Manual vs Av and Other Modes

[Ofer Levy]

Artie here :)

There is a myth about that real photographers work in Manual mode 100% of the time. I have found myself working in Manual more and more over the years, but I firmly believe that when you are out for a walk with your lens that by working in Av mode you will be able to react to unforeseen situations far more quickly if you are in Av mode than if you are in Manual mode (as long as you understanding exposure theory). Additionally, there are times when I want to be in Tv mode and even times when I want to be in Program (Gasp!) mode. I am going to try and copy some posts from the thread here now. We shall see if I am successful....

IAC, feel free to share your thoughts. Should competent photographers work in Manual mode 100% of the time?

later and love, artie......... Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART

Below in this pane is the post that started the discussion which for the most part has been civil :) I was able to copy the relevant and somewhat relevant panes below but could not show this as a post that I started :) even though I did.

1D Mark IV, Canon 600 f4, x1.4, 1/2000, f9, iso 640, Miller SOlo tripod, Miller Arrow 25 fluid head, sitting in the pond with water up to my chest...:2eyes2:

Taken in Sydney a few days ago by Ofer Levy.

Full frame

[Ofer Levy]

Thanks for your comments guys!
Melissa, here is the "secret" how I expose.... I simply NEVER expose AV or TV - only Manual. I always expose in a way that the brightest element in the image (particularly on the bird) is almost hot - in this case the white. You should have the highlight alert ON. Exposing manually with the histogram pushed as much as possible to the right without burning anything will result in the best possible image with the best signal to noise ratio, and the best colours. It may not look very nice in camera as it will be a bit bright but when opened in photoshop and adjusted a bit you will see the beauty of this technique. Don't relay on the camera to do this simple thing for you when you can do it so much better.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>Just my 2 cents,<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>Cheers,Ofer<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>http://www.oferlevyphotography.com<o:p></o:p>

[Melissa Groo]

Ofer, you confirm what I have been slowly absorbing from studying this web site--as well as others-- and books. I guess I have always been afraid to go Manual but I know that is how many of the best photogs shoot. When I went out with Shadle he had me shooting in Manual and I got excited about it, but then retreated to the safety of AV when I got home. I will try what you say, and see how it works for me. Thanks so much for your instruction and thoughtfulness.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for your comments guys!
Melissa, here is the "secret" how I expose.... I simply NEVER expose AV or TV - only Manual. I always expose in a way that the brightest element in the image (particularly on the bird) is almost hot - in this case the white. You should have the highlight alert ON. Exposing manually with the histogram pushed as much as possible to the right without burning anything will result in the best possible image with the best signal to noise ratio, and the best colours. It may not look very nice in camera as it will be a bit bright but when opened in photoshop and adjusted a bit you will see the beauty of this technique. Don't relay on the camera to do this simple thing for you when you can do it so much better.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>Just my 2 cents,<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>Cheers,Ofer<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>http://www.oferlevyphotography.com<o:p></o:p>

All good but I firmly believe that there are times that Av or Tv are THE best choice but I shall not go into that here :)

I will say that despite the fact that the WHITEs look pretty good that in the JPEG presented in Pane #1 here there is considerable clipping as seen in the repost. At times, such clipping is a result of JPEG creation. I have begun a new workflow where I limit the RGB values for the WHITEs during conversion to a max of 236 (by using mostly the Recovery Slider). It has worked extremely well.

IAC, the histogram never lies :).

[Ofer Levy]

Thank you all for the interesting discussion and comments.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>This image was taken in early morning light when colours are "warm" so there is no point in trying to reproduce the "perfect white".<o:p></o:p>
Artie, during all the years I have been doing bird photography (over 30 years now) I always used only manual exposure and never had any issues with getting the exposure right.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>IMO there is absolutely no reason to go TV or AV in any circumstances.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>As to the histogram you present - I am sure everyone with a calibrated monitor who looks at this image will agree that neck looks fine so I am not too worried about the histogram. Also keep in mind the feathers are socked with water which might cause what you see in the histogram. Having said that I always look at the histogram when I take the image to make sure nothing is clipped so I will have all the information to work with.
Cheers,
Ofer http://www.oferlevyphotography.com

[Arthur Morris]

As I said, there is lots of clipping in the JPEG as presented.

[Daniel Cadieux]

I use AV more than 80% of the time and never had any issues getting the right exposure either:S3:. I do agree there are times for manual (and for some that is all the time and that is OK), but there is nothing "wrong" with AV either...

Fabulous low angle and I love the emerald eye and the slight tilt of the bill upwards. I prefer the blues of the water in Peter's repost.

[Arthur Morris]

I use AV more than 80% of the time and never had any issues getting the right exposure either:S3:. I do agree there are times for manual (and for some that is all the time and that is OK), but there is nothing "wrong" with AV either...

Fabulous low angle and I love the emerald eye and the slight tilt of the bill upwards. I prefer the blues of the water in Peter's repost.

The right exposure if of course the right exposure. The myth that real photographers should work in manual mode is just that, a myth. There are times as when the light on a subject might change five stops or more in a single instant. Folks working in manual mode at such times are dead in the water no matter how smart they are or think that they are :)

The above might make a good thread in General :)

[Steven Kersting]

My monitor is calibrated (color eye's pro). I see the whites as being a bit hot.
And I normally use aperture priority mode. Even if I go into manual mode because I want control of aperture and shutter speed my ISO is set to an "auto" range.

[Ofer Levy]

The right exposure if of course the right exposure. The myth that real photographers should work in manual mode is just that, a myth. There are times as when the light on a subject might change five stops or more in a single instant. Folks working in manual mode at such times are dead in the water no matter how smart they are or think that they are :)

The above might make a good thread in General :)

Hi Artie,
Would love to hear about an example to when light on a subject changes 5 stop at once and the image is still worth taking....:2
In any case this is the exception when 99.999% of the time the light on the subject doesn't change that fast. Even when light changes - what is so complecated about taking one shot and then adjusting the exposure by looking at the image and histogram...?:2eyes2:
Manual is the way not for what you call "real photographers" but to those who want to be excellent photographers and to really control their image...:w3

[Roger Clark]

Hi Artie,
Would love to hear about an example to when light on a subject changes 5 stop at once and the image is still worth taking....:2


Hi Ofer,
Saturday evening I was photographing birds at a rookery around sunset. With an approaching storm, there were a lot of small clouds around the sun. The light was nice, being an orange sunset (for over a half hour before the sun went below the horizon) but light levels changed by the second by many stops (I'll have to check my images to see how many). I had been working in manual, then switched to Av when light levels started varying fast. I see uses for both Av and manual. I never use Tv as I feel I can control my shutter speed with my choice of aperture and ISO. If I had to guess, I would say I use manual 2/3 to 3/4 of the time.

Roger

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Artie,
Would love to hear about an example to when light on a subject changes 5 stop at once and the image is still worth taking....:2
In any case this is the exception when 99.999% of the time the light on the subject doesn't change that fast. Even when light changes - what is so complecated about taking one shot and then adjusting the exposure by looking at the image and histogram...?:2eyes2:
Manual is the way not for what you call "real photographers" but to those who want to be excellent photographers and to really control their image...:w3

Ofer you may be an excellent photographer but by having a close mind you are choosing to be stagnant. How's this real life situation: a gator grabs a Cattle Egret in bright sun. I dial in -1 and get some great shots. The gator slides under the boardwalk into the shadows. I go to 0 and get several more great shots. All of this happens in three seconds. If you were in manual mode you would have zero chance for the extra images in the shade. When I am walking with my lens and I do not know what to expect where I am always in Av mode.... It has saved me countless times. In the gator example the exposure difference was about 8 stops.... Too many clicks for the real photographers who work in Manual mode all the time. :) Like it or not....

[Ofer Levy]

Ofer you may be an excellent photographer but by having a close mind you are choosing to be stagnant. How's this real life situation: a gator grabs a Cattle Egret in bright sun. I dial in -1 and get some great shots. The gator slides under the boardwalk into the shadows. I go to 0 and get several more great shots. All of this happens in three seconds. If you were in manual mode you would have zero chance for the extra images in the shade. When I am walking with my lens and I do not know what to expect where I am always in Av mode.... It has saved me countless times. In the gator example the exposure difference was about 8 stops.... Too many clicks for the real photographers who work in Manual mode all the time. :) Like it or not....

Artie, there is no need to go into a psychological assessment of my personality only because I don't agree with your way of doing things...:w3<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
As to the Gator and Cattle Egret scenario - please post some pictures in here so we can all learn.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
In any case it takes me 1 or 2 seconds to change the settings and I am sure this won't kill the opportunity for me. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
How many times in a photographer's life he/she is in a situation when such thing happen anyhow? On the other hand - how many times photographers got the exposure wrong when they relayed on the camera to do the job for them...?<o:p></o:p>
If an experience photographer like Roger who uses manual exposure 2/3 of the time feels he needs to go AV – that is fine. However, if a less experienced photographer chooses AV or TV only because he thinks it is more reliable than Manual – this is wrong IMHO.<o:p></o:p>
Having said that – everyone can do whatever he/she wants and enjoy life!<o:p></o:p>
Happy shooting all!:w3<o:p></o:p>

[Steven Kersting]

Nothing is more "reliable" than manual mode. But the other modes can be just as reliable AND faster/easier as long as you are not dependent upon them. That's like saying spot metering is always better than matrix metering....You have to know when to use what and when the camera is going to lie to you. Do you always use an incident meter? Or using a fixed focus point is always better than dynamic.

If I set a fixed ISO and adjust desired aperture in Aperture priority the resulting SS is the same as I would have chosen (+/- comp) for the same exposure in full manual. Or if I set SS and a fixed ISO in S priority (Nikon) the aperture will be the same as if full manual.

I started when full manual was the only option, but things have changed a lot and I paid a lot for the capabilities of my camera. To not use those capabilities is silly.....to be dependent upon them is a mistake.

Personally, I have missed many shots because I could not react within the timeframe much less change settings, and I can change my camera's settings in the dark/ on the fly quite fluently. (two seconds can be a very long time)

No one mode is best...being in control is best.

[Dan Avelon]

excellent pose and details, It is sad to see a nice shot like this becomes a battle ground... whatever method has been used it has produced excellent results in this case...

[James Shadle]

Please stay on topic, this is a critique forum.

To further explore / debate exposure techniques, start a thread in our General Discussion Forum.

[Jim Neiger]

Ofer you may be an excellent photographer but by having a close mind you are choosing to be stagnant. How's this real life situation: a gator grabs a Cattle Egret in bright sun. I dial in -1 and get some great shots. The gator slides under the boardwalk into the shadows. I go to 0 and get several more great shots. All of this happens in three seconds. If you were in manual mode you would have zero chance for the extra images in the shade. When I am walking with my lens and I do not know what to expect where I am always in Av mode.... It has saved me countless times. In the gator example the exposure difference was about 8 stops.... Too many clicks for the real photographers who work in Manual mode all the time. :) Like it or not....

Artie,

The difference between Egret in bright sun and gator in shade under boardwalk is only 4 or 5 stops. I know this from my experiences at GL. I am like Ofer, manual mode all the time. When I get to a location, I will often take meter readings and determine what the extreme exposures are (full sun & darkest shade) This tells me where to go in the extremes. Everything else falls inbetween. This allows me to estimate the exposure very acurately. In your example I would have shot the Egret in full sun and trhen when they went into the dark shaded area, I would have gone about 12 clicks left (counterclockwise) on the shutter and/or aperture wheel, and then I would be ready to shoot again. This may not be as fast as AV mode in this case, but it is an unusual case. I can see where there are times AV mode would be a better choice, but I choose to use manual because I believe it is the best choice the vast majoprity of the time for bird photography.

Nice image, Ofer! I like the light, pose, and low angle. When you said you take the brightest element of the image as far to the right as possible, did you mean brightest element of the image or the brightest element of the subject? I usualy push the brightest element of the subject to the right and don't worry about the bg/fg. I may vary from this approach when elements in the bg/fg are important to the image and I don't want to over expose them. I think the flashing highlight alert is a more valuable tool for evaluating exposure in camera than the histogram is.

[Ofer Levy]

Artie,

The difference between Egret in bright sun and gator in shade under boardwalk is only 4 or 5 stops. I know this from my experiences at GL. I am like Ofer, manual mode all the time. When I get to a location, I will often take meter readings and determine what the extreme exposures are (full sun & darkest shade) This tells me where to go in the extremes. Everything else falls inbetween. This allows me to estimate the exposure very acurately. In your example I would have shot the Egret in full sun and trhen when they went into the dark shaded area, I would have gone about 12 clicks left (counterclockwise) on the shutter and/or aperture wheel, and then I would be ready to shoot again. This may not be as fast as AV mode in this case, but it is an unusual case. I can see where there are times AV mode would be a better choice, but I choose to use manual because I believe it is the best choice the vast majoprity of the time for bird photography.

Nice image, Ofer! I like the light, pose, and low angle. When you said you take the brightest element of the image as far to the right as possible, did you mean brightest element of the image or the brightest element of the subject? I usualy push the brightest element of the subject to the right and don't worry about the bg/fg. I may vary from this approach when elements in the bg/fg are important to the image and I don't want to over expose them. I think the flashing highlight alert is a more valuable tool for evaluating exposure in camera than the histogram is.

Hi Jim, I agree with everything you said.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I am of course mostly worried about the subject but will usually not take the shot if too much of the BG is hot.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I will repeat your very important point that flashing highlights alert is the most important tool to determine exposure.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Cheers!<o:p></o:p>

[John Chardine]

Regarding the manual/automatic exposure mode sub-thread here I'll just give my experience. The majority of the time manual exposure mode works for me, I enjoy using it, figuring the exposure out, I learn more about exposure using manual, and the results are generally what I want. Having said this I have experienced times when auto exposure worked better. Example- shorebirds of various species including Sanderlings are feeding on a sandy beach. On the beach, there are piles of seaweed. The setting sun is behind me. Those who have shot Sanderlings in particular know that they hardly ever sit still. The birds were running along the tide line back and forth, and in and out of shadow cast by the piles of seaweed, and the direct warm light of a setting sun. Both lighting situations were good and I wanted to take advantage of both so I switched to auto with a little + compensation because the BG was bright, and I missed no opportunities. Had I stayed in manual I would have missed either the subject in shadow or the subject in warm sun.

I love the cormorant image. Because there is lots of detail in the whites of the neck I don't think it matters that much that some of the pixels are over the top. Plain white patches with no detail but << 255 look hot and blown much more than the neck of the bird here. It's the lack of detail as much as anything. I do see some yellow in the image but in the context of the time the image was taken, this is perfectly acceptable in my opinion.

[John Guastella]

The above might make a good thread in General :) I would love to see this discussion continued in the General forum -- it would be very educational for advanced beginners, like myself. When I started shooting birds two years ago, I used Av exclusively and was frustrated because I ended with many poorly exposed images. I switched to using Manual and have never looked back.


I might suggest getting about two feet lower next timeAnd don't forget to bring your snorkel...

By the way, Ofer, beautiful image! WRT the color balance, I would like to see something between the original posted image and Peter's repost.

