Just to Inflame you.

[bigfatbadger]

Good point, why is everyone so snobby about auto exposures but not about auto focus?

 

[Corry]

Art is a personal journey. We should never judge that.

I'm with Danalec! Definitely worth quoting twice, too.

 

[mysteryscribe]

NO NO, I honestly have no idea what this is all about.. I don't own a camera with any of that... Well i do have this toy thing for ebay. Otherwise I have no idea what all the fuss is about.

 

[JamesD]

The idea is that it's bad to let the camera's built-in calculator read the built-in meter and select an aperture and shutter speed from a table programmed into it's memory. Then have it set those to produce a "properly exposed" negative (which it will only do for an 18% gray card).

That's all auto-exposure does. It reads the meter, which gives it the average luminosity of the metered area; in other words, and exposure value. It takes that EV to a lookup table and finds a shutter speed and aperture that match (for a given film speed). Or it might calculate it mathematically, I don't know the internal workings. If you spin the control to tell it "No, I want a larger aperture," then it goes to the next cell in the chart for that same EV. If you dial in exposure compensation, then it adds or subtracts whatever you tell it to from the EV, and looks it up in the table (or calculates it, whatever).

Fact is, I can do exactly this process with a pencil and paper, but that built-in processor chip does it faster, because it doesn't have to count on my fingers.

Further fact is, I can actually do this, literally by counting on my fingers, with no meter and the sunny-16 rule. But with the meter, it's more accurate, and with the chip, it's faster.

So, if you really want to remove autoexposure, you have to use the sunny-16 rule, or use trial and error. You can't use a meter, built-in, hand-held, or any other kind, other than your calibrated eyeball. Any meter, and the knowledge of the process for calculating exposure (or a cheat-sheet graph, which is what the camera uses), automatically equals auto-exposure (to at least some degree) because it makes it faster and more accurate through the use of rules and/or equations, and measurements; or, alternatively, because at least some of the work (ie trial and error) is already done for you.

Since I doubt that anybody, even Luke, is going to entirely throw away all meters, calculators, charts/tables, and calculations in the head, and resort strictly to trial and error, I believe that it's really a moot point.

As for autofocus, I think that nobody (well, few people) object to it, because we all have imperfect eyesight, and it's much harder to tell whether something is in tack-sharp focus when viewing in that itty-bitty window, as compared to eyeballing a 4X6 or 8X10 print up close. Mainly, though, it's just not controvercial enough, because it generally improves the focus of the image. Nevermind that the mastermind using autofocus and autoexposure forgets (or doesn't know) to recompose the scene so it's aesthetically appealing. In fact, without understanding "art theory" (kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?) they won't even realize that their picture could be better from an artistic standpoint. As long as it shows what they wanted to show, in focus, and not too light or too dark, they're happy.

As am I. My methods just differ a little.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Sounds a lot like that photolab that caters to the lowest common denominator to me.

Oh yeah with a hand held meter you decide which combination of shutterspeed and f stop you want. I know programed mode does that but you have to remember to switch it from portrait to action ect. Seems easier to say oh yeah thats what I want. But I don't have a choice so I cant speak for anyone else.

And for autofocus you get what is dead center in focus. Can't focus on the bride, then reframe for the cake in front and still have her in focus. Well i think you acutally can but hard to look past her to focus. Im rambling tell me to shut up please

 

[Luke]

The idea is that it's bad to let the camera's built-in calculator read the built-in meter and select an aperture and shutter speed from a table programmed into it's memory. Then have it set those to produce a "properly exposed" negative (which it will only do for an 18% gray card).

That's all auto-exposure does. It reads the meter, which gives it the average luminosity of the metered area; in other words, and exposure value. It takes that EV to a lookup table and finds a shutter speed and aperture that match (for a given film speed). Or it might calculate it mathematically, I don't know the internal workings. If you spin the control to tell it "No, I want a larger aperture," then it goes to the next cell in the chart for that same EV. If you dial in exposure compensation, then it adds or subtracts whatever you tell it to from the EV, and looks it up in the table (or calculates it, whatever).

Fact is, I can do exactly this process with a pencil and paper, but that built-in processor chip does it faster, because it doesn't have to count on my fingers.

Further fact is, I can actually do this, literally by counting on my fingers, with no meter and the sunny-16 rule. But with the meter, it's more accurate, and with the chip, it's faster.

