Auto ISO - Yay or Nay

[MTVision]

It's not a stupid argument. Why? Because of what you say next...

This is the primary issue. It's not an issue of what a person should use, but of the message given to people who are trying to learn. I see so many posts from beginners trying to shoot in manual mode because they've been told by some old person, who doesn't understand modern auto mode operation, that manual mode is the only way to fully control your camera. This is ignorance. It's not a lie...the manual-mode proponent would need to have actual knowledge of auto modes for it to be lie. However, there is the element of a conscious effort to not understand auto modes because the person has already made up his mind on the issue. That's ignorance.

People tend to learn quicker and with better understanding when a process can be broken down into smaller parts. When you learn how to control a camera using auto modes, you separate exposure from the effects of shutter and aperture. That separation is a benefit to learning and understanding exposure...a benefit that's lost on so many beginners pushed to work in manual mode by people who are themselves unwilling to learn anything more than three controls on the camera.

It is a stupid argument. It's the same thing over and over - "I have full control in manual" and you say "I have full control in the auto modes." Like I said before (that you edited out when quoting me) who cares what mode what you shoot in as long as you get the shot. But, I'm not going to argue/debate this with you because it's pointless. I could care less what mode people shoot with or what they learned to shoot on.

Oh and I didn't have anyone person tell me to shoot full manual. I read tons of books and other resources and never once did I see someone say that you will have a better understanding if you start learning with the auto modes. Maybe if I had, and other newbies had, then we wouldn't be missing out on so much So if you wanna change the way things are then do something about it instead of preaching the benefits. I'm not saying your wrong - because I don't know.

 

[JClishe]

This will always end up in the same result, both sides being almost completely blind to the other and only because they are too ignorant to be able to understand why the other side prefers the alternative.

Now there's something that we agree on. I made my feelings clear in post #44 of this thread:

"There is a time and a place for everything, it's up to the photographer to understand the options and make appropriate choices. "

I don't have a "side". I am neither for any of the auto / semi modes, nor am I for manual. I am for doing whatever appropriately captures the photographers intent and vision. If it makes sense for you to shoot in Av and nudge the Ev dial to fine tune your exposure, than great, go for it. Or if you want to shoot in manual that's great too, knock yourself out. All methods are fully capable of producing works of art that capture the photographers intent. (edit: after re-reading I should clarify this last sentence excludes full auto. Unless you're shooting snapshots of your kids, this is one particular mode that you probably shouldn't be using).

What I am against is exactly what you are: people that are too blind and/or ignorant and/or caught up in their own egos' to realize that works of art can be produced from any mode and that the chosen mode is ultimately irrelevant and this entire discussion is usually pointless.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

This is the stupidest argument ever. Who cares if you shoot in manual, aperture priority, shutter priority, or program as long as you get the shot you want. Some people favor manual and others favor the semi-auto modes - doesn't make either party wrong. Just like some favor Nikon and some favor Canon.

It's not a stupid argument. Why? Because of what you say next...

I shoot in manual because that's what I learned and I honestly don't really know how to shoot in the other modes as well because I haven't used them. But, I don't think manual is the end all be all just like I don't feel that way about the semi-auto modes. Whatever works for you is what you should use.

This is the primary issue. It's not an issue of what a person should use, but of the message given to people who are trying to learn. I see so many posts from beginners trying to shoot in manual mode because they've been told by some old person, who doesn't understand modern auto mode operation, that manual mode is the only way to fully control your camera. This is ignorance. It's not a lie...the manual-mode proponent would need to have actual knowledge of auto modes for it to be lie. However, there is the element of a conscious effort to not understand auto modes because the person has already made up his mind on the issue. That's ignorance.

People tend to learn quicker and with better understanding when a process can be broken down into smaller parts. When you learn how to control a camera using auto modes, you separate exposure from the effects of shutter and aperture. That separation is a benefit to learning and understanding exposure...a benefit that's lost on so many beginners pushed to work in manual mode by people who are themselves unwilling to learn anything more than three controls on the camera.