John

John

[Arthur Morris]

There is a myth about that real photographers work in Manual mode 100% of the time. I have found myself working in Manual more and more over the years, but I firmly believe that when you are out for a walk with your lens that by understanding exposure theory and working in Av mode you will be able to react to unforeseen situations far more quickly if you are in Av mode than if you are in Manual mode. And there are times when I want to be in Tv mode and even times when I want to be in Program (Yikes!) mode. I am going to try and copy some posts from the thread here (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/82900-Pied-Cormorant?p=661586#post661586) now. We shall see if I am successful....

IAC, feel free to share your thoughts. Should competent photographers work in Manual mode 100% of the time?

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hmmmm......while I have seen many excellent photographers make images in AV mode........I have seen way to many misses to see a reason why to use it. If you are proficient in exposure as you want to use AV........then you should be totally proficient in manual. Another 100% manual mode all the time.

What is P:bg3:?

[Arthur Morris]

Artie,

The difference between Egret in bright sun and gator in shade under boardwalk is only 4 or 5 stops. I know this from my experiences at GL. I am like Ofer, manual mode all the time. When I get to a location, I will often take meter readings and determine what the extreme exposures are (full sun & darkest shade) This tells me where to go in the extremes. Everything else falls inbetween. This allows me to estimate the exposure very acurately. In your example I would have shot the Egret in full sun and trhen when they went into the dark shaded area, I would have gone about 12 clicks left (counterclockwise) on the shutter and/or aperture wheel, and then I would be ready to shoot again. This may not be as fast as AV mode in this case, but it is an unusual case. I can see where there are times AV mode would be a better choice, but I choose to use manual because I believe it is the best choice the vast majoprity of the time for bird photography.



Jim, I would agree that Manual mode is great most of the time. But there are times when Av is simply faster and better. In the gator situation the difference was 4 2/3 stops. And the two best frames in the series were created just 13/100 second apart. There was no time for 14 clicks. Sorry bud! BTW, 12 clicks would have burned the WHITEs.

[Arthur Morris]

Roman,

re:

Hmmmm......while I have seen many excellent photographers make images in AV mode........I have seen way too many misses to see a reason why to use it.

Misses are always a result of folks who do not understand exposure. Never a result of the mode that they are in. PERIOD. The right exposure is always the right exposure. Folks who fear using manual simply do not understand that the two are essentially the same: a way to get to the right EXP. If your analogue scale shows -1/3 stop in Manual mode it should show -1/3 in Av mode in the same light if the EXP is correct.

If you are proficient in exposure as you want to use AV........then you should be totally proficient in manual.

Agree.

Another 100% manual mode all the time.

The problem is that many in the "100% manual mode all the time" refuse to admit that in rapidly changing lighting or when you encounter unexpected lighting situations that Av is often best. If they choose to keep their heads in the sand I am fine with that but at least the newer folks can learn what is actually best.

What is P:bg3:?[/QUOTE]

[Arthur Morris]

I will be posting the two gator images here when I get back from my massage :)

[Jim Neiger]

Jim, I would agree that Manual mode is great most of the time. But there are times when Av is simply faster and better. In the gator situation the difference was 4 2/3 stops. And the two best frames in the series were created just 13/100 second apart. There was no time for 14 clicks. Sorry bud! BTW, 12 clicks would have burned the WHITEs.


I was pretty close though going from memory and experience. I knew it wasn't 8 stops. 12 or 14 are a lot of clicks to do quickly. I have had a situation where I didn't have time to count and I just spun the wheel hoping I had the right number of clicks. Turned out perfect, but I got lucky.

Were the two best frames the one where you switched from sun to shade? If not, my method with manual mode would have worked.

I agree that in some situations AV is more efficient, but those are few and far between and often unpredictable. I can't remember the last time my camera was in AV or any program mode.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Artie,
I remember the gator 1 from a while ago......but you are saying you need to know your exposure to use AV and when......so this contradicts why you would teach someone AV first. I believe if you teach them manual mode first......they will understand exposure more quickly and then can choose the mode of their choice!
In general.....I don't care which mode you use.....only the final product! I can give you a scenario where while you were in AV mode while shooting.....you could have messed up the exposure......so the situation dictates the mode IMO.

[Steve Canuel]

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/12555

[Roman Kurywczak]

Given the scenario in that thread........a bald eagle comes in......flies in and swoops the egret out of the water.....flies through the mangroves, egret dangling..... and into the sky right in front of you.......Q: Who got the exposure right? A: All of us in manual who exposed for whites, sun & wind at our back (like you taught us) as the bird flew off against the varied BG.

That happens more often in the field than the gator scenario IMO and I'll take my chances in M!

[Arthur Morris]

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/12555

Thanks Steve. I will post those two image after dinner.

[Charles Glatzer]

I will use whatever Priority Mode I deem best for the situation. But, most often 95% I am in Manual Mode. The problem as I have stated time and again is many do not understand that the METERING PATTERN DETERMINES EXPOSURE, while the PRIORITY MODE IS USED TO ADJUST THE VARIABLES. I will at times use Av in combination with AE LOCK. I find Av/Tv with EVAL to be inconsistent at best when subject size and tonal values relative to the background vary from shot to shot. Eliminating as many of the variables as possible is the key. I think if you want to learn metering, you should learn Manual first, not Av. Learn the fundamentals! Far to many using AV/Eval learn mostly how to make a dark image light and visa versa....without understanding or being taught(!) why and how meter patterns work in conjunction with priority modes. Same is true for seeing and understanding lighting ratios in the field.

Chas

[Desmond Chan]

Should competent photographers work in Manual mode 100% of the time?

No. I don't see the logic that they should.

[Steven Kersting]

IMO, exposure is always a balancing act and you almost always have to compromise somewhere.
Usually there is one aspect you care about more than the others.
I.e., there is sufficient illumination to get a correct exposure with sufficient SS at base ISO. In this case I may only care about controlling aperture for DOF and aperture priority will be the quickest/ most efficient mode to use.
In another case I may have to have a fast SS to freeze the action. In this case I would us S (Tv?) mode and set my ISO to auto within an acceptable range.
In the case where I care equally about aperture and SS I will go into manual mode, again with my ISO set to auto within an acceptable range.

Regardless of the mode I am in, I am not relying entirely on the metering system to get the exposure correct....to adjust for those variances I will use +/- exposure compensation.

In all cases I usually only need to make one adjustment to get the correct exposure with the requirements I need for the shot, and the resulting settings are the same as what I would have ended up with had I been in full manual.

I do a lot of "stalking" and as a result many of the shots I get are "grabs"...there simply is not the time for making multiple adjustments, sometimes there isn't even the time to get the camera on subject. If I were sitting in a blind with a fixed "scene" I could see using manual, but I don't need to so I probably wouldn't.

It's not about what mode you use, it's about being in control.

[Charles Glatzer]

Steve,

If you are in an Auto Priority Mode the exposure with comp applied is only accurate if the size of the subject and tonal values within the viewfinder remain the same. Change the composition by zooming in/out, go from horz to vert, shift the subject position in the viewfinder, and it may be a different ball game altogether. If the subject is in the same light there is no need to change exposure, thus Manual Mode. Why would you want to keep changing the compensation as you move the camera to maintain the same exposure? I would suggest you try using the AE Lock button in conjunction with Av. I do agree there are times if you are shooting subjects in rapidly changing light Av may be faster than trying to manually change an exposure variable. But, it not as simple as stating in Av I go -1 or +1 comp unless you know ahead of time exactly what the tonal values are going to be within the field of view. With either method the key is to be Pro-Active, checking the exposure ahead of time for both sun and shade before the decisive moment occurs. A bit of forethought goes a long way.

Artie stated "When I am walking with my lens and I do not know what to expect where I am always in Av mode..." Many times I will do the same in complex lighting, but I consider it more a Hail Mary than a prescribed methodology. Something better than nothing most times, once in a while you get lucky.

With Manual Priority you make the same cognitive decision you would in Av Priority, that is to set the aperture first into the camera. Thereafter...in Av the camera will set the shutter speed and you add compensation to derive at the correct exposure for the scene as viewed. In Manual you adjust the shutter-speed adding in more or less exposure to derive at the correct exposure. Both methods require that you turn a wheel, shutter speed in Manual, comp in Av.

I cannot state this enough... if a photographer wants to consistently derive and maintain proper exposure it is imperative they have a firm understanding of how Metering Patterns and Priority Modes work in conjunction. Shameless plug ... just ask the hundreds who have taken the STL Tech Series (http://www.shootthelight.com/#/Workshops%202011/Tech%20Series,%20FL/) and transformed their photography.

Warm Regards,

Chas

[Roman Kurywczak]

Great addition Chas......and I agree 100% Metering modes and priority modes go hand in hand.

[Desmond Chan]

With either method the key is to be Pro-Active, checking the exposure ahead of time for both sun and shade before the decisive moment occurs. A bit of forethought goes a long way.

Hear, hear !

I think most of the time it's only those who use manual exposure mode who do that. Those who use auto-exposure modes they somehow don't think they need to.



With Manual Priority you make the same cognitive decision you would in Av Priority, that is to set the aperture first into the camera. Thereafter...in Av the camera will set the shutter speed and you add compensation to derive at the correct exposure for the scene as viewed. In Manual you adjust the shutter-speed adding in more or less exposure to derive at the correct exposure. Both methods require that you turn a wheel, shutter speed in Manual, comp in Av.
BINGO !!

It's amazing that so many people cannot see that. And hence my answer to the question: "Should competent photographers work in Manual mode 100% of the time?"

[Don Lacy]

The myth that real photographers should work in manual mode is just that, a myth.
I agree with Artie in part with this statement real photographers can and do work in the mode that best fits the situation they are photographing in. The reason being they understand what the camera is doing in each mode and understand how to make the needed adjustment to achieve their vision.
The problem with beginners is that they often do not understand why the camera is choosing the values it is choosing and blindly hit the shutter button trusting the camera to get it right which it does often enough to keep them using it. I am still amazed why so many people find having to turn one more wheel on their camera to be so challenging or having to add one more thought process before hitting the shutter so daunting. I believe once you master shooting in manual you will be in a better situation to fully exploit the other modes when you decide to use them and be a better photographer for it.

[Charles Glatzer]

Desmond,

"Should competent photographers work in Manual mode 100% of the time?"

A competent photographer will have the wherewithal to make an informed decision regarding which Mode, and Pattern or Method to use according to the task at hand.

I was photographing penguins in the Falkland's under partly cloudy skies late in the day. Normally I would only shoot the subject in whatever light I deemed best. Why waste my time shooting images I know to be mediocre. However, as this was late in the day the light was already partially diffused, with the cloud cover effecting more the overall quantity than the quality of light. I set the PATTERN to Spot, the Mode to AV, dialing in + 2EV COMP. The rational is as follows.... Spot Pattern plus 2EV off the penguins white chest maintained white with detail throughout for my chosen f/stop (Av). Av and Spot (+ comp) allowed me to quickly nail the changing exposure. The key was I depressed the AE Lock button after metering to maintain the correct exposure when recomposing for the desired image. The downside being I had to re-meter off the chest every time the firing burst ended. Had the light been consistent I would have stayed in Manual mode. BTW- I metered off a penguin close by me to fill the spot pattern completely with a known tonal value, while the actual images were being taken of penguins coming up in the surf some 50 feet away, wink.

Knowledge is power. If you learn Manual Mode first ...you will become a better photographer.

Ever wonder why so many in the forums now shoot Manual Mode as opposed to Av, I know, wink.

I really do need to finish my book and instructional series!

Chas

[Steven Kersting]

Chas,
In aperture priority I often don't have to change anything for a rapid shot. I use exposure compensation when I know a scene is heavily biased and the metering mode selected will be fooled.

I do agree metering mode plays a huge part, but that was not part of the discussion. Regardless of what functional mode you are in, the metering mode chosen will be a significant factor. I'm often in matrix mode with the function button set to spot. Simply press the function button and my metering mode changes.

In AV mode, I happen upon a scene with a cluttered BG, I open up the aperture and the rest is done for me, one adjustment. In manual mode, you happen upon the same scene and open aperture, then you have to adjust SS or ISO, two adjustments.

Same is true if I'm in SS mode. I slow the SS to open the aperture, one adjustment.

If you are in full manual, yes you can change one setting for variables of exposure, but you cannot change one setting for variability of scene and subject. The other modes let you decide what you care about most and adjust for both exposure and scene with one adjustment. Manual is great if you are going to set up *only* for optimum aperture and ISO..then a quick change of SS to adjust exposure is what is needed. Or ISO and SS, then a quick adjustment of aperture for the exposure change is all that is needed. But that is identical to being in Av/Tv (A/S) mode.

I'm often in manual mode, but when *I* use manual mode my ISO is set to auto within a tolerable range. Then I select which matters more for the scene and adjust only that...if time permits, maybe both SS and aperture. But I still don't consider that full manual because my ISO is set to an auto range.

For me, the way I use manual mode, it's like being is A/S modes at the same time....and with my Nikon i have one dial under my thumb and one under my middle finger to adjust at an instants notice (and a button under my ring finger to change metering modes). This is significantly different than almost 30 yrs. ago when I learned "full manual".

As I said, it's not about what mode you are in, it's about being in control. I've even used "variable program" mode on the rare occasion. To be honest, I would LOVE this mode if the camera logic was better.

[Roman Kurywczak]

OK Steven.....I'll bite.......what exactly was your answer???....and why in your opinion is Chas's response off topic/not relavent? If your camera meters a tonally changing BG.......the metering, and how much of the frame your subject fills plays a huge part!

[Roger Clark]

With Manual Priority you make the same cognitive decision you would in Av Priority, that is to set the aperture first into the camera. Thereafter...in Av the camera will set the shutter speed and you add compensation to derive at the correct exposure for the scene as viewed. In Manual you adjust the shutter-speed adding in more or less exposure to derive at the correct exposure. Both methods require that you turn a wheel, shutter speed in Manual, comp in Av.


Chas,
But there are conditions with changing light and with Av, one needs to only set compensation once and then can frame away with widely changing lighting conditions. For example, say you are photographing two birds interacting and you want to record that interaction. But there are many small clouds which constantly float in front of the sun, partially or fully moving in front of the sun. With Av, one can find the compensation that gives great exposure and then record the interaction while the light varies by many stops without fiddling further with wheels and settings. Thus, one can concentrate on the subject and not on dialing in the exposure.

Just like with most things in life, there is no one thing that works best for all situations, including Av, manual, or other exposure methods.

Roger

[Desmond Chan]

Hey Steven:



I use exposure compensation when I know a scene is heavily biased and the metering mode selected will be fooled.

And in manual exposure mode, you compensate by actually changing ISO, aperture, shutter speed, or a combination of them, directly yourself. It's just another button like that exposure compensation button (which tells the camera to change the ISO, aperture, shutter speed for you depending on which auto exposure mode you use).



