gadgets" but more in the kitchen than in my studio. I don't pine fort he passed and old equipment and material that is long gone, however, I am reminded of someof my "old school" methods will still apply. There was a trend back in the late 1950s and 60s in wedding photography to shoot stereo slides on Kodachrome 25. That film had very little latitude. At first, we shot with flashbulbs and later on with electronic flash. We shot fast candid shots, needed to retain detail in white gowns and black tuxedos and texture in white weddg cakes. I shot with multiple flashes and learned how to control ratios. We learned to estimate distances and manually set apertures. We learn to compensate for large and small rooms and use flash fill out-of-doors. it was not "rocket science".
Modern digial equipmet is fantanstic. There are great built-in metering systems, TTL flas operation, and more but how much more complexities do we need and wehn does it get to the point where mastering all the electronics, overtakes the artistry and spontaneity?

What do y'all think?

No amount of automation will ever replace an artistic eye, the ability to evaluate the light, nor the need to get to the right place at the right time.
Those and other skills will always be needed. That being said, better tools and the skills to use them are better than poor tools. A fine lens is better than a good lens, a high IQ sensor is better than low IQ. Image stabilization is better than it's absence. Etc, etc.
I'll keep my modern MSLR and all the automation, and I'll spend the time and effort to learn when and how to use the features that suit my needs.