bertloomis Loc: Fort Worth, Texas

I use the active method. I have yet to choose both the shutter speed and aperture by adjusting the ISO.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

Linda, this is a great topic of conversation even though there is no "correct" answer. I struggle with this all the time. Most of my photography is defined by action--wild animals or wild people--so I don't have the luxury of really thinking out my shots before I take them. However, in addition to the exposure triangle I've found that simply practice with my camera helps me with these decisions because the more I use it the more intuitive I am in switching shutter speed and/or f-stops on the fly. But despite that I've found that I have to use auto-ISO most of the time because my needs switch drastically from shot to shot (most recently lion under a bush by our vehicle then immediately two giraffes necking about 100 yards away). Both the light and depth of field can change quite a bit in those situations. I just used that example because I just returned from Africa but the same type of shooting issues arise domestically even when shooting people. So I add practice and post processing analysis as one more skill to be developed over time.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

As a sports photographer I know a couple of things going in. First, in most cases, I want a Shutter Speed of 1/1000th (Or faster). Secondly, as I wish to lead the viewer to the subject, I want to shoot wide open. Given the lighting, I would then, under normal circumstances, allow the compute to select the ISO, within limits. Hence, I really love the AUTO ISO features. Not every photo is normal, nor is every job. There are times, especially indoors, where I set all three variables manually, based upon actual light readings. Experience helps me a lot in making these decisions, and yes, I'm not always spot on! (I have Lr to fix that!!!). Best of luck.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

I do follow you.

"...feeling overwhelmed..." - totally agree.
Bought my first camera when I was 18 finishing high school and then into the navy; this was 1954. There was no raw - it was all jpg unless you were developing and printing yourself - then there was no jpg, just raw. Married in '58, began family and there was neither time nor money to do anything but grab the camera and take a snapshot then take the film to the drug store to be sent off to be developed and printed. So, my indoctrination was get it right in the camera.

Preparing to retire (at 72) and wanting something to do bought a (digital) camera - WOW... Not only had to learn controls but also what do I do with it after I snapped the picture??? Fell back into what I learned to begin with - get it right in the camera. Starting to read about digital photography and the admonition to shoot raw - what I have since perceived is that raw is about being an artist which I am not! So, I don't care about raw. Then another thing I found experimenting with raw - when I adjusted the raw the result looked identical to the jpg that I had also shot and, finally, I have grown rather adverse to spending time in front of a computer for anything other than essentials - UHH, Quicken and email.

BTW, bought BOTH Photoshop and Paint Shop when they first appeared on the market. Walked away from Photoshop because of Adobe's proprietary file structure - they wanted to be the only game in town as they have almost accomplished with PDF - I don't like monopolies. Still maintain Paint Shop; also have DxO, PTGui and a few other specialty programs, all of which are seldom now used.

Linda, sorry I got carried away...

BebuLamar

I think you should be overjoyed and not overwhelm. You had 64 years of experience. You can do the JPEG way and instead letting the lab do the work you make you camera does the work. You can do the RAW way and instead of doing it in the darkroom you can do it in the lightroom. In either case it's much easier.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I agree. I generally shoot aperture priority, depending on the result I want. The shutter speed takes care of itself.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

I became overwhelmed when I bought the digital and started reading about using it. But- that's long gone.

foxfirerodandgun Loc: Stony Creek, VA

None of us were born with a plethora of knowledge on any given subject. Instincts..........yes. As a person who strongly believes that life is a learning experience from the cradle to the grave, one should never, ever, look down, or demean someone for seeking knowledge on whatever subject they are curious about, or seeking to expand their knowledge on. After many years of taking snap shots, I now find myself wanting to really learn some of the intricacies of photography in order to capture images that are of real quality. Many times I fund that my questions actually have questions. With that said, I wish to thank all who have responded, and who may respond, with their input to any, and all, questions that I have asked, or may ask in the future. I only hope that I can share what I've learned with others.

I mostly use aperture settings since up until now my subjects are mainly stationary; flowers, insects, fungus, etc. For the pictures that I take for our church activities, I normally use the Auto setting since these are just snap shots usually to be viewed later via a projector. Linda, your question, and the responses to it, have now sparked a new interest in using other modes and settings. I'm sure that I'll have a number of questions as I pursue this area further. At my age I need to keep my brain veery active. ;~)

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

Since my first variable aperture camera (an Argus C3) I have always used your active approach. Remembering that there was no automatic ISO in the days of film, those were the only parameters of consequence to a good image that I could adjust. I pushed Tri-X for low light situations but that was about the only time ASA (ISO in the old days) was adjusted.
I was raised by an artistic mother (who was in retail sales of art materials) and thus had been exposed to "art" in many galleries and books before and during my photographic experiences. Whether I consciously learned composition or merely absorbed good compositional skills from observation, I have always been able to compose an acceptable photograph. This might just be "an eye for composition".
In today's world I do use P or A or S settings when I photograph family snapshots, but my serious photography is almost always M.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

I’m the lazy kind: I look in the EVF and adjust til I like the look😄😄

juanbalv Loc: Los Angeles / Hawthorne

I know this has been recommended before. But here it goes again: Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" is far and above one of the best books on the subject. Well worth the $15 to $18 investment. One of the best I've made. And when it comes to photography, I've made many. Some good, some very good, and most bad. This book is well worth the expense.

broncomaniac Loc: Lynchburg, VA

Here, here! I've made the same observations and have conveyed them.

