Shooting Manual or Auto-unhijacking the other thread

[anubis404]

Scott Kelby says he regularly shoots on Auto when he's in cities so that he can quickly capture a scene. Not a photographer?

Scott Kelby may shoot auto on occasion, but he is not an auto shooter.

 

[Overread]

oh dear I have a feeling the thread is falling apart - debating what makes a "photographer" a photographer is a whole different debate and its inclusion here will simply sidetrack this thread from its original topic.

besides the examples both stated - and artist sketching a scene and having another paint it - are you saying that a sketch is not a work of art? Or that the art of painting is far superior to the art of sketching?
Again with the second example there is a whole - you say that a musician cannot be one unless they both play and write their music - so any person who simply plays music written by others is what? Are you saying that the abilty to play music is not worthy of recegnition?

I understand what you both intend by the analogies but they are both badly flawed and thus invalid.

 

[mosu84]

Scott Kelby may shoot auto on occasion, but he is not an auto shooter.

Give the best photojournalist in the world a disposable camera and they will still produce better shots than you or I ever will. There's so much more to photography than choosing the right aperture and shutter speed.

 

[jordan!]

oh dear I have a feeling the thread is falling apart - debating what makes a "photographer" a photographer is a whole different debate and its inclusion here will simply sidetrack this thread from its original topic.

besides the examples both stated - and artist sketching a scene and having another paint it - are you saying that a sketch is not a work of art? Or that the art of painting is far superior to the art of sketching?
Again with the second example there is a whole - you say that a musician cannot be one unless they both play and write their music - so any person who simply plays music written by others is what? Are you saying that the abilty to play music is not worthy of recegnition?

I understand what you both intend by the analogies but they are both badly flawed and thus invalid.

I don't think that his example had anything to do with sketching being inferior to painting. The point I think people are trying to get at is that seeing a scene worth photographing and having the knowledge and skill to photograph it are two different things. Or being able to play a song but not knowing how to write a good one yourself.

The process by which something is created can sometimes be as important as the final product.

Maybe we can all meet in the middle and shoot in aperture priority.

 

[In2daBlue]

Give the best photojournalist in the world a disposable camera and they will still produce better shots than you or I ever will. There's so much more to photography than choosing the right aperture and shutter speed.

As a working photojournalist, I can tell you this is kinda true. Disposable cameras don't take very good images though.

Bottom line is this: Professionally speaking, my editors don't care what my camera settings are at -- they care about the quality of the image. There is nothing wrong with Auto mode shooting if it gets you a good image, because a good image is the end goal, right?

Now, professionally speaking, I can assure you that if you don't know how to work in M mode you will run into situations where you don't come back with the best image possible. The Auto modes on the cameras are good and getting better but there is no substitute for the human eye. And, sometimes, especially in low or crazy artificial light, the Auto modes in the best cameras can't cut it.

Anyone who claims Auto mode can do everything in every situation has not shot in every situation. It's an ignorant statement. Period. But, anyone who says M mode will always get you a better image is also just as ignorant and probably a little pompous as well.

People on both sides of this argument need to get over themselves. That's my two cents.

 

[Joves]

You may get a good shot out of auto mode, but calling an auto shooter a "photographer" is a stretch. A guy that shoots auto is like a painter who sketches something and has someone else paint it for him.

Or uses paint by numbers.
I have no problem with Auto shooters. BUT what I find most annoying is the people who claim the camera sucks because it didnt catch the shot right. Well no kidding there is only so many variables the makers can stuff in there. The other thing is when you make a suggestion on settings and, they wont listen or dont care enough to learn about their hobby more.
I shoot in manual and Aperture alot of the time myself. But then I started in film so I learned to control my cameras. It is a habit I cant and dont ever want to break. If all I was doing was pointing the camera at something and, not being involved in how it was shot, Id have been bored with it long ago and, given it up.
Now granted the majority of the camera buying market is people who shoot their vacations, kids and, other snap shot events. Which is fine by me it makes the equipment I buy more affordable because of volume sales. So hey let them shoot Auto.

 

[mrodgers]

No, I drew it on a canvas and colored it with pigments from the Orient. I took some art classes in college, and I would hate to waste that talent. Only a lazy boob would take this picture with a camera when they have a perfectly good canvas, pencils and yak hair brushes lying nearby..

I think you are lying. The EXIF tells differently.....

 

[Micah]

I currently shoot almost exclusively in apperature mode. When I know what I want I shoot in Manual. Once I figure out apperature mode, I will switch to shutter mode. Its all a learning experience that is leading me to manual. I havent shot in auto since I found this forum and started learning a bit.

 

[Joves]

I currently shoot almost exclusively in apperature mode. When I know what I want I shoot in Manual. Once I figure out apperature mode, I will switch to shutter mode. Its all a learning experience that is leading me to manual. I havent shot in auto since I found this forum and started learning a bit.

What are you shooting with? Because some cameras are easier than others in Manual. And it is good you are going to the darkside.