I can't agree with you. Although this thread was initially about AUTO ISO, which I personally see having its applications and purpose here and there, I can't see eye to eye you on this full auto thing.

I always shoot full manual. Not because I think I'm a badass, but because I like to have complete control to get the exposure I want, which is not often what the camera wants.

A, S, and P modes also give you complete control over exposure. You don't have any more control over exposure with manual mode than you have with A, S, or P modes.

My dad drives me crazy with his stubborn refusal to move out of Auto mode with his camera. He recently purchased the G1x, which is basically a DSLR in a P&S body, and he never leaves auto mode. Well, I shouldn't say never, once in a while he'll switch over to HQ burst mode . What's even more funny is he's disgusted when the camera doesn't land the perfect shot. Yes, he blames the camera :lmao:. It's quite comical. But I don't think he's necessarily alone.

The thing is, you're going to miss shots when you don't have control of all the variables. Are you really going to trust that teeny tiny little microchip nestled in that circuit board somewhere in the camera over your own brain? Do you think that itty bitty microchip knows when your 11 month old is flailing around wildly, and that it needs a minimum shutter of 1/250 to freeze the action? Why would you put so much faith in the decision making capabilities of a tiny circuit board that is only going to stay within safe exposure parameters? It doesn't make sense.

It really comes down to one simple thing-- are you going to allow the robot brain in the camera to make all the exposure decisions for you, or are you going to make the exposure decisions yourself?

 

[MTVision]

Now there's something that we agree on. I made my feelings clear in post #44 of this thread:

"There is a time and a place for everything, it's up to the photographer to understand the options and make appropriate choices. "

I don't have a "side". I am neither for any of the auto / semi modes, nor am I for manual. I am for doing whatever appropriately captures the photographers intent and vision. If it makes sense for you to shoot in Av and nudge the Ev dial to fine tune your exposure, than great, go for it. Or if you want to shoot in manual that's great too, knock yourself out. All methods are fully capable of producing works of art that capture the photographers intent. (edit: after re-reading I should clarify this last sentence excludes full auto. Unless you're shooting snapshots of your kids, this is one particular mode that you probably shouldn't be using).

What I am against is exactly what you are: people that are too blind and/or ignorant and/or caught up in their own egos' to realize that works of art can be produced from any mode and that the chosen mode is ultimately irrelevant and this entire discussion is usually pointless.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this discussion (manual vs auto modes) is pointless.

 

[Netskimmer]

I love this all or nothing mentality. I have shot in manual since I got my D7000 a year or so ago and have only been messing with the semi-auto modes for about a month. I know full well how to handle shooting on full manual. I also know that it isn't always necessary. You don't give the camera control of the important variables, you decide what is important to the shot you are trying to achieve and decide on a range that the inconsequential variables can be within let the camera do the grunt work. The key is knowing what each variable is and knowing where the parameters need to be set. That is the key on manual and semi-auto modes. Do you full manual only folks make your own photo paper? Do you mix your own printer ink? Do you code your own raw viewers?

If I am shooting birds on a shady branch and it takes off into a bright sky on a sunny day I will have about 3 seconds or so, if I'm lucky to get a good shot. If I'm in full manual, that's 3 second to adjust my shutter speed, aperture, and ISO to account for the new lighting conditions, frame, focus and fire. Could I do that in manual? Possibly, yes, but I would have a better chance of getting a got shot if I didn't have to mess with every single variable manually and getting a good shot is what counts.

 

[dumeril7]

You don't give the camera control of the important variables, you decide what is important to the shot you are trying to achieve and decide on a range that the inconsequential variables can be within let the camera do the grunt work.

Well said.

d7

 

[shmne]

...I see so many posts from beginners trying to shoot in manual mode because they've been told by some old person...

