Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Posts for: dhowland
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12 next>>
Nov 2, 2017 12:02:08   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
btbg wrote:
There are plenty of reasons to both overexpose and underexpose. The only way to do that in auto is with exposure compensation. You can do it, but there are times when manual works really well.


True - plus, what the camera calls "normal" is often in reality a terrible exposure because the camera's eye isn't connected to a human brain. It therefore averages in outliers that can spoil your chances for the ideal exposure.
Go to
Nov 1, 2017 16:22:48   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
rehess wrote:
“Normal exposure” means not too light, not too dark. Neither over-exposed nor under-exposed.


This perfectly describes why auto mode is so often inferior to manual mode -- because it operates with a very limited framework of what determines an ideal exposure. Thank you.
Go to
Nov 1, 2017 15:23:45   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
rehess wrote:
Then you don’t understand. If you make normal exposure decisions, then we are working with the same decisions. In my case, the camera is helping, allowing me to concentrate on composition in the final moments.

If you do not understand the robot analogy, then you simply do not understand automation.


Certainly, I don't understand this: "If you make normal exposure decisions, then we are working with the same decisions."

What are "normal exposure decisions" ?

These are the kind of assertions that I'm finding to be a bit foggy. To the extent that I don't follow your robot analogy, it's possible that I simply don't understand your robot analogy. I'm not sure that you yourself understand automation, but I'm more sure that you're having trouble explaining what it has to do with my point that using manual mode provides a level of control that one can't get in auto mode. I await another cloudy few sentences from you that have nothing to do with that.
Go to
Nov 1, 2017 14:26:51   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
Incorrect. You said that your camera's auto choices would be the same as those of a manual user, and I disputed that. I reman unconvinced by what you've asserted since, including the random bit about robots.
Go to
Nov 1, 2017 05:42:50   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
rehess wrote:
Apparently you don’t understand “auto”.
It does not mean “robot”, but even a “robot” would receive instructions/preferences.


You are correct: I don't understand "auto" the way you're using it.
Like you, I adjust settings in my camera -- in manual mode.
I have no idea what settings a robot does or does not require in order to complete a task, though I imagine that varies by robot. And task.
Go to
Oct 31, 2017 18:31:06   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
rehess wrote:
I set metering pattern
I set focusing pattern

I set mode to one of the “auto” modes, telling camera which value gets “priority”

Where is the “not auto” part???


You're setting an awful lot of stuff yourself for it to be auto
Go to
Oct 31, 2017 18:30:31   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
You're setting an awful lot of stuff yourself for it to be auto
Go to
Oct 31, 2017 17:50:57   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
rehess wrote:
No. The camera sets aperture or shutter speed I tell it to. The camera meters based on how I tell it to and picks rest of "exposure triangle" to exactly match conditions - giving me exactly the results I expect, even if conditions changed three times during the process. I developed my technique while using Kodachrome, which was much less "forgiving" that color negative was.


What you're describing is not "auto"
Go to
Oct 31, 2017 17:17:45   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
rehess wrote:
You had talked about getting “different results depending”. If you’re not acting randomly, then you would get essentially the same results using one of the automatic modes. There is nothing magical or mystic about manual mode.


Nothing magical or mystic about manual mode -- is why I like it. I control the settings. Auto means the camera averages without regard to results -- that's what's random. And often ineffective.
Go to
Oct 31, 2017 14:07:49   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
BebuLamar wrote:
The moral of the story is if you don't think manual is easy then don't use it. You can make the camera set exactly as you could set on manual using AE lock and Exposure compensation in any mode including P.


This seems a shame. I don't love the argument. If you don't think baking a pie is easy, then don't -- just buy one at the store. But wait. If you're interested in baking and love good pie, it may be worth the effort to try and even get good at it. There are really good pies at the store, some better than others, so nothing terrible is lost if you stick to the easy path. But keep in mind that what at first seems daunting may be quite doable, if you try (and practice), and it may even be a process that, along with producing superior results, you may actually find to be enjoyable in itself. And eventually it may become as easy as pie.
Go to
Oct 31, 2017 13:58:03   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
rehess wrote:
Not really. I don't think of the three components separately, nor would I set them randomly if using manual. I try to stay a lower ISO values. I set aperture if I need to control DoF or shutter speed if I'm dealing with motion. That is true whether I use manual or some automated mode.


I'm confused. When you say "not really" what are you referring to? Also why would anyone use manual mode randomly? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of manual mode?

I also don't know what you mean by "thinking of the components separately." Obviously, they're inextricably linked but the images will turn out differently depending on how you set their relationship to get the proper exposure. Right?!
Go to
Oct 31, 2017 13:42:23   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
rehess wrote:
Part of that may depend on how you define "manual". My first adjustable camera, a rangefinder type which I purchased 48 years ago, had a light meter reporting EV. I used a lens ring to set that EV value, and depending on whether I looked at shutter speed or aperture value, it was what we call Tv or Av mode thereafter.

Since I was shooting Kodachrome there was no such thing as PP - it was get it right SOOC or not at all.


I didn't realize that there were film cameras then with such capabilities. I started with a Pentax k1000 SE and was grateful for its split-screen focus. But anyway I do consider Av / Tv and Program manual modes too ... in that they provide the level of control I want compared to Auto.
Go to
Oct 31, 2017 13:36:02   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
Rab-Eye wrote:
I would say the answer to the question is yes if all you do in manual is expose for the entire scene and put the needle of the meter right in the middle.


I'm not sure I get it. You could "put the needle of the meter right in the middle" but still get different results, depending on where you set your aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. The exposure may be the same, but there will be a different effect. That's the whole point of manual mode!
Go to
Oct 31, 2017 13:31:20   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
jaycoffman wrote:
Like most issues in photography--it depends. What are you shooting and how do you shoot? What do you want your pictures to look like?

I like to shoot in manual mode when I can because I like to choose depth of field and/or how to handle motion as well as exposure. However, much of my shooting is done in crowds where I'm moving all the time or from vehicles or from the back of my motorcycle beside the road. Also, many of my subjects are fortuitous and may be moving or just appear suddenly and for a limited time. In those cases I tend to blow more shots shooting in manual and I've been working more with auto ISO and one of the automatic modes.

So, consider what advantage you may have with ab auto mode vs a more manual mode and then decide how you want to shoot. It's better to have a clear pictured from an auto mode than a botched picture from a manual mode but a good manual mode will give you far superior pictures if you have time to set it up.
Like most issues in photography--it depends. What ... (show quote)


This
Go to
Oct 31, 2017 13:29:10   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Question to those who've done this for years
dumbo wrote:
Seems to me, a photographer who works hard to insure great photos, that the fuss over RAW is all about post-processing. I hope i’m wrong. I learned how to use Photoshop in an ad agency but I never use it. Seems to me that those who truly like RAW and post-process tend to exaggerate colors. To my eyes, the great photos become a bit unnatural. Fuji was preferred to Kodak throughout the Eastern world. Fuji film was dominant. No exaggerated color. The world’s greatest photographers made Museum-worthy photographs without post-processing. I expect a deluge of responses telling me I’m all wrong. Please explain. Thank you.
Seems to me, a photographer who works hard to insu... (show quote)


Not saying you're wrong, but I'm surprised to hear you say this -- I always thought of Fuji as having unnaturally vibrant film positives.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.