Shooting in P mode

[The_Traveler]

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

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

You are making the connection that AE and AF makes people shoot fast and that great photographers are somehow different.

That's your rationalization for justifying how you work.
And quite surprisingly dogmatic.

I think that none of this is important, what is important is the image and training people how to see the image and get to that image.
How they decide to do it is of no importance, this isn't ice dancing.

 

[unpopular]

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

I kind of doubt it.

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

I agree, and I think the only way to get there is learning exposure control intuitively, so that it's second nature.

 

[Overread17 5]

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

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

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

I can see the angle you're taking but I think you're taking it more in the position of someone who wants to view great art rather than someone who wants to train photographers. The thing is if the site is about learning and furthering photographers then we are always going to focus upon training photographers. Part of that core training at its onset is learning the technical. Yes those technically perfect artistically dull photos are artistically boring - yes they will bore the heck out of someone who wants to view art. But those are just the kinds of photos beginners need to learn to take. They need to learn how to take them so that when they come to the artistic elements they can control the camera not be controlled and constrained by it and the "brain" inside the camera.
They also need to be able to control it from another aspect, self confidence. If they lack the self confidence in the tools that they have and in their own ability to control them it could very well give them a great underestimation of their own ability and also their potential. Indeed they might come to think that each scene; each situation can only be viewed in a very limited number of ways (or even a single way) because of the nature of how not having the experience to technically control the tool leaves them at the mercy of the cameras unchanging auto mind

 

[unpopular]

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

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

You are making the connection that AE and AF makes people shoot fast and that great photographers are somehow different.

That's your rationalization for justifying how you work.
And quite surprisingly dogmatic.

Not at all. What I am saying is that AF/AE should augment the skills of the photographer. A street photographer must think quickly and clearly, AE/AF compliments this ability.

 

[The_Traveler]

So many people seem to be tied into what I see as a basic error - that the process by which you get an image is somehow the important part.

Fast, slow, auto, non, up, down - who cares.
But this emphasis on process produces boringly same automatons who run for a specific lens or who shoot in a proscribed way.

If your way is important to you, OK

I don't care about 'a way', I care that they person sees an image and then learns the best way for him or her to capture that image but it is always the image and not the way that is important.

 

[unpopular]

This is kind of ironic. You're saying it doesn't matter the method, then advocate teaching people on Program mode.

What you're not realizing is that what myself and gipson are promoting is that in order to teach vision, you must teach technique. The two are not inseparable.

No matter if your an abstract or photorealist, you need to know how to handle paint. Neither method is "inferior art", but they both do involve the mixing and applying of medium onto a canvas.

 

[JAC526]

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

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

But I thought the P stood for "Pro Mode." It doesn't? Seriously?

 

[The_Traveler]

The very way most critique is given forecloses on some creative thinking.
I think that we need to start at a higher level of abstraction and show people how there is some thought behind even the most mundane shor.

What is it that you want to show?
What do you want the viewer to feel and think?
What parts of the image - composition, technical aspects - hurt or help that impact and why?
How better could the picture be done to improve its effect on the viewer?

Show that the technical part is subordinate to what the photographer wants to portray.

 

[cgipson1]

So many people seem to be tied into what I see as a basic error - that the process by which you get an image is someone the important part.

Fast, slow, auto, non, up, down - who cares.
But this emphasis on process produces boringly same automatons who run for a specific lens or who shoot in a proscribed way.

If your way is important to you, OK

I don't care about 'a way', I care that they person sees an image and then learns the best way for him or her to capture that image but it is always the image and not the way that is important.

If I am talking to an Really Excellent, Very Experienced Artist who does phenomenal paintings or sculpture (whatever media), but has never used a camera... and they have an image in their head of a wonderful shot that they want to capture....

I hand them my camera.....

Can they capture that image, with all of the nuances and such, that they are visualizing? Will Program or AUTO allow it? Unlikely!

But give them even six weeks of technical training on the camera... and maybe a crash course in how to achieve the lighting they want... and Voila!

 

[emdiemci]

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

This response was very useful.

 

[unpopular]

What is it that you want to show?
What do you want the viewer to feel and think?
What parts of the image - composition, technical aspects - hurt or help that impact and why?
How better could the picture be done to improve its effect on the viewer?

 

[thetrue]

I kind of agree with unpopular here. Part of the art IS IN the technical, so realistically even if I use shutter or aperture priority, I NEED to have more control than P mode can offer. I've been this way since the day I bought my camera, took a couple snapshots and thought "damn, the color and brightness look good, but I really hate how it looks" - this was with only the experience of disposables and cell phones prior.

 

[The_Traveler]

If I am talking to an Really Excellent, Very Experienced Artist who does phenomenal paintings or sculpture (whatever media), but has never used a camera... and they have an image in their head of a wonderful shot that they want to capture....

I hand them my camera.....

Can they capture that image, with all of the nuances and such, that they are visualizing? Will Program or AUTO allow it? Unlikely!

But give them even six weeks of technical training on the camera... and maybe a crash course in how to achieve the lighting they want... and Voila!

But we aren't, in general, dealing with an experienced artist.
In general, we are dealing with people who don't know how to see things and instead of emphasizing what and how to parse what they are seeing, you want to substitute some mechanical way of dealing with it.

It's sort of interesting that you think I am dogmatic when you guys are really tied to the mechanical process.
Well, look at what you are seeing here - countless repetitive people poses with plastic smiles, captured with a flash in mid-rictus
They are essentially one photo, just change the heads.
And they get praise if the exposure is correct and the composition not too horrible and the focus pretty good - and all terribly boring

What's the fun or the reason for training people to be mediocre clones rather than saying, 'forget this technical crap for a while and get some spontaneity and interest and excitement.'?

 

[unpopular]

I suppose traveller's position is more expressionist, but in my world view (see what I did there) everything I don't like is modern.

Of course, it could be argued that expressionism/impressionism is early modernism. And I tend to agree, I do see a lot of Manet in Picasso.

 

[Overread17 5]

The very way most critique is given forecloses on some creative thinking.
I think that we need to start at a higher level of abstraction and show people how there is some thought behind even the most mundane shor.

What is it that you want to show?
What do you want the viewer to feel and think?
What parts of the image - composition, technical aspects - hurt or help that impact and why?
How better could the picture be done to improve its effect on the viewer?

Show that the technical part is subordinate to what the photographer wants to portray.

Those are quite advanced parts of the learning curve for most people and often they are questions that they've not really considered in any depth. They also require that the photographer understand that they have "options" when they shoot. Both creative and technical options to choose from. If you eliminate one or both paths (eg using auto to remove the technical choice) then suddenly that person is removing an element of their creative choice from the process.

They are great questions, but they are intermediate questions. You start asking them once they can use the tool and once they have a few basic artistic concepts. They are questions that can only really start to appear in someones workflow once the technical and the artistic are becoming instinctive. If you try to start with them you end up overloading the learner as they are trying to think of their vision whilst not having all the base tools to carry it out with.

It's akin to learning maths - yes you can jump in and teach people quadratics right from the get go - but honestly they'll be vastly superior and pick things up a lot faster if you first spend months teaching them their times tables - then their basic maths and then working with equations and then eventually building up to the quadratics.