Shooting in P mode

[Derrel]

As I think more about the ways to get comfortable first with one's ability to see images and second with the technical ability to achieve them, I begin to think that this overwhelming disdain for shooting in 'P' actually hurts the development of good photographers more than it helps. By 'good' I mean people who are creative and even, perish the thought, artistic.

When we encourage children to dance and jump around to be expressive, we as parents and teachers, don't tell them it would be much better if they used the traditional balletic movements and positions because we know intuitively that huge obstacle would stifle not only their creativity but take away much of the spontaneous joy that is achieved from that expression.

The prime 'purpose' of (my kind of) photography is the visualization and the rendition of something meaningful, sometimes even beautiful. The ability to do that depends primarily on the ability to see that meaningfulness and then secondarily to learn to capture it. I don't need to be a great technician, I need only to be good enough to do what I want.

The emphasis that we read so often here is on the mechanical. This is what to do, this is the best way to do it and if it isn't what you like, run get a flash.
That's mechanics, that's not photography. And so we get an enormous volume of stuff, pictures that look essentially the same, and boring. Everyone cares about the f stop, the lens, the lighting - and they see that as the key. And so they turn from making images to running a camera and accessories.

Read any forum here and the questions and concerns, even those involving actual images, are primarily about equipment and technique and f stops and lighting. This all to photographers who haven't even begun to be able to see even the technical inadequacies in their own images and correct them let alone the artistic ones.

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.

Let's not make everyone learn to build and fix a car before they can go for a ride in the country.

Maybe a re-read of the OP is in order.

 

[unpopular]

I read that, I am not sure what the issue is aside from that I don't agree and perhaps you do.

AE encourages new photographers to snap first, and think later.
AE does not prevent the need to learn exposure control, and when a new photographer must learn it, it seems more complicated than it actually is
AE reinforces the idea that exposure is something "mechanical", as Lew suggests, rather than something flexible as Adams illustrates.

Can a photographer become great learning AE first? ABSOLUTELY. But I do not think it's a good way to go about it.

 

[The_Traveler]

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".

When the only alternative was was point and click film cameras or cameras with much more elaborate settings, then the proportion of people who moved from the basic no-adjustment camera to the more elaborate one was small. Some part of that drop-off must be attributed to the technology hurdle.

Why put even a small hurdle, one that does require some camera manipulation and choice, in front of people until they get to understand the joys of creating images?
When they know what can been done, then there is an incentive to actually learn.

 

[unpopular]

I'll admit - i've never had a problem understanding reciprocity, so it's really hard for me to imagine how anyone would.

Still, I think that to some extent AE promotes confusion. I think if you're really serious about photography, you should learn manual early on.

 

[pixmedic]

OR..and I will suggest a somewhat reasonable alternative here....we stop giving a crap about what/how/why people shoot, UNLESS they are asking for instruction. I dont think it is entirely relevant to know exactly how the photo was taken in order to critique, it is only needed if the person posting is interested in changing how they shoot. if they arent....its an effort in futility and we should move on to the next. it doesn't matter if they shot in manual or auto...if the photo is underexposed, it is underexposed. period. it only matters how they shot it if they need to make changes in how they shot to correct the picture, and are WILLING to make those changes.

 

[Derrel]

I read that, I am not sure what the issue is aside from that I don't agree and perhaps you do.

AE encourages new photographers to snap first, and think later.
AE does not prevent the need to learn exposure control, and when a new photographer must learn it, it seems more complicated than it actually is
AE reinforces the idea that exposure is something "mechanical", as Lew suggests, rather than something flexible as Adams illustrates.

Can a photographer become great learning AE first? ABSOLUTELY. But I do not think it's a good way to go about it.

Yeah...we get that. You've made several posts in the past (not in this thread) detailing the almost currently unheard of fastidiousness with which you approach the metering of scenes, and the mechanical adjusting of your camera. You have a very,very,very,very cultish manner of working. Would you care to enlighten others who might not be so familiar with your eccentric light metering, unusual camera adjusting, and old-fashioned manual focusing. I'm serious about this unpopular, because honestly, I am not sure that there are more than a handful of people who are familiar with the "oddball manner" in which you approach the **mechanics** of setting your camera. I'm not trying to dig at you, but seriously dude...you have some most-unusual attitudes toward photography...especially considering that we are in the 21st century now. Your working methods are "quite far out there", and are decidedly in the minority, and have been since, well, decades ago.

