Manual settings question
Oct 16, 2012 11:10:00 #
rfazzi wrote:
I am going more and more manual with the settings ... (show quote)
When first learning manual, the meter should be on the center spot. But, notice that when you're adjusting that meter, it also changes the shutter speed.
So, depending upon what you are photographing, you will need to adjust either (or both) the aperture and/or ISO.
For example, I shoot mostly little birds and use the 300 end of my lens. I need the shutter speed to be fast, at least 1/400, but higher if they're moving about.
If I have set the f/stop to 8 and my ISO is at 800, then when I adjust the meter to center point, if the shutter speed is below 1/400, then I readjust the f/stop to 6.3 or 5.6 and/or raise the ISO to 1600.
All of the settings you choose, do depend entirely upon exactly what you are shooting and the type of light available.
When I first got my camera, I was determined to understand and learn how to use the manual mode and that's exactly what I did. Not that I'm any where near an expert. I'm only a year old in this area.
The best advice I was given and you have been given also, is to get Bryan Peterson's book on Understanding Exposure.
Understanding aperture (f/stop), shutter speed and ISO and how they effect the end result of each photograph is the only way to succeed in manual mode. Get a basic understanding of what each one is, how they work together and then experiment and practice a little each day or several times a week, until it comes to you naturally. It will come, it just takes a little time.
Peterson's book explains all of these things in a manner easy to understand, and there are photos as examples.
Best of luck. :-)
Oct 16, 2012 11:53:08 #
I decide to prioritize for either speed, ie:shutter, or for sharpness and depth of field, ie: aperature. Sometimes it is hard to squeak out a picture in low light and so I compromise. It is first and formost to get the picture, then think about what you are trying to say about the subject of the picture. Mood is important, as are all the elements of design.
Oct 16, 2012 12:06:48 #
Robeng
Loc: California
Just me, I pretty much always shoot in manual mode. The reason I do so is because I want total control of my settings.
I'll take a shot of my subject and take a look at my shot on the screen and decide on my adjustments. Base on what I'm trying to achieve I'll make my adjustments via shutter or aperture.
I'll take a shot of my subject and take a look at my shot on the screen and decide on my adjustments. Base on what I'm trying to achieve I'll make my adjustments via shutter or aperture.
Oct 16, 2012 12:22:07 #
Like Many7 others say: It depends.
I am an Aperture junkie. I look at virtually every scene and determine what I want in the picture and eliminate the junk and clutter. By using the aperture, you can set that amount with precision. Wide open with big glass defocusses the parts you don't want in the foreground, back ground or both - and you can regulate that amount too! But there is a PROVISO.
If you camera is a small chip camera - (point and shoot) AND the glass is small ie less than f4 or so, AND the lens is a rather wide angle (35mm or less), , you will get limited shallow depth of field and not be able to defocus the parts you want to.
Full frame (FF) or APS-C types do a good job of that, the FF being the run away winner.
HOWEVER - there is always a however, you may want to have everything in focus for certain shootings. A FF sensor is going to give you a pain, and for telephoto, forget it. That is where the small chip cameras win hands down - that is why TV cameras that cost $30k use small 1/2"-1/3" chips - to get everything in focus, including the reporter, the event in the background, all the football players etc.
And that is why you want control over both to some degree - a happy medium. Hollywood uses a S35 sensor of film image (23 x 13) image (about the size of a Canon 7D - APS-C) and many of the high end cinema cameras are going to S35. This allows enough defocus in the backgrounds and yet can put muchl in focus with a small f stop of say f11+ and a wider angle lens.
So, to make a long story short, I look at each picture very carefully and then stop down to get precisely what I want by adjusting the aperture. The shutter speed is what it is.
However, (Geez, another friggen however), you may want a slow shutter speed to put motion into the grass blowing, the movement of a pitchers arm, the moves of a dancer. Then you have to set the shutter speed to do that - 1/4 sec idea - but will need experience to learn the best times.
Here are some examples of messing around with the controls.