In AV mode, I happen upon a scene with a cluttered BG, I open up the aperture and the rest is done for me, one adjustment. In manual mode, you happen upon the same scene and open aperture, then you have to adjust SS or ISO, two adjustments If you want to change the aperture in order to change the depth-of-field? Yes, then the shutter speed or ISO, or a combination of both, needs to be changed, too, if the brightness of the scene change. Otherwise, if you want to change the exposure, you only need to adjust the shutter speed IF you want to maintain the same depth of field and ISO. I don't see how a cluttered background would require me to change the aperture AND the shutter speed for it.


If you are in full manual, yes you can change one setting for variables of exposure, but you cannot change one setting for variability of scene and subject. Yes, you can (and see above). Photographers have been doing it since the beginning of photography.


Manual is great if you are going to set up *only* for optimum aperture and ISO

Hmmm?


then a quick change of SS to adjust exposure is what is needed. Or ISO and SS, then a quick adjustment of aperture for the exposure change is all that is needed. But that is identical to being in Av/Tv (A/S) mode. Yes, and that is the whole point and why using manual exposure mode does not mean you a better photographer or know exposure better IMO.



I'm often in manual mode, but when *I* use manual mode my ISO is set to auto within a tolerable range. [snip] But I still don't consider that full manual because my ISO is set to an auto range.You are absolutely correct on that :S3:


For me, the way I use manual mode, it's like being is A/S modes at the same time... This is significantly different than almost 30 yrs. ago when I learned "full manual" Because you are not using manual exposure mode :bg3: Just because there's a M appearing on some screen on your camera does not mean you are actually using manual exposure mode :w3

[Charles Glatzer]

Chas,
In aperture priority I often don't have have to change anything for a rapid shot. I use exposure compensation when I know a scene is heavily biased and the metering mode selected will be fooled.

If the tonal values within the field of view remain unchanging you are correct, but this is more the exception. If the tonality varies within the frame as you track a moving subject it will more than likely require you to adjust compensation. Do not forget Matrix is applying its own degree of compensation based on predetermined algorithms. And, Matrix is in fact more accurate in most instances than Evaluative. The Meter Priority (mode) cannot be fooled. And, a Metering Pattern only does what it is programed to do.


I do agree metering mode plays a huge part, but that was not part of the discussion. Regardless of what functional mode you are in, the metering mode chosen will be a significant factor.

This is confusing? How is a Metering Mode not a part of a discussion on rendering proper in-camera exposure?

I'm often in matrix mode with the function button set to spot. Simply press the function button and my metering mode changes.

OK

In AV mode, I happen upon a scene with a cluttered BG, I open up the aperture and the rest is done for me, one adjustment. In manual mode, you happen upon the same scene and open aperture, then you have to adjust SS or ISO, two adjustments.

A cluttered background has nothing to do with how a Meter Pattern renders exposure. The background may in fact be busy, but it is only the tonality and contrast that influence the meter pattern. And, a bit of color, perhaps. Why would I have to change ISO in Manual and not Av?

Same is true if I'm in SS mode. I slow the SS to open the aperture, one adjustment.

If your chosen shutter-speed requires the lens to be open greater than maximum aperture to render the correct exposure the resultant image will be under-exposed, unless you dial in more comp or change the ISO manually or have the camera do it automatically.

If you are in full manual, yes you can change one setting for variables of exposure, but you cannot change one setting for variability of scene and subject.

What?

The other modes let you decide what you care about most and adjust for both exposure and scene with one adjustment.

Again, What?

Manual is great if you are going to set up *only* for optimum aperture and ISO..then a quick change of SS to adjust exposure is what is needed. Or ISO and SS, then a quick adjustment of aperture for the exposure change is all that is needed. But that is identical to being in Av/Tv (A/S) mode.

I cannot follow the logic.

I'm often in manual mode, but when *I* use manual mode my ISO is set to auto within a tolerable range. Then I select which matters more for the scene and adjust only that...if time permits, maybe both SS and aperture. But I still don't consider that full manual because my ISO is set to an auto range.

Correct. But, I have no need for Auto ISO at all.

For me, the way I use manual mode, it's like being is A/S modes at the same time....and with my Nikon i have one dial under my thumb and one under my middle finger to adjust at an instants notice (and a button under my ring finger to change metering modes). This is significantly different than almost 30 yrs. ago when I learned "full manual".

As I said, it's not about what mode you are in, it's about being in control. I've even used "variable program" mode on the rare occasion. To be honest, I would LOVE this mode if the camera logic was better.

The camera logic is what it is. Understanding how and why it does what it does is the key. Respectfully, it sounds to me like your exposure workflow logic is flawed. Yes, it is all about what Mode you are in, along with the Patten in use.

Chas

[Bob Decker]

Reminds me of arguements I used to hear when auto-focus cameras first appeared: "Real (pro, serious, quality, discriptive of your choice) photographers don't use auto-focus." Of course along with technological advances came the same arguements about exposure modes, ttl flash, digital vs film. Then there's the endless diatribes about why Canon kicks Nikon's butt... and vice versa! It seems there's always a healthy supply of folks that believe that their way is the "best" way or even "only" way. Any other application of technology is somehow ametuerish and inferior. The simple fact is, always has been and always will be, the end viewer... whether a fine art buyer, a photo editor or just a casual looker... isn't going to care what mode an image was shot in. Results are what matters. How you got them isn't as important as the fact you were able to get them. Being proficient is a matter of getting those results consitently, not what mode was used.

All that said, I would tned to believe that teaching exposure is better accomplished by having a student shoot in manual mode. It provides very specific feedback on how aperature, shutter speed and iso affect the final image. But once one understands the priciples of exposure I cannot see anything wrong with using the tools provided by technology to create interesting, compelling images. After all, I'd like to think it's the artist... the brains using the camera if you will... not the camera that's resposible for making wonderful images.

[Steven Kersting]

OK Steven.....I'll bite.......what exactly was your answer???....and why in your opinion is Chas's response off topic/not relavent? If your camera meters a tonally changing BG.......the metering, and how much of the frame your subject fills plays a huge part!

My response is it doesn't matter what mode is used, manual is no better than any other. And that metering mode is a different topic entirely and has no direct influence on which functional mode you choose.

[Steven Kersting]

Hey Steven:

I don't see how a cluttered background would require me to change the aperture AND the shutter speed for it.



Because if the lighting is the same just changing the aperture (opening it one would presume given the scenario) would result in a bad exposure/overexposure.

I gather that we agree that manual mode is not "better". If not, ok, we don't.

All I can say is I know almost no one who's been in photography for a long time that uses manual mode exclusively. I do know a couple who work with static subjects (studio) and a couple who learned manual mode back when it was the only option and never really got comfortable with the "new technology".

I hear a lot of advanced amateurs touting manual mode as "the only way to be in complete control" and "professional". But I think that's because they don't understand what choices their camera will make "for them" in the other modes.

Like I said, it doesn't matter what mode you are in as long as you are in control. It is fine (often faster and easier) to let the camera "decide for you" as long as you agree with the choices it makes. If you know what choices the camera will make in the different modes then using them makes life easier.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

If you use any "auto" mode you are giving up control to the camera. Period. This seems obvious.

Auto is strictly for convenience, and though faster(which computers have the edge over use humans), much more likely to make errors. This is because there is no way a camera can be "programmed" with all the relevant information needed for the proper exposure for any particular scene. It doesn't know what is most important or what the photographer wants as the focal point, it can't tell what is the foreground or background and incessantly tries to average everything out. It doesn't know that light reflects off different material differently and this effects exposure. It doesn't even know that dark materials need more exposure and light materials need less. It is so stupid in that area you have to waste time figuring what exposure compensation to use. And you are supposed to constantly monitor it to check for errors? And you want to let it make exposure decisions on a shot that you might or might not ever get again?
I think not!
Manual exposure is so simple; expose to the right to the point of highlight clipping, that a histogram and clipping indicators make a meter, with all its errors, obsolete.
I also wonder, for those people that swear by auto modes, what keeper rate they have? For one that for years used them, I know that my keeper rate in manual is much higher.
This being said, under very rapidly changing lighting conditions I use aperture priority, all other times manual. This is because a series of images with errors(where some might not be too severe and by chance correct) is better than no series at all since my fingers on the thumbwheels are too slow.
regards~Bill

[Charles Glatzer]

Bob,

Certainly the end justifies the means, and I am not stating one overall method is better than an other. What I am saying is that one needs to comprehend how it all works together to be able to make an informed decision in a given circumstance. If someone chooses to stick to what works for them so be it, but if you want to grow I would think an open mine is necessary. I am always willing to learn something from others, and I do every time I teach and go afield. For me it is more about the process than the image itself. I love the problem solving aspect of photography. I have been at this for 28 years now, starting with Hasselblad's, Leica's, Nikon F, 4x5 cameras all without built-in meters, forcing me to learn reference values, relationships, ratios, incident, and more. Today many rely on the auto this auto that features. Many using Auto from the get-go do not develop the fundamental knowledge in metering, lighting, and more to be consistently successful in their image making. And, many of those now teaching and shooting were weened on Auto methods. How many now buy a first camera a fixed lens, none! How many of those purchasing zooms as their first lens learn to use that lens other than a cropping tool. Lenses alter perspective, picking the right tool for the job is part of the creative process. See the image in your mind first...then pick and choose the right equipment to capture your vision. This includes choosing the f/stop and shutter speed before depressing the shutter. If you cannot obtain the combination desired do to insufficient quantity of illumination on the subject, raise or lower the ISO until you can do so. Same process every time!!!! Many think Auto Priority Modes are easier, they are not. But, if that is what you or anyone else is comfortable with so be it. I can only lead the horse to water. And, there are many ponds to drink from.

If you have followed my postings in forums over the last 11 years you would see i do not care what method people use, be it mine or someone else. However, I do care that they understand how and why an image comes out the way it does with the method they choose. I only offer options...another "crayon in the box" if you will. I say without doubt a huge percentage of those I have taught over the years , including pros and amateurs, do not fully comprehend metering. Sure they get good images, but their hit rate could be vastly improved.

Good image making to all,

Chas

[Charles Glatzer]

If you use any "auto" mode you are giving up control to the camera. Period. This seems obvious.

Auto is strictly for convenience, and though faster(which computers have the edge over use humans), much more likely to make errors. This is because there is no way a camera can be "programmed" with all the relevant information needed for the proper exposure for any particular scene. It doesn't know what is most important or what the photographer wants as the focal point, it can't tell what is the foreground or background and incessantly tries to average everything out. It doesn't know that light reflects off different material differently and this effects exposure. It doesn't even know that dark materials need more exposure and light materials need less. It is so stupid in that area you have to waste time figuring what exposure compensation to use. And you are supposed to constantly monitor it to check for errors? And you want to let it make exposure decisions on a shot that you might or might not ever get again?
I think not!
Manual exposure is so simple; expose to the right to the point of highlight clipping, that a histogram and clipping indicators make a meter, with all its errors, obsolete.
I also wonder, for those people that swear by auto modes, what keeper rate they have? For one that for years used them, I know that my keeper rate in manual is much higher.
This being said, under very rapidly changing lighting conditions I use aperture priority, all other times manual. This is because a series of images with errors(where some might not be too severe and by chance correct) is better than no series at all.
regards~Bill

Bingo!

Chas

[Charles Glatzer]

Chas,
But there are conditions with changing light and with Av, one needs to only set compensation once and then can frame away with widely changing lighting conditions. For example, say you are photographing two birds interacting and you want to record that interaction. But there are many small clouds which constantly float in front of the sun, partially or fully moving in front of the sun. With Av, one can find the compensation that gives great exposure and then record the interaction while the light varies by many stops without fiddling further with wheels and settings. Thus, one can concentrate on the subject and not on dialing in the exposure.

Just like with most things in life, there is no one thing that works best for all situations,
including Av, manual, or other exposure methods.

Roger


Roger,

No doubt. But, that assumes the tonal values in the field of view remain fairly constant.
As you know Matrix and Evaluate are applying thir own comp in addition to what you apply, sometimes it will do a good job of maintaing exposure when tracking a subject. I am less of a gambler, preferring the higher odds based on my knowledge rather than predetermined algorithms chosen by another. For me Auto induces more variables, not less.

Best,

Chas

[Roger Clark]

Certainly the end justifies the means, and I am not stating one overall method is better than an other. What I am saying is that one needs to comprehend how it all works together to be able to make an informed decision in a given circumstance.


Chas,
I agree. This is the key.




Lenses alter perspective


I disagree. Position alters perspective. Lenses limit and magnify the field of view but do not change perspective.



Many think Auto Priority Modes are easier, they are not.

They are both easier, faster, and more accurate in SOME situations, but not all. I gave one example yesterday (changing light).



I say without doubt a huge percentage of those I have taught over the years , including pros and amateurs, do not fully comprehend metering. Sure they get good images, but their hit rate could be vastly improved.

Chas, when you say this, what do you think their "hit rate" on great exposures is that could be "vastly improved" and what do you think an experienced person after such "improvement" should have as their hit rate?

Roger

[Roger Clark]

Because if the lighting is the same just changing the aperture (opening it one would presume given the scenario) would result in a bad exposure/overexposure.

I gather that we agree that manual mode is not "better". If not, ok, we don't.


In some situations manual is better. Yesterday I gave an example where Av mode would be better than manual. Here is an example where manual is better than any of the auto modes:

I was photographing a brown bear at the base of Brooks Falls, Alaska. The huge male bear was on the bank on the other side of the river under an overhanging bank with dark wet soil behind him. The day was light hazy sun with stable light, slightly diffuse (very nice light). The bear would jump into the foamy water to catch salmon. If one used any auto exposure mode when the bear made the jump, the exposure would change radically as the bear moved from a dark background to the white foamy water. The metering system would vary the exposure by many stops during the jump even though the light on the bear was constant. I metered the white water, set manual and exposure to not clip the water and could photograph the action for tens of minutes without worry that the exposure was correct. Manual works best in this situation: constant light on the subject, varying backgrounds.

As with any set of tools, one may best for a particular application, but no one tool works best for all situations. The key is selecting the best to for the particular application.

Roger

[Arthur Morris]

Just a general comment here as I have no desire to get into a piss-fight with any of the fine folks above :)

If you know how to get the right exposure when working in Manual mode then you must know how to get the right exposure using an automatic mode like Av or Tv. Why? Because the right exposure is the right exposure. And the histogram does not know what mode you were in when you made the image :)

Yes, Av with Evaluative metering can be tricky when working with an unusually light or dark subject and yes, it can be tricky depending on the size of the subject in the frame, and yes it can be tricky when the background is changing rapidly.

However, there are many situations where the light is relatively constant, the subject is either small in the frame or of a fairly consistent tonal value, and the BKGR is fairly consistent. In those (and other situations) if find that using Av or Tv is faster and works perfectly for me. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, if you do not know whether your subject is gonna be in sun or shade competent photographers working in Av can get to the right place way faster than someone working in manual mode and in such situations it does not matter if you are Chas Glatzer or Roman CUrry-check or God :)

For Bill Maraldo, I very rarely make big exposure errors when working in Av. I find it much easier to make a gross error when working in Manual mode. If you forget where you are in an automatic mode, you are gonna be pretty close most of the time.... Not so with Manual mode. When I know where I am my keeper rate for correct exposures is 100% whether I am in Manual mode or an automatic mode.

