Shooting in P mode

[The_Traveler]

I would say it in reverse and of course that changes the meaning

The image has no meaning or impact if the viewer is distracted by major defficiencies in the technical elements.

skieur

This is not an exhaustive statement because there may be no distracting technical elements and the image may still not have impact.

This is why that BOTH technique (the technical elements) AND composition the artistic elements are a necessary part of an excellent photo.

As you say in effect, if the technical elements are perfect and there is no centre of interest and no impact, then the photo is poor/weak etc.

BUT, the reverse is also true: If the photo is compositionally excellent but the viewer is distracted by technical deficiencies such as severe overexposure, flare, poor colour etc., then the photo is equally poor/weak etc.


Both the technical and the compositional aspect are excellent in an excellent photo and therefore BOTH are equally important.

skieur

There is a third alternative when the image is powerful and the technical defects aren't distracting enough to destroy the impact.

So, as I said originally, technical issues, including composition, are only important when they keep the viewer from appreciating the image.

 

[Derrel]

With slide film, when metering a bright tonal value with a "dumb", color-blind reflected light meter, you want to cut down on down the exposure from the indicated value...and "peg the highlights" by making absolutely SURE you do not over-expose the whites. With color negative film, you want to over-expose whites to make them white. Exactly the opposite practice for slide film as for negative film.

When shooting color slide film, the meter reading of a pure white tone, given by a dumb reflected light meter will OVER-expose the white, and will blow it out, so you want to meter and close DOWN the lens, or speed UP the shutter. That will keep the white value at the "top" of the exposure...ie, it will "peg the highlight".

With color or B&W negative film, you want to ADD exposure to the result given by a dumb, color-lind, reflected light meter reading, by opening the lens wider, or slowing down the shutter.

 

[christop]

It seems to me like the slide film you're talking about has a higher actual sensitivity than its rated sensitivity, or the meter you're talking about likes to overexpose (which wouldn't be apparent with negative film because of its wide tolerance for overexposure). Any film that blows out on middle gray is just too sensitive. Digital is claimed to be like slide film in this regard, and yet I can overexpose a middle gray object by about two and a half stops to make it white.

Even if you do have to underexpose from middle gray for slide film, it really is the same practice as with negative film. It's just a different exposure compensation amount, which could also be accomplished by telling the camera's metering/exposure system that the film has a higher ISO than what the box or roll claims it has.

 

[Derrel]

Sorry.One film is a POSITVE process. The other is a NEGATIVE process. Have you ever shot slide film??? The practice is not , as you said,"the same"..it is entirely OPPOSITE. As in "opp-o-site".

Meter a white sheet of paper with slide film--you must close down the lens iris.

Meter a white sheet of paper with negative film-you must OPEN UP the iris.

See how that works??? Opposite. Different. Not the same. Entirely opposite.

 

[pixmedic]

Sorry.One film is a POSITVE process. The other is a NEGATIVE process. Have you ever shot slide film??? The practice is not , as you said,"the same"..it is entirely OPPOSITE. As in "opp-o-site".

Meter a white sheet of paper with slide film--you must close down the lens iris.

Meter a white sheet of paper with negative film-you must OPEN UP the iris.

See how that works??? Opposite. Different. Not the same. Entirely opposite.

so what your saying is....it isn't the same?

 

[thetrue]

So does all this mean that I'm artsy? Half the time I don't really focus on the technicals as much as I do getting the shot I want...

 

[EIngerson]

So does all this mean that I'm artsy? Half the time I don't really focus on the technicals as much as I do getting the shot I want...

I'm going to answer that with a quote.

"If you have to ask, the answer is NO"

 

[thetrue]

 

[TCampbell]

I feel like people have sort of skipped over the whole over-emphasis on shooting in manual mode in their haste to disagree with the use of Program mode.

I started shooting in the 70's ... manual mode was pretty much all we had. I did eventually get a Canon AE-1, but that was only "semi-auto" (we thought it was a huge advancement) in that if YOU set the shutter speed then IT would set the aperture (amazing.) We ALSO learned to develop and print our own work... but we don't force people through that learning process anymore.

HOWEVER, I think _everyone_ should LEARN to shoot in "manual" mode, and THEN... not use it except when there's an actual advantage to using manual mode. I rarely shoot in full manual. If I pull out my light meter to do a shot THEN I use full manual.

But for most other occasions, I go through a mental process like this:

1) I manually pick my ISO based on the light

2) I ask myself "Is the subject moving?"

2a) If the answer is "no" then I pick aperture priority mode and let the camera take care of the shutter speed.
2b) If the answer is "yes" then I pick an appropriate shutter speed and let the camera deal with the aperture.

3) I may use exposure compensation based on the shot.

Before anyone gets pedantic, yes... OF COURSE there are exceptions. But this process works most of the time. If I'm doing flash photography then the shutter speed needs to be kept below the flash-sync speed. If the artistic value of the shot depends on the depth of field then aperture wins and if the artistic value depends on shutter speed then shutter speed wins.

