Stops

[Derrel]

Times for shooting in Manual exposure mode: doing panoramas or other multi-shot sequences when you want identical exposures across a sequence. Times when using spot metering or very narrow, highly center-weighted metering patterns, so that the subject can be metered and the PROPER exposure set, and then photography can be done, safe in the knowledge that oddball background or foreground objects will no improperly influence the meter readings. In situations where the camera will be following a moving subject that will pass in front of backgrounds of widely varying lighting, such as at racetracks and stadiums, where the BACKGROUND will often be very dark in the middle of the field/pitch/track due to a covered stadium, but where the background will be quite bright at the ends of the field/pitch/track. This is pretty common at track and field stadiums and American football stadiums at many high schools and smaller colleges, where a grandstand with a covered roof extends from the 20 to 20 yard line, but the end zone areas are open. Same thing at smaller horse tracks and rodeo grounds, country fair arenas,etc,etc. When photographing very light-colored subjects or very dark-colored subjects in front of predominantly opposite-toned backgrounds, using Manual exposure mode is actually quite easy. Using manual mode makes sense when you absolutely MUST HAVE a fairly narrow range of speed and aperture settings in order to stop motion and or to make the exposure: with a 300/2.8 late in the afternoon, as the light drops you might be at 1/640 second, which will be "marginal" for motion-stopping with such a long lens, on many action events. At those times, the only thing you can do is KEEP the shutter speed at 1/640 and start raising the ISO setting on the camera as the light gets worse and worse and worse. Minor league baseball and high school track and field in the months of March and April come to mind...lighting for both is often rather marginal, moving to sucky as the day wears on. There are many other scenarios where a manually-set exposure is preferable to one that the camera's light meter determines.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I have a question, sort of off topic, but I think that it begs to be asked. Unless you are shooting with strobes, what is your purpose for shooting full manual? If you are using the cameras light meter and adjusting until it says you have a "proper exposure," it kind of defeats the purpose of running full manual. If you were shooting in semi auto modes, it would make it a little easier to decide which element you would adjust in order to underexpose. ( As explained in my earlier post )

Why would anybody use the camera meter and then adjust their shutter speed/aperture/iso to zero out the camera meter? I agree that would defeat the purpose of shooting in manual, but then again, you would very rarely want your camera meter to be zeroed out when you are using flash.

I guess if you want to readjust your exposure compensation every time you change the framing or a different subject with a different color shirt on is the frame, you could accomplish the same thing in one of the automated modes, but that would be a pain in the neck.

Much easier to just shoot in manual.

Thats why I said UNLESS YOU ARE SHOOTING WITH STROBES. Not sure if you are agreeing or arguing.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Times for shooting in Manual exposure mode: doing panoramas or other multi-shot sequences when you want identical exposures across a sequence. Times when using spot metering or very narrow, highly center-weighted metering patterns, so that the subject can be metered and the PROPER exposure set, and then photography can be done, safe in the knowledge that oddball background or foreground objects will no improperly influence the meter readings. In situations where the camera will be following a moving subject that will pass in front of backgrounds of widely varying lighting, such as at racetracks and stadiums, where the BACKGROUND will often be very dark in the middle of the field/pitch/track due to a covered stadium, but where the background will be quite bright at the ends of the field/pitch/track. This is pretty common at track and field stadiums and American football stadiums at many high schools and smaller colleges, where a grandstand with a covered roof extends from the 20 to 20 yard line, but the end zone areas are open. Same thing at smaller horse tracks and rodeo grounds, country fair arenas,etc,etc. When photographing very light-colored subjects or very dark-colored subjects in front of predominantly opposite-toned backgrounds, using Manual exposure mode is actually quite easy. Using manual mode makes sense when you absolutely MUST HAVE a fairly narrow range of speed and aperture settings in order to stop motion and or to make the exposure: with a 300/2.8 late in the afternoon, as the light drops you might be at 1/640 second, which will be "marginal" for motion-stopping with such a long lens, on many action events. At those times, the only thing you can do is KEEP the shutter speed at 1/640 and start raising the ISO setting on the camera as the light gets worse and worse and worse. Minor league baseball and high school track and field in the months of March and April come to mind...lighting for both is often rather marginal, moving to sucky as the day wears on. There are many other scenarios where a manually-set exposure is preferable to one that the camera's light meter determines.

