Shooting in P mode

[unpopular]

^^^uhm.

you do know that this is exactly what I'm saying, right?

 

[The_Traveler]

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.

My opinion

The Rules of Composition are, IMO, an attempt at laying out in a simple form, for the photographers' use, how people see and interpret images presented to them.

People try to interpret what the picture is supposed to show them and get cues or clues from the position of the center of interest(s). Because people think symmetry and balance when an image is centered and the image is symmetrical or balanced, then the thought and the image are congruent and look good and satisfactory.

In the reverse, if you put an unbalanced or asymmetric center of interest, dead center, then there is a mixed message. That can be used by the photographer but usually is uncomfortable viewing. For example, a live human profile or 3/4 view generally looks better if it is not centered because there is space 'behind' the profile and the viewer tries to reconcile several cues - human face with eye on the front, as much space behind as in front - why is that? - and thus it feels uncomfortable.

All of the Rules are really not about the photographer but how the viewer unconsciously processes the clues and cues are being given in order to 'understand' the image.

 

[unpopular]

I've seen perfectly sound and strong images being tied up in contrived composition "critiques", as well as critiques that lacked any real depth because of "compositional flaws".

You could give a computer a set of rules, and have it go out and select images that meet these "good composition" rules. Composition in the way that most people think of it is nothing short of a technical exercise as well. In fact, this sort of mechanized approach to composition is something I fight with my own photography.

 

[Steve5D]

I'm not sure how you can even begin to make an artistic photo without knowing the basics first

Why does that matter?

This all makes me wonder about something. For those who believe that one must know all of the nuts and bolts of photography, could those people identify one photo, out of ten, which was taken in "P" mode?

My gut tells me the answer would be "no".

I don't really care what a photographer is trying to capture. What matters is what he did capture. How he did it is really of little concern to me...

 

[unpopular]

I've kind of said this before here, but I don't think it was really appreciated.

The problem with teaching first in AE mode is that it doesn't really accomplish anything. If you take any given meter mode and line up the indicator with EV±0, this is exactly the same as manual mode without any exposure compensation. The same is true if you line up the indicator with +1 or -2 or whatever. AE doesn't really protect a newbie from having to learn exposure control, all it does is kind of disassociates camera function from it's user.

So no. I can't tell if a photograph is AE or not, and that doesn't really worry me, because really the two aren't any different. But what does worry me is the number of newbies who simply cannot grasp the basic concept of reciprocity because the way that they've thought about exposure is "turn left to make it with less DOF, turn right to make it with more DOF" and have zero concept of EC beyond "+1 makes it brighter if it's under exposed" but have no clear idea of what "under/over" exposed means and why the image was under exposed in the first place.

Manual exposure forces a photographer to understand the camera and what it's doing. This isn't easily taught in AE mode when it's doing it for you. AE has purpose, by all means. But you're not escaping anything "technical" by using it. So I am not really seeing the issue.

 

[BrianV]

The same can be stated about using cameras with built in light meters rather than teaching the use of hand-held meters. Using a hand held meter allows the photographer to compare brightness of various portions of the image more carefully, and more carefully select the exposure.

I learned more about exposure compensation using a Yashica SU-60e Super-8 movie camera with Kodachrome II than anything else.

 

[Derrel]

REAL photographers shoot everything on glass plates. With wooden flatbed view cameras.

 

[unpopular]

The same can be stated about using cameras with built in light meters rather than teaching the use of hand-held meters. Using a hand held meter allows the photographer to compare brightness of various portions of the image more carefully, and more carefully select the exposure.

What I am arguing though isn't a matter of precision, but function. A handheld spot meter will function the same as an in-camera spot meter, you're not going to learn anything new in particular by using a hand held reflective meter.

 

[pgriz]

If we're shooting in good light, then choosing "P" or "M" is not that much of an issue. If the conditions are marginal and/or the subject is moving, then knowing the mechanics of exposure becomes essential to be able to get any decent result. It goes beyond the issue of camera settings. Under "good" light, you don't need to think about light diffusers, reflectors, fill, separation lights, etc. In poor conditions, you absolutely need to know how to manage the light(s) to extract a good image.

So the question to me is, under which conditions are we shooting? If I was to give a workshop to beginning photographers, I'd try to arrange for a bright, semi-overcast day near some light-colored wall which can be used as reflectors. Then we can leave the camera in 'P" mode, and concentrate on composition, framing, and the like. If the DOF becomes needed either to be shallow (to minimize background, for instance), then we'd change to A mode and play with large, medium and small apertures. If we want to explore motion blur, we'd switch to Tv or S mode and play with the different shutter speeds and see what works. If the subject was predominantly dark or light, then we could explore the role of exposure compensation to "correct" the exposure for the subject matter.

On the other hand, if we had challenging light conditions, scene dynamic range greatly in excess of the camera's ability to capture, and/or the need to compensate for fast motion, then there is no choice but to pick the best combination of metering mode, shooting mode, focal length, and accessories (tripods, lights, light modifiers) to allow us to achieve our objectives.

 

[The_Traveler]

No one should learn how to drive unless they can drive a stick shift
No one should learn how to drive unless they can drive a stick shift and do some basic maintenance
No one should learn how to drive unless they can drive a stick shift and do some basic maintenance and can fix a car if it breaks down
No one should learn how to drive unless they can drive a stick shift and do some basic maintenance and can fix a car if it breaks down and can actually put an engine together
No one should learn how to drive unless they can drive a stick shift and do some basic maintenance and can fix a car if it breaks down and can actually put an engine together and build a kit car from scratch
No one should learn how to drive unless they can drive a stick shift and do some basic maintenance and can fix a car if it breaks down and can actually put an engine together and build a kit car from scratch and
actually design a new concept in automotive engineering, get teh basic development work funded and actually start into production and have thousands of dealerships.

No one should do any post processing ........................

 

[The_Traveler]

Let go

Your way doesn't have to be the only right way

Just make pictures.

 

[BrianV]

The same can be stated about using cameras with built in light meters rather than teaching the use of hand-held meters. Using a hand held meter allows the photographer to compare brightness of various portions of the image more carefully, and more carefully select the exposure.

What I am arguing though isn't a matter of precision, but function. A handheld spot meter will function the same as an in-camera spot meter, you're not going to learn anything new in particular by using a hand held reflective meter.

Learn to use an incident light meter. With a hand-held reflective meter, move close-in, meter on various objects before composing the shot. Figure the exposure used "in your head". You can go as deep as you want. Nikon F Photomic Bullseye: built-in Coupled Incident light meter. That was nice. The nice thing about Digital- you can take a picture, look at the image and histogram, and make adjustments. Next time you come across a similar situation, remember the scene and the adustment to use. There is nothing wrong with using "P"rogram mode when the situation allows. My first camera was a Minolta H-Matic 9 with a program mode, and metered manual mode. I learned when to take the camera off of "AA" and set manually after getting some pictures back of strongly backlit subjects. Now, 45 years later, dialing in EV corrections with the camera on auto is "Auto" for me.

 

[unpopular]

incident metering sucks.

You guys are making it out like i'm "anti auto" i'm not at all. i'm simply saying that teaching auto doesn't save anyone from learning the technical, and in the long run complicates matters.

 

[Derrel]

"incident metering sucks"????

How about a more-logical statement, like any of these: "New York air sucks." "Australian surfing sites blow." "Honda motorcycles are Japanese crap!" "Ford is soooo much better than Chevy!" "Biscuits are great: toast sucks!"

 

[unpopular]

oh. yeah. sorry.

in my opinion incident metering sucks. I also think you should be able to tell the difference between an opinion an fact without having to declare "in my opinion" after everything someone says, you know, in my opinion.