Adjusting Exposure...Shutter Speed vs Aperture

[Derrel]

What I'm struggling to understand is when you would choose to use either shutter or aperture, and how you decide on adjust one over the other. To me, it has to do with adjusting the shutter for moving objects vs adjusting the aperture for depth of field....but it can't be that simple can it?

Well...there are times when the shutter speed makes a HUGE impact on the photo, such as when tripod-mounted, and slowing the shutter down to the slower speed range, beginning at say 1/8 second and slower, like 1/4, 1/3, 1,2,4,8,15, 30 seconds, and so on--to create deliberate motion blurring, or to do slow-speed panning shots of say racing, athletics, horse riders, other moving subjects.

For me, personally, about the ONLY times I use shutter priority automatic is when I am 1)panning in fluid situations and where I want a consistent, specific shutter duration to get the exact right effect and 2)when shooting helicopters or 3)when photographing rain 4)out salmon fishing on the open ocean, and I want 1/500 or 1/640 or 1/800 to keep the images sharp, to avoid both swell movement AND engine vibrations under troll. Not kidding...that's it, for me at least, as far as using Shutter-priority automatic exposure control. I would estimate my use of Shutter-priority automatic as about 0.005 of my shots per year. Heavy,Oregon rain looks good at speeds from about 1/60 to 1/160 much of the time: too fast, and the drops become little drops...sloooower speeds make rain into beautiful,longer streaks, which show up better.

Aperture is adjusted under most shooting conditions, and control over the aperture is paramount to success under many conditions. I shoot a lot in aperture priority automatic. I select the need f/stop based on the effect I want, and I tend to favor moderate apertures, a lot: f/4.5, f/4.8, f/5.6, f/6.3, f/7.1, and f/8 are the apertures I use the most. The thing is, with many focal lengths, a picture made at a shutter speed of 1/125 looks almost the same as one made three stops faster, at 1/1000 second. Buuuuuut, a photo made at f/2.8 looks very different from one made at f/8. Same three, full exposure setting values of difference, but the aperture makes a HUGE difference in the way the image "looks", compared against the "look" that the shutter speed brings to the photo.

With flash, I might very well shoot 250 out of 300 shots at f/7.1. At shutter speeds of 1/100, 1/125, or 1/160 quite often, or maybe 1/200 second. But ALL of my flash photos are made in full Manual exposure mode. All of them. I have tested Programmed flash, as well as S and A flash, but never have found them useful for anything.
.

 

[petrochemist]

There is only any point in using manual mode if you are using a separate light meter. If you are using the camera's meter to determine exposure in manual mode you are merely making an easy job unnecessarily complex - you will end up with the same exposure as you would if you used either aperture priority or shutter priority settings.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

Not true. There are other occasions where manual mode is better. Astrophotography generally being one - the light levels are too low for the light meter in most cameras. Long exposures are also frequently better in manual a test shot wide open/without the filter being used to meter the scene.

For everyday photography it's certainly easier to use Av/Sv along with EC.

 

[AKUK]

There is only any point in using manual mode if you are using a separate light meter. If you are using the camera's meter to determine exposure in manual mode you are merely making an easy job unnecessarily complex - you will end up with the same exposure as you would if you used either aperture priority or shutter priority settings.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

I routinely shoot in manual mode, even when not using my Sekonic. The reason being is that when framing/recomposing your subject in say Aperture Priority, the meter can get thrown off. If the background is significantly brighter you get silhouetted people and vice versus. By
Dialling in my exposure in manual, I don't have to worry about it changing due to my composition, unless the subject changes their distance to the light source, or the light source changes in intensity (setting sun or clouds movement).

I found shooting in manual mode particularly useful when photographing hummingbirds earlier this year. I was tripod mounted and would rotate between two preselected flowers which had clean backdrops behind them. If the hummingbird suddenly moved in the frame, whilst still in focus, it wasn't under the metering spot. If I was in A mode, the bird would be grossly over exposed and blurred too, due to the camera metering the dark background and not the bird which was under full sunlight.

For quickness, I tend to take a spot metered shot in aperture priority, and look at the exposure on the LCD to give an approximate representation. If all is good, I merely copy the EXIf data into manual mode. If any of the variables change slightly I'll check the spot meter on the subject and if I need to adjust exposure I use the little bars in M mode to zero in again.

If I'm moving locations frequently or my subject is, then I shoot in aperture priority, usually raising my ISO a couple of stops to ensure I maintain blur free shots.

It all depends on your shooting style and what you're shooting, as well as the environment.

 

[john.margetts]

The exceptions prove the rule. I was responding to beginners who are still learning the basics of how their cameras work. When they move onto astronomy and fast moving birds will be time enough to try manual mode.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

 

[soufiej]

The OP has a Nikon D5000. Like almost all DSLR cameras the D5000 doesn't have a histogram available to view before snapping the shutter. What you're suggesting isn't possible on the OP's camera. That's only a review feature that you can get when chimping the photo. On some DSLRs it can be available when the camera is switched into live view but that shuts off the OVF.

Joe

how to read a histogram - Google Search


Personally, I see little to no real world value to a student photographer using full manual mode. That's sort of like, never having driven on the autobahn, you decide it might be a good idea to take your VW Golf up to 270 kilometers per hour just because you can.


Why?!




IMO you really need to get a handle on Av and Tv modes first.

Then grapple with metering.

Finally, know what you can do with your chosen software, either that included in your camera or the post production type you will use to print your images.

Understand dynamic range, how it is limited in digital cameras and how your software can recapture lost DR through digital manipulation.

Learn "exposure" is fungible.

Learn and use the histogram info included with your DSLR. The histogram is important, "exposure" is not.

Thanks Tim, very informative. I have started out mostly using the manual mode, only because the first serious photographer I have met after purchasing a DSLR, uses manual pretty much all of the time. We are usually shooting landscapes, some water, and a lot of sunrise/sunset photos. My question is, is there a problem with mostly learning on manual mode as a beginner?

" ... is there a problem with mostly learning on manual mode as a beginner?"

Sure there is, you don't understand it. You don't understand how metering works using the system built into your camera. You don't understand "exposure".

Why make life harder on yourself than necessary? At this stage in your learning curve, there really is no advantage to using full manual mode. There is a downside however.



First, there is no "correct" exposure for any image. There is only the exposure value which does not blow out highlights or darken shadows so completely they cannot be used for detail retrieval during post production.

IMO, you're looking at the wrong feature of your camera. You don't need to be using manual mode and you certainly don't need to copy another photographer's work mode. If their system works for them, that's their business.

Learn instead to work with the histogram, not the exposure system. True, they are linked with each other but, looking at only one ignores the other. And, IMO, the histogram is the far more important feature of any modern DSLR.



If you are using a digital camera of any sort, you will need some form of software to process the photos for printing and, possibly, for posting to another computer. Most modern software can easily compensate for global exposure values and the better programs can even do spot adjustments to any specific region of your image.

So, a big "nyah-nyah" to those who are complaining about the exposure of your images. Even shooting Jpegs, you can adjust exposure values with the least powerful software. Yes, of course you should learn what a "proper exposure" looks like. The problem is, there is a very wide latitude in what is correct exposure. Until you lose either highlights or shadows, exposure is what you care for it to be. Even more so if you only shoot Jpeg's.

