Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Evan, your procedure is perfectly rational. Even the complex Zone Systen of b/w film yore starts by asking the meter what it thinks, then visualizing the image you want (which uses the meter readings as a default measure of what is possible in the way of over and under exposures). Looking at the image of auto mode gives you a rational basis for your options, especially with b/w. That is the same thing as using a meter to assess the scene, only better (it lets you see various options). The great advantage of digital is that you can immediately see all the options without the expense of film and developing.

Also, once you know your auto mode well, you can do "decisive moment" photography where meticulous planning is not always possible. Even then you may have to think fast with adjustments--or set the camera for bracket-shots.

The danger is to miss the best shots by relying on auto to make your choices. It is a predictor of one possibility, giving you options, not a substitute for creating the image you visualize as your goal. But you clearly know that.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Bebu, I don't think a meter is very cumbersome as I used large format cameras in the film days (occasionally even now)--but using the f-16 rule I could generally assess a scene by eye and get what I wanted. [In case anybody never heard that rule, here it is: The lens setting is f-16 in sunlight with a shutter speed set on the film speed (1/125th for 125 ISO film). Then you correct for hazy sun, cloudy sun, heavy cloud cover, each requiring an extra stop in speed or aperture. Open shade counts as cloudy. Allowances have to be made for backlight, snow or beaches, or time of day--dawn or dusk, etc. ] The rule is quite reliable for postcard landscapes with a broad view, or general scenes where the sun is at 10 o'clock behind you. Film for slides did not allow developing adjustments, so they had to be more exact--ideally with a meter.

BebuLamar

Oh well if I could afford a large format camera I would certainly bring a meter with me. Although I can estimate the exposure without meter quite well I wouldn't want to expose a large sheet of film less than perfect. 35mm is fine without meter as I can bracket a bit. Digital I can chimp and reshoot.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

That's what I'm talkin' about! Many years ago (no cell phone cameras) I was a guest at a friend's wedding. The professional photographer he had booked never showed up. I had shot many weddings, but I was a long distance from any equipment. In the groom's suitcase was a battered Mamiya SLR with a dead battery, so no meter function. I estimated all the exposures and got enough good results to make a respectable album. Not bragging; when you're forced to do without, your experience automatically comes into play. With todays equipment and backup gear (like fully charged extra batteries), that kind of situation would be pretty rare, but ya never know.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

aellman, my parents got married during the Great Depression on a cold rainy day in February, in Winchester, KY, at a retired preacher's little chapel on the side of his house. Silk flowers and a photograph were included. Dad worked at the A&P supermarket, and got a promotion (to $13 a week for 7 days a week, long hours, no benefits) that made it possible to get married. The preacher used a little box camera and stood too far back, so they were a bit small in the picture--but deliriously happy in their overcoats. We still cherish the little picture--it is enough. They went to Aunt Pat's house after, for cookies and punch, then Dad went to work (half a day off). They got room and board in a widow's house to live in. The ring was dimestore, and although later he could afford a nice one, she still wore the real one.
They were married over 60 years when she died of cancer. She was heavily sedated toward the end, at home, but the last day she woke breifly, and Dad was holding her hand. Her last words were, "The happiest day of my life was the day I married you." It saddens me to see what young people (or parents) pay for weddings that don't seem to last any longer that the vast spread of flowers or the big buffet dinner.

Photocraig

Cheating????? Only if you were intending to do an Oil Painting and snapped a photo instead.
Seriously, though, there is more to auto than just exposure. Auto also chooses he focus point(s) and metering method. A major part of making a photograph is to select the part of the scene you want in focus. It could be the whole thing front to back, but it could just be one point, depending on YOUR choice. The same is true of exposure. You have the option of bright or dark, emphasizing highlights or shadows or making the subject a silhouette, or something else. Auto also chooses teh color space, resolution for JPEGS etc.

As a preview tool, yup, it is an excellent to help visualize your photo, refine composition and attack the rest, with instant--on the spot feedback. I choose to make the composition, focus emphasis and exposure emphasis first, then use Aperture or shutter priority to get the first cut on exposure, review he image on the screen and maybe the Histogram and adjust, exposure compensate or bracket from there.

But this isn't Jr. High, nor is it a practice suited to a Jr. High budget. Whatever works for YOU is what all these tools and capabilities are crammed into our cameras (and drive the costs trough the roof) are for. Use what works and makes sense to you.

I'm a 30 year automagic camera user, and as one poster said, "Try Program." I never really understood "P for perfect," but I think I will try it.

The thoughtful approach, like yours is best. Have fun,
C

BTW: Folks call these things a "Hack" and make money on YouTube promoting them.

Carl1024 Loc: Kaneohe, HI 96744

I use Program which gives you all the specs about the photo then switch them over to Manuel.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

If you are keeping the same settings, you had in program when you switch over to manual, why even bother to transfer the settings?

gouldopfl

DOF for landscapers or Macro. I've used HDR to take pictures where I take the under exposed and over exposed and good exposure in the near area. Stitch them together and you get a great picture of the complete shot. I also have used up to 100 shots bracketed for macro to increase the depth of field. It always comes down to the individuals shooting style and the composition they are going for. It also depends on the lens you are using

Carl1024 Loc: Kaneohe, HI 96744

You're correct
………………………………………….reply ends...…………………...

Carl1024 Loc: Kaneohe, HI 96744

But each picture setting has a different spec?
……………………………………….reply ends...……………...

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

The whole concept of “cheating” in photography (using Auto mode, using photo editing tools, using AF, etc) is an absurdity to me. I’ve yet to find somebody who can explain the way in which they are cheated by somebody else using the tools and technology available to them. More often than not, those who criticize others for “cheating” are simply massaging their own egos in an effort to feel superior; their opinion isn’t worth paying attention to.

Carl1024 Loc: Kaneohe, HI 96744

By using Program, that pictures' setting is posted. Each picture, has different specs.
…………………………………………..reply ends...……………..

Aile

It may be able to be "one and done" but for a new photographer I say this is brilliant and thanks for another tool for the tool box... great quick reference-THANK YOU SIR

Fotoserj Loc: St calixte Qc Ca

Well that make for an expensive light meter especially if your shooting a 1d mkIII