In the mushrooms, I used a telephone (135) at wide open at f3.5 to get a razor thin depth of field - that was my intention fro the get go. I have no idea what the shutter was - who cares - I wanted the image without the vast amount of background clutter. Your eyes are focused on the subject, see? I did take some at f8, but was so busy - too much information that I scrapped them.
Now the tugboat is a different story. I wanted as much in focus as possible to set the scene for where or what the story is all about - in the Trent canal, not an ocean, in the autumn and lots of detail. So this was a wide angle - either a 17mm or a 28mm can't remember at f11 or so. Shutter speed? Dunno. It was a tripod shot, to hold the camera steady, so I am thinking it was ASA of 160 and maybe 1/30 sec. But you get the point.
In the Dragon boat, the shutter was the priority because I wanted action with blurred and moving paddles to give that high energy look. This was 1/48 sec, small sensor video camera, f??. so I had a deep DoF. There was a hell of a lot of motion and it shows - nothing was in super sharp focus, nor was it supposed to be. But to see these guys busting their ass in a race on the movie screen gives you goosebumps and you get WET!
Hope this sets you mind in the right direction.
OK, now go get some Oscar shots. Action shots and portraits for the film. I want them on my desk tonight. No excuses.
Cheers,
Take 5
I am an Aperture junkie. I look at virtually every scene and determine what I want in the picture and eliminate the junk and clutter. By using the aperture, you can set that amount with precision. Wide open with big glass defocusses the parts you don't want in the foreground, back ground or both - and you can regulate that amount too! But there is a PROVISO.
If you camera is a small chip camera - (point and shoot) AND the glass is small ie less than f4 or so, AND the lens is a rather wide angle (35mm or less), , you will get limited shallow depth of field and not be able to defocus the parts you want to.
Full frame (FF) or APS-C types do a good job of that, the FF being the run away winner.
HOWEVER - there is always a however, you may want to have everything in focus for certain shootings. A FF sensor is going to give you a pain, and for telephoto, forget it. That is where the small chip cameras win hands down - that is why TV cameras that cost $30k use small 1/2"-1/3" chips - to get everything in focus, including the reporter, the event in the background, all the football players etc.
And that is why you want control over both to some degree - a happy medium. Hollywood uses a S35 sensor of film image (23 x 13) image (about the size of a Canon 7D - APS-C) and many of the high end cinema cameras are going to S35. This allows enough defocus in the backgrounds and yet can put muchl in focus with a small f stop of say f11+ and a wider angle lens.
So, to make a long story short, I look at each picture very carefully and then stop down to get precisely what I want by adjusting the aperture. The shutter speed is what it is.
However, (Geez, another friggen however), you may want a slow shutter speed to put motion into the grass blowing, the movement of a pitchers arm, the moves of a dancer. Then you have to set the shutter speed to do that - 1/4 sec idea - but will need experience to learn the best times.
Here are some examples of messing around with the controls.
In the mushrooms, I used a telephone (135) at wide open at f3.5 to get a razor thin depth of field - that was my intention fro the get go. I have no idea what the shutter was - who cares - I wanted the image without the vast amount of background clutter. Your eyes are focused on the subject, see? I did take some at f8, but was so busy - too much information that I scrapped them.
Now the tugboat is a different story. I wanted as much in focus as possible to set the scene for where or what the story is all about - in the Trent canal, not an ocean, in the autumn and lots of detail. So this was a wide angle - either a 17mm or a 28mm can't remember at f11 or so. Shutter speed? Dunno. It was a tripod shot, to hold the camera steady, so I am thinking it was ASA of 160 and maybe 1/30 sec. But you get the point.
In the Dragon boat, the shutter was the priority because I wanted action with blurred and moving paddles to give that high energy look. This was 1/48 sec, small sensor video camera, f??. so I had a deep DoF. There was a hell of a lot of motion and it shows - nothing was in super sharp focus, nor was it supposed to be. But to see these guys busting their ass in a race on the movie screen gives you goosebumps and you get WET!
