Shooting in P mode

[thunderkyss]

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.

Is there a thread somewhere, or a tutorial that teaches us how to calculate exposure in our head?

Also, I've been practicing using the built in exposure meter in the camera to determine my settings. While not 100% I think my first shots are closer (& getting closer) to ideal than if I just took a stab at it. Why don't more people suggest using the built in exposure meter?

 

[keith foster]

I learned to drive a car with a manual transmission on the steering column. Using the logic given here by some, I would be less of a driver if I were to use an automatic transmission. Why would anyone seriously believe that utilizing advanced technology or features make you less of a photographer. Let's just all go back to kerosene lanterns, wood cooking stoves and out houses. After all modern day technology is only for the incompetent.

Here is why. In Auto mode the camera takes its readings and using a very complicated algorithm it decides which ISO, Shutter speed and Fstop it should use to give you the picture it sees. If you have 10 people with 10 cameras taking the same picture you will likely find that all 10 cameras used different settings to take the picture. Why would you care? Well the idea of learning photography is consistency, being able to reproduce good shots over and over. You can't do that in Auto. All you are doing is capturing the image as the camera sees it, not as you see it.
You may have to take 1000 pictures to reproduce an great shot that your camera took once in Auto model because the camera may use an Fstop that gives you a large DOF and then look nothing like the shallow DOF shot it gave you last time. It may raise the ISO to a point the photo is not worth printing because of the noise.

I don't understand why people fight learning their camera as one of the first steps. If you set your mind to it and practice a little you will have the basics of Aperture, shutter speed and ISO down in a week. Sure you won't have mastered it but you will understand it why things come out as they do. I know this is true from my years of teaching photography to high school students. I have literally taught intro to photography to hundreds of students and only a handful of them didn't catch on after a week of doing a few basic assignments and explaining why one picture looks different from another in regards to ISO, Aperture and shutter speed.

Quit making excuses and acting like people are asking you to learn rocket science or do heart surgery.

 

[unpopular]

Here is why. In Auto mode the camera takes its readings and using a very complicated algorithm it decides which ISO, Shutter speed and Fstop it should use to give you the picture it sees.

This is not true, except in full Auto mode. AE is simple reciprocity. That's all.

----

The car analogy is completely goofy. It's not the same AT ALL. AE would be more like a hybrid transmission found in some higher end cars. You still need to know what gear to shift into in order to use it. Full Auto is more like automatic transmission. It works OK in average situations, and you certainly don't need to know how to use manual exposure to use , but in some cases you're better off with more control.

 

[amolitor]

I can't even quite follow whose position is where at this point, but it feels like we're all pretty comfortable in our foxholes at this point.

 

[BrianV]

That's an opinion, you are entitled to it.

My opinion- Program mode was a great way to learn about photography without being encumbered by too many technical details all at once. Getting pictures back, learn from mistakes- get more involved wth setting up exposure. Getting the pictures back in real-time on the back of the camera, learn even faster.

You can get very deep into it. If you start rearranging the optics in your fixed-focal length lens to alter the Bokeh, abandon all hope.

 

[The_Traveler]

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?
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...

......... but it feels like we're all pretty comfortable in our foxholes at this point.

These two quotes above pretty much sum represent my opinion.

Most people seem to be totally wedded to a belief about process even though the goal of photography is not process but image.

What technique one uses seems to be as deeply held as a religious belief. So much so that most individuals faced with a different opinion absolutely must challenge that opinion in order to validate their own. Like religion, they don't have to ever have tried the other alternatives to believe those other alternatives are wrong.

Now, can someone explain to me just how people who have learned exposure, focus and the mechanics of taking pictures can show, on this site, so much just total crap as pictures? Clearly technical knowledge has helped them run the camera but has not contributed much in the way of progress towards a good image.

Note that Pixelrabbit went out to try P and produced the images in the responses a couple of messages above. They aren't distinguishable technically from the images produced after a great deal of technical angst and shown here by any non-advanced photographer yet they certainly have some artistic quality.

This picture below was taken in an auto mode, using AF, not looking through the viewfinder, just a click from the table top.
Can you tell that from what you see?

 

[BrianV]

Is there a thread somewhere, or a tutorial that teaches us how to calculate exposure in our head?

Also, I've been practicing using the built in exposure meter in the camera to determine my settings. While not 100% I think my first shots are closer (& getting closer) to ideal than if I just took a stab at it. Why don't more people suggest using the built in exposure meter?

I learned with a camera that was center-weighted, most of the exposure from the center of the image. The light meter compared everything with "18% grey". If the subject was brighter or darker than "18% grey", you compensated by adjusting the exposure increase or decrease exposure. "18% grey" means that the object is reflecting 18% of the light that falls on it. Photographers used to carry cards that were 18% grey, and would meter off of them. If the main subject is back-lit, increase exposure. front-lit, decrease exposure. The important thing to know what how the built-in meter "saw things", and compare with one of the best metering systems made: your eyes. Matrix meters break the image up into segments, meter those segments, and attempt to make an evaluation of lighting. I never liked matrix meters as it was difficult to know exactly how the exposure was determined, and what compensation was required. Incident light meters measure the amount of light falling on the scene. 35 years ago I picked up a Nikon F Photomic that had averaging meter, spot meter, and incident meter built in and coupled to the Shutter-Speed/F-Stop. I used it for decades. Was great at airshows, could use the incident meter and figured the same light was falling on the aircraft. It worked. If used properly, it provides "true" exposure based on the reflectivity of the subject.

A tutorial on doing this in your head- that would be nice, would have saved me a lot of bad exposures many years ago. If you are using a digital camera: easiest to practice. Set up some various objects, white, black, grey, all types of colors. Set the camera to "auto" and play with the compensation. View the histograms, and the image.

 

[unpopular]

Now, can someone explain to me just how people who have learned exposure, focus and the mechanics of taking pictures can show, on this site, so much just total crap as pictures? Clearly technical knowledge has helped them run the camera but has not contributed much in the way of progress towards a good image.

And there is the jump in logic. You've pointed out successfully that learning technical photography doesn't necessarily make good photographers, but you've failed to reason why foregoing the technical does.

Perhaps encouraging photographers to shoot in Program mode with auto ISO makes for spontaneous photographers, something you seem to dogmatically believe is "better", while all the while accuse others of their bigotry in their positions and values of what makes a good photographic method - but you, Lew, sit here and say ... in so many words "if it ain't spontaneous street photography with stale classical composition, then it ain't good photography!".

Spontaneity seems to work for you, and that's ok. But before you propose it's good for everyone, I'd suggest you check yourself before criticizing others for being "dogmatics". I personally believe that spontaneity without discipline makes for sloppy photographers, and this carries over in both the technical and the artistic. I just don't see this art/tech dichotemy

Clearly this whole discussion has become yet another "what's superior" kind of debate, and not what is better to teach photography. The fact that we have Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" tells me that people aren't 'getting it' like they should and perhaps as they once had. AE ends up in the long run complicating matters, not making it simpler.

 

[The_Traveler]

Now, can someone explain to me just how people who have learned exposure, focus and the mechanics of taking pictures can show, on this site, so much just total crap as pictures? Clearly technical knowledge has helped them run the camera but has not contributed much in the way of progress towards a good image.

And there is the jump in logic. You've pointed out successfully that learning technical photography doesn't necessarily make good photographers, but you've failed to reason why foregoing the technical does.

Perhaps encouraging photographers to shoot in Program mode with auto ISO makes for spontaneous photographers, something you seem to dogmatically believe is "better", while all the while accuse others of their bigotry in their positions and values of what makes a good photographic method - but you, Lew, sit here and say ... in so many words "if it ain't spontaneous street photography with stale classical composition, then it ain't good photography!".

Spontaneity seems to work for you, and that's ok. But before you propose it's good for everyone, I'd suggest you check yourself before criticizing others for being "dogmatics". I personally believe that spontaneity without discipline makes for sloppy photographers, and this carries over in both the technical and the artistic. I just don't see this art/tech dichotemy

Clearly this whole discussion has become yet another "what's superior" kind of debate, and not what is better to teach photography. The fact that we have Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" tells me that people aren't 'getting it' like they should and perhaps as they once had. AE ends up in the long run complicating matters, not making it simpler.

So, if anyone asks me what to do, and they are serious about learning to create then maybe I will tell them just to shoot on P for a while and then we'll talk about their images. When they want to learn to control what their camera does in order to make the image better then its time to talk about the other issues.

Encouraging BEGINNING photographers to shoot in Program mode with auto ISO makes for spontaneous photographers,

BEGINNING PHOTOGRAPHERS

 

[PixelRabbit]

Where did Lew say that learning the technical side of photography is unnecessary and that we should start and stay in P mode 100% of the time to infinity? I didn't see him say that learning the intricacies of photography was unnecessary. I saw him say there is value in starting the learning process in P mode and nurturing the creative side at the same time tackling the two in tandem.

 

[Derrel]

Where did Lew say that learning the technical side of photography is unnecessary and that we should start and stay in P mode 100% of the time to infinity? I didn't see him say that learning the intricacies of photography was unnecessary. I saw him say there is value in starting the learning process in P mode and nurturing the creative side at the same time tackling the two in tandem.

But then, you actually read the original post, and are approaching this with an open mind that doesn't condemn the use of automation...so...

 

[unpopular]

Now, can someone explain to me just how people who have learned exposure, focus and the mechanics of taking pictures can show, on this site, so much just total crap as pictures? Clearly technical knowledge has helped them run the camera but has not contributed much in the way of progress towards a good image.

And there is the jump in logic. You've pointed out successfully that learning technical photography doesn't necessarily make good photographers, but you've failed to reason why foregoing the technical does.

Perhaps encouraging photographers to shoot in Program mode with auto ISO makes for spontaneous photographers, something you seem to dogmatically believe is "better", while all the while accuse others of their bigotry in their positions and values of what makes a good photographic method - but you, Lew, sit here and say ... in so many words "if it ain't spontaneous street photography with stale classical composition, then it ain't good photography!".

Spontaneity seems to work for you, and that's ok. But before you propose it's good for everyone, I'd suggest you check yourself before criticizing others for being "dogmatics". I personally believe that spontaneity without discipline makes for sloppy photographers, and this carries over in both the technical and the artistic. I just don't see this art/tech dichotemy

Clearly this whole discussion has become yet another "what's superior" kind of debate, and not what is better to teach photography. The fact that we have Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" tells me that people aren't 'getting it' like they should and perhaps as they once had. AE ends up in the long run complicating matters, not making it simpler.

So, if anyone asks me what to do, and they are serious about learning to create then maybe I will tell them just to shoot on P for a while and then we'll talk about their images. When they want to learn to control what their camera does in order to make the image better then its time to talk about the other issues.

Encouraging BEGINNING photographers to shoot in Program mode with auto ISO makes for spontaneous photographers,

BEGINNING PHOTOGRAPHERS

Spontaneous or sloppy? You're the one who's going on like I'm saying AE is inferior or bad. I'm not. I personally never liked AE, but I never said it was 'bad'. For many photographers, it's a matter of hitting the subject or missing it. For me, my subjects aren't going anywhere and the "puffy little clouds" issue never has been one.

I know enough about exposure to realize that AE doesn't really "do" anything special except automation - and this automation is exactly why I don't like the idea of teaching AE right out of the gate.

Can someone PLEASE show me where I've condemned AE in general? It seems that people assuem that because I shoot manual I must be some kind of elitist about it.

 

[BrianV]

If you do not teach automation out of the gate, then you are teaching Manual operation "out of the gate".
That seems to be the problem- "out of the gate" means beginner to most people. When I first picked up a 35mm camera, I set it to program mode and was happy to focus and frame the image. If I had to do it all, meter, set shutter-speed/f-Stop,focus, and frame- would have been too much. "Program Mode" was also a good way to make sure the lens cap was off the camera, it would not fire if the light was too low.

"Try to fill the frame, don't put the subject's face dead-center in the image" tended to be what I told people starting with SLR's or RF's. Long time since I worked at a camera store, could spend a couple of hours with one person. I still tell that to me daughter.

 

[PixelRabbit]

But then, you actually read the original post, and are approaching this with an open mind that doesn't condemn the use of automation...so...

Oops! My bad.

 

[unpopular]

If you do not teach automation out of the gate, then you are teaching Manual operation "out of the gate".
That seems to be the problem- "out of the gate" means beginner to most people. When I first picked up a 35mm camera, I set it to program mode and was happy to focus and frame the image. If I had to do it all, meter, set shutter-speed/f-Stop,focus, and frame- would have been too much. "Program Mode" was also a good way to make sure the lens cap was off the camera, it would not fire if the light was too low.

See. And this I just don't understand.

For over 100 years people were learning photography, average every day people (in junior high schools) without "program mode". They even had to learn basic film processing and printing, and they did OK - at least as good as the point and clickers in the beginner thread using full auto.

Are we talking about photography or rocket science??

Digital has certainly simplified the process and allowed people without darkrooms to make their own prints, democratizing the field, but are you really saying that most beginners are incapable of understanding reciprocity - something countless fourteen year olds in junior highschool classes could at least grasp 35 years ago - even if they never go on to be photographers?

I kind of doubt that. I kind of doubt that beginners can't figure out how set the meter to null and press "expose".

This isn't rocket science, but AE sure makes it out that way. You don't have the opportunity to "feel" exposure and intimately understand how aperture, shutter and sensitivity are rational - and so we end up with sesame street books like "Understanding Exposure".