The issues become whether you are losing detail, they are not overall exposure values. You can only judge this value by observing the histogram of the image before you snap the shutter release.

how to read a histogram - Google Search


Personally, I see little to no real world value to a student photographer using full manual mode. That's sort of like, never having driven on the autobahn, you decide it might be a good idea to take your VW Golf up to 270 kilometers per hour just because you can.


Why?!




IMO you really need to get a handle on Av and Tv modes first.

Then grapple with metering.

Finally, know what you can do with your chosen software, either that included in your camera or the post production type you will use to print your images.

Understand dynamic range, how it is limited in digital cameras and how your software can recapture lost DR through digital manipulation.

Learn "exposure" is fungible.

Learn and use the histogram info included with your DSLR. The histogram is important, "exposure" is not.

Thanks Tim, very informative. I have started out mostly using the manual mode, only because the first serious photographer I have met after purchasing a DSLR, uses manual pretty much all of the time. We are usually shooting landscapes, some water, and a lot of sunrise/sunset photos. My question is, is there a problem with mostly learning on manual mode as a beginner?

" ... is there a problem with mostly learning on manual mode as a beginner?"

Sure there is, you don't understand it. You don't understand how metering works using the system built into your camera. You don't understand "exposure".

Why make life harder on yourself than necessary? At this stage in your learning curve, there really is no advantage to using full manual mode. There is a downside however.



First, there is no "correct" exposure for any image. There is only the exposure value which does not blow out highlights or darken shadows so completely they cannot be used for detail retrieval during post production.

IMO, you're looking at the wrong feature of your camera. You don't need to be using manual mode and you certainly don't need to copy another photographer's work mode. If their system works for them, that's their business.

Learn instead to work with the histogram, not the exposure system. True, they are linked with each other but, looking at only one ignores the other. And, IMO, the histogram is the far more important feature of any modern DSLR.



If you are using a digital camera of any sort, you will need some form of software to process the photos for printing and, possibly, for posting to another computer. Most modern software can easily compensate for global exposure values and the better programs can even do spot adjustments to any specific region of your image.

So, a big "nyah-nyah" to those who are complaining about the exposure of your images. Even shooting Jpegs, you can adjust exposure values with the least powerful software. Yes, of course you should learn what a "proper exposure" looks like. The problem is, there is a very wide latitude in what is correct exposure. Until you lose either highlights or shadows, exposure is what you care for it to be. Even more so if you only shoot Jpeg's.

The issues become whether you are losing detail, they are not overall exposure values. You can only judge this value by observing the histogram of the image before you snap the shutter release.

The OP has a Nikon D5000. Like almost all DSLR cameras the D5000 doesn't have a histogram available to view before snapping the shutter. What you're suggesting isn't possible on the OP's camera. That's only a review feature that you can get when chimping the photo. On some DSLRs it can be available when the camera is switched into live view but that shuts off the OVF.

Joe

how to read a histogram - Google Search


Personally, I see little to no real world value to a student photographer using full manual mode. That's sort of like, never having driven on the autobahn, you decide it might be a good idea to take your VW Golf up to 270 kilometers per hour just because you can.


Why?!




IMO you really need to get a handle on Av and Tv modes first.

Then grapple with metering.

Finally, know what you can do with your chosen software, either that included in your camera or the post production type you will use to print your images.

Understand dynamic range, how it is limited in digital cameras and how your software can recapture lost DR through digital manipulation.

Learn "exposure" is fungible.

Learn and use the histogram info included with your DSLR. The histogram is important, "exposure" is not.

Then, I will amend my advice to say, review your image file with particular attention being paid to the histogram provided by your camera during this phase of the shoot.

I think we can all agree with the idea of reviewing your shot before moving on to the next.

IMO the histogram remains the #1 most useful tool offered by a DSLR as a student begins to grapple with exposure. I don't feel Tim and I are that far apart on the issue of learning "exposure". From what I've read of Tim's past entries, I feel we agree on the concept of exposure being a flexible value where there is no one right, universally correct setting. I would go further and say Tim and I both agree the point where exposure falls down is that point where highlights are being blown out or shadows are obscuring detail beyond the point of retrieval in post production. Neither highlights nor shadows are dealt with when reading the metering system's output alone.

Where I see Tim and I departing in our advice is whether the op should be learning "exposure" as a universal concept (Tim's way) or whether the op should be learning to set exposure values relative to their specific camera (my way).

I assume we both agree software plays a role in obtaining the desired exposure for the final product. So, still, a big "nyah, nyah" to anyone commenting on the op's exposure.



IMO two of the greatest benefits to a DSLR are; 1) the ability to instantly review your shot at which time you may decide to keep or delete the file, and 2) the histogram data.

Shooting snaps all day long? Forget reviewing and histograms. Treat your camera as if it were a $99 P&S if you like.

Bothering to take real "photos"?

Then you need to make use of the tools provided by your camera to learn both the craft of photography and how it may be accomplished using your specific camera. I say this because each camera is different (to some extent, based on age and sensor size, at least) to the point where one global expression of exposure may have worked well in the days of analog film but not so much today.

The benefit that comes with either a newer DSLR or a DSLR with a larger sensor? Dynamic range, for one.

If your camera is restricted in either age or sensor/processor, then what someone else (with another camera that isn't exactly the same as your camera) does in manual mode may be absolutely the worst thing you can try to copy.

Would you tell someone with a small sensor compact to use the same exposure settings as the shooter with the full frame camera? In most cases, I would say you would not.



I'm not at all trying to say do not learn about the exposure triangle or how to obtain proper exposure values. You'll have a much more difficult time staying on the horse if you don't first learn how to put on the saddle.

I would, though, go so far as to tell a student photographer they might try shooting in full auto mode for a short while. Or, if they are in a questionable scenario for exposure, see what the camera defaults to in fully automatic mode. A modern DSLR provides tools which the student should use, not ignore because shooting in full manual is what another photographer does.

One problem I see here though, would be the op doesn't appear to be aware of how metering modes change in the various operational modes of their camera. Therefore, using fully automatic may still mislead them due to the broad metering of full auto mode.

And, if you don't comprehend metering modes, then trying to learn photography, and specifically exposure, by using full manual will be self defeating, if not, at best, a lesson mostly in frustration. IMO it's like reading the end of the book and then going back to find out how the story began.

Learning and teaching are step based processes. As I've said in previous threads, you must set the foundation prior to building the highest floors. Jumping to full manual before you have a handle on metering or exposure is like building the seventh floor then trying to figure out what sort of foundation you need to build to support that structure.

Bad idea.



Yes, by all means, learn the proper rules of photography which include exposure and the why's and how's of using AV or Tv.

Know your own saddle.

Then move on to fully manual only after and when you comprehend what the camera will need.

But, primarily, learn your own camera along with its limitations. When you are dealing with your camera and its exposure values, the surest method I know to accomplish the best and most consistent results is to be constantly aware of the histogram. If you can't check it before you shoot, certainly, check it afterwards.

You're going to be reviewing the image anyway. Look at the histogram too. Then delete or keep your file. But know why you would do either.

 

[Re3iRtH]

Thats high level stuff. I am not there yet with the terminology 100%. TTL flash is the flash that came with the camera?

Just to add to all the above, another reason to choose shutter or aperture when controlling exposure is when mixing ambient and flash light sources. Generally a flash fires faster than the shutter (up to the sync speed) and so is unaffected by the shutter speed. The shutter controls the ambient light only. The aperture will control both ambient and flash power (as does ISO). If you use manual flashes/monolights, then this is particularly important to note. If using a TTL flash, then the camera takes care of the flash power.