Hope this sets you mind in the right direction.
OK, now go get some Oscar shots. Action shots and portraits for the film. I want them on my desk tonight. No excuses.
Cheers,
Take 5
'Shrooms with shall DoF - 135mm macro Zeiss, f3.5, shutter? Backround is waay out of focus to keep the eyes on the prize
Tugboat with ALL in focus to tell the entire story with detail. 28mm, f11, Shutter: ?? Doesn't matter.
Dragon Boat showing ACTION - blurred paddles, arms, so it is shutter priority 1/48 to get it. f:??. (Doesn't matter)
Oct 16, 2012 12:26:11 #
Oct 16, 2012 12:49:57 #
Go to this website and you can play with manual setting as see how it all works. Easier than reading an article.
http://camerasim.com/camera-simulator/
http://camerasim.com/camera-simulator/
Oct 16, 2012 12:55:10 #
rfazzi wrote:
I am going more and more manual with the settings ... (show quote)
You only think you are using manual. As long as you are making adjustments using the in-camera light meter you are letting the camera determine your exposure. True manual is to turn off auto ISO and all other image control settings and use a hand held light meter. That way you are fully in control and fully responsible for what you get. There seems to be some sort of mystique about "manual" as in "I only shoot manual" which I don't understand. I use Aperture priority most of the time, letting the camera determine the shutter speed, and I see no advantage whatsoever in going manual and turning a dial to zero the light meter by hand. Instead of getting hung up on the prestige of "using manual" people should learn to "use the camera" including all of its wondrous capabilities. If you are using the in-camera light meter the camera is in control anyway.
Oct 16, 2012 14:05:20 #
I like Take 5's response and a few others, while some strike me as elitist talk. Focusing on my feelings around this, I get that I am really just having opinions about other people's opinions. Shooting styles take time to develop. The subjects, equipment, and a myriad of other conditions will chart a course for the photographer that will create a unique style/practice. Once firmly established, one sets about validating their practice by assuring the rest of the world is exposed to why it is a superior practice.
Another breakdown: that makes us ALL control freaks. The point is obvious with "Manual only" practitioners. But you may object to lumping in "Auto" and "Priority" shooters. But I am witness to many a situation where technology is allowed sway precisely because one may not want to be burdened, thus controlled, by process. This is a very real thing and may sometimes come off as laziness. But let's face it, we all have limited bandwidth and if one does not deal well with fractions, or scales, or inverted thinking, one will lose the vision by being bound by mental gymnastics.
If you get me in a conversation about vehicles, we may come to the question of transmissions. This is where I am a full-manual guy.I like my stick-shift and the feeling of control it gives me. But how can I advocate my method as being superior? The one decent argument I have when relating this is that is if one shifts effectively, one will save fuel mileage, is shattered when someone says that they don't think the difference is significant enough to be bothered with listening to the engine and timing the shift. Their three-speed automatic gets them where they are going just fine, thank you very much.
So, as my thesis for this philosophical rant is that one should consider the strengths already in place and lock them down into the process. Are you coming from a P&S where you developed your composition and don't want to lose that? Then enjoy Auto while you get used to the weight, views, and results of the new camera. The results will inform you of what you want to focus on next(pun fully intended).
"I really love how sharp this flower came out, but those 'weeds' in the background wreck this. What's this Aperture priority all about?"
...then maybe...
"I like this shot for it's DOF, but how can I make it more 'contrasty'?" Start pushing the exposure around and ignore the warning beeps...or turn them off. Shoot lots and track the results.
I figure most question here get asked with a glimmer of the expected answer(s), but are in search of some assurances.
Opinions are opinions, not to be considered worthless...nor gospel. Opinions are based on our unique experiences, your mileage may vary with use.
