Andre Labonte wrote:
1) Air shows
2) Baseball games where the home plate is in deep shadow and the 1st base is in bright sunlight. Use S-priority or only get 1/2 the shots.
I'm fast and can change my setting supper fast and have done both situations 1 and 2 fully manual with good results ... but damb it's hard and to be honest I lost good shots for exposure that the camera in S-priority would not have.
1) Air shows? What are the fast changing conditions??
2) Baseball? Really? You can't change exposure in the time it takes someone to run to first base? Really? You know if you take your readings (from shadow to sun) before the action happens, you'll know what to change to.
How do think it was done before automation?? It does take skills and planning..but then, that's what the pros do.
rhyder wrote:
Photogrphers faced these situations before automation was availiable...they still got the shots.
War? Really? War? We've been photographing war since at least the Civil War. Things can happen fast in war, but nothing that would affect exposure. Photographers were capturing action long before autofocus...it did take skill and planning though........
They got some shots, absolutely. It did take skill and planning, and it was possible to do without any automation at all. Agreed. However, I'm willing to bet that it also resulted in a much higher percentage of missed shot opportunities than would have happened if they'd had more capable cameras, just like a soldier can kill a lot more combatants today with an M-16 than he could with a flintlock.
No one is saying that it's impossible to get good results without automation, because we all know it can be done. What some of us are saying is that you can often get better results if you do use the camera's technology to help you, and I don't think anything you've said contradicts that.
rhyder wrote:
1) Air shows? What are the fast changing conditions??
Have you shot any airshows? If not, are you participating in the discussion constructively, or trolling? Please see the image I posted above and its comments for an illustration of the challenges I face in an airshow. Feel free to disagree -- I always welcome different opinions -- but don't just airball the argument.
rhyder wrote:
...supper fast...??
Oh, my God.
If you're going to pick on the typos of others, how about you fix the two typos of your own in the post immediately prior, hmm? Might help you to actually have a leg to stand on before you get that petty with anyone else.
rhyder wrote: Photogrphers faced these situations before automation was availiable...
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
They got some shots, absolutely. It did take skill and planning, and it was possible to do without any automation at all. Agreed. However, I'm willing to bet that it also resulted in a much higher percentage of missed shot opportunities than would have happened if they'd had more capable cameras, just like a soldier can kill a lot more combatants today with an M-16 than he could with a flintlock.
No one is saying that it's impossible to get good results without automation, because we all know it can be done. What some of us are saying is that you can often get better results if you do use the camera's technology to help you, and I don't think anything you've said contradicts that....Show more →
You may get a few more shots...but they wouldn't be "better". It takes more than just correct exposure and accurate focusing to make a shot a real keeper. What I'm saying is that if you know your equipment...if you know your subject...if you really know the principles of photography (and I mean really know them to the point where you're reacting, without having to think about it)....you won't be missing the important shots. That's what pros do.
Hey...focus tracking is a great tool and I can remember when 5 fps was blindingly fast. Many shooters don't take the time to really learn everything they should. I've used all of the "auto" features that come on today's cameras and other than focus tracking (I'm talking Nikon here, I wouldn't trust a Canon in this situation), I haven't found one yet that will work in every situation. They all have instances that go beyond their capabilities. I know that when I do a shoot, no matter what the situation, I know I'll get the shot because I know what is needed. Missed shot? I've never come home without getting the shot.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Have you shot any airshows? If not, are you participating in the discussion constructively, or trolling? Please see the image I posted above and its comments for an illustration of the challenges I face in an airshow. Feel free to disagree -- I always welcome different opinions -- but don't just airball the argument.
Oh, my God.
If you're going to pick on the typos of others, how about you fix the two typos of your own in the post immediately prior, hmm? Might help you to actually have a leg to stand on before you get that petty with anyone else.
Oh, my God.
Yeah..I'm a teirbele tpysit. (I didn't intend to "pick on" the typo, I just thought it was funny, you see "supper" and "fast" can be contradictory terms.
You still haven't told me what the fast changing condiitions were at an air show. Have I worked one? Do the ones at Oshkosh count? Does being an EAA member count?
So...please...tell me about the fast changing condtions are. Is it because the aircraft are fast? Sorry, but that's a given and one you can plan for. That's not a changing condition.
You seem to taking this personal instead of sticking to the subject. Sorry if my post irritated you. Don't take it personal, it wasn't intended so.
rhyder wrote:
Things can happen fast in war, but nothing that would affect exposure.
Wow. That statement is rather clueless. Just as one simple example, imagine photographing the inside of an open door chopper as it transits from light to mountain shadow and back while also making photos of the outside as it whirls around 360 degrees.
rhyder wrote:
War? Really? War? We've been photographing war since at least the Civil War. Things can happen fast in war, but nothing that would affect exposure. Photographers were capturing action long before autofocus...it did take skill and planning though........
Oh, you can do anything with anything if you are as skilled as you are ...
Look, when Mathew Brady was getting Civil War photos, they were tremendously different because he had less capable equipment and processes.
When David Douglas Duncan began using Nikons in the Korean War and Vietnam War, it allowed him to make completely different photographs that Brady was not capable of making.
So you make a fool of yourself when you try to claim that using all the tools available, as appropriate, is the wrong thing to do because you are some kind of macho always-manual photographer.
Fast forward to the 21st century, and James Natchwey is using DSLRs and autofocus.
Yes, you can get a shot or two completely manually, but by using automation as appropriate you can get a lot more shots just right and be more sure of getting crucial shots just right. That means of course knowing when to turn it off, but it also means knowing when to turn it on.
Doctrinaire purists are dinosaurs. About as many people make daguerrotypes of war as there are dinosaurs.
Monito wrote:
Wow. That statement is rather clueless. Just as one simple example, imagine photographing the inside of an open door chopper as it transits from light to mountain shadow and back while also making photos of the outside as it whirls around 360 degrees.
Oh, you can do anything with anything if you are as skilled as you are ...
Look, when Mathew Brady was getting Civil War photos, they were tremendously different because he had less capable equipment and processes.
When David Douglas Duncan began using Nikons in the Korean War and Vietnam War, it allowed him to make completely different photographs that Brady was not capable of making.
So you make a fool of yourself when you try to claim that using all the tools available, as appropriate, is the wrong thing to do because you are some kind of macho always-manual photographer.
Fast forward to the 21st century, and James Natchwey is using DSLRs and autofocus.
Yes, you can get a shot or two completely manually, but by using automation as appropriate you can get a lot more shots just right and be more sure of getting crucial shots just right. That means of course knowing when to turn it off, but it also means knowing when to turn it on.
Doctrinaire purists are dinosaurs. About as many people make daguerrotypes of war as there are dinosaurs. ...Show more →
You do realize that you can take the readings of the light before you shoot. As Wlaker Evans once told Ben Shahn, "f/9 for the sunny side and f/4.5 for the shadow side. You do realize that you don't have to take an exposure reading for EVERY shot as you take it...right? You take the readings for the situations you are in. I was once shooting a Special Olympics meet....I spot metered off the volunteers white shirts...I took readings on the sunny side AND the shadow side...for the next hour I would switch between the two settings as the shot dictated. You can use a similar technique to do the chopper shots. I did.
Walker Evans and Ben Shahn did not make action photography or war photography. Big difference between that and their landscape / fashion photography, duh.
Richard, if you feel that metering, autofocus, and other camera technologies are worthless, then you are fully entitled to your opinion. I think I've sufficiently explained the immense value I find in using technology as appropriate to get better images, and more of those better images, than I could get if I limited myself to only what "purely manual" could give me.
I especially find your assertions that technology does not allow us to make our images any better to be over-the-top, and unrealistic at best. So we disagree, and profoundly so. But I find no value in seriously attempting to convince you otherwise. You're welcome to believe whatever you want.
What I did definitely care about doing was to let the OP know that, while "macho manual" is a valid way to do photography, it is certainly not the only one, and he should not feel too concerned at hearing sneers from luddites. As Jeremy said above, the only thing that matters at all is the final image. How one chooses to take -- or make -- that image is a personal choice only.
Feb 18, 2012 at 12:27 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Richard, if you feel that metering, autofocus, and other camera technologies are worthless, then you are fully entitled to your opinion. I think I've sufficiently explained the immense value I find in using technology as appropriate to get better images, and more of those better images, than I could get if I limited myself to only what "purely manual" could give me.
I especially find your assertions that technology does not allow us to make our images any better to be over-the-top, and unrealistic at best. So we disagree, and profoundly so. But I find no value in seriously attempting to convince you otherwise. You're welcome to believe whatever you want.
What I did definitely care about doing was to let the OP know that, while "macho manual" is a valid way to do photography, it is certainly not the only one, and he should not feel too concerned at hearing sneers from luddites. As Jeremy said above, the only thing that matters at all is the final image. How one chooses to take -- or make -- that image is a personal choice only....Show more →
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Richard, if you feel that metering, autofocus, and other camera technologies are worthless, then you are fully entitled to your opinion. I think I've sufficiently explained the immense value I find in using technology as appropriate to get better images, and more of those better images, than I could get if I limited myself to only what "purely manual" could give me.
I especially find your assertions that technology does not allow us to make our images any better to be over-the-top, and unrealistic at best. So we disagree, and profoundly so. But I find no value in seriously attempting to convince you otherwise. You're welcome to believe whatever you want.
What I did definitely care about doing was to let the OP know that, while "macho manual" is a valid way to do photography, it is certainly not the only one, and he should not feel too concerned at hearing sneers from luddites. As Jeremy said above, the only thing that matters at all is the final image. How one chooses to take -- or make -- that image is a personal choice only....Show more →
"Macho Manual" ?? Oh, my God.
Now that's funny. How on earth did this become about your manhood.??
When did I ever assert that they were worthless?? Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?? I did state that all these features have their limitations. What you are saying is that this technology allows you to take images that shooting manual doesn't and that's not true. All I said was for every situation that you can use the automation for can be done manually.
I also don't see anything in the shot of the jet that can't be done maually...Sorry...
Metering that sky isn't hard. Seeing your work, I'm really surprised that you say that you don't know how to meter that sky.
Today's cameras are truly technological wonders. You must realize that there are two reasons for adding all these features....one is to make some things easier (especially auto focus) and the other is to make these bodies usable for the beginning photographers.
As I see it, the only thing that we disagree on is your assertions on what can and can't be done manually. BTW there is nothing "macho" about being knowledgeable about your equipment.
Its just about maximising our options as photographers.
There are plenty of real world applications for automation, often its freeing to set ISO, choose your aperture and set aperture priority and just start shooting intuitively. Then your camera becomes just an extension of your eye.
Or,
You can work entirely in manual, setting focus, aperture, shutter speed and ISO as you want. That way, if your subject matter allows you to, you can precisely realize the image in your mind.
Its like conscious/subconcious photography.
I try to employ both approaches as my mood takes me. There is no virtue in how you made an image, just how good the image actually is. If A or P does it for you, great. If M does it for you thats just as great. I am sure both approaches are used time and again by excellent photographers. Its just that M is more instructive, you learn more from your own experience, its not that M photos are better than A or P ones.
Steve Perry wrote:
If it works for your style of shooting that's cool. Personally, the reason I don't use the auto modes is I miss far too many shots due to improper focus placement, wrong exposure, etc.- In many cases the camera just doesn't know what I want. And honestly, I've been doing it so long that the manual modes are second nature to me - I don't even think about it anymore.
Care to elucidate as to "manual modes" and "auto modes"? My D700 has 4 modes. MAS and P. Which are manual and which are auto? Try as I might, it seems the only manual mode is "M". The rest appear to be automatic. Am I doing something wrong? Am I misinterpreting something?
My D90 complicates things with MASP plus AUTO. It also includes a bunch of scene modes. Which of these are manual and which are auto?
Are you including "A" and ""S" as auto modes or manual modes? How does manual or auto focus factor in? If I try stuff like this, the leaves turn color before I get everything set.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Difference between a photographer and an argumentative gear head. I have 40 pages of Uploads here,
unlike your 1 page of product shots. In the future put up or shut up, where I'm concerned. You've got NO creds. Time to 'Hide' your lame banter.
Steve, thanks for tryin' to get this thread back OT
I would expect to see a comment like this on DP Review. I don't feel a person needs
"creds" to take part in this forum. We should respect the views of all levels of
photographers. Your post was lame and insulting.
runamuck wrote:
Care to elucidate as to "manual modes" and "auto modes"? My D700 has 4 modes. MAS and P. Which are manual and which are auto? Try as I might, it seems the only manual mode is "M". The rest appear to be automatic. Am I doing something wrong? Am I misinterpreting something?
My D90 complicates things with MASP plus AUTO. It also includes a bunch of scene modes. Which of these are manual and which are auto?
Are you including "A" and ""S" as auto modes or manual modes? How does manual or auto focus factor in? If I try stuff like this, the leaves turn color before I get everything set....Show more →
Sorry should have been a bit more clear. Manual is obviously manual, but I spend a good part of my time in aperture priority mode as well - using exposure comp (based on histograms) to tweak the exposure. So, for me, aperture priority mode is just a notch above manual mode. I very seldom just let the camera do what it wants.
For general landscape I can be in either one, but most of the time it's easier for me in manual mode - especially if I'm doing some specific types of bracketing (I'm not a fan of autobracketing most of the time - end up with frames I don't need).
For wildlife, it varies depending on the exposure situation. If it's tricky (say, white bird on a black background), I'll stay in manual. If it's a pretty easy exposure (say a deer in a field), but with rapidly changing light conditions (partly cloudy on a windy day comes to mind), then aperture priority is the chice.
My camera never sees program mode and I can't remember the last time I used shutter priority (just doesn't fit my shooting style).
As for AF or not - a good chunk of my landscapes and all of my macros are shot in manual focus (some with focus bracketing). Most wildlife is AF - unless it's in a tricky spot then I'll grab the AF ring and help it out.
Bottom line - I'm out there to get a shot, and I'm not really all that worried about what mode my camera is in. I quickly adjust the camera based on my needs at the time and I've been doing it so long (30+ years) I can makes these adjustments without really thinking about it. Most days I don't even think too much about if it's in manual or aperture priority - I just make the adjustments needed to get the right balance of shutter speed and DOF without thinking about it too much. If the mode is getting in the way, I change it.
I shoot a lot of events, mostly photo journalistic style. Sure, you can plan ahead and meter but there are situations where it's beneficial to let the camera work for you. I shoot manual exposure about 95% of the time and aperture priority the rest. I never use auto iso. Autofocus in various modes about 90% of the time, too. I usually manual focus on close ups of objects or in extremely dimly lit venues. I don't think switching AF modes or metering modes makes me any less of a photographer.
There is no right or wrong way to do things if your results work for you. Technique always has room for improvement, regardless how you shoot.
This whole thread has been antagonistic in tone, and we are better than that on this forum.