 

[Re3iRtH]

Wow, thats two totally different schools of thought. I went out today and took my very first photos with a tripod. I was just using the manual mode without even thinking about it.

Can I post the pic here or do I need to make a new thread? In any case, my photo is coming soon! I would really appreciate a critique.

So.... I pretty much COMPLETELY disagree with soufiej.

If you want to take "snapshots" then just put the camera in automatic mode and click away.

But if you want to learn "photography" then you MUST learn "exposure". And there's really no better way to learn "exposure" then to read the fundamentals... and then go practice the fundamentals. The best way to do that is to learn to shoot in "manual" mode.

There's a possibility that last statement might be misunderstood... I very rarely shoot in "manual" mode. But I certainly know "how" to shoot in manual mode. I learned with a camera that not only did not have an automatic mode... it didn't even have a light meter. But if you don't understand the concept of the "exposure triangle" and light, then you won't understand "why" it's better to give priority to aperture or to shutter speed -- and that point you may as well just be shooting snapshots on full automatic mode.

I've certainly come across the "I only shoot in manual" snobbery -- and I'm absolute not suggesting that because 90% of the time my camera is aperture priority mode. But I understand when it's advantages to use aperture priority, when it's advantageous to use shutter priority. Yes, of course I also shoot in manual mode too -- when it's the appropriate mode.

But I still highly recommend that EVERYONE who wants to understand photography spend time learning about exposure and forcing yourself to learn to shoot in manual mode.

Don't be intimidated by the thought of it. Pick up a copy of Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" -- it's intended for beginners and he introduces all concepts in a way that beginner's would understand (he won't lose you by using lingo that only experienced photographers would know.)

 

[AKUK]

Thats high level stuff. I am not there yet with the terminology 100%. TTL flash is the flash that came with the camera?

Just to add to all the above, another reason to choose shutter or aperture when controlling exposure is when mixing ambient and flash light sources. Generally a flash fires faster than the shutter (up to the sync speed) and so is unaffected by the shutter speed. The shutter controls the ambient light only. The aperture will control both ambient and flash power (as does ISO). If you use manual flashes/monolights, then this is particularly important to note. If using a TTL flash, then the camera takes care of the flash power.

The pop-up flash will be TTL (Through The Lens). Some Speedlites are also TTL and can be controlled remotely with certain controllers/trigger systems.

 

[Shades of Blue]

Thanks for the replies so far. I shot a lot of photos yesterday around the house and outdoors in manual mode. I am getting the hang of it. I also messed with the white balance...HUGE difference. I think the white balance made the biggest impact in my photos. I think a lot of people's issues with my photos and the exposure so far haven't been that I am not getting the best exposure with the camera that I can, but rather the fact that I'm not using any external flash or lighting. What you see in my work so far has been natural sunlight, and I'm finding that may not be enough.

Basically, I took 5 shots of the same subject yesterday in manual mode. I got NOTICEABLE different results by adjusting the exposure using spot metering. I tried under exposing, over exposing, and also hitting it right in the middle. What I learned is that while the exposure certainly made a difference, the overall picture was still dark because I didn't have great lighting. I adjusted the ISO for indoors up to about 500-600 and that made a difference as well.

I'm going to look into lighting methods. I do have an external flash I use on my camera. It's the SB-400 from Nikon. I like the results of this flash when pointed up. I hate the flip up built in flash as most do.

 

[soufiej]

Wow, thats two totally different schools of thought. I went out today and took my very first photos with a tripod. I was just using the manual mode without even thinking about it.

Can I post the pic here or do I need to make a new thread? In any case, my photo is coming soon! I would really appreciate a critique.

So.... I pretty much COMPLETELY disagree with soufiej.

If you want to take "snapshots" then just put the camera in automatic mode and click away.

But if you want to learn "photography" then you MUST learn "exposure". And there's really no better way to learn "exposure" then to read the fundamentals... and then go practice the fundamentals. The best way to do that is to learn to shoot in "manual" mode.

There's a possibility that last statement might be misunderstood... I very rarely shoot in "manual" mode. But I certainly know "how" to shoot in manual mode. I learned with a camera that not only did not have an automatic mode... it didn't even have a light meter. But if you don't understand the concept of the "exposure triangle" and light, then you won't understand "why" it's better to give priority to aperture or to shutter speed -- and that point you may as well just be shooting snapshots on full automatic mode.

I've certainly come across the "I only shoot in manual" snobbery -- and I'm absolute not suggesting that because 90% of the time my camera is aperture priority mode. But I understand when it's advantages to use aperture priority, when it's advantageous to use shutter priority. Yes, of course I also shoot in manual mode too -- when it's the appropriate mode.

But I still highly recommend that EVERYONE who wants to understand photography spend time learning about exposure and forcing yourself to learn to shoot in manual mode.

Don't be intimidated by the thought of it. Pick up a copy of Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" -- it's intended for beginners and he introduces all concepts in a way that beginner's would understand (he won't lose you by using lingo that only experienced photographers would know.)

I don't feel anyone has given you two even slightly different schools of thought.

So far, we have only discussed the technical craft of photography. Within the technical portion of photography, everyone really does agree.

Everyone has said, in one way or another, learn how exposure works. First and foremost, learn how exposure works.

Strive not for the point where you are shooting without thinking about it. Strive for the point where you have an idea of how you want the image to appear and your technical foundation allows you to dial in those settings.

Learn how the three legs of the exposure triangle work to find their own balance point. That is one of the most basic and fundamental lessons within photography as a craft.

Essentially all technical, there's very little about exposure that is not a pure numbers game. Yes, you have latitudes in determining the exposure you prefer for any one shot and you can - and probably will - alter exposure in some ways in post processing. However, if you are stumped by the numbers involved in exposure and how they work together, then you will have problems resolving the most basic issues of photography using any operational mode on your camera.

Learn exposure. That's what everyone has been saying.

Your semi-automatic modes can assist you in these lessons. They are faster and equally as accurate in 99% of the situations you will encounter. IMO, they are the precursor to using manual mode, not the afterthought. They are where you will very likely spend most of your time as a photographer.


IMO the difference between the advice you have been given comes down to how you best learn exposure. Do you do so by starting off, before you understand any other function of the camera, shooting in manual mode only? Do you do so by following the lead of another photographer - with another camera - and another thought process they use to formulate the final product?

A few say use manual to "force" yourself to learn exposure. No offense to those people but that sounds a bit like pushing the kid in the deep end of the pool. Sink or swim.

Certainly, when cameras had no easy mulligans to fall back on with digital manipulations and back even when a photographer had to carry their own light meter, they had to learn how to calculate rules such as the "sunny 16 rule" and we carried swiveling cards with numeric readouts which we then learned to mix and match. For most photographers today, those are historic memories if they exist as memories at all.



Modern DSLR's have sufficient resolving power in their light metering systems to deal with all but the most difficult lighting situations. Anything beyond that is simply the photographer's choice of which metering mode best suits the image the photographer has developed in their head.

That image in your head is very important because that is your target. Just twiddling dials and settings to come up with different is not.


Just using manual mode without thinking about the final image is not, IMO, the end goal you should be aiming at.

Just realizing selecting a specific metering mode makes a significant difference in the end result you see ... where?

On your camera's LCD review screen?

The results you see on that 3" screen are for quick review only. The older the camera, the lower the resolving power of the LCD. The lower the color resolution. The lower the dynamic range that can be displayed.

