Manual Mode Vs Aperture priority mode Please Help!!!

You know what I get tired of a$$wholes who think that they are superior to everyone else. Why can't people just respect the talents of others? Why do people feel they have to put people down all the time to prove a point that really is irrelevant? The truth is there really are no rules in photography just easier or better ways to do things and get the same outcome. If you operate one way and someone does operates another what does it matter how you both achieved a nice shot? Why must we put folks down because they bracket +2-2, or meter or not. Photographers take shots and people pay them or buy them, I would think that pros don't by pros photos. So if the consumer likes it and buys it why hate on it and say arrogant childlike things about the person. That dude stuck in customs is blind in one eye and this shots are amazing. Think about how he sees life with one eye and can take such great composed shots. Unless you are using film and doing your own processing in a real dark room than those old timers could say the same for us and all our new state of the art software and cameras we use to get similar shots as they did years ago.
 
The truth is there really are no rules in photography

There are rules. The whole technical side of photography is governed by physics which have set parameters and rules that you can't get around at all. The compositional side also has a massive range of theories and concepts behind it, even though most only get as far as "the rule of thirds" there is a lot more out there.

Furthermore it still stands that the best way to learn, and the way that many many do, is to first learn the "rules". You've got to learn your exposure rules, your whole technical side in order to have control over the tools in photography (that includes both taking photos and processing photos be it in a darkroom or computer). From there you've composition, a little more freeform, but still has a massive history of artistic theories and concepts. Learning them, learning why they work is key to then being able to understand them and thus be able to "break" those theories later (remembering that many broken theories are simply following the guidelines of a different theory).


In the end we will operate differently, based on how we like to shoot, how we like to operate and on the result we like to produce. However to best get there you've got to learn your basics. As a result you'll find many do not advise beginners to take their early learnings from resources that are not teaching the subject, but rather teaching an approach into the subject. It's better to learn your building blocks - Then - you can learn of different approaches into the subject.
 
Just to be clear about one thing though and I only know Canon's do this For sure( Nikon DSLR's probably do too). AEB also function in Manual mode. Which can be very helpful when your framing may not be where you need to meter. A lot of P & S's do not offer this function in Manual mode only in Aperture priority

My d700 with AEB will work in manual as well as up to 9 exposures in any fashion i wish.
 
Professional do buy photos, I think it is important for photographers to collect photographs.
 
The truth is there really are no rules in photography

There are rules. The whole technical side of photography is governed by physics which have set parameters and rules that you can't get around at all. The compositional side also has a massive range of theories and concepts behind it, even though most only get as far as "the rule of thirds" there is a lot more out there.

Furthermore it still stands that the best way to learn, and the way that many many do, is to first learn the "rules". You've got to learn your exposure rules, your whole technical side in order to have control over the tools in photography (that includes both taking photos and processing photos be it in a darkroom or computer). From there you've composition, a little more freeform, but still has a massive history of artistic theories and concepts. Learning them, learning why they work is key to then being able to understand them and thus be able to "break" those theories later (remembering that many broken theories are simply following the guidelines of a different theory).


In the end we will operate differently, based on how we like to shoot, how we like to operate and on the result we like to produce. However to best get there you've got to learn your basics. As a result you'll find many do not advise beginners to take their early learnings from resources that are not teaching the subject, but rather teaching an approach into the subject. It's better to learn your building blocks - Then - you can learn of different approaches into the subject.

Ok yes, there are rules that one should learn. Everything is has a degree of set rules but if you only follow those rules you will never think outside the box and capture something that one could have if broken the rules. I live by the laws that man has created for me and a religion that man has wrote. Does not mean I agree with everything that these rules say. Many on this forum talk and preach rules of thirds but then post pictures of gravel or pavement or weeds. Were is the rules of thirds in that? I do understand rules of thirds however I like center balanced images more for the most part and occasionally will follow the rules of thirds. I am far from being an accomplished photographer I know this and my style and technique will probably cripple me of that and I am ok with that. I agree that beginners should understand how to use their cameras and "rules" of photography but for the sake of understanding a not to become another robot out there. What makes someone unique is being able to set oneself away from the rest. Sadly on this forum, more folks only follow "THE" rules and do not wish to give an open eye to anything but and will bash someone for trying something new and different and feel superior for it. I just can not comprehend.
 
The problem is many don't read into compositional theory further than "the rule of thirds" which starts to give the impression that its the only rule there is when composing a photo. The truth is that there are many well established theories of composition and that many which "break the rule of thirds" are simply following another of these theories (if they realise it or not).

Yes if you experiment you can get unique results, but if you study your experiments will be far less random and you'll have a far greater chance of actually getting something as a result that is really very good indeed.
 
Ok. Lets get down to earth a little.

My images are very unorthodox, and I find that people don't appreciate them much. So, don't tell me that I am some kind of traditionalist.

Second. I don't know why you think I am better than anyone else. You kind of interjected that in on your own. It seems every time someone starts talking about the art of photography and the content of images, you'll get all these people who don't much care to think about that element going off and calling the critic a snob or an elitist. I personally don;t understand why anyone would make an image without have any clue as to why, but don't judge for how I value photography.