I will expand the above into an illustrated blog post at some point and provide a link here. In the meantime, those who insist that real photographers work in Manual mode all the time will be missing some good images at times. From where I sit know when to use manual and when to work in an auto mode is a good policy.

BTW, when the light is constant, the BKGR may be changing rapidly, and the tonalities of a B&W subject occupy varying portions of the frame it is of course correct to work in Manual mode. I have nothing against Manual mode and use it a good portion of the time :)

[Roger Clark]

If you use any "auto" mode you are giving up control to the camera. Period. This seems obvious.

Auto is strictly for convenience, and though faster(which computers have the edge over use humans), much more likely to make errors. This is because there is no way a camera can be "programmed" with all the relevant information needed for the proper exposure for any particular scene. It doesn't know what is most important or what the photographer wants as the focal point, it can't tell what is the foreground or background and incessantly tries to average everything out.

Bill,
Actually with the multiple exposure sensors in today's cameras, combined with all the AF points, the camera can tell what is foreground and background and weight the exposure accordingly. On some cameras you can tie the exposure to the selected AF point if desired.



It doesn't know that light reflects off different material differently and this effects exposure. It doesn't even know that dark materials need more exposure and light materials need less.

Actually, the exposure is the same. If you want bright things to look bright in your image and dark things to look dark, the exposure is the same. Example: black horse in snow.




It is so stupid in that area you have to waste time figuring what exposure compensation to use. And you are supposed to constantly monitor it to check for errors?

And in manual mode you don't have to constantly check the exposure? And how do you decide what the exposure is in the first place? One typically views a reading from a meter, then do a test exposure to check that the meter is right or not, then adjust from there. A few seconds later and the light changes while the subject is moving (different backgrounds), and what do you do? How much time do you "waste" figuring out the new exposure?





Manual exposure is so simple; expose to the right to the point of highlight clipping, that a histogram and clipping indicators make a meter, with all its errors, obsolete.

So what do you do when the light is changing (e.g. a hole in the clouds opens up for the first time that day and the subject is walking out of a shady area? Can you determine the new exposure in a fraction of a second what the exposure is? How about the next second when the light changes again? If one had been working in manual mode all morning, one probably missed this event.




I also wonder, for those people that swear by auto modes, what keeper rate they have?


What keeper rate do you have in manual mode in rapidly changing light situations?




This being said, under very rapidly changing lighting conditions I use aperture priority, all other times manual. This is because a series of images with errors(where some might not be too severe and by chance correct) is better than no series at all since my fingers on the thumbwheels are too slow.
regards~Bill

Ah Ha! So manual isn't the best mode in all situations.

Roger

[Roger Clark]

Artie,

I agree 100%. well said.

Roger

[Charles Glatzer]

Artie,

Pissing contest? Read all my posts. I teach all methods providing the student with a firm understanding of the fundamentals so that they can make an informed decision. Nothing more, or less. As we both know one method is not the end all and I said so in my posting under this topic, and to every participant.

We have been down this road on lighting as well, wink. Different strokes for different folks.

Warm regards and see ya in FL,

Chas

[Desmond Chan]

Because if the lighting is the same just changing the aperture (opening it one would presume given the scenario) would result in a bad exposure/overexposure.

Hence my: "If you want to change the aperture in order to change the depth-of-field?" which of course means changing the look of the final image. Otherwise, there's no reason to change the aperture simply because the background has changed.


I gather that we agree that manual mode is not "better". If not, ok, we don't. I personally don't think manual mode is better all the time under all situations. And my answer to Artie's question is, allow me to repeat myself: "No. I don't see the logic that they should."

[Arthur Morris]

Artie,

Pissing contest? Read all my posts. I teach all methods providing the student with a firm understanding of the fundamentals so that they can make an informed decision. Nothing more, or less. As we both know one method is not the end all and I said so in my posting under this topic, and to every participant.

We have been down this road on lighting as well, wink. Different strokes for different folks.

Warm regards and see ya in FL,

Chas

What I said was that I did not want to get into a point by point pissing contest with anyone. :) We pretty much agree on metering and modes: understand them all and know which to use when.

BTW, Chas is one of the very few who I know of who knows how to use a hand held meter.... That said, 98% of the photographers that I work with, many of whom are fine photographers, simply do not understand exposure theory at all.

[Desmond Chan]

[snip]expose to the right to the point of highlight clipping, that a histogram and clipping indicators make a meter, with all its errors, obsolete.

Errr...it won't work in this situation:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/82216-Spotted-Owl

In that situation, as long as the owl is the main subject, unless the photographer throws some more light to the owl through the use of fill-flash or reflector(if possible :S3:), simply exposing till the highlight starts to clip will result in the owl under-exposed (as originally posted). The key still is, to get the correct exposure, one has to know when to stray away from the "suggestion" of the exposure meter or histogram (regardless if you use auto or manual exposure mode) and when to trust it.

[Charles Glatzer]

Roger,

Originally Posted by Charles Glatzer
Lenses alter perspective
I disagree. Position alters perspective. Lenses limit and magnify the field of view but do not change perspective.

Correct. My point being a lens is more than a just an in-camera cropping tool, affording the photographer with far more creative options. You know what I meant, wink.

Originally Posted by Charles Glatzer
Many think Auto Priority Modes are easier, they are not.
They are both easier, faster, and more accurate in SOME situations, but not all. I gave one example yesterday (changing light).

Easier and faster, yes. More accurate? I would say that depends on the situation at hand and the photog's knowledge. We could go back and forth on this one.

Originally Posted by Charles Glatzer
I say without doubt a huge percentage of those I have taught over the years , including pros and amateurs, do not fully comprehend metering. Sure they get good images, but their hit rate could be vastly improved.
Chas, when you say this, what do you think their "hit rate" on great exposures is that could be "vastly improved" and what do you think an experienced person after such "improvement" should have as their hit rate?

If you unsure what method to use to derive a correct subject exposure in any given light you need further understanding. Of course nowadays you fire on an image, check the histogram and tweak away. And, if you learn from this all is well. But, most i have seen do not use the histogram as tool to judge their initial exposure methodology. They simply make the image lighter or darker based on the histogram, making the same mistake in the future. I do not care if they use Program mode...as long as they can be consistent. I have judged more photo contests, and viewed more photog's images these past years than I can remember. Most fail because of poor exposure, bad comp, and soft focus. In fact over 85% of images get rejected the first round for the above.

I would guess the average participant has about a 55-60% rate of nailing exposure first time. Striving for 90% thereafter.

Nowhere in this topic do I say I never use Av, nor should others.

Chas

[Charles Glatzer]

What I said was that I did not want to get into a point by point pissing contest with anyone. :) We pretty much agree on metering and modes: understand them all and know which to use when.

BTW, Chas is one of the very few who I know of who knows how to use a hand held meter.... That said, 98% of the photographers that I work with, many of whom are fine photographers, simply do not understand exposure theory at all.

Artie,

Thanks for the reply. Guess we should consider it job security.

See ya soon,

Chas

[Daniel Cadieux]

If you use any "auto" mode you are giving up control to the camera. Period. This seems obvious.


With the camera on full auto (green box) yes, but put it in P, AV, or TV and press the shutter button without making any EC...you'll find out quick enough that you need to be more in control than you think with those modes...

Interesting discussion all - very informative for everyone.

[John Chardine]

If you use any "auto" mode you are giving up control to the camera. Period. This seems obvious.

Auto is strictly for convenience, and though faster(which computers have the edge over use humans), much more likely to make errors. This is because there is no way a camera can be "programmed" with all the relevant information needed for the proper exposure for any particular scene. It doesn't know what is most important or what the photographer wants as the focal point, it can't tell what is the foreground or background and incessantly tries to average everything out. It doesn't know that light reflects off different material differently and this effects exposure. It doesn't even know that dark materials need more exposure and light materials need less. It is so stupid in that area you have to waste time figuring what exposure compensation to use. And you are supposed to constantly monitor it to check for errors? And you want to let it make exposure decisions on a shot that you might or might not ever get again?
I think not!

-snip-
regards~Bill

Bill- I use mostly manual too but auto exposure is not quite as dumb as you make out. I remember back in my Nikon film days I used a F90x. That body according to Nikon had a database of scenes and in real time it would compare the actual tonality of the scene you are photographing against the database and come up with an exposure compensation. The body could identify various types of scenes based on the exposure values in each cell of its matrix metering system. I am not sure whether the digital Nikons or Canons of today do the same thing. The proof of the pudding was that I was often amazed by how well the exposures came out, even in difficult situations.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Obviously I may have a tendancy to oversimplify, as a reaction to the trend to make things seem much more complicated than they need to be (IMHO). I consider most of you guys better and far more accomplished photographers than I , regardless of whether you use manual exposure or not. The proof is in the pudding.
I also never made the claim that auto modes aren't occasionally useful, just that they are error prone.

Nonetheless, let me run by what I consider the biggest advantage of manual exposure. On the onset, I am not referring to intentionally creating motion blurs or anything fancy, or about focus aquisition. Also, hard to believe I know, there are situations that proper exposure is not possible, regardless of what mode you use. A black and white bird with high contrast light, for example.
I generally have a good idea what shutter-speed I need and what DOF will be required. These variables are actually not too difficult to ascertain. A shutter-speed high enough to avoid motion blur, a DOF that includes the subject yet not so great as to include the background. Lets just say that it would be better if these remained constant for the scene.
Wouldn't it be better that you didn't have to change these variables to get proper exposure? With auto you are forced to sacrifice speed for aperture or vise versa. Is there an arguement here?
Only in the case of an increase in shutter-speed will this not have an effect on the image, and not deviate on what I intended. Otherwise it is a major source of errors; insufficient shutter-speed or incorrect DOF.
With manual exposure it is not necessary to sacrifice the shutter-speed or aperture you need to get proper exposure. You are sacrificing something though, and that is a lower ISO, but if you are pushing exposure anyway (aren't you?) and you are minimizing noise anyway.
Let me repeat; too fast a shutter-speed will not effect image quality. This gives you any shutter-speed above the the minimum to work with, and any exposure can be achieved with right or left clicks with one just one thumb wheel. Basically you start with a faster speed than you need, reduce toward the motion blur point to increase exposure, and go the other way to decrease exposure. Need more light and you've reached the minimum shutter-speed? Just up the ISO and start over; a higher SS than you need and right or left clicks with the SS thumbwheel as needed.
The starting point is determined with the histogram.
You will always have both the minimum SS and the DOF you need. No errors, no surprises. Being comfortable with higher ISOs and an understanding of digital noise and how it can be minimized becomes important and quite useful with this type of exposure.
So is there anything wrong with this method? Also I can't imagine that this is an original idea.

regards~Bill

[Jeff Donald]

There's this photographer named Joe McNally, he's written a few books about photography (actually New York Times best sellers). Joe's done numerous cover stories for the last 23 years for National Geographic and American Photographer listed him as one of the 100 Most Important People in Photography. In his last book, The Hot Shoe Diaries, he has this to say:

"I am in aperture priority mode 90-plus percent of the time. It works for me because I vastly prefer to dictate to the camera the f-stop I will shoot at, rather than dictate shutter speed via shutter priority mode. I am comfortable handholding my cameras at all manner of shutter speeds, and since I am of-ten shooting with some measure of fill flash, slow speeds—in the neighborhood of 1/30th, 1/15th, etc.— don’t hold any terror for me. I’d much rather be certain of my f-stop, and the resultant depth of field I am getting, than insist on a certain shutter speed.

I am occasionally in manual exposure mode, say, when in a dark room where aperture priority will dictate to me an unreasonably long shutter speed. But, I tell ya, if you only use these camera in manual mode because, as I have heard on occasion, you “don’t trust the camera,” or you “don’t trust the meter,” then you are taking a souped-up Ferrari and driving it like the little old lady going to church on Sunday. Why do that? Use the technology! take this puppy out for a spin and see what it can do."

All the different modes have their time and place. But I agree with Artie and Joe Mcnally that if you limit yourself to just manual mode, you're missing out on what your camera can really do.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Jeff......last time I checked......and in no means disrespect because I consider his flash work top notch........Joe does studio type work! I'm still puzzled by limit yourself comment???......in Munual I make all the choices. I control all aspects of the image. I am not disagreeing that AV and other modes can work in situations and knowing exposure allows you to use any of them.......but you learn exposure by doing things in manual IMO. How do you understand exposure when you allow your camera to make decisions? I agree with Artie on this.....if you understand exposure.....any mode will work.....studio or not!

[Desmond Chan]

[snip] But I agree with Artie and Joe Mcnally that if you limit yourself to just manual mode

I think they're simply saying auto-mode can be a convenience. And I think not many (including those who use manual exposure mode on a regular basic) are disagreeing to that here.


you're missing out on what your camera can really do.Care to give some examples on that?? :S3:

[Charles Glatzer]

Bill,

You said "Wouldn't it be better that you didn't have to change these variables to get proper exposure? With auto you are forced to sacrifice speed for aperture or vise versa. Is there an arguement here?"
-----------------------

Both Auto Mode and Manual Mode require the same thought process to derive at the correct exposure. And, the correct exposure will be one and the same with any Priority Mode used.

For a given quantity of light and ISO you cannot alter only one variable, either the f/stop or shutter speed and maintain the same Exposure Value.

Lets assume for a given quantity of light and ISO there is one correct Exposure Value. Lets pick 1/800 for f/8, ISO 200 in bright sunlight. 1/200 @ f/16 is equivalent to 1/3200 @ f/4 and so on. The three combinations above provide the same light level hitting the capture medium. Larger lens opening requires a longer shutter-speed, and visa versa in all Priority Modes. If the light level changes and you want maintain the same f/stop and shutter speed combinations you need to change the ISO.

Metering Patterns are used to determine Exposure, Priority Modes are used to alter variables.

Chas

[Jim Neiger]

When I teach classes during my workshop, I teach the participants tyo shoot in manual mode. The first thing I tell them, is that for photographing birds in flight manual mode is almost a REQUIREMENT. The main reason for this is you very often have changing bgs when shooting BIF, and the only way to get consistantly correct exposures is in manual mode. There are other reasons as well. I will list some of them here:

1. Manual mode is much eaiser to learn, assuming your goal is to have consistantly correct exposures. The reason manual mode is easier to learn is that you don't have to predict what your camera is going to do first. Consistantly predicting what the camera is going to do is difficult, because it's a constantly changing thing.

2. You are in complete control and making all exposure decisions. This is good because you know what you are trying to accomplish and your camera doesn't. Why let it make decisions for you?

3. Manual mode increases your awareness of light and its effect on your images. This tends to make you a better photographer. If you don't understand what I mean by this, try shooting your next 20,000 frames in manual mode. When you are done you should understand what I mean.

There are many more reasons, but I'm tired and have to get up very early so I'm not going to try to list them all here.

