Shooting in P mode

[fjrabon]

I’ve been thinking about the way that people responded to this post initially and some other ideas occurred to me.

If someone can produce a beautiful/great/important image, why is it so important that it be done a certain way? That is, why must the person be controlling the camera by knowing all the technical issues that most responders have named as crucial. No one makes these kinds of procedural requirements on any other kind of art.

Well, first of all in order to produce a "beautiful/great/important" photographic image it is rather important that you use a camera. Since the camera is your "artistic tool", skilled use of a camera is rather a basic requisite. And yes there are requirements in other kinds of art. Great piano pieces by an unskilled pianist.:lmao: Great literature from illiterate authors. Artistic masterpieces from an artist whose skill with a brush is very poor. These forms of art are WITHIN THE PARAMETERS of the particular medium. A basic structure, medium, format, procedure, is required. Kicking a garbage can may be expressing itself, but anyone would be intellectually challenged to call it art.

True, it may be better, more useful to know these things, just to be in control of the medium but why do people respond so vehemently, not as if I were just suggesting one method of getting to an endpoint but as if I was insulting the way they do things?

Yes, knowing how to use a camera would definitely be "useful"....I would say a necessity to get to any endpoint of producing an artistic photo image.


One of the endpoints of a skill based art, like photography, is a acceptable/good/great satisfying image. The other endpoint is the satisfaction one gets from performing a difficult task correctly, achieving a skill and exercising it.

By calling it a "skill based art" means that technical skill is an important element and just as important as composition. "Achieving a skill and exercising it" is NOT achieved at all if you have made all kinds of technical errors.

Acceptable/good/great satisfying images are difficult to achieve because any skill must have some degree of talent mixed in - and that is not under an individual’s control. So when I say that photography is OK, even beneficial, to start in a P or auto mode, then it seems that I am somehow discounting the skills that people work so hard to achieve and value. Skill is the one thing that anyone can be certain of getting out of photography with some effort; you can achieve some level of skill but you can’t teach artistic talent.

Having taught in an Arts School, I certainly agree that you can't teach artistic talent, but you certainly can teach the technical skills necessary to achieve success in better expression of their talent.

So after a day of shooting and the shots are all just well focused and exposed and framed, but ordinary, the only satisfaction available may only be from the exercise of skill. So when it was suggested that that development of skill isn’t the most important thing, people got defensive.

You also don't seem to be reading well. I am NOT indicating that artistic talent or expression is unimportant. I am saying that:

TECHNIQUE(the technical end) AND COMPOSITION (the artistic end) ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT. and for that matter so are the organizations representing photographers.

skieur

I don't even know how you can say that the two are equally important. You can't compare the two. That's like saying that bicycle and grape are equally important. what does that even mean? You have two unquanitifable things, that aren't directly comparable, yet are attempting to say they're 'equally important'. That's not wrong, it's incoherent. Not even just incoherent, but doubly incoherent.

 

[The_Traveler]

You also don't seem to be reading well. I am NOT indicating that artistic talent or expression is unimportant. I am saying that:

TECHNIQUE(the technical end) AND COMPOSITION (the artistic end) ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT. and for that matter so are the organizations representing photographers.

skieur

I read perfectly well and making snide ad hominen remarks doesn't advance your argument.
Without going further in what seems to be a useless argument, let me just say that, no matter what your authorities say, I don't care either about their opinion or yours.
You seem to be tied very strongly into that belief system and that's fine for you.

I don't need their agreement, or yours, to have faith in my own opinion.

 

[dewey]

I thought the "P" stood for Pro mode. Oh well, back to the green box for me.

Damn... Diet Coke on the screen.

 

[table1349]

just because your opinion is in line with the expert's consensus doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion - an opinion which I happen to agree with, but an opinion nonetheless.

Where there is a general consensus from pros and artistic enthusiasts, then it is more than just opinion and those that disagree are out on a limb which will be cut off in any judgement of photographic/artistic quality at a professional level.

skieur

Han van Meegeren. Eneough said.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Maybe, just maybe, ALL of us who have cameras that can shoot in Program mode ought to go ahead and actually TRY making some photos using P mode? You know, just to see how it works?

Naw...that's too likely to yield results that might, horror of horrors!!!:

1) confirm our biases about how $hi++y Program mode is, or---

2) blow narrow-minded, smugness right out of the water, and reveal that Program mode can actually work quite well.

Either way, the risks of shooting in Program mode are high...danger lurks where Program is set...right???

Maybe some of us did

 

[unpopular]

You also don't seem to be reading well. I am NOT indicating that artistic talent or expression is unimportant. I am saying that:

TECHNIQUE(the technical end) AND COMPOSITION (the artistic end) ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT. and for that matter so are the organizations representing photographers.

skieur

When bold doesn't work out, try making it slightly larger if that doesn't wash away your fallacy JUST USE ALL CAPS, TOO if still they don't pay attention MAKE IT BLUE. And be sure to sign your name after everything, that adds a nice touch.

If all else false, make your point in latin! Argumentum verbosium can be fun!