Tex-s

I'm with you. When I'm preparing a shot, candid, macro, landscape, whatever, I envision what I'm hoping to produce. Cloudy, silky water flow? Ghostly images of people for spooky Halloween images? Magnificent clouds over the landscape? Portrait with floral background? Then I decide which component of exposure is the 'critical' one.

If I primarily need a particular depth of field, then aperture comes first, preferred ISO limits second, and shutter speed last. I'd rather set a tripod for a shot than get motion blur by hand-holding a shoot a too long a shutter or to raise the ISO 'too high'. This goes for low light shots of all kinds and for landscapes at all light levels.

If I primarily need to either stop or blur motion, then that setting is the point of origin, and ISO next and Aperture last, unless I have a scene where I am going to need ND filters, in which case I'll choose a preferred aperture before darkening the light with ND.

However, when my wife and I shoot indoor sports for our local school (and yearbook) we tend to set a single manual setting for shutter speed and aperture first, and then try to set the ISO in an acceptable range. Yearbook images are rarely viewed and printed at large scales, so some noise is acceptable to be sure we get 'fun' action shots.

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

A very good way to start my view.
I do not like (euphemism) Adobe, PERIOD. They steal data and like Micro$oft and Apple,
they have the same greedy way of doing business. I do not like "open source" either (neither ?),
because the opportunity makes the thief in some cases (mean people). I had my first contact
with a computer back in 1979 (Burroughs B1700 and ForTran IV). Since then I had programmed
in 8-bit and 16-bit various languages (Assembly, BASIC, C, C++, Visual Basic, etc.).
Micro$oft bought the rights of Dbase, released a Window$ version and deep-sixed it.
Bought XTreeGold, launched the XT4 (for Window$) and buried it too... moving on...

Linda, sorry for starting from the end, but Bboh's post moved me. I read all posts on this
subject and noticed very funny and very not so much comments.

As I said a while ago, I like to shoot abstractions, landscapes (with interesting details),
in B&W and sticking the most I can to a certain low ISO. I feel sorry that my camera
can not give me the options of lower than 100 ISO and I can not afford another one.
I do not review the LCD display. I like, I shot, and do not PP. Sometimes I do crop,
or correct the horizon and save as *.jpg+*.tif and keep them to myself.
I do not like flowers, butterflies, birds in flight, over-saturated colors, effects, etc et al.
I mean: for me to do it, I do not mind in seeing those. Everything has its value.
I posted a close-up (in color) or two, but that was when I was testing my 50.
I would love to post a photo I took in color (saw, liked, shoot) using a Vivitar
75-300 Zoom (for Nikon with adapter to EOS), but it is from a neighbour's home
and quite identifiable. Saw the scene, ran inside, mounted the tripod and camera,
positioned, turned off all lights in my house and took the shot. There was stuff
in the foreground (unavoidable) and it is impossible to crop. The part of the scene
that caught my eyes had great texture, including the reflection over the hood of a
car parked inside the house.
Anyway, I let light take me and my camera HAS to do what I want, except when
I am wrong.

Sorry for the long post, but... c'mon I read a lot more.

Edit: Oh... as for "Newbies", I face and accept it as "new here". I am on a
distribution list in Dermatology for some 14 years and even people who graduated
30 years ago are "Newbies" for the LIST. That is not an open forum, like this one.
IMHO, "offensive" is to call offensive whatever one says. Otto's paradox.

Photocraig

So, I'm assuming f8 and be there needs some extra thought. The there legs of the exposure "tripod" are adjustable. With improving Dynamic Ranges of the newer sensors and the gift of RAW capture and editors, we've got some room to work. But as always, the process of composition, movement, moment, noise and DOF choices REQUIRES that the photographer prioritize in order the most important. And then that MOMENT----where'd it GO!

Back in the manual focus day, we used Zone Focusing where with a small enough aperture and focusing on a spot (or picking a distance off the scale) we had a reasonable chance of getting moving subjects into a "zone of apparent focus." Perhaps using similar conceptual thinking, a photographer could set up the camera in a given location/situation so even a quick (non Auto) snap has a good chance of surviving the delete button. Maybe that's an exercise I'll try today.

C