If you're really "Serious about photography", you'll stop giving a chit about HOW the camera's exposure was arrived at, and start looking at the quality of the fu**ing results.

 

[unpopular]

I don't care in others photography! And I really don't know why you think this about me!

Have I EVER criticized a photo for being shot in any one mode over another - like EVER? Have I ever even asked?

I have defended my position and technique with Greybeard because that WAS the topic. And I have offered advice with hilight referencing when the subject was ETTR - because my method DOES WORK, and does work in manual or AE (you should know that) - and frankly, once people stop masturbating over evaluative metering and start realizing that digital isn't all THAT different after all, metering the hilights will be the norm because it simply makes SOUND TECHNICAL sense for the exact same technical reasons that metering the hilights worked for slide film! In fact, fully implemented and calibrated my technique is FAR more accurate than any other because it's gamma independent. So neener neener.

As for the more philosophic points, I hardly ever go into it.

But would I suggest a beginner reference hilights and pull shadows, or even use a spot meter before understanding exposure control - NEVER.

The subject here is what's the best way to teach photography, not the best way to shoot photographs, and in my opinion for various reasons already states I believe it's manual. Someone proficient with manual can use AE because they already know how it works. The reverse is not always true. But I'm not some kind of "shoot manual always" elitist.

And what about you, Derrel. You certainly seem to be the first to criticize me as some sort of elitist luddite whenever I even mention in conversation that I prefer manual.

 

[StoneNYC]

I have to disagree entirely, I think P mode gets in the way of creativity, the amateur gets one image that's really great, but by accident, and then cannot repeat that image and get frustrated asking "why, I did it the same as last time" except they were inside instead of outside, so in bright light the auto mode decided it needed to stop down and the Bokah they saw inside is not as strong outside and they can't figure out why..

When I learned photography there was no auto, so you just learned the mechanics before you started, I was 12 and it only took me a few minutes to learn about aperture and shutter speeds. It's not really all that complicated that you can't explain it in 5 minutes before the user can go out and play...


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[unpopular]

Stone - remember, full-green Auto mode is not the same as Program mode. In program mode, you go through the whole range of shutter/aperture values for a given EV. So there is control there, it's not just "point and click". My problem is more that you're not really thinking about aperture or time when using Program - which I suppose is exactly what the debate is, whether one should be encouraged to think about these things or not early on.

But there's nothing "bad" about program mode. I use it all the time - Sony/Minolta and Pentax cameras go into program mode when you press AEL in manual. It's pretty useful actually.

 

[PixelRabbit]

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".

There is more than one way to skin a cat. We are talking about learning two sides of a whole that uses different parts of the brain.

What Lew initially presented to us was for us to use the capability of the current technology and approaching this dominantly from the right side of the brain, the creative side, when we start out with camera in hand. Through the creative process the technical side will be taught when the photograph is offered up for C&C, then you are sitting in a learning setting and can focus just with the left side of your brain. The next time the student picks up the camera they carry forward their technical learning regardless of when in the process they learned it. Seems pretty logical to me.


Most everyone debating in this thread are learned photographers, you all have many years under your belts and each of you got to where you are today in a different way. You all took responsibility in your learning and it worked for you, with what was available to you at the beginning of your learning.

None of you seem to be looking at it from a new photographer's perspective and what is available to us today. I'm not saying that traditional learning isn't a valid way to learn, on the contrary, I have tons of respect for it, I'm certain that many people will read this thread and individual posters will ring true to certain readers, but I go back to my first line, there is more than one way to skin a cat. It seems to me that everyone is so intent on being "right" that they can't see another means to the same end.

I think ultimately you all agree that all aspects of photography need to be learned, technical and artistic, giving you a full deck of cards when all is said and done. Lew shuffled the deck of cards and it would appear ruffled some feathers in the process

 

[BrianV]

I used to be a rocket scientist. In the 1980s. That was after working on digital cameras.

Lots of people learned with Instamatics, Brownies, and Kodak "You push the button, we do the rest" cameras.

I started with a Brownie, went to Instamatic, then 35mm with "Program Mode" in 1969. Now I like to make lenses into Leica mount.


