Old (a relative, but reliable term depending upon how old one is compared to others . . . but, regardless, given God's grace, we will all earn that title at some point), codger, I don't believe so.

"I never said do not learn manual exposure." . . . and I never accused you of making that statement, however, you did state that "you [the OP]want to saddle yourself with unrealistic limitations." There is nothing unrealistic about the limitations of shooting in manual. It is what it is, and very realistic, sometimes very limiting, at others, very liberating. If you just want to do so, you can set your camera up in manual mode so that it behaves like a single aperture, single shutter speed point and shoot from the film days. Pretty much every shot will be in acceptable focus, acceptably free from motion blur, and you may fire away at a speed as fast as the frame rate of your camera. Given the latitude provided us by today's digital cameras, unless there is a drastic change in lighting, you really needn't worry about exposure from shot to shot or the influence of color (predominantly black or white) upon the camera's meter. I rarely shoot this way (in fact, I rarely shoot in manual, but I find that knowing how is of great benefit to my shooting experience).

"You are a complete liar if you think for a second all the practice in the world can overcome the archaic slowness of manual." I didn't express such a thought, so, why is it relevant here, and why introduce that "LIAR" term. I doubt any of us have a reason to be untruthful in expressing our opinions (which is all most of us here are trying to do - express our opinions).

"We all use manual at times but know when it is best applied." Well, bless Bess. I guess because "We all use it and know when it is best applied," the OP should abandon any effort to also use it and to also develop an understanding of when it is best applied.

"I read your praises of the D500 and all the automatic features. If manual is so great then toss all your bells and whistles for BIF and grab that wonderful manual Speed Graphic and get those great BIF photos with all your incredible manual talent." I do not, nor have I ever shot the D500 (nor have I any desire to shoot that camera), nor have I ever shot or praised a Speed Graphic.

I did state that I interpreted no ill-intent on your part towards the OP . . . that I did say, and I maintain that position. Why you became so agitated over my benign post puzzles me. What I took from the OP's opening message was that he/she wants to develop better skill and a more thorough understanding of manual photography. You, yourself, admit shooting in manual at times because you know when it is best. What is so bad about the OP learning to do the same as you.

Instead of arguing with me, it would be much more relevant for you to share your knowledge of when the manual approach is best applied.

. . . just sayin'.

Happy shooting (and posting).

Respectfully,
Caruso

For you, Architect1776, shooting in manual mode may represent saddling yourself, but to someone who has not (or feels he/she has not) mastered that skill, it represents yet one more area of photographic interest with which he/she may want to become familiar. You are correct that the auto modes (complimented by such additional niceties as exposure compensation and shooting modes (poo-pooed by some, yet they are nothing more than additional pre-programmed memory settings which can be useful if one takes the time to understand what they do - no different than the memory settings one sets in the memory slots afforded by the camera) are simply a faster way to arrive at the same exposure we would choose ourselves if we chose to (or could only) shoot in manual.

I took many a fine photo with my manual cameras. I also missed more than a few shots because I was not fast enough, and most of those were missed due to my inability to focus quickly enough. In most fast fire situations, one can generally choose exposure settings ahead of time that will work for most shots, but focusing pretty much has to be done shot by shot (and, even then, if you don't need to blur elements in front of/behind your subject, you can stop down your lens to turn your SLR/DSLR into a basic point and shoot.

None of this is rocket science, but, to someone unfamiliar with photography, it can be quite confusing.

The OP seems curious and eager to understand the basics of photo exposure, and I can only compliment him/her.

For you and I, this stuff seems second nature, because, when we started shooting, ones choices were to learn it or stick with single setting point and shoots.

I detect no deliberate attempt on your part to put down the OP, but wanted to point out that, IMHO, it's great that he/she wants to learn manual. It can only benefit his/her photo efforts.

Respectfully,
Caruso

I consider manual the perfect "auto" because, once set, it is not influenced by variables (such as shade vs no shade, white vs black (as in clothing). When attempting to capture a backlit subject, I might point the camera in the opposite direction and use that reading as a starting point for correct exposure of the backlit subject. You could accomplish this in auto by using exposure compensation, but it is far simpler in manual mode.

Given that we use digital cameras instead of film, it is very easy to check whether you got the exposure right or not. Shoot a frame and check the result. If adjustments are necessary, make them and shoot again.

I love shooting film, and find myself often amazed at the results I obtained using manual only exposure (there was nothing else at the time) and a capture medium that one could not immediately review.

Perhaps those of us who learned on that sort of equipment tend to over simplify shooting/learning manual, but, like most anything, the best way to learn shooting in manual I to persist in shooting in manual. With a digital camera, you could go out and take practice shots all day long. If you do that, especially in combination with your wise decision to seek advice here and at other online for a, you will gain a working knowledge of manual exposure very quickly.

In your OP, you mentioned dealing with changing light conditions. If I were you, I would get the exposure set right for one lighting condition, then practice changing only one exposure variable as lighting changes. As an example, set your ISO, aperture, and shutter such that you get an acceptable exposure in a sunny location. Then, as you move to the shade, try adjusting only the aperture until proper exposure is restored. When you are comfortable using only the aperture to adjust exposure, try using only the shutter. Comfortable with that? Try using just the ISO.

