Trying to understand shooting Manually
Dec 6, 2015 14:18:26 #
oldtigger wrote:
Auto ISO is a good example.
To use auto ISO properly, one must understand when, why and how much ISO will be modified, set your limits accordingly and know when the camera will over-ride even your limits. These are not details i deal with well in the excitement of a charging lamb at the petting zoo so i tend to prefer manual.
To use auto ISO properly, one must understand when, why and how much ISO will be modified, set your limits accordingly and know when the camera will over-ride even your limits. These are not details i deal with well in the excitement of a charging lamb at the petting zoo so i tend to prefer manual.
Petting zoo? Are you for real? Listen, go out, in the wild, use all your awesome settings from your super smart camera and bring me a picture worth looking at. Thanks to the understandings of EXPOSURE, a term you need to research a bit more, is why I stick with all manual. Quality and consistency. If your quality standards are just a snapshot, be happy, but drop the absurd argument of AUTO setting been this mysterious science. Its not and almost EVERY amateur,, semi-amateur, pro or semi-pro knows this.
I invite you to get out of here, post all these gems in forums beside this one and get the same results. There are literally HUNDREDS of article written to help people understand exposure and get out of AUTO. Your argument has more holes than the Moon.
Dec 6, 2015 14:30:24 #
chaman wrote:
... go out, in the wild, use all your awesome settings from your super smart camera and bring me a picture worth looking at. .... drop the absurd argument of AUTO setting been this mysterious science. Its not and almost EVERY amateur,, semi-amateur, pro or semi-pro knows this.....
Sports shooting under the lights is a billion dollar business, i wonder how many of those money shots are made in full manual?
Dec 6, 2015 14:44:32 #
chaman wrote:
AUTO ISO is one of the dumbest settings in all the AUTO features.
Under certain circumstances AUTO ISO makes a lot of sense. In fact, I wish my camera had it so that can decide to use it or not.
I know that you understand the exposure triangle, so when I as the controller decide that a particular DOF and a particular shutter speed are important to me then there is no choice in ISO to get the optimum exposure (let's not get into exposing to the right; I can handle all of that too). If the light happens to change from shot to shot, why not just let the camera handle it? Chances are that the ISO will not vary a great deal over or under where it is on average. In bright conditions it may hover around 200; in darker conditions it may hover around 1600. In either case the graininess of the image is predetermined by the fact that I chose f-stop and shutter speed, and the lighting decreed the ballpark of where ISO would fall. There is no other option, is there?
Dec 6, 2015 14:55:41 #
Yes. There Is. YOU choose the ISO and control the noise. Or better yet choose the shutter and f/stop that allow YOU the lowest ISO possible. Basics, basics....and basics. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.
Dec 6, 2015 15:05:17 #
JohnFrim wrote:
You beat me to it. I have yet to use auto ISO but, I can see where, in certain circumstances, it could be a useful tool. Noise doesn't seem to be nearly as much of an issue as it used to be, at least with certain camera models and available software.Under certain circumstances AUTO ISO makes a lot o... (show quote)
Dec 6, 2015 15:08:15 #
chaman wrote:
Yes. There Is. YOU choose the ISO and control the noise. Or better yet choose the shutter and f/stop that allow YOU the lowest ISO possible. Basics, basics....and basics. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.
I guess you did not understand when I said I have defined the f-stop and shutter speed that I want. Of course if I don't like the resultant ISO I can change the parameters that I decided to control. But that would mean I am bringing ISO into consideration as a "priority" mode.
So again, plain and simple, if I think aperture and shutter speed are both important enough to me to select them first, then I have no choice in ISO.
Maybe a specific example would help. If I am photographing a field of flowers I may want a specific depth of field, so with my chosen lens at a specific distance from the subject as framed the aperture is fixed. Now if there is a breeze I might decide that there is a minimum shutter speed that I can tolerate. Bingo, my ISO is determined.