Just chiming in real quick! I'm not old, 23, and I pretty much teach exclusively in manual mode. I previously mentioned that my teacher allowed us to learn however we chose, except she did push us to understand the relationship on a manual level. I have mentored several photographers now over the course of a couple of years and from my experience people learn faster with manual mode than with auto-modes. This is because by keeping 2 settings constant and having my student alter the third they quickly learned what that third setting did. Not only that but they also learned the inverse relationship of shutterspeed and aperture rapidly as well as how f-stops worked. On average I was able to teach my students the basics of exposure in less than 8 hours to the point where they were confident enough to alter the settings on their own, people that were completely new to the field. Then again I also like to pride myself on being a great teacher, and I use a variety of techniques that don't even involve the camera at all to teach them.

So I don't think it is fair for you to say that, from having taught several people now and being a part of a class of 60.

Now for a person learning on their own, I have no experience at all which is better. Then again I'd never suggest it because it would be akin to learning to paint or draw on your own, there are masters that can cut years of learning out of your training. I don't think anyone actually learns "on their own."

One last note - You stated that:

"...People tend to learn quicker and with better understanding when a process can be broken down into smaller parts. When you learn how to control a camera using auto modes, you separate exposure from the effects of shutter and aperture..."

This is actually incorrect, when in auto modes shutter and aperture are quite a part of the exposure still In fact if you are in say Av - your aperture is constant while your shutter speed changes (that isn't even if your ISO is auto, then you have 2 random numbers being thrown at you). This is an issue for a beginner because what happens is they see the number changing but they don't understand why. They just know that the camera is picking the best number for them. When you do the same example with manual, nothing changes. From shot to shot it is the same. So when my student takes 10 shots they are all the same. Now they click the roller twice to the left to lower the shutter speed - and they start to see blur! However now the image is too bright for them This is one of the great advantages of the digital age after all, being able to immediately see your image. So now they pull out the chart I gave them and alter their aperture. This not only teaches them the inverse relationship of aperture and shutter speed, but also what f-stops are!

Compare this to learning on any of the automatic modes - where you are only learning how to expose an image, if that. What you are really learning is how to alter the EV, set a stagnant number, and allow the camera to do the rest (especially if also using auto ISO). I'm sorry but having been actively teaching I can't see the benefit of auto as a teaching tool. It is like teaching a child to do math with a calculator, they never understand the true relationship.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

This is what I'm talking about in my previous comments on ignorance. You quote me saying that I complete control of my camera in auto modes, but instead of asking me how is that possible, your make a comment that clearly indicates you've already made up your mind on auto modes.

Since you like to throw around the word "ignorance", I too feel it's a little "ignorant" to assume that I don't know already know about all the things you speak of regarding auto modes.

When the meter works, there's nothing you can do with manual mode that you can't do with auto modes. However, there are things you can do with auto modes that you can't do with manual mode. But I'm guessing you wouldn't be interested in that.

Shoot what you want to. But you're never going to bang a drum loud enough to convince the world that forfeiting full and/or partial control of your exposure parameters is superior to actually using your brain.

 

[Michiyo-Fir]

I don't use it. I usually set ISO manually and let the camera set either one of aperture or shutter speed depending on what I'm doing.

 

[shmne]

What I am against is exactly what you are: people that are too blind and/or ignorant and/or caught up in their own egos' to realize that works of art can be produced from any mode and that the chosen mode is ultimately irrelevant and this entire discussion is usually pointless.

:lmao::lmao::lmao:
You're adorable :3 I feel like you're my own personal little motivator!

All you do is troll, and feeding you has been fun but I don't want anything following me home today so go back in your little cave there. If you ever wish to continue this discussion further, and more maturely PM and I'll respond, as I always do, in a calm and concise manner with valid facts, points, and opinions.

 

[JClishe]

What I am against is exactly what you are: people that are too blind and/or ignorant and/or caught up in their own egos' to realize that works of art can be produced from any mode and that the chosen mode is ultimately irrelevant and this entire discussion is usually pointless.