So, yes, you can use the screen to make generic changes and you can notice the difference in metering a scene with evaluative, center weighted or spot metering. However, unless you feel you are never going to do more with your photography than display it on a 3" LCD review screen, you need to be looking at your photos on a monitor screen.

If you have not yet reached the point where you are viewing your images at close to real world sizes, then you are trying to learn to cook without fire.

And, if you are viewing your images without the assistance of processing software, you are only reading the Cliff Notes version of your photography.

A well set up monitor will quickly and easily indicate the differences between your camera and a friend's camera. It will easily show you where the ISO leg of the exposure triangle begins to fail with your specific camera. And, depending on the file format you have used to capture the image and the software you have available, it will indicate the finer points of "exposure".

With a digital camera, unless you are intending only to show your photos on, say, social media, your learning curve within photography does not stop at the camera. Once you've begun to get a handle on your camera and the rules of photography, you must also learn the ins and outs of bringing your image to a format than can be shown outside of your camera.

You are, at the moment, learning in what I would consider a rather slap-dash, scattershot method. Possibly, you have more of a plan that I can detect.

You are, IMO, learning to work with tools without having a complete set to pull form.

Your camera is the single most significant hardware you have to work with. Which is why I feel you should be learning what your camera can and cannot achieve within the rules of photography. Then you must take that knowledge beyond your camera and prepare an image for display. Complete the process. It will teach you about the entire plan within modern photography.

 

[TCampbell]

Wow, thats two totally different schools of thought. I went out today and took my very first photos with a tripod. I was just using the manual mode without even thinking about it.

Can I post the pic here or do I need to make a new thread? In any case, my photo is coming soon! I would really appreciate a critique.

So.... I pretty much COMPLETELY disagree with soufiej.

If you want to take "snapshots" then just put the camera in automatic mode and click away.

But if you want to learn "photography" then you MUST learn "exposure". And there's really no better way to learn "exposure" then to read the fundamentals... and then go practice the fundamentals. The best way to do that is to learn to shoot in "manual" mode.

There's a possibility that last statement might be misunderstood... I very rarely shoot in "manual" mode. But I certainly know "how" to shoot in manual mode. I learned with a camera that not only did not have an automatic mode... it didn't even have a light meter. But if you don't understand the concept of the "exposure triangle" and light, then you won't understand "why" it's better to give priority to aperture or to shutter speed -- and that point you may as well just be shooting snapshots on full automatic mode.

I've certainly come across the "I only shoot in manual" snobbery -- and I'm absolute not suggesting that because 90% of the time my camera is aperture priority mode. But I understand when it's advantages to use aperture priority, when it's advantageous to use shutter priority. Yes, of course I also shoot in manual mode too -- when it's the appropriate mode.

But I still highly recommend that EVERYONE who wants to understand photography spend time learning about exposure and forcing yourself to learn to shoot in manual mode.

Don't be intimidated by the thought of it. Pick up a copy of Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" -- it's intended for beginners and he introduces all concepts in a way that beginner's would understand (he won't lose you by using lingo that only experienced photographers would know.)

I don't feel anyone has given you two even slightly different schools of thought.

So far, we have only discussed the technical craft of photography. Within the technical portion of photography, everyone really does agree.

Everyone has said, in one way or another, learn how exposure works. First and foremost, learn how exposure works.

Strive not for the point where you are shooting without thinking about it. Strive for the point where you have an idea of how you want the image to appear and your technical foundation allows you to dial in those settings.

Learn how the three legs of the exposure triangle work to find their own balance point. That is one of the most basic and fundamental lessons within photography as a craft.

I certainly agree with this.

I've never been particularly comfortable with the term "exposure triangle" because the explanation goes on to suggest that there are three thins you can change to get the exposure adjusted to something that works... and doesn't mention that you can also change the shooting circumstances (use supplemental lighting, use light modifiers, move the subject to a better location, shoot at a different time of day, etc.) There are usually more than just three things you can change to control the exposure.

Essentially all technical, there's very little about exposure that is not a pure numbers game. Yes, you have latitudes in determining the exposure you prefer for any one shot and you can - and probably will - alter exposure in some ways in post processing. However, if you are stumped by the numbers involved in exposure and how they work together, then you will have problems resolving the most basic issues of photography using any operational mode on your camera.

Learn exposure. That's what everyone has been saying.

Light is a aspect of physics. It's properties, how it moves through a lens, how it's recorded, how the camera treats the information being recorded... all of that is math. So, in a sense, it is "numbers game".

But certainly there's an artistic element which we probably tend to think of as not being math (technically it's still math). So for example... if I want to take an exposure in any given setting, there are a number combinations of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO which would result in the same amount of light being recorded on the sensor. But some combinations of settings will result in an image which looks more artistically appealing than others. In a landscape shot, usually a broad depth of field is preferred. In a portrait, often it's the shallow depth of field which is preferred. If it's a waterfall, perhaps it's the motion blur that's preferred. In sports, maybe it's the aspect of freezing the action which is preferred.

Regardless, it's understanding that some element of the exposure should have priority and *which* element has priority depends on the artistic needs of the shot.

Your semi-automatic modes can assist you in these lessons. They are faster and equally as accurate in 99% of the situations you will encounter. IMO, they are the precursor to using manual mode, not the afterthought. They are where you will very likely spend most of your time as a photographer.

This is where my approach differs and I disagree.

If someone were to tell you that there's this concept called addition and subtraction -- but you didn't actually ever practice the addition or subtraction because someone told you that a calculator could provide that the answers to any of those math problems... you're not really learning math. We could go on and on with similar examples by substituting in art or music... someone can explain how a piano, or guitar works, but unless you've practiced it, you'll never be able to play it.

It's the practicing of that fundamental thing at it's basic level that helps the concept "sink in" far beyond what would happen for just being told about something and then letting the computer do it for you automatically.

I am aware of the "I only shoot in manual mode" photographers. I'm not suggesting that a person should learn to shoot in manual and then only ever shoot in manual. I could go on to show situations where you'd probably get in trouble if you tried to shoot in manual (rapidly changing lighting situations where you'd just never keep up if you tried to manual adjust the exposure.) But there are times when shooting manual is probably the most expedient way to get something done (bracketed shooting, for example. I do a lot of astrophotography which really has to be done manually because the built-in meter would never work correctly for such a shot.)

IMO the difference between the advice you have been given comes down to how you best learn exposure. Do you do so by starting off, before you understand any other function of the camera, shooting in manual mode only? Do you do so by following the lead of another photographer - with another camera - and another thought process they use to formulate the final product?

A few say use manual to "force" yourself to learn exposure. No offense to those people but that sounds a bit like pushing the kid in the deep end of the pool. Sink or swim.

Ahhh! Perhaps we're closing in on the crux of the matter. "Sink or swim" almost suggests they'll drown and die if they don't succeed -- there's no life-or-death situation at risk here.

In my experience, people tend to learn more from their mistakes then they do from their successes. Confession time: I do actually want a new photographer to go spoil some shots, because hopefully they'll wonder why they spoiled those shots, and that's when they'll learn. If they push the button and the computer heavily tilts the odds of success in their favor, then the shot comes out and the photographer doesn't necessarily understand why. Did they really learn anything (other than that they should rely on the computer?)

It's not that I have anything against computers, but if you only ever rely on the computer (even in aperture or shutter priority mode) then your photography will still be a bit limited because the computer is setting exposures based on the meter and even the meter in the camera can be fooled.

