User ID

`

Why not set the Auto ISO limiter
to a spread of only 2 or 3 EV ? Or
maybe even just 1 EV.

.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Yikes! Is this still going on??? Let me get back in please, let me please, let me... Holy Mackerel. 🙄🤣😏😀😜😭🤪😷

R.G. Loc: Scotland

The point of that post is that the camera is NOT taking control away from the user. At all times the user is in full control of all three exposure variables, and if you include EC, the user is in control of the exposure level as well. How much more in control can you get. Full control means full control. That's why I keep saying that "assisted" would be more accurate than "automatic".

I keep hearing about alternative modes doing the same thing. Taking fully manual mode as an example of one of the alternatives, if you adjust shutter speed you then have to adjust ISO (or possibly aperture) manually to keep the exposure right. M+AutoISO does away completely with the second half of that procedure because the camera instantly provides you with the appropriate ISO value (that's where the "automatic" part comes in).

I can only speak for my own camera, but I haven't found an alternative that gives you the same quick, simple, un-distracting, TOTAL control over the exposure. In A mode you can play off aperture against ISO, but that's less likely to be what you really need. In S mode you can play off shutter speed against aperture, but then you have the problem of having to adjust ISO manually (which in my camera would be a real pain). Generally speaking, ISO is the variable that you would be most happy to have as the default value (i.e. the value that's determined by the other two settings), and shutter speed would be the second most "floatable" value, leaving aperture as the exposure variable you would most likely want to set once and then leave (ditto for exposure compensation). Put another way, M+AutoISO allows you to play off the most compromisable value against the second most compromisable value.

Other modes can be set up to give you full control, but none of them do it as effectively and as quickly and as simply as M+AutoISO. If there are better modes in other cameras, I've yet to hear about it. I've already acknowledged that there will be shooting situations where M+AutoISO wouldn't be the best answer, but those situations should be obvious and easy to identify.

Where my camera is concerned, M+AutoISO also negates the disadvantage of not having direct control over ISO and it negates the disadvantage of having only one adjustment wheel.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

In the quote that you're referring to, one of the key words is "reliably". I would be sceptical of anybody claiming a high level of reliability in all situations when it came to estimating exposures visually. I'd be inclined to think that either they were exaggerating or their definition of an acceptable exposure was very... shall we say, accommodating.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

It's quick, simple and un-distracting. In fact it's so simple it can be adopted very early on in the learning curve (but I'd still recommend some time spent in A mode to understand aperture and some time in S mode to understand shutter speed).

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Yes, the repetition keeps coming, but I think I'm eventually getting the main points across. If you plan to raise points that have already been queried (and answered) several times I'd rather you didn't, but if you have any constructive comments to make, you're more than welcome.

No, the thread is NOT about what's "manual" and what isn't, and yes it IS about the misconception that M+AutoISO takes control away from the user (when the truth is it's a simple and effective way of giving the user TOTAL control over the exposure variables).

Shutterbug57

I dunno, Adams managed to get Moonrise Over Hernandez right sans meter. I would be loathe to challenge him had he made such an assertion.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If the reflected light reading from your camera's meter is all you have ever used, you can find all sorts of ways to work around it and force it to accommodate the exposure to the scene. If you rely on only one method it will always seem easier than the other methods. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

But after more than a half century of using reflected, incident, spot metering and estimated metering I know from experience that the least reliable method is reflected reading, especially when the scene keeps changing. The one that takes the most effort is spot metering (it's better suited to film).

Digital exposure is not rocket science. You can take an exposure and, if you don't see any blinkies, you haven't blown the highlights. If the histogram looks reasonably placed you can easily develop from the raw file.

And if the light is not changing, there is no need for the exposure or ISO settings to change when objects with different reflectance move in and out of the scene.

Here are a couple more articles that might help:

The Difference Between Reflective and Incident Metering and How They Work
Incident vs Reflected light and which type gives you better photos

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Yes, but as has been pointed out on this site numerous times, it then took him 10 years to finally get the image as he wanted it. One can deduce from the several recollections that he wrote around that image that he would clearly have preferred to have had not only his meter, but also some additional film at the time. I'm absolutely certain that as a professional photographer making a living from his work that he would have preferred to capture that image with as little work required as possible. He would also have preferred a negative which offered him an easier starting point, if that had been possible. And he would have preferred not to have to do all that work every last time he needed or wanted to make a print.

We all need to be willing to use what we have to capture our images and to politely not be so quick to judge when others use a different process. As I have stated several times and places, my process does not include Auto ISO. But R. G. has clearly explained why he does and has explained how his process works so that others might use it. I'll not, at least for now. No need. But that does not invalidate what he is doing, nor does it reduce its possible value to someone else.

srt101fan

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for noticing .

Shutterbug57

Yes, Adams dodged and burned in the darkroom for Moonrise. Looking at the raw print/negative, there is no way that Adams could have captured the final image in camera. He removes many of the clouds by burning in the upper section. Even had he mounted a red filter, that would have accented the clouds, not obscured them. His vision, probably before he got the camera out, was going to require significant darkroom work. I simply would not have bet against Adams ability to work without a meter if necessary.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I doubt that he ever produced a print without extensive post processing.

What he did with Moonrise has nothing to do with getting the exposure wrong. He simply changed his vision about what made it into a good piece of art.

What is significant about the image is how much of it ended up in Zone 0 - maximum black even though the negative had some information recorded there. That's what makes it so striking.

Bill_de Loc: US

Not sure how to parse a phrase with three negatives???

also negates the disadvantage of not having

---

R.G. Loc: Scotland

If you don't like the way I say things, you are fee to go elsewhere.