Can you explain to me how I can use a different ISO and still achieve the shot I want based on both aperture and shutter priority?
Dec 6, 2015 15:14:05 #
JohnFrim wrote:
I guess you did not understand when I said I have ... (show quote)
What is more important to you? DOF or low noise image? These are the decisions that you need to make. The camera most probably choose a high ISO, you will get the DOF you wanted at the cost of a noisier image. You would need a balance that the camera will not provide. You could perhaps get a slighter different DOF but with a cleaner image. If you are happy with what the camera chose for you be happy. But in these matters I tend to trust the man first before the machine.
Another approach would be exaggerate the DOF in PP and then get the best of both worlds. PP is just another tool, specially effective in this business. You have control not only in the process of obtaining the image but also after obtaining it.
Dec 6, 2015 15:26:55 #
chaman wrote:
What is more important to you? DOF or low noise image?
The point I have been trying to make is that DOF and shutter speed are BOTH MY PRIORITY in the example I gave. And if the sun goes behind a cloud or it gets late in the day and I still want those parameters as MY PRIORITY then ISO just has to take a back seat.
I am not arguing that ISO should not be a consideration. Back in the film day it was the FIRST consideration when you loaded the film. Fortunately today with digital we can change film from shot to shot without having to rewind the film into the cassette and try to remember how many images were on it (so that we could reload that cassette again have you never done that?).
chaman wrote:
Another approach would be exaggerate the DOF in PP and then get the best of both worlds. PP is just another tool, specially effective in this business. You have control not only in the process of obtaining the image but also after obtaining it.
Can you tell me how to change DOF in post? Not make it shallower with controlled blur, but deeper than recorded originally.
Dec 6, 2015 15:39:52 #
Well, then you answer your own question, If ISO needs to take the backseat according to your criteria, do it. You have made up your mind. I prefer to control it, to each its own.
Yes Ive dealt with rewinding film and do not plan on doing it again! LOL! Real DOF cannot be "deeper" in PP unless you try those Lytro cameras who claimed their technology permits it in PP. In PP with the standard digital cameras you can add blur and imitate a deeper DOF. It works decently sometimes.
Yes Ive dealt with rewinding film and do not plan on doing it again! LOL! Real DOF cannot be "deeper" in PP unless you try those Lytro cameras who claimed their technology permits it in PP. In PP with the standard digital cameras you can add blur and imitate a deeper DOF. It works decently sometimes.
Dec 6, 2015 15:50:58 #
chaman wrote:
Well, then you answer your own question, If ISO needs to take the backseat according to your criteria, do it. You have made up your mind. I prefer to control it, to each its own.
Yes Ive dealt with rewinding film and do not plan on doing it again! LOL! Real DOF cannot be "deeper" in PP unless you try those Lytro cameras who claimed their technology permits it in PP. In PP with the standard digital cameras you can add blur and imitate a deeper DOF. It works decently sometimes.
Yes Ive dealt with rewinding film and do not plan on doing it again! LOL! Real DOF cannot be "deeper" in PP unless you try those Lytro cameras who claimed their technology permits it in PP. In PP with the standard digital cameras you can add blur and imitate a deeper DOF. It works decently sometimes.
I think we are back on track and understand each other now.
On the rewinding of film (Kodachrome slides, actually) in my earlier days I took some "nature shots" of a mosquito on the window pane, a snake in the grass, etc. I then had reason to swap out that partially shot roll for print film. I guess I made a mistake labeling the box for how many shots had been taken, so when I reloaded the slide film I got double exposures of mosquitoes and snakes adorning my Christmas tree.