 

[stsinner]

Although I shoot a lot of manual, my problem with it is this: When I shoot manual, being new to it, I'm usually just taking an educated guess as to what the settings should be, so I then have to look at the screen and see if the exposure and WB and ISO etc. were all correct and adjust and re-shoot if necessary.. It is a learning experience. With Auto I can shoot with my sun shade closed and never worry because I know that every single picture I took that day was exposed correctly. Of course I had no control over DOF, stopping motion, etc, but I know that if the flash needed to fire it did, the settings were damn close to where they needed to be and I will recognize the picture when I look at it.

Manual is getting easier all the time, but Auto is my failsafe.

 

[mrodgers]

Stsinner, think of it this way, auto mode will expose to this: |..|..0..|..| and center the exposure at 0 on your meter display. In manual, all you do is expose the same, center to 0. They will be the same. It isn't a guessing game, you have a meter display right in your viewfinder (I think with most cameras). Disregarding DOF and motion, just getting a generally "correct" exposure as far as comparing auto to manual is a piece of cake.

Auto doesn't fire the flash because it needs to fire. It fires the flash because it thinks it needs to fire.

 

[LarryD]

I've had a camera in my hands for well over 40 years.. Back "in the day" you had to know how the camera worked and what to expect from it's settings... but you were also foolish if you didn't have a meter too... Otherwise, even with the formulas, you were just guessing; and along with that guess, you shot on both sides of your chosen exposure to ensure you got a good shot..

The advent of TTL metering was a godsend because it really reduced the "stuff" you had to carry around and the out-of-hand camera fiddling time..

Today, I'm comfortable shooting in P mode: if I have the time, it's usually what I look at first (like my old meter)........ I can see instantly what the exposure and shutter is, and if I don't have a good reason to change it, I don't....
...But I know I can shoot in any mode the camera comes with, and I have a pretty good idea of what to set for the effect I want to achieve....Still, I have trouble figuring out what shots to delete at the end of the day.....yes, even those shot in P...

I hardly ever go to Manual..... If I want to control DOF, I'm in Av, if I want to shoot some action, I'm in Tv......Manual is just there if I want to override everything, not to take the place of everything....and unlike some of the comments here... I am always in control of what the camera is doing.... no matter what mode it's set in.

The first thing I think when I read "I ONLY shoot in Manual", or "I shot this in Manual, of course"...... this guy is new to photography and may not really understand the technical marvel he is holding in his hands..

In the end, though, I really don't care what mode you shoot your camera in..... I'm not changen'.

 

[swatspyder]

.........

Auto doesn't fire the flash because it needs to fire. It fires the flash because it thinks it needs to fire.

QFT

Full auto has become old news to me. I just hate using it when I know I can have a little bit of control in AV, TV and M.

 

[Chris of Arabia]

Bottom line is this: Professionally speaking, my editors don't care what my camera settings are at -- they care about the quality of the image. There is nothing wrong with Auto mode shooting if it gets you a good image, because a good image is the end goal, right?

Now, professionally speaking, I can assure you that if you don't know how to work in M mode you will run into situations where you don't come back with the best image possible. The Auto modes on the cameras are good and getting better but there is no substitute for the human eye. And, sometimes, especially in low or crazy artificial light, the Auto modes in the best cameras can't cut it.

Anyone who claims Auto mode can do everything in every situation has not shot in every situation. It's an ignorant statement. Period. But, anyone who says M mode will always get you a better image is also just as ignorant and probably a little pompous as well.

People on both sides of this argument need to get over themselves. That's my two cents.

Makes sense to me - especially that last line

I use P, Av, Tv & M as I think I need them. So long as you understand what you're going to get out of the P setting and you're happy that will get you what you want, then use it. If it doesn't then pick one of the others and adjust to taste.

 

[stsinner]

Stsinner, think of it this way, auto mode will expose to this: |..|..0..|..| and center the exposure at 0 on your meter display. In manual, all you do is expose the same, center to 0. They will be the same. It isn't a guessing game, you have a meter display right in your viewfinder (I think with most cameras). Disregarding DOF and motion, just getting a generally "correct" exposure as far as comparing auto to manual is a piece of cake.

Auto doesn't fire the flash because it needs to fire. It fires the flash because it thinks it needs to fire.

I'm enjoying this-I'm glad everyone is treating it as a conversation and not a one-sided argument.

However, you've just exposed what's been my argument all along-you learn how the camera works, then you try to achieve just what Auto would capture by making all the adjustments yourself, instead of letting the camera do it for you just because you know what settings it would choose. For me, I am enjoying the learning, but it seems like saying, "Why wouldn't you use a rotary phone and develop your film in a darkroom? Why would you use a touch-tone phone and print digital prints on your Selphy printer when you can make things much harder on yourself! Why take advantage of new technology? There are much more difficult ways you could enjoy this hobby." That's the way the argument sounds for me. I wholeheartedly disagree with what JerryPH said about shooting in Auto means that you didn't take the picture. Composure and just recognizing something that would make a good picture are just as important parts as setting up the camera.


Basically, now, I shoot in Manual or A-priority with my dSLR, but with my P&S, even though it has every mode my dSLR has, the only two modes I use on it are movie mode and auto for when I just want to grab a quick shot of the kids or something. How's that for a trade off?