Shooting in P mode

[The_Traveler]

As I think more about the ways to get comfortable first with one's ability to see images and second with the technical ability to achieve them, I begin to think that this overwhelming disdain for shooting in 'P' actually hurts the development of good photographers more than it helps. By 'good' I mean people who are creative and even, perish the thought, artistic.

When we encourage children to dance and jump around to be expressive, we as parents and teachers, don't tell them it would be much better if they used the traditional balletic movements and positions because we know intuitively that huge obstacle would stifle not only their creativity but take away much of the spontaneous joy that is achieved from that expression.

The prime 'purpose' of (my kind of) photography is the visualization and the rendition of something meaningful, sometimes even beautiful. The ability to do that depends primarily on the ability to see that meaningfulness and then secondarily to learn to capture it. I don't need to be a great technician, I need only to be good enough to do what I want.

The emphasis that we read so often here is on the mechanical. This is what to do, this is the best way to do it and if it isn't what you like, run get a flash.
That's mechanics, that's not photography. And so we get an enormous volume of stuff, pictures that look essentially the same, and boring. Everyone cares about the f stop, the lens, the lighting - and they see that as the key. And so they turn from making images to running a camera and accessories.

Read any forum here and the questions and concerns, even those involving actual images, are primarily about equipment and technique and f stops and lighting. This all to photographers who haven't even begun to be able to see even the technical inadequacies in their own images and correct them let alone the artistic ones.

So, if anyone asks me what to do, and they are serious about learning to create then maybe I will tell them just to shoot on P for a while and then we'll talk about their images. When they want to learn to control what their camera does in order to make the image better then its time to talk about the other issues.

Let's not make everyone learn to build and fix a car before they can go for a ride in the country.

 

[ryanforster]

No shame in shooting on full auto even. Gets it right most of the time. just got to pick your battles with it. There are definite times when you need to know the technicalities of how a camera works, but i agree, a good photograph comes from an artist not a technician.

 

[cgipson1]

My only objection to P mode or Auto mode... is when Quasi "PROS" use it because they don't know how to shoot in any other mode. Even then it is not P or AUTO mode that is the problem..... it is the so called "PRO"!

Also I think that extensive use of P or AUTO modes tends to make a photographer disregard their meter.... a bad habit to get into.

 

[Overread]

I think you're kind of presenting a good argument for learning to shoot in Auto mode rather than P mode; or someone who shoots in P mode like its auto mode.

The thing is P mode lets you change settings, its whole concept is more like and advanced auto mode with a user control element. The thing is in order to be able to use P mode to its best effect you've got to be able to have some understanding of what those different numbers which are changing actually mean. Otherwise they'd be safer just fun shooting in auto mode because otherwise they are just going to get confused as to how the changing numbers are affecting their photos.


As for people on the forum being encouraged into learning the basics, I think that is the right direction to take. Whilst there is a good argument for letting people grow on their own and settle into camera shooting I think that its something that doesn't really work well with distance learning. With distance learning anyone who comes to the site with the intent of learning is going to already be at the stage where, in their mind, they want to be out of auto or P mode. They want to be a "photographer" or at least understand a little more about it. Pointing them in the direction of resources to give them the very fundamentals of control is the right method for the beginner. You can have all the artistic eye and talent in the world; but if you can't use the tools of your craft it won't do you any good.

Yes this does mean discussions for beginners focus upon the technical aspects of photography more than the artistic; that's because its where a beginner needs to start their focus early on. Once they've grasped those fundamental basics of camera control then they are in a position where they can start to commit those methods to long term memory and (through time) they'll be come the instinctive part of shooting. Letting them then focus more readily upon the compositional elements without having to worry about the random nature of leaving the camera in charge of the settings for the shot.

Now I can say that there is a distinct lack of discussion on advanced and even quite basic compositional elements on the site as well as artistic instruction and foundation. Sadly its a bit of a black area when it comes to many because a lot of people don't have any artistic training and many also give it a very romantic aspect in the "there are no rules/theories/fundamentals its all just random fuzzy thoughts that just happen" kind of approach. Indeed some people can get quite aggressive if its suggested that there is a technical and structured side to learning the craft of art itself.

The other aspect is that many people often don't quite come back to learn the art side; they get good at the technical and don't often push themselves as strongly to really learn the artistic side beyond picking up on the good old "rule of thirds" aspect as well as maybe one or two others like a basic idea of leading lines or repeating patterns.



So yes I'm one of those who says lets learn those basic technical aspects - it is the path I took and I do think its the right path to make. Not just because its the path I took, but because; when starting to learn photography, that is where you need to start. Its like drawing - if you want to learn to draw you've got to put the time into not mastering art first, but mastering the pencil - drawing repeat examples, copying, learning how to hold the pencil etc..... all those dull "not creative" technical aspects that are often as dull as watching paint dry. But once you've learnt them - once you've got those basics then you can build up from them.
Of course life is not just a single pathway and I'd always encourage people to dip into learning some art elements early on as well - just don't let it be the focus first. One primary focus at a time until its more instinctive then shift the primary focus.