Certainly, when cameras had no easy mulligans to fall back on with digital manipulations and back even when a photographer had to carry their own light meter, they had to learn how to calculate rules such as the "sunny 16 rule" and we carried swiveling cards with numeric readouts which we then learned to mix and match. For most photographers today, those are historic memories if they exist as memories at all.

We could miss the exposure to a degree and still recover in the darkroom. There were certain things that were more difficult to correct in a dark (more time consuming). We didn't get to digitally sharpen an image. Altering the exposure by use of dodging and burning techniques was more difficult because the photographic paper in the darkroom is "white" and you can't see the effect of dodging and burning until you develop the paper. That meant there was a lot of trial and error where you kept notes about what areas to dodge and burn... and for how many seconds, etc.

Certainly it was more cumbersome and time consuming to fix things in the darkroom... so it saved a LOT of time to get it right in the camera. But many things (not everything) could be fixed in the darkroom. A missed exposure wasn't necessarily a lost cause.

Modern DSLR's have sufficient resolving power in their light metering systems to deal with all but the most difficult lighting situations. Anything beyond that is simply the photographer's choice of which metering mode best suits the image the photographer has developed in their head.

That image in your head is very important because that is your target. Just twiddling dials and settings to come up with different is not.


Just using manual mode without thinking about the final image is not, IMO, the end goal you should be aiming at.

Just realizing selecting a specific metering mode makes a significant difference in the end result you see ... where?

On your camera's LCD review screen?

The results you see on that 3" screen are for quick review only. The older the camera, the lower the resolving power of the LCD. The lower the color resolution. The lower the dynamic range that can be displayed.

So, yes, you can use the screen to make generic changes and you can notice the difference in metering a scene with evaluative, center weighted or spot metering. However, unless you feel you are never going to do more with your photography than display it on a 3" LCD review screen, you need to be looking at your photos on a monitor screen.

If you have not yet reached the point where you are viewing your images at close to real world sizes, then you are trying to learn to cook without fire.

And, if you are viewing your images without the assistance of processing software, you are only reading the Cliff Notes version of your photography.

A well set up monitor will quickly and easily indicate the differences between your camera and a friend's camera. It will easily show you where the ISO leg of the exposure triangle begins to fail with your specific camera. And, depending on the file format you have used to capture the image and the software you have available, it will indicate the finer points of "exposure".

I'm trying to infer a meaning from this last section of your post and let me "check" you on this because it seems as if you are thinking "exposure" is all about getting the right amount of "light" for the image.

Exposure is much more than that. At a very primitive level, exposure is about getting the right amount of light. But if that's all you want then I'd agree that you should just put the camera on "Automatic" mode and leave it there. Changing metering modes doesn't change the creative nature of the exposure... it only changes which area of the frame was used to determine the exposure value.

When you shoot in "automatic" mode (or even in "program" mode) the camera follows an algorithm called the "program line". (There's a brief section on this page that talks about it: Shooting modes - Canon Professional Network ) Basically the camera tries to take a "safe" exposure. It would prefer a low ISO, a middle f-stop, and a shutter speed that is fast enough for hand-held photography -- but it's willing to compromise based on the limits of the lens and lighting conditions, etc.

If lighting is especially poor, it will shoot with the f-stop at "wide open", very high ISO (if auto-ISO is enabled) and low shutter speed because you've backed it into a corner and it simply has no choice.

It puts some priority on getting the shutter speed up to a point where it's safe enough for hand-held photography. Once it achieves that point, it will start working other aspects of exposure, reducing ISO... and then bringing the f-stop away from wide-open.

When it arrives at the point where it could change anything... it will start reducing aperture size (increasing f-stop) and using a faster shutter speed in equal quantity. In other words it is going to use a "middle exposure" because that will tend to be the safe all-around exposure. But it will not necessarily be the exposure that does anything creative with the shot.

The "scene" modes are essentially "automatic" modes that would otherwise follow the program line, except they tweak the bias based on the needs of the shot (landscape shots will go for broad depth of field. Action shots will go for fast shutter speed. Portrait shots will go for shallow depth of field, etc.)

When you set the camera on "Program" mode it will follow the "program line" (just like full auto mode) except it will let you perform "program shift" (trading stops of aperture against stops of shutter speed.)

But the reason you might want to perform a "program shift" is for the creative element of the exposure... because you know you want to blur motion or set a shallow depth of field for selective subject focus and blur everything else. Note that the total amount of "light" received is still intended to be the same -- so the histogram for the shots will probably also be about the same -- and yet the effect it has on the image you get after taking the shot will be completely different.

Real world example: I have a friend who wanted to learn photography and I started him with the exposure basics. He was having difficult with the concept of "depth of field" and how changing the f-stop has an effect on this (along with focal length and focused distance). He heard the words... but it wasn't sinking in until I made him put the camera into manual mode, line up a row of wine bottles each spaced about 1' apart, and then move to one end of the row and a perspective shot down the row while varying the aperture between each shot. He inspected the resulting image and suddenly it all becomes clear to him that just because the meter reading was "the same" does not mean the shot is "the same". The specific exposure settings selected actually do matter and while people will say "there's no right exposure" (a cop-out of the art world that even something miserably gone wrong can be called "art") frankly there is an exposure which will be better than all the others.

When I do food shots, I shoot tethered with the camera on a tripod and manual focus. I will literally shoot a dozen shots of the very same "angle" or composition of the food while I vary light and aperture. All of these have tack-sharp food... but what I'm really critiquing is the background -- which is as important as the "subject" -- so we can decide which exposure creates the mood the want, compliments the atmosphere, and doesn't act as a distraction. It is usually never either the shot with the most in focus... nor is it usually the shot with the highest amount of blur possible.

With a digital camera, unless you are intending only to show your photos on, say, social media, your learning curve within photography does not stop at the camera. Once you've begun to get a handle on your camera and the rules of photography, you must also learn the ins and outs of bringing your image to a format than can be shown outside of your camera.

You are, at the moment, learning in what I would consider a rather slap-dash, scattershot method. Possibly, you have more of a plan that I can detect.

You are, IMO, learning to work with tools without having a complete set to pull form.

Your camera is the single most significant hardware you have to work with. Which is why I feel you should be learning what your camera can and cannot achieve within the rules of photography. Then you must take that knowledge beyond your camera and prepare an image for display. Complete the process. It will teach you about the entire plan within modern photography.

Displaying the image is steering into a completely different topic where learning about color-space (gamut), and the properties of display medium are important.

Back in the fundamentals of "exposure" -- I remain convinced that in order to learn exposure, a new photographer should practice shooting in manual. BTW, I'm also not one to tell people just go shoot randomly. I prefer to send people out with some specific goals... "get shots that freeze fast action" or "get shots that imply motion by creative use of blur" or "get shots that isolate the subject by using a shallow depth of field". If you shoot randomly, you might capture some great results but if you didn't deliberately intend to get those results then you might not entirely understand "why" you got those results (so have you really learned anything if you still don't know "why"?) That's why I prefer to send people out with a goal.

In art classes, you would probably (at some point) be forced to draw or paint a bowl of fruit... not because the fruit is so amazing, but because learning the techniques will reinforce behaviors that get you results you want in later works.

So yes... go take that boring shot of the fire hydrant... and when you do... get a shot where nothing is in focus EXCEPT the fire hydrant, and get another shot where the sidewalk is focused all the way back to infinity, etc. and your shot of the fire hydrant will actually be a worthwhile study in fundamentals of exposure. But if you do this while learning and you use an automatic mode, I think you'll get an acceptable image... I just don't think you'll have learned as much.

Once you're getting not simply good results in manual... but shots where you are in full control of the outcome and you know it with confidence... now you can stop shooting in manual and use the automatic modes. I only occasionally shoot entirely in manual mode. All the modes are on your camera for a reason and there's a time when each of them probably has an advantage over the other modes.

 

[soufiej]

Wow, thats two totally different schools of thought. I went out today and took my very first photos with a tripod. I was just using the manual mode without even thinking about it.

Can I post the pic here or do I need to make a new thread? In any case, my photo is coming soon! I would really appreciate a critique.

So.... I pretty much COMPLETELY disagree with soufiej.

If you want to take "snapshots" then just put the camera in automatic mode and click away.

But if you want to learn "photography" then you MUST learn "exposure". And there's really no better way to learn "exposure" then to read the fundamentals... and then go practice the fundamentals. The best way to do that is to learn to shoot in "manual" mode.

There's a possibility that last statement might be misunderstood... I very rarely shoot in "manual" mode. But I certainly know "how" to shoot in manual mode. I learned with a camera that not only did not have an automatic mode... it didn't even have a light meter. But if you don't understand the concept of the "exposure triangle" and light, then you won't understand "why" it's better to give priority to aperture or to shutter speed -- and that point you may as well just be shooting snapshots on full automatic mode.

I've certainly come across the "I only shoot in manual" snobbery -- and I'm absolute not suggesting that because 90% of the time my camera is aperture priority mode. But I understand when it's advantages to use aperture priority, when it's advantageous to use shutter priority. Yes, of course I also shoot in manual mode too -- when it's the appropriate mode.

But I still highly recommend that EVERYONE who wants to understand photography spend time learning about exposure and forcing yourself to learn to shoot in manual mode.

Don't be intimidated by the thought of it. Pick up a copy of Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" -- it's intended for beginners and he introduces all concepts in a way that beginner's would understand (he won't lose you by using lingo that only experienced photographers would know.)

I don't feel anyone has given you two even slightly different schools of thought.

So far, we have only discussed the technical craft of photography. Within the technical portion of photography, everyone really does agree.

Everyone has said, in one way or another, learn how exposure works. First and foremost, learn how exposure works.

Strive not for the point where you are shooting without thinking about it. Strive for the point where you have an idea of how you want the image to appear and your technical foundation allows you to dial in those settings.

Learn how the three legs of the exposure triangle work to find their own balance point. That is one of the most basic and fundamental lessons within photography as a craft.

I certainly agree with this.

I've never been particularly comfortable with the term "exposure triangle" because the explanation goes on to suggest that there are three thins you can change to get the exposure adjusted to something that works... and doesn't mention that you can also change the shooting circumstances (use supplemental lighting, use light modifiers, move the subject to a better location, shoot at a different time of day, etc.) There are usually more than just three things you can change to control the exposure.

Essentially all technical, there's very little about exposure that is not a pure numbers game. Yes, you have latitudes in determining the exposure you prefer for any one shot and you can - and probably will - alter exposure in some ways in post processing. However, if you are stumped by the numbers involved in exposure and how they work together, then you will have problems resolving the most basic issues of photography using any operational mode on your camera.

Learn exposure. That's what everyone has been saying.

Light is a aspect of physics. It's properties, how it moves through a lens, how it's recorded, how the camera treats the information being recorded... all of that is math. So, in a sense, it is "numbers game".

But certainly there's an artistic element which we probably tend to think of as not being math (technically it's still math). So for example... if I want to take an exposure in any given setting, there are a number combinations of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO which would result in the same amount of light being recorded on the sensor. But some combinations of settings will result in an image which looks more artistically appealing than others. In a landscape shot, usually a broad depth of field is preferred. In a portrait, often it's the shallow depth of field which is preferred. If it's a waterfall, perhaps it's the motion blur that's preferred. In sports, maybe it's the aspect of freezing the action which is preferred.

Regardless, it's understanding that some element of the exposure should have priority and *which* element has priority depends on the artistic needs of the shot.

Your semi-automatic modes can assist you in these lessons. They are faster and equally as accurate in 99% of the situations you will encounter. IMO, they are the precursor to using manual mode, not the afterthought. They are where you will very likely spend most of your time as a photographer.

This is where my approach differs and I disagree.

If someone were to tell you that there's this concept called addition and subtraction -- but you didn't actually ever practice the addition or subtraction because someone told you that a calculator could provide that the answers to any of those math problems... you're not really learning math. We could go on and on with similar examples by substituting in art or music... someone can explain how a piano, or guitar works, but unless you've practiced it, you'll never be able to play it.

It's the practicing of that fundamental thing at it's basic level that helps the concept "sink in" far beyond what would happen for just being told about something and then letting the computer do it for you automatically.

I am aware of the "I only shoot in manual mode" photographers. I'm not suggesting that a person should learn to shoot in manual and then only ever shoot in manual. I could go on to show situations where you'd probably get in trouble if you tried to shoot in manual (rapidly changing lighting situations where you'd just never keep up if you tried to manual adjust the exposure.) But there are times when shooting manual is probably the most expedient way to get something done (bracketed shooting, for example. I do a lot of astrophotography which really has to be done manually because the built-in meter would never work correctly for such a shot.)

IMO the difference between the advice you have been given comes down to how you best learn exposure. Do you do so by starting off, before you understand any other function of the camera, shooting in manual mode only? Do you do so by following the lead of another photographer - with another camera - and another thought process they use to formulate the final product?

A few say use manual to "force" yourself to learn exposure. No offense to those people but that sounds a bit like pushing the kid in the deep end of the pool. Sink or swim.

Ahhh! Perhaps we're closing in on the crux of the matter. "Sink or swim" almost suggests they'll drown and die if they don't succeed -- there's no life-or-death situation at risk here.

In my experience, people tend to learn more from their mistakes then they do from their successes. Confession time: I do actually want a new photographer to go spoil some shots, because hopefully they'll wonder why they spoiled those shots, and that's when they'll learn. If they push the button and the computer heavily tilts the odds of success in their favor, then the shot comes out and the photographer doesn't necessarily understand why. Did they really learn anything (other than that they should rely on the computer?)

It's not that I have anything against computers, but if you only ever rely on the computer (even in aperture or shutter priority mode) then your photography will still be a bit limited because the computer is setting exposures based on the meter and even the meter in the camera can be fooled.

Certainly, when cameras had no easy mulligans to fall back on with digital manipulations and back even when a photographer had to carry their own light meter, they had to learn how to calculate rules such as the "sunny 16 rule" and we carried swiveling cards with numeric readouts which we then learned to mix and match. For most photographers today, those are historic memories if they exist as memories at all.

We could miss the exposure to a degree and still recover in the darkroom. There were certain things that were more difficult to correct in a dark (more time consuming). We didn't get to digitally sharpen an image. Altering the exposure by use of dodging and burning techniques was more difficult because the photographic paper in the darkroom is "white" and you can't see the effect of dodging and burning until you develop the paper. That meant there was a lot of trial and error where you kept notes about what areas to dodge and burn... and for how many seconds, etc.

Certainly it was more cumbersome and time consuming to fix things in the darkroom... so it saved a LOT of time to get it right in the camera. But many things (not everything) could be fixed in the darkroom. A missed exposure wasn't necessarily a lost cause.

Modern DSLR's have sufficient resolving power in their light metering systems to deal with all but the most difficult lighting situations. Anything beyond that is simply the photographer's choice of which metering mode best suits the image the photographer has developed in their head.