So, if you really want to remove autoexposure, you have to use the sunny-16 rule, or use trial and error. You can't use a meter, built-in, hand-held, or any other kind, other than your calibrated eyeball. Any meter, and the knowledge of the process for calculating exposure (or a cheat-sheet graph, which is what the camera uses), automatically equals auto-exposure (to at least some degree) because it makes it faster and more accurate through the use of rules and/or equations, and measurements; or, alternatively, because at least some of the work (ie trial and error) is already done for you.

Since I doubt that anybody, even Luke, is going to entirely throw away all meters, calculators, charts/tables, and calculations in the head, and resort strictly to trial and error, I believe that it's really a moot point.

As for autofocus, I think that nobody (well, few people) object to it, because we all have imperfect eyesight, and it's much harder to tell whether something is in tack-sharp focus when viewing in that itty-bitty window, as compared to eyeballing a 4X6 or 8X10 print up close. Mainly, though, it's just not controvercial enough, because it generally improves the focus of the image. Nevermind that the mastermind using autofocus and autoexposure forgets (or doesn't know) to recompose the scene so it's aesthetically appealing. In fact, without understanding "art theory" (kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?) they won't even realize that their picture could be better from an artistic standpoint. As long as it shows what they wanted to show, in focus, and not too light or too dark, they're happy.

As am I. My methods just differ a little.

RIGHT, totally missed the point, completely. What you are talking about is a diff definition of program mode. Im talking bout auto mode, it sets it, and you cant decide what shutter, or what aperture, like a point and shoot digi. giving you know contorl over depth of field, motion, or what it exposes for. which is different to what you do when canon user use program, which gives them control over that, i thought we cleared up this terminology difference a few posts ago.

Since I doubt that anybody, even Luke, is going to entirely throw away all meters, calculators, charts/tables, and calculations in the head, and resort strictly to trial and error, I believe that it's really a moot point.

actually i do that, when i do street photography, never assume my dear boy. I don't want to look into my slr for fear of making my subject self concious, so i just set them based on my eye's percieved value, and shoot from the hip. no sunny 16 anymore though I learnt to guess exposure by using it. im getting better too, about 70% spot on these days, and rarely do i produce an unusable negative.

 

[Arch]

im getting better too, about 70% spot on these days, and rarely do i produce an unusable negative.

It was said earlier that its the end result that really matters........ and i agree.

Lets just say you were shooting from the hip one day...... you see an old haggard guy crossing the road..... you take three shots before he reaches the other side...... the first and second fall into your 30% over/under exposed shots...... but for the last you swith to auto.

When you get the pictures home you open them to see the auto shot came out spot on....... his expression, the tones..... everything looks good...... everybody you show it to likes the shot...... are you gonna bin it because of the technicality that it was shot on auto?...... would you consider yourself lazy?...... after all, you were there to see the potential....... and its your artisitc eye that wanted to capture the shot...... the camera was just the tool to get what you wanted.

I hardly ever shoot on auto either...... but if i did, and the result was usable.... i wouldn't consider it lazy or stupid..... sure i would have prefered a bit of control, but auto can be used as just another option on your camera.

As for people who are learning..... i think its more important to figure out what and why you are shooting the subjects you are...... rather than worry about the cameras functions. There is alot of 'look at the dof i'v achieved this shot'...... rather than looking at the subject matter itself, and asking why you have photographed it.

 

[mysteryscribe]

But I think everyone agrees the mark a real photographer is being able to know what caused the picture to be great, and being able to reproduce it. If you know why the auto shot was great, you can force it for another customer. Otherwise you have to wait for that same set of remarkable circumstances so your auto camera can capture just he right combination of depth and speed.

That said let me join the other side a second. An overwhelming majority of the shot's value is in how it is composed. The lighting came make a good shot great. But it can't make a bad shot anything but an inspired bit of trash. I have a room full of those by the way. So I'm not pointing fingers at anyone else.

These are the opinions of a hopelessly behind the times photographer.

 

[Arch]

But I think everyone agrees the mark a real photographer is being able to know what caused the picture to be great, and being able to reproduce it.

everyone agrees???......:mrgreen:

Yea i know what your saying...... its is important to know how these processes work...... but that wasn't my point.....

My point was...... you have two sets of pictures in front of you, both shot by a photog with only 6 months experience....... one set is technically good, but consists of the most mundane, boring and predictable subjects you can imagine....... your tying not to yawn as you look through them.

The other lacks techinical knowledge and often has to use auto, but every single one of the shots is inspired. The photog naturally has a great eye...... they can see things, angles, shapes, textures, forms etc.....