Exactly, but I doubt that the OP shoots in those scenarios every time they are shooting. In most cases, unless you use flash often for portraits or weddings or whatnot, then you do not have a constant need to shoot 100% manual. I am not saying you will NEVER need or want to use manual. If in fact the OP often uses flash or finds themselves in the situations mentioned, then that answer would make sense. If its more of a an issue of feeling like you have to shoot in full manual to be a "Real Photographer" then its just holding yourself back for nothing. That's why I asked the question. It doesn't change them wanting to understand underexposing and the controls, just something I was curious about.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I have a question, sort of off topic, but I think that it begs to be asked. Unless you are shooting with strobes, what is your purpose for shooting full manual? If you are using the cameras light meter and adjusting until it says you have a "proper exposure," it kind of defeats the purpose of running full manual. If you were shooting in semi auto modes, it would make it a little easier to decide which element you would adjust in order to underexpose. ( As explained in my earlier post )

Why would anybody use the camera meter and then adjust their shutter speed/aperture/iso to zero out the camera meter? I agree that would defeat the purpose of shooting in manual, but then again, you would very rarely want your camera meter to be zeroed out when you are using flash.

I guess if you want to readjust your exposure compensation every time you change the framing or a different subject with a different color shirt on is the frame, you could accomplish the same thing in one of the automated modes, but that would be a pain in the neck.

Much easier to just shoot in manual.

Thats why I said UNLESS YOU ARE SHOOTING WITH STROBES. Not sure if you are agreeing or arguing.

I have no reason to argue...I am pretty sure this thread was created because I was talking about underexposing the background a stop and pulling up the subject with flash.

In any case, if you want to leave flash completely out of it, skip the first paragraph and just read the second and third. Shooting in manual is easier. I don't have to worry about what my meter thinks it sees, and then tell my meter to ignore what it thinks and dial in exposure compensation. It's much easier to just set my camera how I want it and not have to worry about a bright light or a dark shirt in the frame confusing my meter. Plus, my camera doesn't know what parts of the frame I find interesting. Why would I trust it to properly expose my subject when it doesn't even know what my subject is?

About the only time I will switch to an automated mode is when the light conditions are changing rapidly and I have a consistent subject...Then I can dial in whatever exposure comp is required and get back to shooting.

 

[pgriz]

^^^ ditto.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Why would anybody use the camera meter and then adjust their shutter speed/aperture/iso to zero out the camera meter? I agree that would defeat the purpose of shooting in manual, but then again, you would very rarely want your camera meter to be zeroed out when you are using flash.

I guess if you want to readjust your exposure compensation every time you change the framing or a different subject with a different color shirt on is the frame, you could accomplish the same thing in one of the automated modes, but that would be a pain in the neck.

Much easier to just shoot in manual.

Thats why I said UNLESS YOU ARE SHOOTING WITH STROBES. Not sure if you are agreeing or arguing.

I have no reason to argue...I am pretty sure this thread was created because I was talking about underexposing the background a stop and pulling up the subject with flash.

In any case, if you want to leave flash completely out of it, skip the first paragraph and just read the second and third. Shooting in manual is easier. I don't have to worry about what my meter thinks it sees, and then tell my meter to ignore what it thinks and dial in exposure compensation. It's much easier to just set my camera how I want it and not have to worry about a bright light or a dark shirt in the frame confusing my meter. Plus, my camera doesn't know what parts of the frame I find interesting. Why would I trust it to properly expose my subject when it doesn't even know what my subject is?

About the only time I will switch to an automated mode is when the light conditions are changing rapidly and I have a consistent subject...Then I can dial in whatever exposure comp is required and get back to shooting.