That image in your head is very important because that is your target. Just twiddling dials and settings to come up with different is not.


Just using manual mode without thinking about the final image is not, IMO, the end goal you should be aiming at.

Just realizing selecting a specific metering mode makes a significant difference in the end result you see ... where?

On your camera's LCD review screen?

The results you see on that 3" screen are for quick review only. The older the camera, the lower the resolving power of the LCD. The lower the color resolution. The lower the dynamic range that can be displayed.

So, yes, you can use the screen to make generic changes and you can notice the difference in metering a scene with evaluative, center weighted or spot metering. However, unless you feel you are never going to do more with your photography than display it on a 3" LCD review screen, you need to be looking at your photos on a monitor screen.

If you have not yet reached the point where you are viewing your images at close to real world sizes, then you are trying to learn to cook without fire.

And, if you are viewing your images without the assistance of processing software, you are only reading the Cliff Notes version of your photography.

A well set up monitor will quickly and easily indicate the differences between your camera and a friend's camera. It will easily show you where the ISO leg of the exposure triangle begins to fail with your specific camera. And, depending on the file format you have used to capture the image and the software you have available, it will indicate the finer points of "exposure".

I'm trying to infer a meaning from this last section of your post and let me "check" you on this because it seems as if you are thinking "exposure" is all about getting the right amount of "light" for the image.

Exposure is much more than that. At a very primitive level, exposure is about getting the right amount of light. But if that's all you want then I'd agree that you should just put the camera on "Automatic" mode and leave it there. Changing metering modes doesn't change the creative nature of the exposure... it only changes which area of the frame was used to determine the exposure value.

When you shoot in "automatic" mode (or even in "program" mode) the camera follows an algorithm called the "program line". (There's a brief section on this page that talks about it: Shooting modes - Canon Professional Network ) Basically the camera tries to take a "safe" exposure. It would prefer a low ISO, a middle f-stop, and a shutter speed that is fast enough for hand-held photography -- but it's willing to compromise based on the limits of the lens and lighting conditions, etc.

If lighting is especially poor, it will shoot with the f-stop at "wide open", very high ISO (if auto-ISO is enabled) and low shutter speed because you've backed it into a corner and it simply has no choice.

It puts some priority on getting the shutter speed up to a point where it's safe enough for hand-held photography. Once it achieves that point, it will start working other aspects of exposure, reducing ISO... and then bringing the f-stop away from wide-open.

When it arrives at the point where it could change anything... it will start reducing aperture size (increasing f-stop) and using a faster shutter speed in equal quantity. In other words it is going to use a "middle exposure" because that will tend to be the safe all-around exposure. But it will not necessarily be the exposure that does anything creative with the shot.

The "scene" modes are essentially "automatic" modes that would otherwise follow the program line, except they tweak the bias based on the needs of the shot (landscape shots will go for broad depth of field. Action shots will go for fast shutter speed. Portrait shots will go for shallow depth of field, etc.)

When you set the camera on "Program" mode it will follow the "program line" (just like full auto mode) except it will let you perform "program shift" (trading stops of aperture against stops of shutter speed.)

But the reason you might want to perform a "program shift" is for the creative element of the exposure... because you know you want to blur motion or set a shallow depth of field for selective subject focus and blur everything else. Note that the total amount of "light" received is still intended to be the same -- so the histogram for the shots will probably also be about the same -- and yet the effect it has on the image you get after taking the shot will be completely different.

Real world example: I have a friend who wanted to learn photography and I started him with the exposure basics. He was having difficult with the concept of "depth of field" and how changing the f-stop has an effect on this (along with focal length and focused distance). He heard the words... but it wasn't sinking in until I made him put the camera into manual mode, line up a row of wine bottles each spaced about 1' apart, and then move to one end of the row and a perspective shot down the row while varying the aperture between each shot. He inspected the resulting image and suddenly it all becomes clear to him that just because the meter reading was "the same" does not mean the shot is "the same". The specific exposure settings selected actually do matter and while people will say "there's no right exposure" (a cop-out of the art world that even something miserably gone wrong can be called "art") frankly there is an exposure which will be better than all the others.

When I do food shots, I shoot tethered with the camera on a tripod and manual focus. I will literally shoot a dozen shots of the very same "angle" or composition of the food while I vary light and aperture. All of these have tack-sharp food... but what I'm really critiquing is the background -- which is as important as the "subject" -- so we can decide which exposure creates the mood the want, compliments the atmosphere, and doesn't act as a distraction. It is usually never either the shot with the most in focus... nor is it usually the shot with the highest amount of blur possible.

With a digital camera, unless you are intending only to show your photos on, say, social media, your learning curve within photography does not stop at the camera. Once you've begun to get a handle on your camera and the rules of photography, you must also learn the ins and outs of bringing your image to a format than can be shown outside of your camera.

You are, at the moment, learning in what I would consider a rather slap-dash, scattershot method. Possibly, you have more of a plan that I can detect.

You are, IMO, learning to work with tools without having a complete set to pull form.

Your camera is the single most significant hardware you have to work with. Which is why I feel you should be learning what your camera can and cannot achieve within the rules of photography. Then you must take that knowledge beyond your camera and prepare an image for display. Complete the process. It will teach you about the entire plan within modern photography.

Displaying the image is steering into a completely different topic where learning about color-space (gamut), and the properties of display medium are important.

Back in the fundamentals of "exposure" -- I remain convinced that in order to learn exposure, a new photographer should practice shooting in manual. BTW, I'm also not one to tell people just go shoot randomly. I prefer to send people out with some specific goals... "get shots that freeze fast action" or "get shots that imply motion by creative use of blur" or "get shots that isolate the subject by using a shallow depth of field". If you shoot randomly, you might capture some great results but if you didn't deliberately intend to get those results then you might not entirely understand "why" you got those results (so have you really learned anything if you still don't know "why"?) That's why I prefer to send people out with a goal.

In art classes, you would probably (at some point) be forced to draw or paint a bowl of fruit... not because the fruit is so amazing, but because learning the techniques will reinforce behaviors that get you results you want in later works.

So yes... go take that boring shot of the fire hydrant... and when you do... get a shot where nothing is in focus EXCEPT the fire hydrant, and get another shot where the sidewalk is focused all the way back to infinity, etc. and your shot of the fire hydrant will actually be a worthwhile study in fundamentals of exposure. But if you do this while learning and you use an automatic mode, I think you'll get an acceptable image... I just don't think you'll have learned as much.

Once you're getting not simply good results in manual... but shots where you are in full control of the outcome and you know it with confidence... now you can stop shooting in manual and use the automatic modes. I only occasionally shoot entirely in manual mode. All the modes are on your camera for a reason and there's a time when each of them probably has an advantage over the other modes.

My feeling is we are still not that far apart, TC. One point to keep in mind is that we all learn in our own manner. One method for all is a bit "old school". It may serve some while leaving others out in the cold.

Therefore, there's nothing I see that says the op cannot "learn exposure" by shooting in manual mode but still observe the histogram to check their supposition of "correctness".

Personally, I tend to place manual mode further into the lesson plan but that is only a small point of difference between the two approaches as I see them.

Yes, you do have a calculator available in your camera. Use the tools you have available. Learn why your camera would select "X" aperture if you set it to shutter priority. Learn why your camera might kick up ISO if you are shooting in aperture priority. If "your camera" can't reach f1.8, then you really need to know how to compensate for that with "your camera".