Udvar Hazy, Dec 2012 by putahexanonyou, on Flickr

The satellite that I worked on never got launched, due to the Challenger tragedy. The one my wife worked on got launched, and is in the Air and Space Museum now. They retrieved it. Kind of neat to go downtown and show our daughter "Mommy's satellite". She worked Gamma Rays, I worked Infrared.

 

[keith foster]

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".

There is more than one way to skin a cat. We are talking about learning two sides of a whole that uses different parts of the brain.

What Lew initially presented to us was for us to use the capability of the current technology and approaching this dominantly from the right side of the brain, the creative side, when we start out with camera in hand. Through the creative process the technical side will be taught when the photograph is offered up for C&C, then you are sitting in a learning setting and can focus just with the left side of your brain. The next time the student picks up the camera they carry forward their technical learning regardless of when in the process they learned it. Seems pretty logical to me.


Most everyone debating in this thread are learned photographers, you all have many years under your belts and each of you got to where you are today in a different way. You all took responsibility in your learning and it worked for you, with what was available to you at the beginning of your learning.

None of you seem to be looking at it from a new photographer's perspective and what is available to us today. I'm not saying that traditional learning isn't a valid way to learn, on the contrary, I have tons of respect for it, I'm certain that many people will read this thread and individual posters will ring true to certain readers, but I go back to my first line, there is more than one way to skin a cat. It seems to me that everyone is so intent on being "right" that they can't see another means to the same end.

I think ultimately you all agree that all aspects of photography need to be learned, technical and artistic, giving you a full deck of cards when all is said and done. Lew shuffled the deck of cards and it would appear ruffled some feathers in the process

Well said.
I think you summed it up very well. I have to agree I don't really care how someone learns photography as long as they keep learning and don't decide they are ready to shoot weddings before they learn it all.

 

[BevD]

Hi. I have been hanging around this forum for several months and enjoying reading many old and new posts. This thread is interesting to me. Eons ago, in the very early '70s I bought my first camera, a Canon fTB (might not have the caps right on that). I learned manual and I was getting pretty good with it. Darn there was no FaceBook then or I might have gone Pro. But, life brought other interests and responsibilities, my camera had an injury, and it was all put aside for several years. Later I learned to point and shoot with cheap cameras and forgot most of what I had learned about photography.

I am back, with a Canon T4i now. What a time I had trying to remember the basics. Thank goodness for Auto, which I mostly used until I was able to take a photo workshop which refreshed my memory. I am going to have so much fun with this camera now that Manual has meaning to me again. Av and Tv are most useful to me right now. And I love all the bells and whistles. Wow, white balance and ISO choices for every shot!!

I am very glad that I learned the basics a long time ago, it's not quite like riding a bike, I did forget, but it does come back. Well I haven't ridden a bike for 30 years either and I might not be able to do that right away either. But lots of people (like a couple of friends of mine who own Canon DSLRs) just shoot Auto and probably will never change. I am having too much fun to care about how they use their cameras. Well, maybe it bugs me a bit that they are pro's and have facebook pages, but I just want a hobby anyway.
.

 

[unpopular]

Wow, white balance and ISO choices for every shot!!

kind of. the camera cheats.

 

[StoneNYC]

I guess for me it comes down to, are you choosing to do this or is it all accidental.

You aren't really creating the image you are simply letting the camera tell you the best thing that will make the "best picture" based on whatever it's programmed with.

You don't learn anything by having your values chosen for you. You can't adjust for mistakes if when you try to correct them the auto function just re-adjusts itself for your change, it is constantly counter balancing you.

If you wanted a point and shoot then just buy that and don't wast your money and just take shots that are framed well. But if you actually want to learn anything about real photography and understand what the heck you are really doing, then you need to adjust everything manually, with digital it's SO easy to learn because you get instant feedback.

So turn off auto, turn on manual, and learn and read and you'll be much more capable.

I shoot weddings on full manual (both flash and camera settings are all manual. So I'm not just all talk. (I also do more than weddings just giving an example).

Anyway there are many ways todo things, and I agree with that, but there are many ways to skin a cat and putting it under your car tire and spinning the wheel fast is one way to skin a cat, but not really a very efficient way... Just like shooting on P, Av, Tv etc isn't a very efficient way of learning to be a REAL photographer.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk