Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

You are a true gentleman, Sir. Your experience and graciousness shows.

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

I return to the original question. Last night I was shooting a birthday celebration. I have good pro equipment. I wondered if I had been giving myself too much work by not shooting in program mode. I therefore tried a few shots, and they were much worse than the rest, which I shot in full manual.

If the lighting had been consistent throughout the facility where the event was held, and if the camera liked that lighting, perhaps it would have produced better images. I am sure that there are other situations in which program mode might work well, but I am afraid to try again. Apparently we have not yet reached the stage where the equipment has freed us of the burden of setting the best exposure.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

If you want to see examples of my photography, why don't you look at them. It's not like they are hidden! I don't push them at people, and don't need Internet viewers to validate my photography, but saying you "would really enjoy seeing some examples" doesn't suggest honest discussion.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I think threads like this are great. I mostly plan my shoots. I use manual, aperture and speed. I don't use auto because I don't snap and shoot and can easily set what I want quickly. I think how we use our equipment is a personal thing without a right way or wrong way. I really don't care how anyone around me shoots because I only pay attention to what I am doing. I do admire other images photographers make and I may ask them how they accomplished something specific or in general. Usually you can tell what they did but, not always. I'm mostly interested in how they captured the light.

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

I have looked and went back a few minutes ago to refresh my memory, it isn't what it used to be, on this occasion it hadn't failed me. Any suggestion of dishonesty on my part is very far from the mark. To prove my honesty I will tell you that I honestly believe your pictures are quite good record shots, your understanding of composition needs some work and the sloping horizons are obviously an acquired taste. That's my honest appraisal.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Was the original point about full auto vs. full manual, or at least program vs. full manual? Clearly leaving the majority of the decisions to the camera is not likely to produce the results you want if you actually know what you want and how to achieve them. But what about limited automation? Some things set by you, and maybe one or two left for the camera to set? Does that change things to a potentially advantageous situation in some circumstances?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I think that is true for all of us, and you are clearly not lazy! For myself I'm happy to use some limited levels of automation some of the time, but I always want to know how the camera is set and what degrees of freedom and within what ranges I am giving it. Using some automation does not imply a lack of discipline or lack of control, just an understanding of what is fixed, what may vary, and what effect that variance my have.

For example, if I want a certain shutter speed - say for motion blur - I can set that with shutter priority while letting the camera select aperture and still obtain an acceptable depth of field by setting the ISO appropriately for the lighting conditions. So it is still predictive, but has some limited automation if some variance of depth of field is acceptable. For me, at least, it all depends what needs to be fixed and what can be allowed some latitude to still achieve the desired result.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Personal definition of terms that do not agree with credible authoritative reliable sources really is incorrect to a high degree of certainty. This sub-thread has seen a good bit of that.

It's fine to say AP works best for my style of Street Photography because I only shoot people pictures. It's not at all valid to say Street Photography, because isolating people from the background is necessary, is best done using AP.

That is what this "passionate side discussion " was about, and it seems very pertinent to the topic.


A very pleasant video! And yes it is about one aspect, but only a potential aspect of Street and not a required aspect.

It also doesn't relate at all to shooting Auto or semi auto whether or not that is lazy.


What is possible is not the point, but rather which method works best. It happens that Street is after all not just a genre but indeed also a technique!
Not explicitly stated in your article, but there is clearly a feeling that Street Photography is literal and means photographs taken on a street. It doesn't mean that at all though, and that is another reason recommending Aperture Priority is a poor choice. Street means in a public location: "any public space including streets, beaches, parks, museums and galleries, country lanes, countryside, roofs of buildings… the list goes on." (from the London Festival of Photography).


We might actually do better with less "amount of strongly expressed views" that are factually incorrect or include emotional appeals rather than logic. And linking to one or one million nice photographs does not demonstrate even the slightest bit of credibility on the topic of this thread. First the photos aren't related, and second several of us have linked, in this thread, to hundreds of these unrelated photos! Putting the link in the article is just vanity, say as opposed to putting it in one's signature with every article.

So you wish fewer facts would be presented, and only opinions not significantly differing from yours are acceptable.

Gratuitous insults directed at someone who can actually cite facts, rather than opinion, are okay? It seems people with opinions that contradict facts are nice folks, but factual based opinions are pontificating. And worst of all for you seems to be if the facts that opposing opinions are based on get cited when someone questions the validity.

BobR Loc: Norwalk CT USA

Any way I slice it DOF , shutter speed and exposure need to be my choice. The camera may help me get there a bit faster in AP or ,now perhaps, M with auto ISO but ultimately they are my choice and they need to be in order to capture what Im after.

Nightski wrote:


Yes! I can't recall how many opportunities Ive missed because I didnt check my settings before I started shooting ...."Oh ,oh theres a hawk!" Jump out the car and clicking away only to discover later that (even though I was in AP) I forgot to adjust my ISO for a bif... :shock: Bob

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

:thumbup: :thumbup:

A very well stated opinion. It make very good logical sense to work that way!

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

You are a funny man Floyd!!!!
I wonder if the little boy making sandcastles told Michelangelo what he was doing wrong when he was sculpting The Statue of David?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

But you did just prove the dishonesty of the previous statement. And no that doesn't mean you are dishonest...

I probably don't know even a small percentage of what you do about composition for landscapes. I probably do know far more about composition in the type of work that I do.

I commonly refer to much of it as "people pictures" because it isn't all Street. I don't do posed or staged photography. You can call it "record shots" as long as we both accept that is exactly what your landscape photographs are too. Mine are a bit different in that much like Winogrand my intent is to see what things looks like when photographed. It is certainly more based on documentary photography than landscapes usually are, but then I have no interest in taking landscapes or studio portraits, in both cases for the same reasons.

My thinking about composition is much influenced by a number of major photographers of course, but also by Rudolf Arnheim and the whole concept of the Gestalt Theory of Visual Perception. (Level images, BTW, are very very low on the priority list. The slope of an image depends on a lot more than the horizon or edges in a building.)

I'd like to incorporate more of the Braque-Picasso concept of Cubism into photography. That's difficult though, because painters assemble symbols where they need them, while photographers find them where they are.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

TILT!

Apaflo, I'm not even sure where half of that stuff in your post comes from, it seems to lack a certain coherency.

Method and technique are not synonymous. They can be used interchangeably in certain specific circumstances, but they are definitely not the same in all contexts, or I believe in the case of street photography where separation of methodology and actual photographic techniques such as use of automation or other things may be somewhat independent.


If I did not state something explicitly then what should that have to do with your response? You have made assumptions, which are in fact incorrect, about my interpretation of street photography and then criticized me on the basis of your own assumption.

Frankly, you are losing credibility with each post you are making as far as I am concerned. Especially when you seem to be implying that your opinion, or your interpretation and the concept of facts are also interchangeable and irrefutable. We have all noticed this characteristic in various people in the past, and some of them even come from Alaska!

I don't even have a personal horse in this race about the nuances of street photography definitions, I can do my own research on definitions, facts and sources, and I can draw my own conclusions. I would however be grateful if you did not try to tell me what my conclusions are!

Now I know that there aren't that many horses in your neck of the woods, but from what I can see 'your dog don't hunt' either!

At the end of the day there appear to be differing opinions about the interpretation of cited references etc. and I know where my opinion lies, at least for now.

My request, however, still stands. Perhaps we can return to a more moderate and civil level of discourse.

In my opinion there have been several exemplary demonstrations of civil discourse in this thread, and several that are less so.

Take care!

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

In fact Michelangelo probably was openly criticized by more than one "little boy". Everyone in Florence commonly was critical of Michelangelo, and of his work, specifically the Statue of David.

One such critic, Piero Soderini, seems a bit like yourself! Not in all ways, as he was no less than some kind of a politician in Florence at the time. But it seems he didn't like the "nose" on the Statue of David, and publicly stated so. The story goes that Michelangelo surreptitiously took a handful of marble dust and a chisel up a ladder to the "nose", and appeared to work on it for a bit, letting dust fly as he did. He then asked Piero Soderini if he approved, and Piero was very impressed and said it was much better!

I quoted "nose" above in two places, because the story resembles you in many ways, the "nose" being one. It might just be a euphemism...

eskiles Loc: Palmer Alaska

If you carry it in sports mode you can catch that snake catching an eagle by the tail, well in all honesty I don't think that would happen but something just as awesome might. Then when you have time to set up for that totally amazing shot of your grandkids you can take all the time you want, oh wait they move pretty fast don't they!!!