Basically, learn to think about why the camera is telling you "this" is your exposure. You aren't tied to that setting, but you should know why "your camera's systems" defaulted to that setting.



I am in no way suggesting a student photographer should ignore the rules and theories of exposure or what their camera's metering suggests is correct exposure. I am merely making the point that cameras vary considerably in their dynamic range capacity and metering is not always equal between various manufacturers or models. Sensor size obviously impacts the DR a specific camera can capture and, IMO, it is wise to check for blown out highlights or obscured shadows before you decide you've got the shot you want to take to the computer.

Exposure rules say you are correct. Histogram says you've just blown out highlights or the red channel. Which is more significant to your final image quality?



My most significant issue with learning exposure while using manual mode is the placement of the lesson within the learning process. We all agree exposure is waaaaaaay up on the list of technical issues a photographer must deal with. Yet, on the way there, the student photographer must deal with comprehending aperture, shutter speed, ISO, metering and the variations of metering presented by their specific camera, focus points, supplemental light and good vs less good light at the very least. To take away or intentinally ignore any of the tools the camera provides is, IMO, simply making the task of learning photography as a whole that much more difficult.

"... someone can explain how a piano, or guitar works, but unless you've practiced it, you'll never be able to play it."

It's not necessary to comprehend a guitar as a type of Helmholtz resonator to play the guitar. It's not important to your playing to understand how the break angle of the string over the saddle impacts overall sound quality. Even an issue so simple as scale length is not within the lesson plan most students will receive. Knowing the historical evolution of the present day piano is not a first step in playing a modern day piano. Etc.


If I'm teaching someone to play guitar, I don't begin with a symphony as their first lesson plan. In fact, I typically begin without the guitar being the issue. (Yes, students are impatient and you have to give them something that says they are learning to play the guitar. So they all get to learn the first three notes on the first string usually.)

The thing they all must learn, however, is what is music? What are scales and how are notes taken from the scale to create a key. Once you have a key (a root note or tonic), how do you form a chord and a chord progression based on the scale intervals of that key? What are the numeric differences between a Major chord form and a minor chord form? What does it mean to sharp of flat a note? How do you read music notation?

Most of this occurs without the student holding or sitting in front of their instrument. These are the universal rules which control what you can and cannot do on any instrument. Due to the layout of a fretboard vs a keyboard, there are different limitations and freedoms associated with each instrument. Yet, to be a fully rounded musician, IMO, we all must begin by learning the universal language of music. The language of music is highly mathematics based. Steps and intervals are based on the physical distance each creates between the root note and the octave note. Octaves are two notes which are either doubling of halving the frequency of the other. If you do not get that much down, you will probably struggle with any instrument. If you do know these rules, you will more easily comprehend how a guitarist can play like a saxophonist. Yet, a sax player cannot always play like a guitarist.

There's no need to go into the details of teaching an instrument but it is certainly possible you can learn how to play music without ever actually touching a real instrument. As in photography, most of what a musician does is actually taking place within their imagination.


"If someone were to tell you that there's this concept called addition and subtraction -- but you didn't actually ever practice the addition or subtraction because someone told you that a calculator could provide that the answers to any of those math problems... you're not really learning math."


IMO that depends on how you learn. What would you be learning if all you did was make up numbers and claim they were addition and subtraction when none of the answers matched any of the numbers you had said should be added and subtracted? The calculator is a tool you can use, as another available tool not as a crutch, to check your work and your mental calculations. A calculator is to exposure what scales are to playing music.

And as most musicians understand; if it sounds right, it is right. We can figure out the theory for why it does later.



You're correct, IMO, that putting the exercise/rule/theory into practice cements the lesson more deeply into the student cognition.

My question would be, what if your calculations are still resulting in blown out highlights due to the limitations of your camera?

I suspect we've all had situations where we have had or could obtain a decent exposure value yet we didn't want that shot from that angle due to what the histogram was telling us. So we adjusted the exposure or we adjusted the angle or we in same manner changed what we originally had in mind for the shot. The rules of exposure didn't tell us to do that. The specifics of the camera in that situation told us so.



What I'm saying is be aware of those issues before you walk away thinking you have the shot down. The exposure meter and the rules of exposure still only tell you universals, such as how to construct a Major scale on a theoretical level. The histogram tells you how to "play the scale" on either a fretboard or a keyboard. It provides the specific data relevant to your instrument.

"Anything beyond that is simply the photographer's choice of which metering mode best suits the image the photographer has developed in their head. "

"I'm trying to infer a meaning from this last section of your post and let me "check" you on this because it seems as if you are thinking "exposure" is all about getting the right amount of "light" for the image. "

The meaning I intended is in the next two sentences of my post ...

"That image in your head is very important because that is your target. Just twiddling dials and settings to come up with different is not.

Just using manual mode without thinking about the final image is not, IMO, the end goal you should be aiming at."



We have been discussing exposure and manual mode as purely technical issues within photography. And they are not merely technical in the sense one exposure is correct for all images. As you point out, it is how we envision the final image which is at the crux of how we arrive at "the" exposure we will use for that shot. Yet, the op seems to be of the opinion that exposure is a single thing. A single value that is consistent from shot to shot because the op is shooting in manual mode. You and I know it is not, not if you wish to have the creative control of, say, a shallow DOF or blurred action. Exposure as it relates to any single shot may be "equivalent" but it is not likely to be "identical".

Therefore, my intent was to introduce the idea of simply thinking before you take the shot. Having in your head a vision of what the final image may look like when it is displayed. Not when it is reviewed on a 3" LCD.

In other words, as you suggest, until you put your knowledge to actual work, it is all theoretical. You can learn theory but the theory is malleable in certain ways. If the image looks right and is interesting, we can figure out how it was correct later.

The idea the op was going out to shoot in manual and was doing so "without thinking" is what I was getting at with my sentence.

Most of the rest of what you've just posted is, IMO, basically as agreeable as I could ask for. Maybe I would teach this before that where you teach that before this. But we would both tend to incorporate "exposure" into the vision of the photographer.

At this point I see the op as trying to cram too many theories into the work and not enough thought. We agree on the idea it is what you want from the photo that determines how you will set the camera.

The only significant difference I see between our two position is my inclusion of the op's camera, its specific limitations and its histogram data to use as a guide.

 

[Derrel]

Getting a decent exposure is a trivial matter with a modern d-slr like the one you happen to own. It has a huge internal memory bank of 100,000-plus actual photographic scenes, which were shot, and analyzed, and reduced to very specific representations. Your camera uses 3-D, color-aware light metering. It takes into account the geographic location/time zone and the year/month/date programmed into the memory; it's very EASY for the camera to "know" that in say, Seattle, on December 20, at 5:59 PM, it will be NIGHT-time. Similarly, on July 4 at 2:00 PM, the camera can easily measure the RGB values, and deduce that a large, low-detail, blue colored area is open sky...and this is partly how the Nikon Matrix metering system can hit with such a high rate of success.

Additionally,as I pointed out in another thread a couple days back, there are only basically 21 different full-stop-separated exposure values between a blindingly bright snowfield or beach, and a star-lighted landscape. Exposure is actually a very trivial thing to compute these days. The d-slr also makes it super-easy to evaluate the results of any specific exposure and ISO value combination.

I would focus more on composing good photos, and on shooting photos with the most opportune timing of the shutter release, and worry less about fussing about exposure settings, or on how you have arrived at the exposure settings.