Another breakdown: that makes us ALL control freaks. The point is obvious with "Manual only" practitioners. But you may object to lumping in "Auto" and "Priority" shooters. But I am witness to many a situation where technology is allowed sway precisely because one may not want to be burdened, thus controlled, by process. This is a very real thing and may sometimes come off as laziness. But let's face it, we all have limited bandwidth and if one does not deal well with fractions, or scales, or inverted thinking, one will lose the vision by being bound by mental gymnastics.
If you get me in a conversation about vehicles, we may come to the question of transmissions. This is where I am a full-manual guy.I like my stick-shift and the feeling of control it gives me. But how can I advocate my method as being superior? The one decent argument I have when relating this is that is if one shifts effectively, one will save fuel mileage, is shattered when someone says that they don't think the difference is significant enough to be bothered with listening to the engine and timing the shift. Their three-speed automatic gets them where they are going just fine, thank you very much.
So, as my thesis for this philosophical rant is that one should consider the strengths already in place and lock them down into the process. Are you coming from a P&S where you developed your composition and don't want to lose that? Then enjoy Auto while you get used to the weight, views, and results of the new camera. The results will inform you of what you want to focus on next(pun fully intended).
"I really love how sharp this flower came out, but those 'weeds' in the background wreck this. What's this Aperture priority all about?"
...then maybe...
"I like this shot for it's DOF, but how can I make it more 'contrasty'?" Start pushing the exposure around and ignore the warning beeps...or turn them off. Shoot lots and track the results.
I figure most question here get asked with a glimmer of the expected answer(s), but are in search of some assurances.
Opinions are opinions, not to be considered worthless...nor gospel. Opinions are based on our unique experiences, your mileage may vary with use.
Oct 16, 2012 15:22:55 #
Oct 16, 2012 16:07:33 #
[quote=rfazzi]I only sometimes shoot on total manual. If you lock the aperature you know your depth of field. If you lock the speed you know what movement is going to do. If neithe gives you enough light, then raise ISO highter till the specs are acceptable.
Oct 16, 2012 17:10:23 #
Daryl New wrote:
Am with JR1
I read the tutorial that JR1 posted and learned nothing new. The myth that 'manual' gives you more control is pervasive and untrue. As long as you are using the light meter in the camera to determine your exposure you are not in control. Only by ignoring the in-camera meter, and using a hand held meter, will you be in control. All of the examples of exposure errors the camera will make when in full automatic (like the white rabbit in the snow, or the black cat in the coal mine) do not apply when using P, A or S. With these semi-automatic modes you have just as much 'control' as in manual. You can over-ride the meter just as easily by exposure compensation, and with more precision than trying to judge how many dots on the meter scale to compensate by. Except as part of an initial study of exposure, there is no advantage to using 'manual'.
Oct 16, 2012 18:37:55 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
mcveed wrote:
quote=Daryl New Am with JR1 /quote br br I read... (show quote)
We really are in danger of just getting into the semantics of it here maybe.
I do basically agree with mcveed but just a couple of points.
Manual does give more control because the settings are locked. A bird flying across the exposure sensor, or a breaking wave or a tree moving in the breeze is not going to change any of your settings. With aperture or shutter priority this could happen because all of a sudden the camera is changing for different light levels detected on the exposure reading.
I don't have an off camera light meter. I use a bit of a combination to determine exposure. I use some or all of the below techniques.
I use spot metering in the camera. I move it around the scene to get some readings, I consult the live histogram, I use live view and adjust the exposure levels with exposure compensation while doing so and then decide on what I want my settings to be.
I usually use manual or aperture priority with exposure compensation dialed in to suit.
I have time to do it this way as I am primarily a landscape photographer.
A street/sports/kids party photographer wouldn't have the time to do it like I do for each individual shot.
And then there is something else to throw in as well.
I don't always photograph at the "correct" exposure. One mans trash is another mans treasure.
Probably 50% of the time I take the exposure at the light level that i want to use the final image. And 50% of the time I take the shot as far to the right that I can without blowing the highlights. Even the black cat in the coalmine or maybe especially the black cat in the coalmine. I take the image specifically to post process. It looks like crap on the review screen though.