So you ignore the meter and magically pull exposures out of nowhere? How is that easier? That sounds like a bunch of missed shots as you are tinkering with your camera. The example you used with a shirt, is precisely when you would use the exposure comp in the semi-auto modes or bracket your exposures which pretty much every modern dSLR has the capability to do. If you like to shoot that way, thats perfectly ok, but to say its easier is a bit bewildering. While in some cases it may prove to give you more control, I don't think that it would be easier overall, just like manually focusing in most cases is NOT easier than using AF. There is a reason why even professional level cameras have these features. Real pros aren't pompous about shooting in full manual so they can get some sort of street cred. They are more interested with going home with the shots that they came for and not missing opportunities.

I agree with your last statement though, although bracketing can be a very useful tool here as well.

 

[Vtec44]

Plus, my camera doesn't know what parts of the frame I find interesting. Why would I trust it to properly expose my subject when it doesn't even know what my subject is?.

I'm in no way trying to argue, I'm here to ask questions and to absorb as much information as possible because I'm because I'm new. So with that out of the way, can you still do exposure lock in this situation while shooting 1/2 auto like A or S mode and still get the same result?

 

[Kerbouchard]

Thats why I said UNLESS YOU ARE SHOOTING WITH STROBES. Not sure if you are agreeing or arguing.

I have no reason to argue...I am pretty sure this thread was created because I was talking about underexposing the background a stop and pulling up the subject with flash.

In any case, if you want to leave flash completely out of it, skip the first paragraph and just read the second and third. Shooting in manual is easier. I don't have to worry about what my meter thinks it sees, and then tell my meter to ignore what it thinks and dial in exposure compensation. It's much easier to just set my camera how I want it and not have to worry about a bright light or a dark shirt in the frame confusing my meter. Plus, my camera doesn't know what parts of the frame I find interesting. Why would I trust it to properly expose my subject when it doesn't even know what my subject is?

About the only time I will switch to an automated mode is when the light conditions are changing rapidly and I have a consistent subject...Then I can dial in whatever exposure comp is required and get back to shooting.

So you ignore the meter and magically pull exposures out of nowhere?

No, I look at my subject, look at what the camera is guessing is the right exposure and adjust from there.

How is that easier? That sounds like a bunch of missed shots as you are tinkering with your camera. The example you used with a shirt, is precisely when you would use the exposure comp in the semi-auto modes or bracket your exposures which pretty much every modern dSLR has the capability to do. If you like to shoot that way, thats perfectly ok, but to say its easier is a bit bewildering.

It's easier beacuse I don't have to adjust exposure comp between a guy wearing a white shirt vs a guy wearing a black shirt. I also don't have to adjust if there is a specular highlight in the background that fools the meter. Once I have my settings dialed in(which shouldn't take more than a few seconds) I don't have to worry about the camera changing things on me.

While in some cases it may prove to give you more control, I don't think that it would be easier overall, just like manually focusing in most cases is NOT easier than using AF. There is a reason why even professional level cameras have these features. Real pros aren't pompous about shooting in full manual so they can get some sort of street cred. They are more interested with going home with the shots that they came for and not missing opportunities.

I am rarely a fan of manual focus and wouldn't consider it comparable to adjusting the exposure as you see fit and not letting external factors influence the exposure of a shot.

I agree with your last statement though, although bracketing can be a very useful tool here as well.

You agree that during lighting conditions that are constantly changing with a subject that is not that it might be a good idea to use an automated mode and just dial in exposure comp once and then finish the shoot...well, good for you. I'm glad we agree on at least one part of the basics.

Plus, my camera doesn't know what parts of the frame I find interesting. Why would I trust it to properly expose my subject when it doesn't even know what my subject is?.

I'm in no way trying to argue, I'm here to ask questions and to absorb as much information as possible because I'm because I'm new. So with that out of the way, can you still do exposure lock in this situation while shooting 1/2 auto like A or S mode and still get the same result?

Yes, you have several options.

You can put the focus point(or center, or whatever you happen to be using for metering) over what you want to be 18% grey and utilize the exposure lock feature.
You can also use exposure compensation and adjust from the 18% grey that the camera wants to record based on the individual tonality of each shot.
You could also shoot in manual, set your controls to something you are happy with, and continue shooting until the lighting changes.

It's completely up to you. For me, manual is easier than using exposure lock for parts of the subject or adjusting exposure compensation every time the subject changes. Obviously, some people disagree. As always, YMMV...do whatever is easiest for you to get the shots that you want consistently. For me, having the camera switch things up without me telling it to based on what color shirt my subject is wearing or the color of their skin is not the best path for consistency. I would rather set it right the first time than have the camera try to guess what kind of lighitng I am using and what kind of results I am looking for.

 

[pgriz]

In my own on-going evolution as a photographer, I used to use Av as my primary mode, with control over the aperture being more important (for my type of shooting- nature, landscapes, cityscapes) than control over the shutter speed. Together with exposure compensation, which I used to adjust the exposure if the overall scene was biased to the hi-key or low-key, I got pretty good exposures, especially when the light was changing all the time. In the past year or so, I’ve started using fill light more often, and found that shooting in manual gives a better result with flash fill as I often don’t agree with the programmed choices the camera makes with fill light. In a controlled setting (such as studio work or macro), manual exposure gives me more precise control over the appearance of ambient together with my light sources.

Unlike some photographers I know, I don’t yet have the knowledge and experience that would allow me to say, for instance, that a certain scene in open shade should be exposed at 1/60 at f/8 at ISO 100. So I rely on my Sekonic L-358 to meter the ambient (direct light, shadow) to get a sense of the light values and the dynamic range available. I usually then allow the camera meter to set the exposure and take a shot. Looking at the resulting histogram, and knowing the values I got by measuring the ambient, I can make a decision on the exposure that best represents my goal as a photographer. At this point, I’ll set the exposure in manual and take another shot. If the resulting histogram shows me that I have detail in all the important areas (both light and dark), then I’m good to go, and will shoot with that setting until either the light changes, or the scene changes.

If I was doing more action shots, then control over the shutter speed would become more important, and I’d probably rely on the camera’s ability in Tv mode. However, in determining a “correct” exposure, there are so many different ways for us to come to something acceptable, that it appears somewhat arrogant to assert that there is only one way to get there. What doesn’t change, in my opinion, is the necessity to understand the amount and nature of the light we are working with, and depending on the tonality of our scene or subject, to choose an exposure that retains the maximum amount of detail in the important areas.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I have no reason to argue...I am pretty sure this thread was created because I was talking about underexposing the background a stop and pulling up the subject with flash.In any case, if you want to leave flash completely out of it, skip the first paragraph and just read the second and third. Shooting in manual is easier. I don't have to worry about what my meter thinks it sees, and then tell my meter to ignore what it thinks and dial in exposure compensation. It's much easier to just set my camera how I want it and not have to worry about a bright light or a dark shirt in the frame confusing my meter. Plus, my camera doesn't know what parts of the frame I find interesting. Why would I trust it to properly expose my subject when it doesn't even know what my subject is?About the only time I will switch to an automated mode is when the light conditions are changing rapidly and I have a consistent subject...Then I can dial in whatever exposure comp is required and get back to shooting.

So you ignore the meter and magically pull exposures out of nowhere?

No, I look at my subject, look at what the camera is guessing is the right exposure and adjust from there.It's easier beacuse I don't have to adjust exposure comp between a guy wearing a white shirt vs a guy wearing a black shirt. I also don't have to adjust if there is a specular highlight in the background that fools the meter. Once I have my settings dialed in(which shouldn't take more than a few seconds) I don't have to worry about the camera changing things on me. I am rarely a fan of manual focus and wouldn't consider it comparable to adjusting the exposure as you see fit and not letting external factors influence the exposure of a shot.You agree that during lighting conditions that are constantly changing with a subject that is not that it might be a good idea to use an automated mode and just dial in exposure comp once and then finish the shoot...well, good for you. I'm glad we agree on at least one part of the basics.

Plus, my camera doesn't know what parts of the frame I find interesting. Why would I trust it to properly expose my subject when it doesn't even know what my subject is?.