:lmao::lmao::lmao:
You're adorable :3 I feel like you're my own personal little motivator!

All you do is troll, and feeding you has been fun but I don't want anything following me home today so go back in your little cave there. If you ever wish to continue this discussion further, and more maturely PM and I'll respond, as I always do, in a calm and concise manner with valid facts, points, and opinions.

You misread my post. I am not against YOU. I am against the same type of thinking that you are against.

You said:

"This will always end up in the same result, both sides being almost completely blind to the other and only because they are too ignorant to be able to understand why the other side prefers the alternative. "

And I'm saying that's the exact thinking that I am also against. Ie., we agree.

 

[shmne]

Ahh! Alright I was really confused why you would say that to me

My misunderstanding, I apologize.

 

[sovietdoc]

Guys, guys..I feel like we need to throw in a towel here. This thread has drifted away from its original point onto a big debate on "Manual vs Auto"

Although, I can see how this is also relevant since using Auto ISO brings up all these valid ponts all of you have made for arguing about shooting in Manual or Auto.


Personally, I agree with Graystar because I have a few "pro" photographers as close friends who shoot with their cameras and have never even used anything "automatic" on their camera because they don't know how it works, and they've missed numerous shots because one can only be so quick with manual adjustments. Obviously, if you have all the time in the world, or even if you're relatively quick with your gear, in most situations this will not be a problem. But the reason I brought this up (which was originally a question about using Auto ISO) was because I don't know about you, but when I get a piece of gear, I must know it 100%. This includes all auto,semi-auto and manual modes. I just don't feel comfortable if there settings there I've never used because although I might have had an idea of how they worked, and I didn't like that, I never could be 100% sure of what I knew.

It's like if I am driving a car and I don't know enough about it, there is always uncertanty in the back of my mind "what if it stops" because if it does, I have no idea how to fix it.

Obviously, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to "Always use auto modes" or "always use manual" but I think it makes sense to know and understand your equipment 100%. I've found out numerous times in the past when I thought I knew how a certain semi-auto mode worked, and then I used it and got crap photos because I actually didn't know how it worked. So I just blamed the "stupid program in the camera" and said I'd never use auto modes. But current DSLRs are much better than a fully auto point and shoots. Heck, even PnS cameras nowdays have manual controls.

I suppose it also depends on what you are shooting. My original question about using Auto ISO has arisen from the fact that in some of my shoots, I had to run all around the place and always having to tweak the camera's settings, really wasn't working well for me because I was missing good shots. Again, I would agree with Graystar because semi-auto modes still give you control of what you want, while letting the software take care of the rest. And because this saves you time, you can look more at what you're shooting, versus constantly adjusting multiple settings. If I am shooting a kid running through the backyard do I care about aperture or shutter speed most? Well, I could care about both, and so I'd stick with manual, but in most situations I've personally found out I only care about Aperture or Shutter speed, and not both combined. Again, if I do want both for whatever reason, there is always full manual. I can still set exposure comp in semi-auto modes which will either change ISO or one of the other "locked" values, so in the end it does give me pretty much the same result. Except at a fraction of a speed.

Do semi-auto modes have certain limitations? Well, yes. And that is why I think it's important to know and understand how these modes work, because if you need to take shots fast, they will save you time, but if you don't know the limitations, software will ruin your shots.

But obviously if you don't care about super speed, you can always play around in full manual, because then in the end, if the picture is ruined you have nobody to blame but yoursef.

 

[JClishe]

Ahh! Alright I was really confused why you would say that to me

Likewise, I was really confused why you replied that way to me. Until I re-read it a couple times and realized that my intent may not have been worded super clear. We're good.

 

[unpopular]

There is so much absurdity in this thread, such a high level of confusion concerning the most basic principles of exposure and measurement and how the light meter functions, that there really isn't much here to discuss.