Oct 16, 2012 18:42:06 #
You know, I shot about 30,000 slides on Kodachrome 24 and 64. I only had manual control - aperture, focus, ASA. The light metering was either spot or averaged. You could adjust for bracketing. But at .40 a pop, I took extreme care to get the right shot. I worked the picture.
What is right for me, may be ugly for someone else. I like drama, darks, rich color, precision, detail, action. I am not a journalist who wants a recording of an event for the paper. Maybe for Landscape magazines, calenders etc - that is my game.
Then the digital age came out just after autofocus. For journalist phototypes, they LOVE autofocus. They are not artists, they are recorders of events. Aren't into much creativity. different purpose. They want a billion shots of a football game in deep focus. So they have everything on automatic and a flash. For me, that is YUCK. For a paper, it is $$$$ shots.
So what are your INTENTIONS??? Eh? That will base whether or not your method is correct.
Ansel Adams had a view camera, nothing was automatic and he probably shot them all at f32 for deep focus. Yet Yousef Karsh, the world famous portrait photograher from Ottawa, had shallow focus. Who can not forget the pictures of JFK, Winston Churchill, Ernest Hemmingway? They are immortal. Big bad ass fat cameras, perfect lighting, B&W, f 4.5 or so.
My LAMENT with auto everything is that the operator has not learned the fundamentals of taking superb photographs like these masters. They depend on the camera. MISTAKE.
You know, it's funny when I think of it. Started with manual, learned the secrets, made great stuff. Then I got into the auto everything with the Digital age on a Sony P&S and my creativity busted to a considerable degree. No shallow DoF and I could not figure out why my pictures were so crappy? That is when I learned all about sensor size issues. Ooooooooooooooh noooow I seee the difference.
So since my lenses from the Contax years are all manual (Zeiss primes and zooms) and I adapted them a Canon 5DMk2 with movie, I was forced back into manual.
Now that all is manual for the most part, the creativity is right back up there again. Funny how that works, huh?
Except I have moved into film making which is 10X more complicated (story, script, actors, sound, different cameras and shooting style, team work, editing, pacing - you get the drift). But the fundamentals of great photography is still the most important thing to know.
Manual will force you to really learn the art in deep detail making you a better photographer. The auto functions will take some of the stress out of it, only if you know what you are doing. Believe me, there are times when the auto functions have saved my ass! But other times, spanked it.
For example, this sailboat shot was fully manual. The camera would have set the foreground to be in the "correct' exposure. I wanted it partly silhouetted so I underexposed what the light meter said. Now we have drama and action and a story.
The steamer is so dramatic from pitch black to intense white, the 5D in movie mode metered it something no where close enough. Solution? Manual on live view. I simply adjusted the aperture until I got what I wanted. WYSIWYG. I have no idea what it was. (Actually not true, for movies the shutter was set at 1/30 sec. I would guess the aperture was f2.0 or so on a 50mm Zeiss 1.5).
The movie mode function will not give the clarity of a still shot, nor the latitude, but when that sucker took off, the bell clanging, the whistle blowing, the steam everywhere in winter time, you get goosebumps and shivers all over. Hard to take pictures!!
And on a 9' screen, you are right in the thick of it. You watch that train as if it were really there. That is why I do movies -stills are a different medium and don't have the impact of movies.
Watch the trailer I did that shows what I mean in all of these facets. To the theme of Jurassic Park - It might give you goose bumps [url]www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6KCHsQufBk[url]
(ps, I did this under the caption of my other film company)
Cheers,
Take 5
What is right for me, may be ugly for someone else. I like drama, darks, rich color, precision, detail, action. I am not a journalist who wants a recording of an event for the paper. Maybe for Landscape magazines, calenders etc - that is my game.
Then the digital age came out just after autofocus. For journalist phototypes, they LOVE autofocus. They are not artists, they are recorders of events. Aren't into much creativity. different purpose. They want a billion shots of a football game in deep focus. So they have everything on automatic and a flash. For me, that is YUCK. For a paper, it is $$$$ shots.