Having done some support teaching for art classes..... I know which one i would say has the most potential for a great photographer....... and i'd hope you would see it too.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I'm not sure but you still have to able to transmit your vision. Auto cameras are great for shooting a hundred shots to get your vision. Trust me we did it for years in 35mm and paid the price... There is nothing wrong with it.

My point was, at least I hope it was, that if you are making one of a kind, oil painting for instance, then creating a great picture without knowing why is peachy keen. Actually I have seen some that were done that way. Go to a sidewalk sale and look at one artist with twenty painting, but only one of them gets any real attention.

But alas my poorly made point was, if I show Janie a portrait with a short dof and neato fuzzy flowers, and if she wants one like it. I really do need to know how it happened.

But alas, I have also said before you can fix a lot of er er stuff, but you can't fix what ain't there. But that goes to the marriage of technical and artistic which is what photography has tried to be for the last hundred years. It might be taking off into a new direction there days, one neither you nor I understand just yet.

 

[Luke]

It was said earlier that its the end result that really matters........ and i agree.

Lets just say you were shooting from the hip one day...... you see an old haggard guy crossing the road..... you take three shots before he reaches the other side...... the first and second fall into your 30% over/under exposed shots...... but for the last you swith to auto.

When you get the pictures home you open them to see the auto shot came out spot on....... his expression, the tones..... everything looks good...... everybody you show it to likes the shot...... are you gonna bin it because of the technicality that it was shot on auto?...... would you consider yourself lazy?...... after all, you were there to see the potential....... and its your artisitc eye that wanted to capture the shot...... the camera was just the tool to get what you wanted.

I hardly ever shoot on auto either...... but if i did, and the result was usable.... i wouldn't consider it lazy or stupid..... sure i would have prefered a bit of control, but auto can be used as just another option on your camera.

As for people who are learning..... i think its more important to figure out what and why you are shooting the subjects you are...... rather than worry about the cameras functions. There is alot of 'look at the dof i'v achieved this shot'...... rather than looking at the subject matter itself, and asking why you have photographed it.

again, missed the point. first off let me say, im still learning to meter with my eye so i aim to get 100% effective, further more, im very rarely more than a stop off and black and white negs yield that easily, so the first two would be fine. now, of course i wouldnt bin that shot, provided it's good, if you get a good shot, you've got a good shot (doesn't mean you're a good photographer), i do not judge a shot based on how it was done, except sometimess when digital editing is involved (like if you know that that amazing fire shot really happened, instead of it just being a PS job, it is that much more amazing, but yeah, those shots are rare) anyway i digress. the reason i hate auto is that you won't be able to reproduce the shots well because you won't have that inate knowledge of photography, and you won't have the skills to constantly get good shots. when you're learning it is essential to shoot rarely on auto, maybe start with ap. priority. exposure is a big part of every photo, as big as subject matter and composition. aperture and shutter are not 'functions' they are the basis of every photo. basically you've got this, subject matter, composition, aperture, shutter. why you would ever trust the last two artistic elements to a machine i don't know.
Anyway, with the bum shot, even if it was well exposed, perhaps i would be cursing that it set my aperture to f 4 at 250th of a sec, instead of what i wouldve done with f 8 at 1 60th, and gotten little motion blur and teh onlookers in focus too.

 

[Arch]

again, missed the point.

Hmmmm..... i dont think i have at all....... in fact, i think you've missed the point. I am simply giving you the other half of a beginners outlook on photography. You are saying that you should learn how to use the camera properly first........ i am saying you should learn to use your eye first.

Niether of these methods are wrong......... but it is personal preference.

basically you've got this, subject matter, composition, aperture, shutter. why you would ever trust the last two artistic elements to a machine i don't know.

This demonstrates my point....... why wouldn't you want to develope the first two options first........ sure all four are important to keep up consistant photography........ but from a beginners point of view there would be nothing wrong with learning the first two using auto....... then incorporate the last two elements to start producing really good photography.

As for people who are serious about their photography...... i cant see many of them actually still having to use auto anyway........ so i dont see how you can be refering to them, and not beginners.

 

[JamesD]

RIGHT, totally missed the point, completely. What you are talking about is a diff definition of program mode. Im talking bout auto mode, it sets it, and you cant decide what shutter, or what aperture, like a point and shoot digi. giving you know contorl over depth of field, motion, or what it exposes for. which is different to what you do when canon user use program, which gives them control over that, i thought we cleared up this terminology difference a few posts ago.

Permit me to be a bit clearer. In Full Auto mode (as opposed to Program Mode), the camera checks the meter reading, and selects a shutter speed and aperture which will produce an overall 18% shade in the negative. With full auto, you can't set compensation, nor can you change the aperture-to-shutter ratio, but the process is the same.