 

[unpopular]

I firmly believe that great photographers don't see this dichotomy between the artistic and the technical. There simply isn't anything that a newbie cannot understand about exposure control, and great photographers have, until very recently, learned photography using manual exposure. In fact, even when I was learning photography, only 15 years ago, teachers would routinely instruct students to not use AE. This "training wheels" approach to photography is new, and only makes exposure control seem more complicated than it is.

In fact, typically and in any given meter mode simply lining up null is doing the exact same thing as AE is. AE adds a level of intelligence to the camera which just isn't really there. Program mode does nothing really, except make the very simple principles of exposure ratio seem more complicated - and in fact, exposure ratio is hardly even the difficult part of exposure control.

AE does not prevent the need to learn exposure placement and exposure compensation. But it does create a detachment from the technical and the artistic, incorrectly misleads people's understanding of exposure as something technically specific and scientific, and delays the understanding of what how exposure actually works and how it can be used to further artistic vision and solve technical problems.

AE is a useful tool, there is no doubt. But it shouldn't be used in leu of actually learning photography for instant gratification. You may not expect much technical ability from a five year old ballet dancer. But at the same time you don't see the instructor on the stage moving his or her arms and feet on their behalf, either.

 

[Mully]

To really learn shoot in manual.... you focus your camera. pick a shutter speed. and even the aperture. To understand the relationship of the latter two really helps you choose how you want your photo to look and take the time to actully create the image .... this is the core of being a photographer and not an arm with a technical device.

 

[EIngerson]

I thought the "P" stood for Pro mode. Oh well, back to the green box for me.

 

[KenC]

I think it really depends on whether the photographer is able to express their intentions shooting in P mode. If so, then great, they can explore the artistic side of photography, which of course overlaps the technical anyway, and in time they may learn more about exposure and be even better able to express themselves. However, if lack of knowledge of exposure basics, e.g., how DOF works or how to freeze motion, prevents expression of the photographer's message, then probably getting out of P early is better.

 

[cgipson1]

I thought the "P" stood for Pro mode. Oh well, back to the green box for me.

Only for a certain type of "PRO"! lol!

 

[The_Traveler]

Absolutely none of the technical elements means anything unless the image has some meaning or impact.
A perfect image technically may bring some satisfaction to the maker but it may be irrelevant to the viewer.

These beliefs (above) are about how to best train photographers really are aimed at training people to get images into a camera.

I think that there is more benefit to the art of photography in training people how to see images and then we can discuss how to get them into the camera.

 

[unpopular]

And to get an image that matters requires that the photographer THINK about his or her image, not just snap away in the knee-jerk fashion which AE offers new photographers.

Great photographers don't shoot fast, they think and evaluate quickly.

 

[cgipson1]

Absolutely none of the technical elements means anything unless the image has some meaning or impact.
A perfect image technically may bring some satisfaction to the maker but it may be irrelevant to the viewer.

These beliefs (above) are about how to best train photographers really are aimed at training people to get images into a camera.

I think that there is more benefit to the art of photography in training people how to see images and then we can discuss how to get them into the camera.

I agree..... but a well composed, very artsy photo is still crap if the exposure and focus is bad! It has to be a combination of both technical and art... and the technical is easier to learn (and teach) first.... and is much less confusing. Let the Art come as it will.. through exposure, classes, books, etc... when they are at least capable of using the tools in a competent manner.

I don't care how knowledgeable a photographer is about composition, the "rules", etc or has a Masters in ART.... if they can't use the tools well, they will not get good images. Maybe in P mode, they will get OK images.. but with GOOD tool usage, they will get EXCELLENT images!

 

[unpopular]

Am I the only one who really doesn't see a difference between the artistic and the technical? When you folks go out, is tehre really a switch in your head that you switch after you compose, going into "technical mode"? Am I the only one who sees this as a continuum of the same process?

I kind of doubt it.

 

[cgipson1]

Am I the only one who really doesn't see a difference between the artistic and the technical? When you folks go out, is tehre really a switch in your head that you switch after you compose, going into "technical mode"? Am I the only one who sees this as a continuum of the same process?

I kind of doubt it.

That is what I tried to state above! But for a total beginner... I do believe that technical should take precedence in the learning curve, at least initially!

 

[Rick58]

Back in the film days, before "AUTO" anything, you had to learn the basics first. You had to learn aperture, shutter speed and DOF, and the relationships to each other before you could even think about composition or being artsy.
Learning to throw the camera on "AUTO" from the beginning can very easily breed laziness.