So what are your INTENTIONS??? Eh? That will base whether or not your method is correct.
Ansel Adams had a view camera, nothing was automatic and he probably shot them all at f32 for deep focus. Yet Yousef Karsh, the world famous portrait photograher from Ottawa, had shallow focus. Who can not forget the pictures of JFK, Winston Churchill, Ernest Hemmingway? They are immortal. Big bad ass fat cameras, perfect lighting, B&W, f 4.5 or so.
My LAMENT with auto everything is that the operator has not learned the fundamentals of taking superb photographs like these masters. They depend on the camera. MISTAKE.
You know, it's funny when I think of it. Started with manual, learned the secrets, made great stuff. Then I got into the auto everything with the Digital age on a Sony P&S and my creativity busted to a considerable degree. No shallow DoF and I could not figure out why my pictures were so crappy? That is when I learned all about sensor size issues. Ooooooooooooooh noooow I seee the difference.
So since my lenses from the Contax years are all manual (Zeiss primes and zooms) and I adapted them a Canon 5DMk2 with movie, I was forced back into manual.
Now that all is manual for the most part, the creativity is right back up there again. Funny how that works, huh?
Except I have moved into film making which is 10X more complicated (story, script, actors, sound, different cameras and shooting style, team work, editing, pacing - you get the drift). But the fundamentals of great photography is still the most important thing to know.
Manual will force you to really learn the art in deep detail making you a better photographer. The auto functions will take some of the stress out of it, only if you know what you are doing. Believe me, there are times when the auto functions have saved my ass! But other times, spanked it.
For example, this sailboat shot was fully manual. The camera would have set the foreground to be in the "correct' exposure. I wanted it partly silhouetted so I underexposed what the light meter said. Now we have drama and action and a story.
The steamer is so dramatic from pitch black to intense white, the 5D in movie mode metered it something no where close enough. Solution? Manual on live view. I simply adjusted the aperture until I got what I wanted. WYSIWYG. I have no idea what it was. (Actually not true, for movies the shutter was set at 1/30 sec. I would guess the aperture was f2.0 or so on a 50mm Zeiss 1.5).
The movie mode function will not give the clarity of a still shot, nor the latitude, but when that sucker took off, the bell clanging, the whistle blowing, the steam everywhere in winter time, you get goosebumps and shivers all over. Hard to take pictures!!
And on a 9' screen, you are right in the thick of it. You watch that train as if it were really there. That is why I do movies -stills are a different medium and don't have the impact of movies.
Watch the trailer I did that shows what I mean in all of these facets. To the theme of Jurassic Park - It might give you goose bumps [url]www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6KCHsQufBk[url]
(ps, I did this under the caption of my other film company)
Cheers,
Take 5
Sailing - underexposed by 1-2 stops to get silhouette. Linear polarizingd filter
Kettle Valley Steam RR - Live view to get right iris (aperture) f2.0??. 1/30 set for movies. ISO 1.250 (any more and it is too grainy)
Oct 16, 2012 19:39:56 #
Oct 16, 2012 21:55:29 #
short answer is "depends"
Depends on circumstances, depends on intent.
If I want to shoot a baseball game or football player I shoot shutter priority, For flowers I like aperature priority. For scenice I prefer manual with wide depth of field. For flowing water I prefer 10 sec or longer shutter speed.
Manual is a roll your own, great book is Scott Petersons Understanding Exposure, Also, Digital Photography for dummies. 8 books in one. These books will b ring a plethora of understanding for any shooter.
Depends on circumstances, depends on intent.
If I want to shoot a baseball game or football player I shoot shutter priority, For flowers I like aperature priority. For scenice I prefer manual with wide depth of field. For flowing water I prefer 10 sec or longer shutter speed.
Manual is a roll your own, great book is Scott Petersons Understanding Exposure, Also, Digital Photography for dummies. 8 books in one. These books will b ring a plethora of understanding for any shooter.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.