I agree that there are situations where manual may not be the best method, but they are very few and far between. I shoot in manual over 99% of the time and my exposure hit rate is a similar percentage. I only blow exposures when I forget where I am, or I get distracted and don't pay attention. I shoot a ton of fast moving action stuff, so my need to get the correct exposure every time, and to be able to change exposure rapidly on the fly exceeds that of most photographers. Since I'm shooting a lot of flight and action, I don't get any second chances.

When I teach students manual mode and they have been used to AV mode, most leave the workshop amazed at how easy manual mode is compared to AV and also by how much improvement they see in the consistancy of their exposures. I shot in AV mode when I first started. When I started shooting manual, my photography improved dramatically and I've never felt the desire to go back to AV mode.

[Charles Glatzer]

Bill,

"Wouldn't it be better that you didn't have to change these variables to get proper exposure? With auto you are forced to sacrifice speed for aperture or vise versa. Is there an arguement here?"

Both Auto Mode and Manual Mode require the same thought process to derive at the correct exposure. And, the correct exposure will be one and the same with any Priority Mode used.

For a given quantity of light and ISO you cannot alter only one variable, either the f/stop or shutter speed and maintain the same Exposure Value.

Lets assume for a given quantity of light and ISO there is one correct Exposure Value. Lets pick 1/800 for f/8, ISO 200 in bright sunlight. 1/200 @ f/16 is equivalent to 1/3200 @ f/4 and so on. The three combinations above provide the same light level hitting the capture medium. Larger lens opening requires a longer shutter-speed, and visa versa in all Priority Modes. If the light level changes and you want maintain the same f/stop and shutter speed combinations you need to change the ISO.

Metering Patterns are used to determine Exposure.

Chas

[Charles Glatzer]

When I teach classes during my workshop, I teach the participants tyo shoot in manual mode. The first thing I tell them, is that for photographing birds in flight manual mode is almost a REQUIREMENT. The main reason for this is you very often have changing bgs when shooting BIF, and the only way to get consistantly correct exposures is in manual mode. There are other reasons as well. I will list some of them here:

1. Manual mode is much eaiser to learn, assuming your goal is to have consistantly correct exposures. The reason manual mode is easier to learn is that you don't have to predict what your camera is going to do first. Consistantly predicting what the camera is going to do is difficult, because it's a constantly changing thing.

2. You are in complete control and making all exposure decisions. This is good because you know what you are trying to accomplish and your camera doesn't. Why let it make decisions for you?

3. Manual mode increases your awareness of light and its effect on your images. This tends to make you a better photographer. If you don't understand what I mean by this, try shooting your next 20,000 frames in manual mode. When you are done you should understand what I mean.

There are many more reasons, but I'm tired and have to get up very early so I'm not going to try to list them all here.

I agree that there are situations where manual may not be the best method, but they are very few and far between. I shoot in manual over 99% of the time and my exposure hit rate is a similar percentage. I only blow exposures when I forget where I am, or I get distracted and don't pay attention. I shoot a ton of fast moving action stuff, so my need to get the correct exposure every time, and to be able to change exposure rapidly on the fly exceeds that of most photographers. Since I'm shooting a lot of flight and action, I don't get any second chances.

When I teach students manual mode and they have been used to AV mode, most leave the workshop amazed at how easy manual mode is compared to AV and also by how much improvement they see in the consistancy of their exposures. I shot in AV mode when I first started. When I started shooting manual, my photography improved dramatically and I've never felt the desire to go back to AV mode.

Jim, wink, wink!!

Best,

Chas

[Arthur Morris]

Bill,

"Wouldn't it be better that you didn't have to change these variables to get proper exposure? With auto you are forced to sacrifice speed for aperture or vise versa. Is there an arguement here?"

Both Auto Mode and Manual Mode require the same thought process to derive at the correct exposure. And, the correct exposure will be one and the same with any Priority Mode used.

For a given quantity of light and ISO you cannot alter only one variable, either the f/stop or shutter speed and maintain the same Exposure Value.

Lets assume for a given quantity of light and ISO there is one correct Exposure Value. Lets pick 1/800 for f/8, ISO 200 in bright sunlight. 1/200 @ f/16 is equivalent to 1/3200 @ f/4 and so on. The three combinations above provide the same light level hitting the capture medium. Larger lens opening requires a longer shutter-speed, and visa versa in all Priority Modes. If the light level changes and you want maintain the same f/stop and shutter speed combinations you need to change the ISO.

Metering Patterns are used to determine Exposure.

Chas

Excellent, excellent, excellent. The only that that I would add is to say that Metering Patterns are used to suggest an exposure. Competent photographers then adjust that suggested exposure to come up with the exposure that they want. I might add that with Canon I use the suggested exposure perhaps 10% of the time, adding light 80% of the time and subtracting light about 10% of the time. (This would be much different if I were using Nikon gear.)

[Roman Kurywczak]

Great stuff here.......and don't want to throw a monkey wrench into the whole conversation......"but it ain't just birds":bg3:.......ever shoot a sunrise or sunset in AV mode?
Jim.......I am only in manual mode 98.9%:w3. That doesn't mean I can't teach it......just don't see the need why!

Artie........how often do you shoot in AV? Looking at your bulletins over the years.....I don't recall that many. I can see how it would have been beneficial in the gator scenerio.....or even in changing light.....but there I still feel you can change your dials quick enough in M......but speed wise AV would be faster.

[Arthur Morris]

Roman,

re:

Great stuff here.

Agree.

.......and don't want to throw a monkey wrench into the whole conversation......"but it ain't just birds":bg3:.......ever shoot a sunrise or sunset in AV mode?

Often. I find Av best for most sunrise and sunset images....

Jim.......I am only in manual mode 98.9%:w3. That doesn't mean I can't teach it......just don't see the need why!
To save time in changing light and when unexpected conditions are encountered. Again, I will expand on that in a blog post and provide a link here.

Artie........how often do you shoot in AV?

I used to be in an auto mode 100% of the time and that was not smart. Now I work in manual about 70% of the time so I guess that I am getting smarter....

Looking at your bulletins over the years.....I don't recall that many.

There have been more than a few Av and Tv images in the past week or so :)

I can see how it would have been beneficial in the gator scenerio.....or even in changing light.....but there I still feel you can change your dials quick enough in M......but speed wise AV would be faster.

For the very last time, nobody can do 14 clicks in less than 13/100 of one second, not even you :)

[Roman Kurywczak]

Like I said......I agree I wouldn't be able to pull off that many clicks in that short of time.....but AV for landscapes? Really? How do you deal with the diffrence between the FG and sky? If you stick a GND to balance the 2 areas at sunrise or sunset.......that would kill AV.

I did notice the few different modes this week......was just speaking historically. Just letting you know that I pay attention when I read your belletin:S3:.

[Charles Glatzer]

QUOTE Roman KurywczakLike I said......I agree I wouldn't be able to pull off that many clicks in that short of time.....but AV for landscapes? Really? How do you deal with the diffrence between the FG and sky? If you stick a GND to balance the 2 areas at sunrise or sunset.......that would kill AV.

Av would work the same as Manual, as long as the scene in the viewfinder and tonal values remain fixed. Apply compensation in Av or manually change the value in Manual Mode...NO DIFFERENCE! SAME EXPOSURE, SAME END RESULT!! I am not saying it would be easier or worse, but the end result certainly would be the same. Again, Meter Pattern is used for exposure, Modes to adjust the variables.

I did notice the few different modes this week......was just speaking historically. Just letting you know that I pay attention when I read your belletin:S3:

Not really... AM throughout his career was a big proponent for Av and Eval, going more Manual the last few years (wink). But, with either method he understands Patterns and Modes, many here do not.

Chas

[Arthur Morris]

Roman, Good response by Chas :) What foreground? Most of my sunrise sunset stuff is created with various telephotos. When there is foreground stuff it is pretty close in tonality to the sky. And as far as I know they do not make split NDs for super-telephotos.

And I have been using manual mode more and more. I try to keep learning too :)

Here is a typical sunrise bird scape (actually made with a short zoom lens).

Notice Av mode :)

2008:11:22 06:31:16
24-105mm @ 24mm
Subject dist: 655m
1/100 sec, f/4
Mode: Av
Metering: Multi-segment
Exp comp: +1

[Mack Hicks]

Great discussion you all. The bottom line is that you need to know exposure, your camera, and what works best for YOU most of the time, and how to adjust when needed. I started with a Spotmatic, with match the needles metering, and you learned what to change to match the situation and the film speed.

I have gone from being primarily a shutter Tv shooter (Canon A1 days), to Av most of the time now.


Yesterday, I was shooting Easter services, going back and forth, between to vastly difference rooms. In the dark room with green wall, green stained glass and lots of dark wood, I shot mostly at f/2.8 - 3.5 with ISO 1600 - 3200. In the much smaller chapel, white walls, bright windows back lighting the subjects, that didn't work. Ended up changing to spot metering, manual, and finally pulling my flash out of my pocket for fill (chapel is much more informal), to get a few shots that looked right.

This is what I love about digital photography, I can immediately see what I need to change and am learning how to do that efficiently. These forums give me the benefit of your experience, but I have to be willing to try different styles and techniques. For me, the less variables I have to think about when I get an unexpected or even an expected opportunity, allow me to be able to more likely to get an image with sharp focus and pleasing aesthetics and correct exposure.

[Roman Kurywczak]

OK......with all due respect.....because it is water and you were going for a silhouette.... you could get away with it! Notice.....I did say with a FG........I should have said a FG where you want the detail. In most mountainscapes or landscapes with a FG.....the FG is generally 3-8 (8 for snow covered mtns.) stops different. most times.....the meter is not pointed at either the sky or the FG. Whiel technically Chas is correct.......you could do this in AV.........I do think my brain would hurt trying to figure it out......especially when I stick the split in front of the lens to balance the image. If you think it is easier in AV......by all means, go ahead and use it.......I'm thinking that I will stick to my method. One image does not make me an AV convert. I have been out in the field photographing landscapes for way to long and have seen way to many landscape pros using manual mode to see how it is easier.....but next time out I will at least try it and give you the results. Like you.....it's always fun to learn and expand ones horizons.

I will leave you with this thought......A friend of mine has a saying he is very fond of: "Even a blind squirrel will find a nut occasionally."......I think if you did more landscapes where the tonal value was usually pretty large......you might not be so fond of AV in those cases.......but it is always fun to debate!

[Arthur Morris]

Roman, With all due respect, the right exposure is the right exposure. No matter then lens, no matter the split or other ND filters in place. And certainly no matter the mode, Manual or Av or Tv or whatever.... The photographer gets to the right exposure, not the metering mode and not the mode.... In other words, nothing that you said above makes sense to me :)

I think that you are so concerned with being right, with believing that only manual mode works for you and that everyone should use it, that you are not letting your brain entertain any other possibilities. And if you read what the most-respected Chas has said above, he has said the same thing using slightly different words.....

[Charles Glatzer]

Roman,

After you put on the ND filter(s) is not the dynamic range of the overall scene compressed to hopefully within the capture medium capabilities? If not, we get to play HDR. With the tonal range compressed I believe Av would work without much problem in Eval or Matrix. I do know what you are saying....fixing the variables in camera would mean nothing would change when the filter was placed in front of the lens... darkening the sky while keeping the foreground as desired. I too prefer manual in this instance, but Av would in fact work, especially for those familiar with it.

Chas

[Roman Kurywczak]

I guess i wasn't clear enough......I did in fact say AV would work......and I was going to try it out next time out. I thought we were all aready in agreement that any mode would work if you know exposure.

I should have pointed to the Gator image quote......and which would be quicker in the case of the tonal differences one finds in many/ most landscape images. I do believe that in manual mode, it is quicker in most cases than to use AV.......but like I have reitterated above......I am going to try it out for myself.

[Steven Kersting]

In some situations manual is better. Yesterday I gave an example where Av mode would be better than manual. Here is an example where manual is better than any of the auto modes:

I was photographing a brown bear at the base of Brooks Falls, Alaska. The huge male bear was on the bank on the other side of the river under an overhanging bank with dark wet soil behind him. The day was light hazy sun with stable light, slightly diffuse (very nice light). The bear would jump into the foamy water to catch salmon. If one used any auto exposure mode when the bear made the jump, the exposure would change radically as the bear moved from a dark background to the white foamy water. The metering system would vary the exposure by many stops during the jump even though the light on the bear was constant. I metered the white water, set manual and exposure to not clip the water and could photograph the action for tens of minutes without worry that the exposure was correct. Manual works best in this situation: constant light on the subject, varying backgrounds.

As with any set of tools, one may best for a particular application, but no one tool works best for all situations. The key is selecting the best to for the particular application.

Roger

I think we agree 100% on this particular topic, but to make a point.

In the example given I might have switched to spot/center weighted metering rather than switch to manual mode. Either method could handle the situation. For me, because I have the function button set to spot metering, that switch would have been instantaneous and simple. The switch to manual mode (assuming I was not already in it) could be much more time consuming.

[Charles Glatzer]

I think we agree 100% on this particular topic, but to make a point.

In the example given I might have switched to spot/center weighted metering rather than switch to manual mode. Either method could handle the situation. For me, because I have the function button set to spot metering, that switch would have been instantaneous and simple. The switch to manual mode (assuming I was not already in it) could be much more time consuming.

In Av with spot and center you would need to keep the pattern on a constant tonal value for it to work. A wet bear is not a constant value, specular highlights and sheen off the guard hair will vary in sun and shade giving different readings.

I Know exactly where Roger was. Most times that bear jumps from the shade to sunlit water, with the bear not being in constant light. It is more about locking the exposure into the camera for where you want the subject to be at the time you depress the shutter, than where it was beforehand. Again, being Pro-Active is the key. Personally, I Spot off the white water adding 2 EV in Manual mode and get ready to rock and roll when the bear jumps in.

Chas

[Steven Kersting]

Hence my: "If you want to change the aperture in order to change the depth-of-field?" which of course means changing the look of the final image. Otherwise, there's no reason to change the aperture simply because the background has changed.

I personally don't think manual mode is better all the time under all situations. And my answer to Artie's question is, allow me to repeat myself: "No. I don't see the logic that they should."

I guess I missed the question mark. Of course to affect the scene captured. If not, and lighting is the same, then there is no reason to change anything and both methods would return the same results again.
This is the reason I use Aperture mode most of the time...The one thing that changes significantly between scenes is BG. Control over that is key. If it is not BG then I really want the lens set at it's optimal aperture. The only time I care less about aperture is when I must have a given SS for the desired result (panning blur/ freezing motion/etc).

The hardest thing for me to change on my camera is ISO..many times I 'd much rather change ISO than change SS or Aperture. In those cases I'm set to manual with ISO set to an auto range.

If it's just lighting balance, I can fix that easily by switching metering modes (fn button) or exposure comp.

[Steven Kersting]

In Av with spot and center you would need to keep the pattern on a constant tonal value for it to work. A wet bear is not a constant value, specular highlights and sheen off the guard hair will vary in sun and shade giving different readings.

I Know exactly where Roger was. Most times that bear jumps from the shade to sunlit water, with the bear not being in constant light. It is more about locking the exposure into the camera for where you want the subject to be at the time you depress the shutter, than where it was beforehand. Again, being Pro-Active is the key. Personally, I Spot off the white water adding 2 EV in Manual mode and get ready to rock and roll when the bear jumps in.

Chas

He didn't say a wet bear, and even if he had I might not have thought of it in this context (but I might had I been there). Again, it goes to camera settings...How small is the spot set to be? Why not flick into center weighted (not as easy for me as I'd have to move off of the shutter and it's a 2 finger switch)...Or go into manual.

[Desmond Chan]

He didn't say a wet bear, and even if he had I might not have thought of it in this context (but I might had I been there). Again, it goes to camera settings...How small is the spot set to be? Why not flick into center weighted (not as easy for me as I'd have to move off of the shutter and it's a 2 finger switch)...Or go into manual.

Either I'm confused or you've got something mixed up, Steven :S3: To me, one can be in auto or manual exposure with the use of center weighted average metering method. But you seem to be suggesting that they cannot exist together (switch to centered weight or go into manual?) Spot, matrix, and center-weighted average are metering methods (using the terminology in the camera manaul); the others, viz., auto-aperture priority mode, shutter priority mode, programmed mode and manual exposure mode, are, well, exposure modes :w3 The formers are how the exposure meter reads the scene, and exposure modes are whether the camera is changing the aperture, shutter speed, or ISO (depending on the modes you choose) for the photographer after reading the scene using any of the metering methods or it's the photographer who is going to do it himself.

Are you saying switch to centered weight average and left it in whatever auto exposure mode that's being used, or switch to manual exposure mode and keep the metering method at that moment??

I'm confused :2

[Steven Kersting]

I'm not arguing that manual mode is "worse", I am simply stating it is not "better" by any means. I generally recommend manual mode as a good way to learn how the exposure triangle works (I've even created a little interactive flash app based upon the sunny 16 rule to show/teach it), but it is not a substitute for learning how your camera works.

For how I work, and a large portion of the subjects I shoot, full manual doesn't work very well....when you are "sniping" people/birds/animals etc, and on the move, a subject opportunity can appear anywhere at anytime. Photos are only glimpses of time (seconds can be too long). A subject could appear on the left (backlit) or on the right (frontlit) or anywhere else. In motorsports it might be a white car, a black car, a combination, or a spectator behind me. (And yes, metering mode makes as much of a difference (more) as camera mode does in these situations.)

If things are rather stagnant, then any mode works well..

Part of the problem is "auto modes" don't work exactly how one might think, particularly if you have ISO set to an auto range.
For Aperture priority my Nikon (D3) will set a base SS of 1/1000 (regardless of lens) and adjust ISO first in order to maintain that and only change Ss once the ISO limits have been reached.
In Shutter Speed priority my camera will trade aperture first keeping base ISO until aperture limits have been reached (the opposite behavior).
Knowing this is key.
Without ISO set to a range it works as expected.

I will explain how I use the auto modes and hopefully you will see that it is *no different* than having used manual in results.

I am usually in aperture priority. In this mode I usually have my ISO set to an auto range (typically 200-800) knowing it will use ISO before it gives up the 1/1000 which is generally sufficient for most subjects/lens combinations. If it starts to trade SS due to lower light levels I have to decide if it's ok, or if I want tho change modes/ increase max ISO.
If the SS (1/1000 or resulting) is too fast/too slow I may choose to go to S (Tv) mode. In this mode it will trade aperture first, then ISO. Since I would generally prefer to control aperture over ISO. I seldom use this mode.
In the case where I must have a min/max SS (or would prefer to give SS over aperture/ISO), and I want a say about aperture, I must choose manual or a fixed/smaller auto ISO range. I will generally switch to manual over fixing the ISO. In manual I will have the ISO set to an auto range (usually larger 200-3200). To me this is still not "full manual." With these settings I choose SS and aperture (usually changing only one) and the camera adjusts for exposure.

I always have complete control over what the camera "chooses for me", in what precedence and to what extent.

Most of these decisions can be made once, for the majority of a day, based upon subject/ lens combination. Once I've made these decisions I generally only have one setting to change and often I do not have to do anything.

One thing about this whole discussion which is a little bothersome is that, regardless of what camera mode you are in, you are dependent upon the metering system (one can judge automatically +/- a couple stops EC for the scene and metering mode, but it's a best guess). For manual mode to work as well as purported one has have to have had the opportunity to take a shot and set base exposure by the results.

My camera is set up so that my thumb controls SS, my middle finger controls aperture, my ring finger changes metering mode. ISO changes require rt middle finger AND right thumb (not good w/o tripod). Exposure comp requires rt middle finger and thumb (better but still not great). I can do all of this without looking.

FWIW, when it comes to exposure my "hit rate" is well into the ninety percentile...rather lower for focus/composition/subject.

[Steven Kersting]

Either I'm confused or you've got something mixed up, Steven :S3: To me, one can be in auto or manual exposure with the use of center weighted average metering method. But you seem to be suggesting that they cannot exist together (switch to centered weight or go into manual?) Spot, matrix, and center-weighted average are metering methods (using the terminology in the camera manaul); the others, viz., auto-aperture priority mode, shutter priority mode, programmed mode and manual exposure mode, are, well, exposure modes :w3 The formers are how the exposure meter reads the scene, and exposure modes are whether the camera is changing the aperture, shutter speed, or ISO (depending on the modes you choose) for the photographer after reading the scene using any of the metering methods or it's the photographer who is going to do it himself.

Are you saying switch to centered weight average and left it in whatever auto exposure mode that's being used, or switch to manual exposure mode and keep the metering method at that moment??

I'm confused :2

I am not suggesting they cannot co-exist. But this is largely an issue of metering confusion and not a functional mode issue. To fix the problem you need to choose a different metering mode, or override it in manual (or use EC).

Yes, switch to different metering mode and leave the exposure mode the same is what I was saying. Or, you could switch to manual mode and leave the metering mode the same, or even switch to manual and change metering mode....in this case, switching metering mode would likely be the more accurate (or just as accurate) of the options.
Given the time, switching to manual, taking a test shot, and then setting exposure would be the most accurate option and would allow you to pre-frame the shot. No argument there.

[Jim Neiger]

I'm not arguing that manual mode is "worse", I am simply stating it is not "better" by any means. I generally recommend manual mode as a good way to learn how the exposure triangle works (I've even created a little interactive flash app based upon the sunny 16 rule to show/teach it), but it is not a substitute for learning how your camera works.

For how I work, and a large portion of the subjects I shoot, full manual doesn't work very well....when you are "sniping" people/birds/animals etc, and on the move, a subject opportunity can appear anywhere at anytime. Photos are only glimpses of time (seconds can be too long). A subject could appear on the left (backlit) or on the right (frontlit) or anywhere else. In motorsports it might be a white car, a black car, a combination, or a spectator behind me. (And yes, metering mode makes as much of a difference (more) as camera mode does in these situations.)

If things are rather stagnant, then any mode works well..

Part of the problem is "auto modes" don't work exactly how one might think, particularly if you have ISO set to an auto range.
For Aperture priority my Nikon (D3) will set a base SS of 1/1000 (regardless of lens) and adjust ISO first in order to maintain that and only change Ss once the ISO limits have been reached.
In Shutter Speed priority my camera will trade aperture first keeping base ISO until aperture limits have been reached (the opposite behavior).
Knowing this is key.
Without ISO set to a range it works as expected.

I will explain how I use the auto modes and hopefully you will see that it is *no different* than having used manual in results.

I am usually in aperture priority. In this mode I usually have my ISO set to an auto range (typically 200-800) knowing it will use ISO before it gives up the 1/1000 which is generally sufficient for most subjects/lens combinations. If it starts to trade SS due to lower light levels I have to decide if it's ok, or if I want tho change modes/ increase max ISO.
If the SS (1/1000 or resulting) is too fast/too slow I may choose to go to S (Tv) mode. In this mode it will trade aperture first, then ISO. Since I would generally prefer to control aperture over ISO. I seldom use this mode.
In the case where I must have a min/max SS (or would prefer to give SS over aperture/ISO), and I want a say about aperture, I must choose manual or a fixed/smaller auto ISO range. I will generally switch to manual over fixing the ISO. In manual I will have the ISO set to an auto range (usually larger 200-3200). To me this is still not "full manual." With these settings I choose SS and aperture (usually changing only one) and the camera adjusts for exposure.

I always have complete control over what the camera "chooses for me", in what precedence and to what extent.

Most of these decisions can be made once, for the majority of a day, based upon subject/ lens combination. Once I've made these decisions I generally only have one setting to change and often I do not have to do anything.

One thing about this whole discussion which is a little bothersome is that, regardless of what camera mode you are in, you are dependent upon the metering system (one can judge automatically +/- a couple stops EC for the scene and metering mode, but it's a best guess). For manual mode to work as well as purported one has have to have had the opportunity to take a shot and set base exposure by the results.

My camera is set up so that my thumb controls SS, my middle finger controls aperture, my ring finger changes metering mode. ISO changes require rt middle finger AND right thumb (not good w/o tripod). Exposure comp requires rt middle finger and thumb (better but still not great). I can do all of this without looking.

FWIW, when it comes to exposure my "hit rate" is well into the ninety percentile...rather lower for focus/composition/subject.

Steven,

I'm a bit confused by your comments. In some cases it seems you are trying to optimize things so you don't have to make a lot of adjustments on the fly and can react quickly to unpredictable opportunities, but in some of your comments it seems that you are making complex changes to settings frequently. How would you handle the following situations?

1. A bird is flying from right to left from your point of view and the sun is directly behind you. Your goal is to produce a series of images that are properly exposed for the bird. As the bird flies the bg is blue sky, then dark green dense tree, then sky again briefly, then sparse mixture of trees and sky. Please tell us what exposure mode you would choose to use and why. Also what procedure or method would you use to determine the correct exposures.

2. A white egret is flying directly towards you and the sun is behind you. The bg is a cluttered area of brush of varying tonal values. As you start to photograph the egret it is very far awary, but when you finish photographing the egret it is just about to fly over your head. What exposure mode would you use and what method would you use to arrive at the correct exposure for each of the images in the series.

I'm very interested in hearing your answers.

TIA

[Don Thompson]

I can't add any technical expertise to the discussion, but I will say that if all those who have weighed in on the subject, with all their experience and talent, can't agree then how am I as relatively new photographer, approximately 6 years, begin to figure this all out. After reading through this, I can definitely say that I am more confused than ever.

[Steven Kersting]

Steven,

I'm a bit confused by your comments. In some cases it seems you are trying to optimize things so you don't have to make a lot of adjustments on the fly and can react quickly to unpredictable opportunities, but in some of your comments it seems that you are making complex changes to settings frequently. How would you handle the following situations?

1. A bird is flying from right to left from your point of view and the sun is directly behind you. Your goal is to produce a series of images that are properly exposed for the bird. As the bird flies the bg is blue sky, then dark green dense tree, then sky again briefly, then sparse mixture of trees and sky. Please tell us what exposure mode you would choose to use and why. Also what procedure or method would you use to determine the correct exposures.

2. A white egret is flying directly towards you and the sun is behind you. The bg is a cluttered area of brush of varying tonal values. As you start to photograph the egret it is very far awary, but when you finish photographing the egret it is just about to fly over your head. What exposure mode would you use and what method would you use to arrive at the correct exposure for each of the images in the series.

I'm very interested in hearing your answers.

TIA
I can see where the confusion may lie in mentioning all of my camera settings...but not all controls are available at all times. I generally have one functional control, metering mode and EC available. EC being the least used as it requires more than one finger to change.

To answer the questions I'll make some assumptions. I am in my "default" settings of aperture priority, ISO set to auto 200-800, matrix metering, continuous high frame rate, dynamic point autofocus, continuous focus, slow (re)focus delay, and the scene is completely unexpected (i.e. I'm walking along the lakeside trail "sniping" as I often do) and of absolute minimum time (I often get shots which are available for less than 2-3 seconds total).

1. I press the FN button and switch to spot metering (diameter of spot is usually set fairly large acting "more like" center weighted) assuming I can keep the "spot" on target. If the color of the bird is not at an extreme the exposure will be correct. If the bird's color is at an extreme (bl/wh) then I would also have to use exposure compensation for optimal exposuret. Worst case, I don't get EC set, my white bird is somewhat underexposed and my black bird is somewhat overexposed both largely recoverable in post shooting RAW. Still, working at the extremes it is probably a wash and the pics will be trashed. (Had I been focused on Cormorants or Egrets I could have preset EC but I'm assuming complete surprise) I would expect 50%+ keeper ratio from this scenario assuming focus and an extreme subject color.

This is exactly how I caught my shot of a Northern Harrier...I jumped out of the truck, dropped to one knee and took the shots in less than 5 seconds total, 10 shots exposed, three shots "acceptable", and one I was happy with, none terribly off on exposure (maybe one), but many suffered from focus. (my Nikon and 300-800 are generally in the back seat mounted on my custom stock setup)

2. Initially I simply press the FN button to switch to spot mode. Assuming the spot encompasses more than just the egret the exposure will be correct. As the bird fills the spot it will become more underexposed (better than blown out) and when it begins to fill the frame release the Fn button and switch back to matrix metering, exposure is still variable but almost entirely usable/correct. Time permitting with the busy BG I would also switch the aperture to wider (typically set 2 stops down from wide open, both changes take less than 1 sec) but it is probably a mute point due to the focal distance.
In the end of the scenario I would be better off having left the aperture closer to "optimum" as the DOF will decrease sharply with the reduction of focal distance.

In these cases what we are talking about are issues with metering and not as much "scene". To me "scene" means subject vs BG and motion vs stationary. In both scenarios my SS will remain at 1/1000 (sufficient for most motion and handholding at 800mm) and my aperture will be close to optimum (unless changed). In both cases I will have some shots exposed better than others, but almost none unusable. In both cases my ISO changed quite a bit (within set limits) and perhaps my SS also changed (as white/ black became prominent).
In both cases I am "giving" on ISO first, an area I have room to not care so much.

In both cases I do not believe you could do any better (consistently) in manual mode. Even given the time to pre expose for the light and average exposure (a luxury I did not allow myself) an entirely white or black bird will require significant compensation and a "best guess" as to meter offset. In most cases the "best guess" will be further off at the extremes. (I'm guessing about 6 clicks on SS or 2-3 clicks on aperture depending upon settings just to get close.) In fact, I would bet the average individual would do much worse in manual mode.
Given better conditions, the averages become much more equal....and given good enough conditions, proper exposure becomes a non-issue (regardless of how you get there). If you say you can do better in worst case scenario and full manual, I would first have to see it, then I would bow down....I know *I* cannot do better on full manual and it's not for a lack of understanding or experience....In full manual I would assume you would have to give on SS or aperture first, both areas I care more about than ISO. But just to pull it off would be a feat...

I put both of these scenarios in the absolute worst case because a. it takes things to the extreme, and b. because it's often how I work, not having the time/patience (more time related) to sit stationary for many hours at a time. Often, just setting up a tripod is a luxury.

[Steven Kersting]

I can't add any technical expertise to the discussion, but I will say that if all those who have weighed in on the subject, with all their experience and talent, can't agree then how am I as relatively new photographer, approximately 6 years, begin to figure this all out. After reading through this, I can definitely say that I am more confused than ever.

It's simple really...get the correct exposure, regardless of "how". There really isn't anything to "figure out". If you do not understand the basic exposure triangle, learn that and move on. Ignore us, because it really doesn't matter.

[Roger Clark]

Steven,

Here is the bear image I was discussing. You can see the background is very dark. The problem with relying on spot mode is then you are stuck needing to keep the center spot on the thing you need to meter. I prefer to get the best composition. I move the AF point around to keep the composition I want and the AF point on the eye. For the image here, the AF point was on the eye. With manual mode I could not only photograph this bear, but many others as they fished the river. I checked exposure by checking the reading on the white water every 20 minutes or so, and in between did not have to change or check anything. All exposures came out superb.

[Roger Clark]

Roman,

I do a lot of landscapes too and sometimes I am in Av mode and go with it. Like it has been said, the meter is a suggestion. So if I set up and happen to be in Av mode (which I usually am while hiking because the light is changing), I'll check the exposure, maybe add/subtract compensation and make a test image to check the histogram. No different if I am in manual. When one has lots of time, I don't see the difference with any mode, as the meter is just a first suggestion, and as Artie says, one gets to the right exposure. If Av mode needs more compensation than the camera allows, I'll switch to manual.

When I do multi-frame panoramas, I zoom in and spot meter various things in the scene, decide on an overall best exposure, then for to manual and start the mosaic.

Roger

[Arthur Morris]

I can't add any technical expertise to the discussion, but I will say that if all those who have weighed in on the subject, with all their experience and talent, can't agree then how am I as relatively new photographer, approximately 6 years, begin to figure this all out. After reading through this, I can definitely say that I am more confused than ever.


Don, I will post a link to a future blog post here that will simplify things (as I see them). :S3: Over the years I have done a pretty decent job of simplifying and explaining things....

[Arthur Morris]

Steven, Jim's Neiger's comments in Pane 90 are 100% correct. When working with a given subject and backgrounds of varying tonalities working in Manual mode is the way to go. For everyone. It is fast and simple.... Without exception.

Furthermore, you comments in Pane 91 (which include, "assuming I can keep the "spot" on target," "Initially I simply press the FN button to switch to spot mode. Assuming the spot encompasses more than just the egret the exposure will be correct. As the bird fills the spot it will become more underexposed (better than blown out) and when it begins to fill the frame release the Fn button and switch back to matrix metering, exposure is still variable but almost entirely usable/correct. Time permitting with the busy BG I would also switch the aperture to wider (typically set 2 stops down from wide open, both changes take less than 1 sec) but it is probably a mute point due to the focal distance," and "In both cases I do not believe you could do any better (consistently) in manual mode" all point to a method that is convoluted, exceedingly complex, and at best, fraught with inaccuracy. And you last statement is not at all correct: working in Manual mode as Jim describes will give you a perfect exposure for every frame regardless of the tonality of the bird, its size in the frame, or the changing tonality of the subject. By your own admission your method often does not yield a perfect exposure....

You talk about making changes over a second or over several seconds. The best flight poses/light angles are often available only for a fraction of a single second.....

Lastly, I have--as far back as the ABP advised against spot-metering for avian subjects. :S3:

[Don Thompson]

Don, I will post a link to a future blog post here that will simplify things (as I see them). :S3: Over the years I have done a pretty decent job of simplifying and explaining things....

Artie, I look forward to your post and hope you can explain it so I have a better understanding of not only what people are saying here, but when I should use manual mode or one of the other modes.

[Roman Kurywczak]

So Roger,
How often would you say you are in AV mode? What percentage of the time? I ask because I want to respond to Don's confusion above also.....but will await your reply.

[Don Thompson]

Artie, I look forward to your post and hope you can explain it so I have a better understanding of not only what people are saying here, but when I should use manual mode or one of the other modes.

Without waiting for Artie's post or Roman's comment I will add, that I am skeptical of ANY approach being correct 100% of the time, regardless of the topic. Doing something the same way 100% of the time seems to be stubborn and an unwillingness to accept that there might on occasion be a better approach to reach your goal.

[Arthur Morris]

I agree 100%. That is why I currently use Manual Mode about 65% of the time, AV about 25% of the time, Tv about 9% of the time, and Program maybe 1% of the time. :S3: In my blog post I will expound on the whens and whys of the above,

[Roman Kurywczak]

Without waiting for Artie's post or Roman's comment I will add, that I am skeptical of ANY approach being correct 100% of the time, regardless of the topic. Doing something the same way 100% of the time seems to be stubborn and an unwillingness to accept that there might on occasion be a better approach to reach your goal.
and of course I disagree......why? Artie's quote from pane 53: "If you know how to get the right exposure when working in Manual mode then you must know how to get the right exposure using an automatic mode like Av or Tv. Why? Because the right exposure is the right exposure. And the histogram does not know what mode you were in when you made the image :) "
To me.....that means any mode you use...even M 100% of the time......if proficient at exposure.......you should get the correct exposure. If a situation arises where speed (gator post by Artie or changing light.......then another mode may be indeed faster......but not necessarily "better"......because no mater what.....I should be at the correct exposure!

This conversation is going nowhere fast.....although fun! Artie shoots Manual mode 65-70 percent of the time. Chas, Jim, and I in the upper 90%'s. That should be your first clue as to which mode you should be using more often! No mode is 100% perfect all the time.....but the mistake lies with us and not the camera. Every exposure mistake I have made was my own carelessness or a speed/reaction issue......remember....I shoot M 98% of the time. I would rather shoot in a mode that is 85-90% useful......than in a mode that is 10-25% useful. I won't even get into P.
Let me make this absolutely clear......I am saying no mode is perfect.......but I will stick with the 900 batting average.......rather than the 100-250 batting average.

I believe for learning purposes.....manual is the best way to learn.

[Arthur Morris]

roman--my left arm is in a sling so am typing with one finger--had some minor surgery this am. but i gotta say this, based on what you wrote above you would flunk both Deductive Reasoning 101 and Debating 101....

i am hoping that perhaps chas will point out why.... :S3:

[Desmond Chan]

To me.....that means any mode you use...even M 100% of the time......if proficient at exposure.......you should get the correct exposure.

True !

Sometime ago, there was no auto-exposure mode in any camera. The cameras didn't even have a built-in exposure meter. Even these days, some still use an external exposure meter during their shoots. Manual mode may be slower for certain scenarios but that would be its only shortfall, I'd say. FWIW, I myself rarely need to use auto exposure mode.

[Steven Kersting]

Steven,

Here is the bear image I was discussing. You can see the background is very dark. The problem with relying on spot mode is then you are stuck needing to keep the center spot on the thing you need to meter.

Actually, not necessarily. Because I largely use dynamic focus point and C focus mode the focus point moves with the subject (That might be Nikon specific. I can set the initial point anywhere in the frame, or focus and recompose). Then the "active" focus point is what is used for the spot metering location. It stays with the subject as the subject moves.

My choices are often quite different if I am stationary and set up a tripod. But even then I seldom go "full manual". The reality is I can get almost the same control as full manual by simply locking the ISO in either A or S(Tv) modes. If you change exposure then something always has to give and I generally prefer to give ISO first (within limits).

Now, I agree there are times where metering a scene and waiting for something to enter makes full manual (locking exposure) useful, assuming what enters is not far from "neutral" or is previously known (exposure bias set). And I can't easily do that in any of the Auto modes. But that dictates a constant scene and a neutral/known subject color. Yes, for some that happens a lot. A lot of the time I might be out "expecting" a certain subject; it's the reason I'm there to start with. But in those cases, when something completely unexpected happens it's usually a loss.

There's no "perfect" answer. There are many "solutions".

[Steven Kersting]

Steven, Jim's Neiger's comments in Pane 90 are 100% correct. When working with a given subject and backgrounds of varying tonalities working in Manual mode is the way to go. For everyone. It is fast and simple.... Without exception.

Furthermore, you comments in Pane 91 (which include, "assuming I can keep the "spot" on target," "Initially I simply press the FN button to switch to spot mode. Assuming the spot encompasses more than just the egret the exposure will be correct. As the bird fills the spot it will become more underexposed (better than blown out) and when it begins to fill the frame release the Fn button and switch back to matrix metering, exposure is still variable but almost entirely usable/correct. Time permitting with the busy BG I would also switch the aperture to wider (typically set 2 stops down from wide open, both changes take less than 1 sec) but it is probably a mute point due to the focal distance," and "In both cases I do not believe you could do any better (consistently) in manual mode" all point to a method that is convoluted, exceedingly complex, and at best, fraught with inaccuracy. And you last statement is not at all correct: working in Manual mode as Jim describes will give you a perfect exposure for every frame regardless of the tonality of the bird, its size in the frame, or the changing tonality of the subject. By your own admission your method often does not yield a perfect exposure....

You talk about making changes over a second or over several seconds. The best flight poses/light angles are often available only for a fraction of a single second.....

Lastly, I have--as far back as the ABP advised against spot-metering for avian subjects. :S3:

I think you may have missed the part of "absolute worst case". No time to pre-meter, subject completely unknown. Settings at some "default" (I gave mine). Yes, it will be less than ideal thru ought parts of the scenario, but (probably) never unusable.

I noted making changes "instantly" because seconds could be a very long time. (at least I meant to). I can argue any metering mode could be less desirable for a given situation...on my camera the metering is set to matrix, the fn button activates spot metering, and the preview button activates center weighted (set to 12mm, I got that wrong in my previous post).

As I noted in the post above, once focus lock is achieved the "spot" will stay with the subject thru-out a scene when using dynamic/c.

But, again I understand where metering a scene and locking things down can be beneficial...If you have that ability I might suggest using a w/b disk (I have a couple cheap $5 versions that work well) and taking an incident reading as your start point. By using a WB disk and pointing it at the light source you can use your camera as an incident meter. After a few tries you will know if if your particular combination (camera/disk) gives over/under/correct readings and how to set for scene (the results will be consistent). In such situations, getting correct exposure should be pretty much a non-issue.

[Steven Kersting]

Without waiting for Artie's post or Roman's comment I will add, that I am skeptical of ANY approach being correct 100% of the time, regardless of the topic. Doing something the same way 100% of the time seems to be stubborn and an unwillingness to accept that there might on occasion be a better approach to reach your goal.

This is 100% correct.
I hope I have not been misunderstood to be saying auto modes are "better" than manual.
I will change modes and settings (i.e. ISO range) based upon the subject/intent. I will even go full manual occasionally, but that is seldom since it usually doesn't suit my working style.

[Don Thompson]

This is 100% correct.
I hope I have not been misunderstood to be saying auto modes are "better" than manual.
I will change modes and settings (i.e. ISO range) based upon the subject/intent. I will even go full manual occasionally, but that is seldom since it usually doesn't suit my working style.

I don't believe I misunderstood you and didn't mean to imply that. All I am saying is that in my opinion, no mode can be 100% effective 100% of the time and if someone maintains that position, then it my opinion, they are being stubborn and unwilling to concede that at times another mode may be better. I am still relatively new at photography, but to me, this applies to life in general. No one approach works 100% of the time.

And not because I am sucking up to the maestro, but Artie's approach seems to be the more logical approach. Use the proper mode for the proper application. Don't be locked into one mode all the time.

I also refuse to believe that camera manufactures put those other modes in a camera simply for those of use who don't know how to get the proper exposure using manual mode.

Again, this if from a complete novice and is only based on my simple logic and not on experience. Up until this discussion, I actually thought I was doing what I thought others had suggested in the past. I hope there is continued discussion and do look forward to Artie's blog post when he is able to type using all of fingers instead of just the one. :bg3:

[Steven Kersting]

I believe for learning purposes.....manual is the best way to learn.

This I agree with. I also agree that exposure mistakes are user error, not camera error.

Metering modes are not "dumb", focus modes are not "dumb", the camera doesn't "make errors". In fact there is a lot of technology in there you are paying a lot of money for that can make your life easier in many instances. But there is no one "mode" that will work in all situations (and what they are doing and why can be confusing initially). If you misapply a setting the results will be a miss.

Would you buy/use your computer simply to function as a calculator? I wouldn't, I'd buy a calculator. Maybe they should make a "dumb" digital camera; seriously. It should be much cheaper and would suit many quite well for their style/subject (nothing wrong with that). Or even better, you could get better ISO/Sensor for the same money. I might even buy one then.

I will say that learning "the basics" (exposure/manual mode) is the beginning, and it works. I would then suggest learning how your camera works in the other modes (my Nikon may be different than an entry level Nikon or a Canon). THEN, choose what suits YOU best for the situation. Ignore what I, or anyone else, might choose. IMO, "just" learning/using manual is not making the most of the options available to you.

My usable exposure average (manual less than ten percent of the time) is well into the ninety percentile. And I do specify "usable exposure". I could increase my "perfect" exposure rate into the 90 percentile range, but that would necessitate a change of style (more available time) and the capture of fewer images. And make no mistake, my usable exposure ration does not equate to "keeper" ratio. (depending upon the subject/situation my keeper ratio *can* reach into the ninety percentile range, but is typically more around fifty/sixty percent)


I don't think this is pointless at all, nor "going anywhere". The total gist I get is:
I choose manual most of the time, or I prefer auto modes most of the time, but it doesn't matter. Exposure is exposure.
And that is exactly what should be being put out. Learn exposure, learn your camera, and choose for yourself what suits your style/subject at the time.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Don,
Define "better". I think I clearly stated that some modes may be quicker in different modes.....but never better. Let's be logical........if Artie is using Manual 2/3 of the time.......shouldn't you? He is after all proficient in exposure.....no doubt. But I have seen more mistakes in the field when people use AV than anything else. So why teach any other mode than M......to those who are newbies/up and coming. Ask yourself this.....how often do you use M mode as compared to all the others? If it isn't at leat Artie's percentage.....then I think you should reconsider your modes and learn M first. I think people are leaving out the "once you are proficient" part. Pesonally......I think manual mode is a piece of cake and I have noidea where the AV is easier thing comes from!
PS Hope you heal fast Artie and can type soon!

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Steve,
I was typing while you were....at least we agree that manual is the best way to teach/learn! I'll work on the rest:bg3: after dinner!

[Roger Clark]

So Roger,
How often would you say you are in AV mode? What percentage of the time? I ask because I want to respond to Don's confusion above also.....but will await your reply.

Hi Roman,

I'm probably remembering wrong, but I believe about 1/2 to 3/4 of the time I am in manual mode, most of the rest in AV mode and a tiny percentage in other modes.

If I am doing single frame landscapes on a hike, I'll most likely work in Av. But if I start a multi-frame mosaic (which is what I like to do a lot of), I always work in manual.

Now that I've got my new linux system (mostly) up and running (photoshop in virtualbox, windows 7), I can write a script to go out and search my images and derive some statistics. I'll do that as soon as I am able; lots of family coming to visit so it might be a couple of weeks.