Third: Great photographers - no matter if they are a published commercial photographer, a fine art photographer with multi-million dollar gallery shows or someone who photographs highschool seniors - love photography and it's possibilities as an artistic medium. They have vision, technical knowledge and the rare ability to apply one to the other. Great photographers are interested in one thing: great photography. Not the admiration of fans, not the sale of prints. Those things are the result of excellence.

Now. For the issue at hand here.

In the tutorial which was mentioned by this thread, the photographer exposes at ±2ev from some arbitrary "correct exposure". ±2 stops really has nothing much to do with the dynamic range of the image itself. How do you know that the entire dynamic range will be there, and be there with enough quality to make a suitable image? This is really akin to using your DSLR like a point and shoot camera with no controls. You know that in many cases this situation will work out, but this approach really has nothing to do with the scene at all when we're talking about HDR.

So what this really boils down to is this. You have two techniques:

1) Requires more skill but will result in better quality with more reliable, predictable results
2) Requires less skill but may result in more noise and is less reliable and less predictable

The ±2ev technique is great for getting your feet wet. However, I think to really appreciate HDR photography, people should really start thinking about it in a more customized way, taking into account the scene itself rather than a generic, one-size fits all approximation.
 
Last edited:
Ok. Lets get down to earth a little.



Second. I don't know why you think I am better than anyone else. You kind of interjected that in on your own. It seems every time someone starts talking about the art of photography and the content of images, you'll get all these people who don't much care to think about that element going off and calling the critic a snob or an elitist. I personally don;t understand why anyone would make an image without have any clue as to why, but don't judge for how I value photography.

I don't think they are better you do and when you dismiss someones photos or call them a duche it clearly gives off the perception that you are better than. The reason I feel as I do is that the way you and some others phrase things in such a manner that its hard not to get that perception.

Third: Great photographers - no matter if they are a published commercial photographer, a fine art photographer with multi-million dollar gallery shows or someone who photographs highschool seniors - love photography and it's possibilities as an artistic medium. They have vision, technical knowledge and the rare ability to apply one to the other. Great photographers are interested in one thing: great photography. Not the admiration of fans, not the sale of prints. Those things are the result of excellence.

So why call Trey a Duche? He is not all about fame. He actually trys to help people.

Now. For the issue at hand here.

In the tutorial which was mentioned by this thread, the photographer exposes at ±2ev from some arbitrary "correct exposure". ±2 stops really has nothing much to do with the dynamic range of the image itself. How do you know that the entire dynamic range will be there, and be there with enough quality to make a suitable image? This is really akin to using your DSLR like a point and shoot camera with no controls. You know that in many cases this situation will work out, but this approach really has nothing to do with the scene at all when we're talking about HDR.

So what this really boils down to is this. You have two techniques:

1) Requires more skill but will result in better quality with more reliable, predictable results
2) Requires less skill but may result in more noise and is less reliable and less predictable

The ±2ev technique is great for getting your feet wet. However, I think to really appreciate HDR photography, people should really start thinking about it in a more customized way, taking into account the scene itself rather than a generic, one-size fits all approximation.

Regardless of skill and education this dude has some of the best HDR images out there. His composition is superb. Noise is part of the HDR process and thats why noise reduction software comes in handy. I am sure he does not use it all the time just when needed. He is self taught and clearly states he gets a lot of heat over people that do not believe in his method. I guess people hate on him because he gets mad props when they don't because they fill they need know more about metering and lighting and exposure triangles. Regardless of all that, I don't think it would make his photos any worse or better than what he is doing now.
 
well. i don't like Ratcliff and there is no sense reiterating why. Though this has absolutely nothing to do with image quality or noise. I'll admit, I kind of hodge-podged two issues together: my dislike of his content and his poor technique which he encourages others to follow.

--

If noise is inherent to tone mapping, then why would you want to pile on more noise through through limited latitude? This just doesn't make any sense to me. Why not just do do things the right way?

And yes. There is a right way when we're talking about the technical aspect of things. From my admitted limited experience with HDR, excessive noise comes from two things - too great of a difference in exposure between steps, and too little latitude in the set. Essentially any situation where the tone mapping must push tonal regions in excess.
 
Last edited:
I prefer to use manual for HDR multi-exposure shots, so that I have one less thing to worry about - than having to think about potentially different exposures than I intended (and wanted) for a nice, even spread of exposures across the full dynamic range that I need to capture.

I generally don't use Manual for "normal" photography....where I use Aperture for things that stand still and Shutter priority for things that move. I also occasionally use Program mode, but will often then do a shift anyway....
 
I prefer Aperture Priority for every shot because I could maximise ISO and shutter speed performance. But when using auto ISO, I prefer to go on manual mode.
 
Ttrying to help get this back on topic, I prefer to use AP over manual for my HDR scenics. Why, because it's just easier for me to control DOF. I'm using a tripod (which I do for more then 95% of my photographs), so shutter speed isn't very important to me. I've already pre-selected the lowest ISO setting I can use. If the scene requires an exposure adjustment, then I make it with EC. There have been a few times when I taken a 2nd set of bracketed pictures after making another EC adjustment, then using most if not all of them in my HDR processing.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top