There's little point in shooting on full manual ALL time time. Otherwise your process works something like the following:

1) Do steps 1 & 2 above)
2) Dial in either the aperture or shutter based mostly on subject movement.
3) Meter the shot to get the camera's advice.
4) Change the exposure until the setting you picked agrees with what the computer suggested.

So I ask you... if you're just going to dial in the setting to do what the computer told you to do ANYWAY, then why not just let the computer dial in the setting. You paid for a nice camera after all... may as well let it work.

Incidentally... when I put the camera away, I TRY to remember to return it to "Program" mode even though I almost never use that mode. The reason for this is that I have, from time to time, needed to grab the camera and shoot fast. In "Program" mode there's a reasonably high chance that the camera will simply "do the right thing". If I do have a second, I'll take it out of program mode and use it as I normally would. Also if I leave it in program mode then my other half can use it.

I'm more of an advocate for the fact that photographers NEED to understand how exposure works. Shooting in "manual" mode is an excellent way to force a person to learn how that works because it'll be pretty obvious to them everytime they get it wrong. But once they do understand how exposure works, there's not much point in forcing people to continue to use manual. Like I said... if I break out the light meter then I'll shoot in manual. Usually this is true because I'm breaking out the light meter because (a) the shot is really important or (b) I can see by the scene that the in-camera meter is not likely to be accurate.

I generally refer to the Av & Tv modes as "semi automatic" and Program and Auto (Green box) modes as "full auto". I only think of "Manual" mode as being the only true full manual mode (I've come to recognize that some photographers consider the Av & Tv (Nikon A & S) modes as "manual" modes. I don't think this is the majority of folks, but I have encountered a few people who think that if you aren't use the green box or program mode then you're shooting in a manual mode.)

I would NOT presume that just because someone uses a program mode that it would only be because that person doesn't know how to shoot any other way.

I DO think that learning the basics of exposure are the first step and that learning the basics of composition comes after that.

And since we're nit-picking... what's with all the images that aren't actually "level". I suppose we should teach people to hold the camera LEVEL before telling them about the "rule of thirds". <sigh>

 

[skieur]

This is not an exhaustive statement because there may be no distracting technical elements and the image may still not have impact.

This is why that BOTH technique (the technical elements) AND composition the artistic elements are a necessary part of an excellent photo.

As you say in effect, if the technical elements are perfect and there is no centre of interest and no impact, then the photo is poor/weak etc.

BUT, the reverse is also true: If the photo is compositionally excellent but the viewer is distracted by technical deficiencies such as severe overexposure, flare, poor colour etc., then the photo is equally poor/weak etc.


Both the technical and the compositional aspect are excellent in an excellent photo and therefore BOTH are equally important.

skieur

There is a third alternative when the image is powerful and the technical defects aren't distracting enough to destroy the impact.

So, as I said originally, technical issues, including composition, are only important when they keep the viewer from appreciating the image.

Even if the technical defects are sufficiently noticeable to reduce the impact, then they weaken the image, which is why these defects are often pointed out here. As to the degree, it depends on the attention to detail and photographic background of the viewer.

skieur

 

[amolitor]

What if the technical defects are an integral part of the image? Maybe the impact of the image relies on the subject being out of focus and underexposed?

What IS a technical defect, anyways?

There is no such thing as a technical defect, artistically. There are only choices which support the image, choices which detract from it, and choices that do neither. There ARE technical defects when you're delivering specific product, as most professionals do.

 

[skieur]

What if the technical defects are an integral part of the image? Then it is a weak/poor image.

Maybe the impact of the image relies on the subject being out of focus and underexposed? No such thing! Post one!

What IS a technical defect, anyways? A technical decision made by the photographer that detracts from the image and its impact.


skieur

 

[amolitor]

That takes no time at all. "Behind the Gare St. Lazare"

The subject is not out of focus, but is underexposed and heavily motion blurred. Without both of those, the image would be nothing. It could probably come up with other similar examples at a rate of about 1 per minute for as long as I cared to carry on. It's not all bloody Group f/64 out there.

 

[christop]

Sorry.One film is a POSITVE process. The other is a NEGATIVE process.

The "negative" and "positive" have nothing to do with the exposure compensation or range or latitude of the film. They have everything to do with the image on the film, one being the negative image and the other the positive image.

I'm just trying to reconcile what you're saying about slide film because it contradicts everything I've read about it. Everything I've read agrees that slide film goes clear (aka "blown" or white) at about 2.5 stops above middle gray, while you are saying that slide film is blown at middle gray or a stop below it. If your slide film is clear at a middle gray exposure, it seems either you're shooting it about three ISO stops too low (eg, shooting ISO 400 film as ISO 50) or your meter is three stops slow. Am I just misunderstanding what you're trying to say?

 

[dxqcanada]

I think you (christop) and Derrel are having a failure in communication.

I think you are both saying the same thing ??