I'm in no way trying to argue, I'm here to ask questions and to absorb as much information as possible because I'm because I'm new. So with that out of the way, can you still do exposure lock in this situation while shooting 1/2 auto like A or S mode and still get the same result?

Yes, you have several options.You can put the focus point(or center, or whatever you happen to be using for metering) over what you want to be 18% grey and utilize the exposure lock feature.You can also use exposure compensation and adjust from the 18% grey that the camera wants to record based on the individual tonality of each shot.You could also shoot in manual, set your controls to something you are happy with, and continue shooting until the lighting changes.It's completely up to you. For me, manual is easier than using exposure lock for parts of the subject or adjusting exposure compensation every time the subject changes. Obviously, some people disagree. As always, YMMV...do whatever is easiest for you to get the shots that you want consistently. For me, having the camera switch things up without me telling it to based on what color shirt my subject is wearing or the color of their skin is not the best path for consistency. I would rather set it right the first time than have the camera try to guess what kind of lighitng I am using and what kind of results I am looking for.

Well if that works for you then great. It would make complete sense on a very controlled situation where you are swapping out subjects (studio portrait work) I just don't see any sense if you were mobile at all.(events, street shooting, wildlife) because you are just going to waste your time and miss shots. I would much rather risk an occassional picture having a slightly off exposure since RAW files can be extensively manipulated, than miss a shot all together. Anyway, getting back to the whole point of asking the question, it occurred to me that if the OP does not yet even understand how to underexpose, full manual is probably not the right mode to be using.( not meant to be a dig just an honest assessment.)

Pgriz, I never said there is only one way to shoot. Every setting has its place. It wasn't meant to be arrogance, it was meant to provoke some thought.

 

[pgriz]

Goonies, my use of "arrogance" wasn't directed specifically at you. Experienced photographers know which tool to use in which situation, and that applies to exposure control. Some of the debate appears to be about nuance (this is better here, not so good there), and is colored by the type of shooting one does. When someone says "I shoot 100% manual" or "I shoot exclusively in Av", then I am thinking that they don't know their tools very well, or are very restricted in the type of shots they are taking. For someone like SabrinaO (the OP), there is a need to explore the various ways of getting to the end result without prejudging that THIS way is the way to do it. From what I've seen of SabrinaO's posted work, she's climbing a steep learning curve, and she needs to get a better handle on the fundamentals. The desire, energy, and effort is definitely there, but it takes time to acquire the skills and knowledge to harness that energy effectively.

 

[Derrel]

So little real understanding of how Manual shooting differs from A or S mode shooting...seems like some younger people just do not understand how much time and effort it takes to override continuous automatic decision-making all fricking day long or all session long when it is soooooooo much easier to just set the camera to the RIGHT EXPOSURE ONE TIME, and shoot,shoot,shoot,shoot until it is time to determine another correct exposure.

And on the other hand, there are many Manual-only users who do not really understand that there are times when using Aperture priority auto makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Shutter speed priority...I use it when I do panning shots in weird lighting that will change, AND when photographing helicopters!!! (Seriously!)

 

[kundalini]

Unless you are shooting with strobes, what is your purpose for shooting full manual?

I'm also curious to why as well.

Some of us started out with a fully manual camera and are comfortable to continue in that manner, especially with Nikon's two wheel command dials for aperture and shutter speed at your fingertips. Never having to pull the camera away from your eye in the viewfinder to make those adjustments is a wonderful thing and pretty damn fast to boot!

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Unless you are shooting with strobes, what is your purpose for shooting full manual?

I'm also curious to why as well.

Some of us started out with a fully manual camera and are comfortable to continue in that manner, especially with Nikon's two wheel command dials for aperture and shutter speed at your fingertips. Never having to pull the camera away from your eye in the viewfinder to make those adjustments is a wonderful thing and pretty damn fast to boot!

and that is a very reasonable answer to my question. However, if you dont understand what you are doing with those two wheels and how it effects your exposure, it would make it a futile endeavor, correct? Thats why the question was posed to the OP.

 

[gsgary]

Unless you are shooting with strobes, what is your purpose for shooting full manual?

I'm also curious to why as well.

You have full control of the camera and settings