As someone new to manual exposure, if you constantly use all controls (aperture, shutter, ISO) to make exposures, you will have a more difficult time getting the feel of the controls individually.

I've been shooting a long time, but don't consider myself an expert. I hope these suggestions will help you along your way to a greater enjoyment of the wonderful world of photography.

We live in a wonderful age with tools that make mastery of the basic photographic skills accessible to most everyone.

Enjoy.

Caruso

Photoshop is not free and also includes a learning curve.

I use GIMP and Lightzone (a program I for which I once paid - developer went under and program was rescued by users - now open source). Lightzone's approach is totally different, but, in one piece of software, you have a RAW converter and a very capable editor. There are versions of GIMP that will handle 16-bit files (8-bit limitation being one of the major beefs of this program's detractors), and, I predict that, one day, GIMP will rule the photo editing world. It's that close in terms of its capabilities. Being free, I think anyone who edits photos and overlooks this program does him/herself a disservice.
IMHO, GIMP gets a bad rap from many PSers for its learning curve only because it interface does not mirror PS. I think GIMP is actually easier to learn than PS unless one is thoroughly trained in PS. I would guess that someone who only knows GIMP would find PS equally difficult to learn.

I've played around with a program called Sagelight which I find also intriguing. I believe the project is now defunct. If you are really into trying different editing software, google the subject and you will find many more choices than those mentioned thus far. All will involve a learning curve, but, for me, learning is part of the fun.

Good luck.

Caruso

I don't know, so many posts, some with tongue in cheek.
I recently visited a large flower display. It was really cold outside, so I wore a heavy winter coat with big pockets. I took two lenses from my big bag. The 18-270 went on the camera, the 60mm F2 macro went in one of my coat pockets (both sides capped.

After one lens change, I gave up on caps, and just stuck whichever lens was not in use in my pocket (no keys or anything else in there). As I changed lenses, the zoom, when coming off the camera, went into my left coat pocket, the macro in the right coat pocket. Over the period of two hours, I probably switched lenses 20 times.

The outing was a success, the photos very good (IMHO), and my gear remained clean, undamaged.

I'm fairly anal about the care of my equipment. You will not find scuffs and scratches on any of it. However, if you are shooting photos, care of the equipment IMO takes a position of subordinate priority to the task at hand. Of course, flowers do not run away from you, they were displayed under cover, so no wind, weather, or sand with which to contend. But, I tend to agree with those posters who point out that the equipment is not as delicate as we sometimes think. The only danger to which my lenses were exposed was possible dust that was inside my coat pockets. If I discover it, I will remove it, just that simple. If I notice a spot on my sensor, I will remove that also.

FWIW, I have not wet cleaned my sensor in two years (I used to obsess with sensor cleaning). All my equipment is stored in one of two LowePro bags, one small into which I place my tools of choice for the day, the other which stores my total collection of lenses, flash, chargers, etc.

All lenses are capped for storage, but for shooting, I uncap those that I am going to use. Front elements are protected by filters, rear elements exposed in my pocket or pouch while shooting (unless they are on my camera).

In my early years, camera bodies resided in "never-ready" leather cases, and I hung them via straps from my neck. These days, I've ditched both the straps and the cases. It really bothers me to have a strap get in my way when I want to rotate from portrait to landscape with the camera. I can change lenses holding the body in my hand, and, if for some reason I had to change lenses while consuming an ice cream cone, I would look for some safe surface upon which I could set the camera to make the change (or to finish my ice cream!).

At first glance, I wondered to myself if the OP was actually serious in his/her post. Having read through the thread, I wish not to cast any negative light upon that post/poster. I am likely a dinosaur compared to most of the posters here, and have never lost equipment from having dropped it. But, many of us dinos have been blessed with children who, in turn, have blessed us with grandchildren. Life changes, and I am ever surprised at how procedures that are second nature to me are totally foreign to my offspring.

We once cleaned out the vinyl LP collection at a music conservatory that was switching to 100% digital (LPs were being sold for pennies). I was shocked to see how careless my daughter's fiancée was in handling those recordings (freely touching them with his fingers, flipping them like poker chips), but, then, I realized that the only physical media he had ever handled to date were CD's. He had no experience with LP vinyl where we only touch the outside edges to avoid contaminating the grooved surface.
So, as with most questions, none (including the OP's) are dumb unless they never get asked.

Happy shooting. Happy lens swapping.

Caruso

You probably missed the OP's follow-up post (third in the thread) where he clarifies that his bike has pedals. As I read the thread and took note of the casual attitude many posters held towards putting their camera on a rear rack or in a storage area on the bike, I realized that many were talking about carrying their camera on a motorcycle, not a bicycle. I, too, am one who pedals. I would never subject my camera to the sort of vibration it would receive in a rear strap-on storage bag.
On a motorcycle (at least, those that I have had the pleasure to ride), vibration is only slightly more than what one experiences in a car.
Caruso