Dec 6, 2015 16:23:27 #
I picked up a camera just under 3yrs ago, and jumped into manual mode from the off because I wanted to understand more. I find now if I let the camera decide it tends to opt for higher iso first imo, like in the days of old we would decide our ASA (iso) then go shot. The only time I really feel like I'm shooting in full manual mode is when I'm doing night photography and long exposures, this is the only time I have an edge on my uncle who only uses auto mode, also in low light his flash pops up and Imo kills his shots over mine, but on normal everyday occasions auto mode or a mobile phone camera can produce an amazing image, someone told me your not a real photographer unless you print and sell your images, he didn't say a thing about auto or manual, (he's an award winning wedding and portrait photographer who uses all modes and shoots in JPEG and sometimes RAW) everybody has a camera nowadays but only some are photographers.
Composition and understanding light is so much more important.
Don't be lazy with your interpretation.
Composition and understanding light is so much more important.
Don't be lazy with your interpretation.
Dec 6, 2015 16:29:00 #
JohnFrim wrote:
I guess you did not understand when I said I have ... (show quote)
Well to be fair you do not have to adjust the iso to suit the aperture and shutter speed. There are a couple of methods open to you, depending on what you want, i'm not a mind reader. The obvious one would be to use additional lighting. This might be flash, maybe using a reflector to bounce sunlight where you want it.
The other option is to accept the under or over exposed exposure and post process it. Maybe you want a silhouette perhaps you might bracket your exposures and combine them later.
If a scene is darker or brighter than mid gray should you be recording it as a mid gray image? How about a high key or low key image?
Just because the camera says do it like this, do you have to listen?
Maybe thats where you go from being a guy pressing a shutter button to a photographer. If we consider moonrise over .. A A's image according to his camera the settings were wrong and he dodged and burned and got it to the image he wanted. He did understand what he was doing, I don't think he just got lucky.
Dec 6, 2015 16:54:16 #
JohnFrim wrote:
... I have defined the f-stop and shutter speed that I want. ...So again, plain and simple, if I think aperture and shutter speed are both important enough to me to select them first, then I have no choice in ISO....
I have somewhat the same limitations when i shoot.
I shoot tens of thousands of shots at F5.6, 1/5 second, ISO 100, flash 1/3 power, command mode, fixed focus, and studio lights at 1/2 power.
I need quick cycle time and as many as 200 flashes and my flash has an overheat protect mode so i cant change light output.
I shoot in manual cause exposure has to remain constant.
If i were to attempt to shoot in auto or ittl, exposures would end up all over the place.
Dec 6, 2015 18:01:24 #
oldtigger wrote:
I have somewhat the same limitations when i shoot.
I shoot tens of thousands of shots at F5.6, 1/5 second, ISO 100, flash 1/3 power, command mode, fixed focus, and studio lights at 1/2 power.
I need quick cycle time and as many as 200 flashes and my flash has an overheat protect mode so i cant change light output.
I shoot in manual cause exposure has to remain constant.
If i were to attempt to shoot in auto or ittl, exposures would end up all over the place.
I shoot tens of thousands of shots at F5.6, 1/5 second, ISO 100, flash 1/3 power, command mode, fixed focus, and studio lights at 1/2 power.
I need quick cycle time and as many as 200 flashes and my flash has an overheat protect mode so i cant change light output.
I shoot in manual cause exposure has to remain constant.
If i were to attempt to shoot in auto or ittl, exposures would end up all over the place.
If you need quick recycle times why aren't you shooting at ISO 200 to reduce the amount of required light power from the flash, possibly to 1/4 power instead? There's no improvement in noise, color saturation, or anything else by sticking with ISO 100 like the film days. My Olympus won't even go down to ISO 100. Its bottom is ISO 200. And why 1/5 second when that invites subject movement to ruin your shots?
Dec 6, 2015 18:03:13 #
marcomarks wrote:
If you need quick recycle times why aren't you shooting at ISO 200 to reduce the amount of required light power from the flash, possibly to 1/4 power instead? There's no improvement in noise, color saturation, or anything else by sticking with ISO 100 like the film days. My Olympus won't even go down to ISO 100. Its bottom is ISO 200. And why 1/5 second when that invites subject movement to ruin your shots?
Thanks...I was tempted but you have posted what I was thinking.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.