rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

What you are missing is the fact that if you set two items (for instance shutter speed and f-stop) because you think the camera will over or underexpose, then let the camera choose ISO - guess what? The camera will over or under expose!
I do occasionally use auto-ISO - but only when I think the camera will get it right. I always set the other two manually because the camera doesn't know how much depth of field I want or whether my subject will move or not. That's why I shoot with manual settings. As far as doing a passable job - you still have the camera's meter to guide you to a ballpark setting. Then you decide how much to override to accomplish what you want.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

First of all, there are various manual modes:

FULL MANUAL EXPOSURE mode means YOU set the ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed. The camera does not set any of them. The exposure is FIXED. It is not controlled by the camera. It remains the same until the user changes one of the variables, or until the scene lighting changes, whichever comes first.

FULL MANUAL FOCUS mode means that YOU focus the lens — by hand — on the point of interest you wish to be sharp and clear. You can use whatever aid the camera has to display the image, pick a part of it, and get it focused, but YOU are in control.

FULL MANUAL WHITE BALANCE* mode means that YOU set the white balance in reference to some sort of neutral test target or profiling device. The camera reads the target and assumes it is perfectly neutral, then FIXES the white balance in reference to that neutral surface. Panasonic calls this a Manual White Balance. Canon calls this a Custom White Balance. Nikon calls it a Preset White Balance. Your camera brand may well use one of these names, or something else, but it is there.

*Yes, I know you can change white balance of RAW files in post-production. Setting full manual white balance IS most helpful for in-camera JPEG processing. However, it can provide a very accurate starting point for setting a white balance in post-processing.

There are MANY instances where using one or all of these full manual modes is the best way to work. Fluidly changing events (sports, nature, wildlife, kids, drama, weddings and parties, etc.) are NOT good examples of when to use full manual mode.

Full manual exposure and full manual white balance, used together, are most useful when you are:

> Trying to make a series of exposures under fixed, controlled, consistent lighting that should all look the same, except for the main subject in them. Examples would be duplicating slides, working on a copy stand, copying artwork, making 400 school portraits for a yearbook, photographing small parts for a catalog...

> Photographing subjects that are extremely high key (mostly white), or extremely low key (mostly black), or contain a very large area of extremely saturated color. Examples would include:

— a Scandinavian blonde in a white dress, standing against a white wall... (Auto exposure of any type would UNDERexpose this subject.)

— an African American college graduate in a black robe, wearing a black cap, walking across a stage in front of faculty also wearing black, with a black curtain behind them... (Auto exposure of any type would OVERexpose this subject.)

— an Irish red-headed lass in a deep red dress, standing against a lighter red wall (Auto White Balance would dull the reds, and turn her skin an ugly shade of deathly cyan.)

— an Irish red-headed lass in a dark green dress, standing against a lighter green wall... (Auto White Balance would dull the greens, and turn her skin a hideous shade of flaming pink.)

I've encountered all of these scenarios... They are actual examples of problems I had to troubleshoot when I ran the digital side of a photo lab in the early 2000s, and situations I encountered when producing audiovisual and video programs.

A few pointers:

Given a constant light source, and assuming a desire for consistently accurate reproduction, exposure does NOT need to change when the color or reflectivity of the subject changes. As you might guess, auto exposure and white balance can lead to undesirable inconsistencies in output! So referencing manual exposure and manual white balance to a target is EXTREMELY helpful. It will provide the same, correct appearance with all subjects photographed under the same lighting and other environmental conditions. It saves a LOT of time in post-production and produces better consistency.

Custom/Preset/Manual white balance (or a Kelvin setting with a tint offset) is nearly always better than any of the camera's built-in settings (Daylight, Flash, Shade, Cloudy, or AWB). That's because all of those stock settings are assumptions. The last one — AWB — assumes EVERYTHING is perfectly neutral. A manual white balance, referenced to a target, takes into account ALL of the light sources falling on it, whether coming from the main source, or reflected off of walls, carpet, clothing, red clay, grass...

Again, I am not here to say that Manual modes are the be-all, end-all of photography! Far from it... Modern automation has opened up a whole new realm of SPEED in capturing events. Used correctly, auto modes can drastically increase the "keeper rate" of action photography, by making adjustments that manual methods could never handle quickly enough. I use my camera's auto modes — all of them — in their appropriate situations. But I also work in Manual Everything mode for certain types of work, and that makes all the difference in those instances.

rond-photography Loc: Connecticut

I agree. I use aperture priority 99% of the time. It eliminates a lot of thinking and lets me concentrate on the composition, lighting, subject, etc. If I think I need more or less exposure, I dial the exposure compensation up or down. I sometimes use manual focus if the camera is having difficulty with a scene, but auto focus is usually pretty reliable.

That is a change to my procedures I would not have seen coming - my last film camera was all manual; even though Canon had come out with the AE-1, I bought the AT-1 because I wanted to have the "control". Now I am very happy that I can shoot a rapidly changing situation and just concentrate on capturing the shot.

Even shooting landscapes and still lifes, I rarely switch to manual (using flash being the main exception to that rule).

SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina

Oh, I'm totally aware of how and when to do that. I shot weddings etc professionally for a couple of years, totally in manual without any metering. I was just mentioning what today's equipment is capable of, if you should want to use it

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

This is my brief explanation on this. When shooting in manual mode the photographer is in full control. If something goes wrong do not blame the camera or the lens, just blame the photographer.
In the manual mode three parameters are to be set: ISO, shutter speed and aperture. Nobody needs to guess the exposure, if there is enough sunshine go with "sunny 16" and if not just select an ISO you think will be appropriate and an aperture you know will be good for the subject (landscapes at f11 or f16) and match the shutter speed to that aperture. If the subject is bright or dark some exposure compensation will be necessary. Keep your tripod available for low light exposures.
It is perfectly fine to use AUTO modes. All of them have a way to modify the exposure if needed.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Manual is setting all the settings manually. In the film days, the first thing you did was choose the film speed buy choosing what speed film you wish to use. Then you take and exposure reading and you choose the shutter speed and aperture and use the meter as a guide.

Today's cameras auto modes are very good. I've seen many rich people buy the top of the line camera and keep in on full auto and get some fantastic pictures.

Today's cameras also have some creative auto modes such as P, S, A, or for Canon P, Tv, Av. I don't know what other camera's use for these creative modes. These modes let the photographer choose some of the exposure values so that the photo has creative depth.

SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina

I believe that the topic I have been addressing here was that someone, I forget who started the discussion 3 hours ago, but they were surprised at what today's new digital cameras were capable of. I believe that they still had an old 35mm Pentax or the like that didn't even have a meter. I think we're going off topic but you obviously have an excellent knowledge of the exposure triangle and all the factors that go into it. Happy shooting!

Michael1079 Loc: Indiana

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Jim for a lot of the older photographers shooting pictures is The purest way to make photographs is in manual. They are called (Purest).

I my self do both, it depends on my situation and the environment I’m in.

These cameras made today are very smart and successful with software/electronics built into them you can do most anything you want.

It’s you choice as to what you do with the camera. Best wishes!

SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina

Totally agree! That was all I was saying. The topic was originally posted about someone who wasn't aware of today's modern digital cameras, coming from an old 35mm. Personally, I am able to shoot as a purist but I find today's meters are incredibly accurate and that, along with post processing, for me, I don't really bother much setting totally in manual unless I am using a time exposure. I love technology and like to take advantage of it.

Jim1938

My post had nothing to do with film cameras or film photography. I was just interested in how people define “manual”. As I said, I thought it meant setting the camera to “M” then estimating the exposure.

SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina

"I got my first 35mm camera in 1960 and every shot was manually exposed, except for the ASA (now ISO). After a while, I bought and used a light meter and my pictures became a lot better and much more interesting.

Lately I've seen quite a few questions regarding manual shooting and wonder why one would ever want to shoot entirely in manual mode, except in some very rare circumstances? At best, manual mode is a guess about the proper exposure settings, although some photographers can probably do a passable job. Certainly, I can see setting two variables manually and letting the camera set the remaining variable automatically, but totally manual exposure, I don't see."

I don't know you but this is what you originally posted. I just thought you maybe had just gotten back into photography and I offered what I thought you were looking for. Just as I always do here, is try and offer my experience and hope it helps.

Larz

I guess to answer your specific question "why one would ever want to shoot entirely in manual mode?" My answer would be that I derive a lot of satisfaction in knowing and using the settings that deliver the results that I visualized before the shot.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Manual shooting is just that... ALL variables are set manually (some people will tell you they're "shooting manually", though they're actually using M with Auto ISO.... they're wrong).

The REASON to shoot fully manual is to lock down all your exposure factors right where you want them and not let the automation change things you don't want changed. It is the best way to insure an image exposed exactly the way you want. Of course, it needs to be done accurately. There are many ways to do that... some people can determine exposure very well "by eye". Others use the camera's meter or just take some test shots, check the histogram and fine tune from there. Still other folks may use a separate meter of some type (there are several possible types that are used differently). Personally I do a bit of each.

HOWEVER manual exposure isn't always preferable or even possible. There are times when it's necessary or preferable to use one of the auto exposure (AE) modes the camera offers. Most cameras today have at least three AE modes: aperture priority (A or Av), shutter priority (S or Tv) and program (P). Many cameras now have a fourth AE mode: M with Auto ISO.

Each of these serve purposes and can be useful, preferred or even necessary in certain situations.

There is a lot more to it than this. Rather than write a book here, I suggest you buy one that's already been written: Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure". It's an excellent read, even for old film shooters like you and me. It goes over all the different exposure modes thoroughly... what, when, why, and how to use them. It also deals with things like Exposure Compensation and how to use it to fine tune auto exposures. One thing it doesn't do (at least not in the edition I bought some years ago) is discuss using a separate, hand held light meter. Peterson emphasizes using the camera's built-in light meter and dealing with the foibles of reflective metering.

Personally I don't consider M shooting mode to be "purer" or "more satisfying" or anything... It's just one of several ways to handle exposure. Using M doesn't make me a better photographer. Sometimes it's the best way to achieve the images I want. Sometimes it's not. There are times when Av, Tv or even P are preferable or even necessary. I don't hesitate to use them when needed! They don't make me a worse photographer.

On cameras that have them, what I AVOID are the "super auto" modes... such as A+ or "Auto" or the "scene modes" (such as "sports", "landscape", etc). Those automate exposure and a whole lot more. These modes often dictate the way autofocus can be used, don't allow Exposure Compensation to be used, force flash to fire at times and even limit the type of file that can be saved. No thanks! I want to set those things myself.

SteveHmeyer Loc: Cincinnati OH USA

My first SLR was a Minolta SRT 101 and just being able to align the straight arm with the circle and get close to proper exposure was a miracle.
Then came digital, auto focus and stabilization and the approach to photography changed. Because you could shoot as many images as you wanted with an inexhaustible supply of memory - the philosophy became “if I shoot 100 there are bound to be a few good ones”. I adopted that way of doing things too.
Upon the arrival of mirrorless cameras all that great old glass was again available and I re-discovered the joy of composing a shot. I re-learned to take it all in and look at the big picture and fine details too. The joy of photography was re-born.
Two summers ago I spent 3 hours in the hot sun and oppressive humidity and going all manual - no auto nothing - shooting dragon flies and got 2 useable shots. The next day I went all-auto and got 5 useable shots in less than 15 minutes. The lesson for me is that the joy of photography has its place. If I have a task that must get done it is one approach - if I am out there for fun it is all manual for me.