 

[The_Traveler]

"Sapientia est non sapientia ut is est traho ex authorities unus."

(Eng. Wisdom is not wisdom if it is derived from authorities alone.)

 

[BrianV]

I equate using "P" mode on a camera with using software that you did not even write yourself. I got over that when Photoshop 3.0 and Photostyler 1.1 were sold.

Damn. Just contradicted myself. My DSLR has "P" mode, but I had to write the software for it myself.

 

[unpopular]

just because your opinion is in line with the expert's consensus doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion - an opinion which I happen to agree with, but an opinion nonetheless.

Where there is a general consensus from pros and artistic enthusiasts, then it is more than just opinion and those that disagree are out on a limb which will be cut off in any judgement of photographic/artistic quality at a professional level.

skieur

If it's not an opinion, then what is it? It sure as hell isn't a fact!

Oh and for the record, I misread your statements. I do disagree. Technical ability should extend only to that which is needed to convey the message. Everything else is just ****ery.

 

[rexbobcat]

Does P mode stand for professional or does it stand for pathetic?

Someone please clarify.

 

[unpopular]

I wish we could say w@nk

 

[CCericola]

Ok, Lew really made me think about this. There are 2 things you need for a great photo. 1. Technical execution and 2. Good composition and artistic expression. Now. I came from an art background so I already had studied composition, light, color theory, angles, etc... They are the same principles no matter what the medium. So when I started photography what I needed to learn was the technical aspect of the medium. Starting from the beginning in manual makes sense in my case. But, lets just say someone has a background in photography, is great at understanding the technical, but sucks at say, composition. Then I think using a program mode works for them. For someone having trouble with both the program mode works if said person wants to work on composition first and technical later. And vice versa. So, I guess what I'm saying is it doesn't matter how you start as long as you eventually learn both parts. I think, unless you know both you will never be a great photographer. Good, but not great.

 

[unpopular]

Composition though is really more of a visual syntax. Proponents of classical composition like to believe that there is a sort of rule book that we can all turn to with clear concise answers about "good composition".

But what makes a good composition isn't golden ratios and third/fifth relationships. These harmonic compositions are great for conveying classical themes, but not necessarily appropriate for all images.

The one that really bothers me is the "never center" rule. It's absurd, and frankly, something that seems to fester exclusively on internet forums. Until I came here, I've never even really encountered this and it's often taken to a ridiculous level almost as if every image would could be improved if only you move the subject over a hair.

Centering provides for a bold, domineering composition which is especially useful with simpler subject matter with a strong sense of symmetry. Centering works well in square formats, especially in triangular compositions. In a square format, centering often provides a sense of balance and harmony, where off center is often more the opposite.

My point though is that it really depends on what you're trying to convey. There are no rules to composition, only effective and expressive compositions that work well with what the artist is trying to convey. It makes no sense for an image that is meant to be tense and uncomfortable to have a composition that is pleasing and flowing.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Maybe, just maybe, ALL of us who have cameras that can shoot in Program mode ought to go ahead and actually TRY making some photos using P mode? You know, just to see how it works?

Naw...that's too likely to yield results that might, horror of horrors!!!:

1) confirm our biases about how $hi++y Program mode is, or---

2) blow narrow-minded, smugness right out of the water, and reveal that Program mode can actually work quite well.

Either way, the risks of shooting in Program mode are high...danger lurks where Program is set...right???

Maybe some of us did

Ok that was cheap lol Here is the email I sent Lew, a couple examples of what I ended up with shooting in P mode. I would have to say that some of the settings I would not have chosen but the results are either fine or a good jumping off point to learn more about how to achieve specific things like freezing a bird in motion.


Hey Lew,
So, I wasn't 100% convinced about starting in P mode but I had never shot in it so I decided to give it a try on a couple of things. I figured that static objects were pretty much a no brainer so I tried it out on birds at the feeder and lit some incense and shot some smoke.

With the smoke I could pretty much get what I wanted, I was able to capture the smoke in various ways and got images I would be happy with. It would have been immediate satisfaction starting out.

The birds, the day was heavy overcast and blah, probably not a day I would choose to shoot birds now but when starting out I would have definitely shot them (and did, and frustrated myself). Roosting I got good results, trying to capture motion not so much BUT it got me close enough to first see artistic potential of capturing motion and a good jumping off point to show the teacher and work off of. Again I would have gotten enough acceptable/good results to give me immediate satisfaction but also some unacceptable results to work on.

Results, I'm more convinced and more inclined to move into P/Tv/Av at this point and I can see the value in starting in P mode.

And that is my pondering over coffee for today ;-)
J

The shots I processed.

 

[Derrel]

Composition though is really more of a visual syntax. Proponents of classical composition like to believe that there is a sort of rule book that we can all turn to with clear concise answers about "good composition".

Sorry, but that is utter nonsense. Seriously. A "rule book" of composition? Seriously? No. Internet noobies might say dumb things like that, but nobody who is truly learned in design or composition thinks there is a "rule book" with clear, concise answers. That idea is, as I stated, utter rubbish. Just nonsensical! It's a straw man...