In the various Full Auto modes, the camera will alter its selection by reading from a different table. For Portrait mode, it uses a larger aperture; for landscape mode, it uses a smaller aperture. In night mode, it even adds a third exposure control: additional light. In any of these cases, you still have no control, other than selecting the specific Fully Automatic mode you wish the camera to use, over which settings the camera selects. Is this fully automatic enough for your definition? In any case, the proces is exactly the same.

A step further: by selecting which lens (or degree of zoom, if you prefer) you intend to use, and moving closer or farther away, as required, you can force the camera to change depth of field. You can also change the film speed, or add filters. Is the average full-auto user going to do this? Probably not. Does it matter? Probably not.

Very few people (the vast majority of whom are viewers, rather than photographers, and probably none of whom will be critics), are going to care whether the background and foreground have enough blur, whether whatever else in the scene is in too deep of shadow to be seen, or is rendered too light. They're interested in whether the subject can be seen clearly. In addition, with the exposure latitude of most negative films, or the instantaneous feedback provided by a digital camera, combined with the post-processing available at WalMart's photo scanning stations, it doesn't matter whether exposure is spot on. They can adjust it themselves.

actually i do that, when i do street photography, never assume my dear boy. I don't want to look into my slr for fear of making my subject self concious, so i just set them based on my eye's percieved value, and shoot from the hip. no sunny 16 anymore though I learnt to guess exposure by using it. im getting better too, about 70% spot on these days, and rarely do i produce an unusable negative.

First, I'm neither dear to you, nor your boy. Second, it appears that you've missed my point. You've still not thrown away your tools. You're aren't using trial and error at all. You've done your trial and error in the past, and created your own lookup table in your head. You evaluate the scene, select which exposure settings, based on experience, which you think will work for the effect you want, and go from there.

By "throwing away" all the tools, I'm referring to shooting with no concept of what EV is required; select a starting point and shooting from there. Or selecting an aperture relative to the DOF you want and--without considering the brightness of the scene or subject, or the sensitivity of the film, because that's cheating by giving you an idea of which settings you need--a shutter speed to go with it. No lookup table in your head, no estimating, no cheat sheets; guessing, plain and simple, and not educated guesses either. No calculations are allowed, no computations, no approximations. To do any of these is to use a system which is preset to attempt to select (however imprecisely) a correct setting, and whether the computer is in your head, in your camera, or on paper is irrelevant.

And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the difference between knowing in your own mind approximately which settings to select, and letting a camera use its precalculated approximations, is irrelevant. In practice, they are two entirely different things. However, the real difference is who did the calculations, and when, and whether or not the user has control over the particulars once the "computer" has made its selection.

Even that's not it. The real difference is whether or not the user cares. The viewer won't, or at least shouldn't. The viewer should never think he knows what the photographer is doing, or wish to exert control over the photographer. The viewer has no right to do so. The viewer has only the right to like or dislike the final result, not the process (through which he did not have to go) used to achieve the final result. If the photographer asks for critique, help, or suggestions, then that's another case, but in the end, the image belongs to and is the responsibility of the photographer, not the viewer. Not even the qualified critic.

Finally, if the photographer doesn't want to use any particular method for achieving an exposure calculation, then the photographer shouldn't use that method. If others choose to use that method (whatever their reasoning), then that's their own business, and shouldn't matter a whit anybody but them.

Note that none of this has to do with quality of the image.

 

[Luke]

Permit me to be a bit clearer. In Full Auto mode (as opposed to Program Mode), the camera checks the meter reading, and selects a shutter speed and aperture which will produce an overall 18% shade in the negative. With full auto, you can't set compensation, nor can you change the aperture-to-shutter ratio, but the process is the same.

In the various Full Auto modes, the camera will alter its selection by reading from a different table. For Portrait mode, it uses a larger aperture; for landscape mode, it uses a smaller aperture. In night mode, it even adds a third exposure control: additional light. In any of these cases, you still have no control, other than selecting the specific Fully Automatic mode you wish the camera to use, over which settings the camera selects. Is this fully automatic enough for your definition? In any case, the proces is exactly the same.

A step further: by selecting which lens (or degree of zoom, if you prefer) you intend to use, and moving closer or farther away, as required, you can force the camera to change depth of field. You can also change the film speed, or add filters. Is the average full-auto user going to do this? Probably not. Does it matter? Probably not.

Very few people (the vast majority of whom are viewers, rather than photographers, and probably none of whom will be critics), are going to care whether the background and foreground have enough blur, whether whatever else in the scene is in too deep of shadow to be seen, or is rendered too light. They're interested in whether the subject can be seen clearly. In addition, with the exposure latitude of most negative films, or the instantaneous feedback provided by a digital camera, combined with the post-processing available at WalMart's photo scanning stations, it doesn't matter whether exposure is spot on. They can adjust it themselves.



First, I'm neither dear to you, nor your boy. Second, it appears that you've missed my point. You've still not thrown away your tools. You're aren't using trial and error at all. You've done your trial and error in the past, and created your own lookup table in your head. You evaluate the scene, select which exposure settings, based on experience, which you think will work for the effect you want, and go from there.

By "throwing away" all the tools, I'm referring to shooting with no concept of what EV is required; select a starting point and shooting from there. Or selecting an aperture relative to the DOF you want and--without considering the brightness of the scene or subject, or the sensitivity of the film, because that's cheating by giving you an idea of which settings you need--a shutter speed to go with it. No lookup table in your head, no estimating, no cheat sheets; guessing, plain and simple, and not educated guesses either. No calculations are allowed, no computations, no approximations. To do any of these is to use a system which is preset to attempt to select (however imprecisely) a correct setting, and whether the computer is in your head, in your camera, or on paper is irrelevant.

And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the difference between knowing in your own mind approximately which settings to select, and letting a camera use its precalculated approximations, is irrelevant. In practice, they are two entirely different things. However, the real difference is who did the calculations, and when, and whether or not the user has control over the particulars once the "computer" has made its selection.

Even that's not it. The real difference is whether or not the user cares. The viewer won't, or at least shouldn't. The viewer should never think he knows what the photographer is doing, or wish to exert control over the photographer. The viewer has no right to do so. The viewer has only the right to like or dislike the final result, not the process (through which he did not have to go) used to achieve the final result. If the photographer asks for critique, help, or suggestions, then that's another case, but in the end, the image belongs to and is the responsibility of the photographer, not the viewer. Not even the qualified critic.

Finally, if the photographer doesn't want to use any particular method for achieving an exposure calculation, then the photographer shouldn't use that method. If others choose to use that method (whatever their reasoning), then that's their own business, and shouldn't matter a whit anybody but them.

Note that none of this has to do with quality of the image.

Everything you've said there is true, and I agree. but some of it i don't see the relation to the debate. You said some generally true things, but I don't see what you're trying to prove, sorry, maybe I'm missing it (I know that paragraph sounds sort of sarcastic, but I'm being genuine.)
Basically what I'm saying is this basically:
If you want to be a good photographer, then to use full auto mode is stupid (with the exceptions of some situations, Like when you're just mucking around shooting your dog or something).
It is stupid because you loose control of two fundamental elements of photography, aperture and shutter, of course you know the importance of these elements. While you can still get great shots on auto, theres always a chance you will miss out on capturing the perfect moment perfectly.
I also said that I didn't think people should learn with auto, but i can definately see how it could work better for some.
So yeah, I feel that's a pretty reasonable argument, but what do you reckon?

PS: 'ma dear boy' ---> lighten up, i was joking around, as i was with the somewhat harsh 'missed the point completely'. let's not get angry, after all, we're all just people with internet access and a high regard for photons.

 

[Luke]

Hmmmm..... i dont think i have at all....... in fact, i think you've missed the point. I am simply giving you the other half of a beginners outlook on photography. You are saying that you should learn how to use the camera properly first........ i am saying you should learn to use your eye first.

Niether of these methods are wrong......... but it is personal preference.



This demonstrates my point....... why wouldn't you want to develope the first two options first........ sure all four are important to keep up consistant photography........ but from a beginners point of view there would be nothing wrong with learning the first two using auto....... then incorporate the last two elements to start producing really good photography.

As for people who are serious about their photography...... i cant see many of them actually still having to use auto anyway........ so i dont see how you can be refering to them, and not beginners.

Yes, too true, I did miss the point, sorry man. I get you, and agree. I was never saying that I wouldnt like/respect a shot if it was shot on auto as many seem to asert. Not sure I would teach people to learn on auto, but I'm sure it would work just as well as long as the person wants to get good. But I would look out, on this forum in particular for the people I've noticed a couple of times, that are talking about how they are getting serious, and want to shoot weddings etc. but they still use auto... Hmm, maybe im living in the past, but that seems a little naive to me, I mean, I wouldn't dream of shooting anything big on auto. ANyway, cheers