Roger

[Steven Kersting]

IMO, using manual modes proficiently is easier than using auto modes proficiently (*if* you understand basic exposure).
Using auto modes means you are letting the camera make some decisions for you. If you do not understand the decisions it is going to make and why, then your results will vary widely. If you do not know what/when/why the camera will choose what it does, then you ARE giving up control and you almost might as well use program mode (I do on the rare occasion :w3 ).

[Desmond Chan]

All I am saying is that in my opinion, no mode can be 100% effective 100% of the time

I think it's more correct to say no mode is more efficient 100% of the time than the other modes are. They are all just as effective, i.e., give you a "correct" exposure (provided you know how to use them), IMO.


I also refuse to believe that camera manufactures put those other modes in a camera simply for those of use who don't know how to get the proper exposure using manual mode. I doubt it very much as whether you use auto or manual modes, you still have to know about exposure. I don't think Nikon, Canon, or anybody else would think otherwise.

[Mike Milicia]

Now, I agree there are times where metering a scene and waiting for something to enter makes full manual (locking exposure) useful, assuming what enters is not far from "neutral" or is previously known (exposure bias set). And I can't easily do that in any of the Auto modes. But that dictates a constant scene and a neutral/known subject color.
This seems to imply that in order to set the correct exposure in Manual Exposure mode, you would need to know the tone of the subject and/or have a "constant scene". This is where you lose me.
If you are in Manual Exposure Mode in this type of situation, you would simply set the exposure for the incident light. The tone of the expected subject is largely irrelevant (see next paragraph for some fine points) and the contents of the scene is completely irrelevant. The only variable here is how you measure the incident light. If you are in the same light as your expected subject will be, an incident meter is one option. Another option would be to use the in-camera meter (which is still working when in Manual mode) with your metering pattern of choice on anything in the scene and set the exposure according to how the tone of whatever it is that you are metering differs from neutral or, in the case of matrix or evaluative metering, how it differs from what the camera's algorithms would normally come up with for that scene in the type of light that is present. There are dozens of ways you can effectively measure the incident light but the important point with Manual Exposure mode is that once you do, and once you set the proper exposure for that incident light, you are good to go regardless of the tone of the subject, where the subject appears in the scene (as long as it is in the same light that you have metered for), how large it is in the frame or what the BG is. As long as your subject is in the same light that you metered for, your exposure will always be correct. That is why Manual Mode is almost universally recommended for situations where the intensity of the incident light that is hitting your subject is not changing.

With all that said, there is some "fine tuning" you can do that WILL depend on the tone of the subject. For example, if you are expecting a brilliant white subject and the incident light is fairly bright, you may want to set the exposure such that you are intentionally underexposing by 1/3 to 1 stop to get more detail in the whites.
Another example is that if your subject has no bright highlights and there are no potential bright highlights in the surrounding scene that you care about, you may want to intentionally overexpose the scene by 1/3 to 1 stop in order to minimize noise (often called "Exposing to the Right"). In this latter case, you would most likely bring the exposure back down in post-processing so that, for example, the black bear is black instead of gray. But these are just optimizations regarding how you come up with the exposure setting and, if you wish, you can easily do these tweaks on the fly as you encounter different subjects. But, in any case, once the exposure is set, you have all of the advantages of using Manual Mode in constant light. Also note that these "optimizations" still need to be applied in the form of tweaking your exposure compensation when you are using an autoexposure mode.

Of course, the above is not a complete treatment of all the tips and techniques that you can employ when using Manual Exposure mode in various situations but it covers the basics. The important point here is that in certain situations, Manual Exposure mode has some very specific advantages over any autoexposure mode.

Now if the intensity of the incident light is erratic or rapidly changing, you would probably be better off with an autoexposure mode. But then you also better keep a close eye on the tone of your subject, tone of the BG, size of the subject in the frame, etc. in order to make the required adjustments to the exposure compensation as you are photographing.

[Charles Glatzer]

Steve,

Priority Modes do not make decisions, they only alter a variable. You choose how and what to do with the info provided by the Meter Pattern.


Chas

[Roman Kurywczak]

Ok.....now I think we are getting somewhere! Roger......enjoy the family but your recollection of the percentage is fine! My biggest concern in this thread is that someone of Artie's stature would be misconstued as being in AV more often than in AV. Even I admit....as we all do that AV or the other modes can be "easier" in certain situations.....especially when you become proficient in exposure. I just want people to know that you should become proficient first........then you can join our philosophical debate:2eyes2:.....as to which is best!
I do believe what you are comfortable with/practice......does come in to play.....but I will stand by my statement: If you really want to learn exposure......shoot Manual mode! In today's digital age.....it's free! Knowing and understanding the metering modes as well as your histogram.....all go hand in hand with exposure!
Considering some of the names on this thread......ask yourself.....what percentage of the time do you shoot manual? If it isn't in the 65-70% range(or more for my tastes:bg3:).....perhaps it is time to start!

[Desmond Chan]

IMO, using manual modes proficiently is easier than using auto modes proficiently (*if* you understand basic exposure).
Using auto modes means you are letting the camera make some decisions for you.

I think there's some misunderstanding of manual exposure mode here. It seems to me many have forgot one thing: manual or auto exposure mode regardless, we still use the built-in exposure meter of the camera (unless you're the kind who don't use any exposure meter at all). I think it's worth repeating what Chas said in pane 34:


With Manual Priority you make the same cognitive decision you would in Av Priority, that is to set the aperture first into the camera. Thereafter...in Av the camera will set the shutter speed and you add compensation to derive at the correct exposure for the scene as viewed. In Manual you adjust the shutter-speed adding in more or less exposure to derive at the correct exposure. Both methods require that you turn a wheel, shutter speed in Manual, comp in Av.

It's really not that complicated.

As long as you understand what is actually happening by adjusting the exposure compensation (read you camera manual for the answer), and you know the difference between one aperture and the other, between one shutter speed and the other, and between one ISO and the other, then you can do it in the manual exposure mode as well even if you use auto mode regularly.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Dang I type slow.....and I have 2 good arms:bg3:......have to read now!

[Desmond Chan]

Another option would be to use the in-camera meter [snip]

The in-camera meter is a reflective light measuring meter and is not an incident light meter, right?

Just checking :S3:

[Mike Milicia]

The in-camera meter is a reflective light measuring meter and is not an incident light meter, right?

Just checking :S3:
Yes, the in-camera meter is a reflective meter but if you know the tone of the scene, you can use it to deduce the incident light. That's what exposure compensation is all about. Exposure is always based on the incident light. If you are using a reflective meter, you need to compensate for the reflectivity of the scene to come up with the proper exposure for the amount of incident light. You would do this the same way in manual mode as you would for an autoexposure mode.

[Steven Kersting]

Steve,

Priority Modes do not make decisions, they only alter a variable. You choose how and what to do with the info provided by the Meter Pattern.


Chas

Well, with this I disagree to some extent. The caveat being that when *I'm* using auto modes I also have the ISO set to an auto range. In that case, different modes behave differently in the choices the camera makes. (it's not as simple as "in S(tv) mode the camera trades aperture" anymore)

[Charles Glatzer]

Arthur Morris;

Assuming the spot encompasses more than just the egret the exposure will be correct.

It is far better to pick one unchanging tonality that fills the spot pattern in the same light as that falling on the subject, than to have mixed values within the pattern. Mixed values will make it difficult to assess how much to deviate from the suggested mid-tone provided by spot pattern to render the subject accurately. That was a mouthful-lol


And you last statement is not at all correct: working in Manual mode as Jim describes will give you a perfect exposure for every frame regardless of the tonality of the bird, its size in the frame, or the changing tonality of the subject. By your own admission your method often does not yield a perfect exposure....

Agreed....a Perfect exposure every time, hmm. I would think the accuracy depends upon how one interprets the meter recommendation, and whether or not they apply the correct amount of deviation thereafter to exposure correctly. More the madness behind the method, if you will.
.....

Lastly, I have--as far back as the ABP advised against spot-metering for avian subjects.

When using spot for Avian subjects, who says you have to meter the bird? Why not substitute meter another element in the same light, as I mentioned in my first response above.

Best Amigo,

Chas

[Steven Kersting]

I think there's some misunderstanding of manual exposure mode here. It seems to me many have forgot one thing: manual or auto exposure mode regardless, we still use the built-in exposure meter of the camera (unless you're the kind who don't use any exposure meter at all). I think it's worth repeating what Chas said in pane 34:



It's really not that complicated.

As long as you understand what is actually happening by adjusting the exposure compensation (read you camera manual for the answer), and you know the difference between one aperture and the other, between one shutter speed and the other, and between one ISO and the other, then you can do it in the manual exposure mode as well even if you use auto mode regularly.

No disagreement from me.
The one thing that should have been interesting in my response to the "scenarios" was my first corrective action (and second) was to change metering mode. It was not to adjust the "exposure triangle".

[Charles Glatzer]

Well, with this I disagree to some extent. The caveat being that when *I'm* using auto modes I also have the ISO set to an auto range. In that case, different modes behave differently in the choices the camera makes. (it's not as simple as "in S(tv) mode the camera trades aperture" anymore)


With all the Auto this and Auto that you are suggesting to use I would never get a proper exposure. Why introduce YET another with Auto ISO. I would at that point set the camera on P for professional (lol) and keep my fingers crossed.

Chas

[Steven Kersting]

This seems to imply that in order to set the correct exposure in Manual Exposure mode, you would need to know the tone of the subject and/or have a "constant scene".


Well, in fact you do to some extent. Even if we assume one took an incident reading, and the reading was 100% accurate, it won't necessarily deliver the best results for a given subject. Often you will need to adjust one way or the other to get the most from a black or white subject.

The rest I agree with in general. To me, the main difference is almost entirely a "style issue". One is a "tripod mentality" and mine is more a "journalist" type mentality.

I'll be the first to admit that I could certainly benefit from setting up a tripod and taking more time on occasion.

[Steven Kersting]

With all the Auto this and Auto that you are suggesting to use I would never get a proper exposure. Why introduce YET another with Auto ISO. I would at that point set the camera on P for professional (lol) and keep my fingers crossed.

Chas

LOL! It's not that bad!
And I seldom agree with the choices P mode makes.

[Arthur Morris]

Arthur Morris;

Lastly, I have--as far back as the ABP advised against spot-metering for avian subjects.

When using spot for Avian subjects, who says you have to meter the bird? Why not substitute meter another element in the same light, as I mentioned in my first response above.

Best Amigo,

Chas

Chas, Steven is stating that he uses spot-metering for flying birds....

[Charles Glatzer]

Chas, Steven is stating that he uses spot-metering for flying birds....

Ah, got ya. Then my reply to Steve is REDICULOUS!

But, my reply about using Spot with Avain remains valid.

Chas

[Don Thompson]

Hey Don,
Define "better". I think I clearly stated that some modes may be quicker in different modes.....but never better. Let's be logical........if Artie is using Manual 2/3 of the time.......shouldn't you? He is after all proficient in exposure.....no doubt. But I have seen more mistakes in the field when people use AV than anything else. So why teach any other mode than M......to those who are newbies/up and coming. Ask yourself this.....how often do you use M mode as compared to all the others? If it isn't at leat Artie's percentage.....then I think you should reconsider your modes and learn M first. I think people are leaving out the "once you are proficient" part. Pesonally......I think manual mode is a piece of cake and I have noidea where the AV is easier thing comes from!
PS Hope you heal fast Artie and can type soon!
Better may have been a poor choice of words. What I am saying is that depending on the situation, one mode may be more appropriate than the other modes. I agree that all modes should be used at one time or another. Some in the discussion seem to be saying that you should only use manual mode 100%. I refuse to accept that. I may be relying on one of the priority modes more than I should, and should be using manual more often. But to say that any one mode is the proper mode ALL of the time, to me is wrong.

I do in fact use all modes when I think they are appropriate. I will, based on this discussion, make more of an effort to use manual mode.

Now, if you or someone else would direct me to a good source where I can begin figuring out how to properly use manual mode more often, I would appreciate it.

[Arthur Morris]

Chas-o-rama, I covered spot metering in the original ABP. (https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=16) And the trick about metering a tone away from the bird is there too :). Funny thing about spot metering is that it is a lot like using a hand held meter: most folks using either of them have zero clue as to how to use it correctly.....

I do feel as I am sure that you do that the more metering modes that you master the better photographer you will become. The problem is that most folks do not understand exposure theory so they are dead in the water before they start... Folks who wish to learn exposure theory are directed to the aforementioned ABP. (https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=16)

[Charles Glatzer]

Chas-o-rama, I covered spot metering in the original ABP. (https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=16) And the trick about metering a tone away from the bird is there too :). Funny thing about spot metering is that it is a lot like using a hand held meter: most folks using either of them have zero clue as to how to use it correctly.....

I do feel as I am sure that you do that the more metering modes that you master the better photographer you will become. The problem is that most folks do not understand exposure theory so they are dead in the water before they start... Folks who wish to learn exposure theory are directed to the aforementioned ABP. (https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=16)


I am 100% in agreement. We should tag team them together one of these days. I bet we could fill a stadium!

Since were plugging, wink. The STL Tech Series in FL next week is filled to capacity, with 10 additional wanting to attend having to be turned away. Another will be announced for Oct, to be held in the beautiful NC mountains during Fall foliage by weeks end.

Chas

[James Shadle]

Roger,

I am less of a gambler, preferring the higher odds based on my knowledge rather than predetermined algorithms chosen by another. For me Auto induces more variables, not less.

Best,

Chas

I'm with Chas, I believe (most will disagree) I'm smarter than my camera.

[Steven Kersting]

Chas, Steven is stating that he uses spot-metering for flying birds....

I will use it whenever I know another metering mode will be fooled. If I have the spot on the bird the exposure will be correct. If the bird is itself at an extreme color then EC is called for. It's not that hard.

There is a significant difference between fixed central focal point/spot metering and dynamic focus point/spot metering (at least w/ my Nikon).
In dynamic mode the focus point is also the metering point and it will move thru the frame with the subject. (actually, in any focus mode the active focus point is the metering point for spot metering)
I can choose if it follows the subject thru the central 9, 21 or 51 points (or 51pt 3D) I generally have it set to 51 point (not 3D) unless I know the subject will be large in the FOV and fairly reliably trackable (then I'll go to the better 9 central).

Now, if I were to attempt to use a fixed central focus point and spot metering I would agree...It probably won't work very well. I'd have to bee very good/lucky to keep the spot on subject.

Again, it all comes down to knowing what your camera is going to do when you "give up" some control..

That said, on quick scan of my BIF images more are taken w/ center weighted metering..I was unaware of that tendency in my selections. I just do what "feels right", but for the sake of openness I confess... I think in those cases I have switched primary camera metering to CW and dumped Matrix altogether. I will usually do this when I know the BG will throw the metering.

BTW, I am relatively new to avian photography as a specific subject. So I do not purport to be particularly expert in the specifics related to the subject (it's why I joined the forum). But in pretty much any other area I do have some notable experience, and exposure is exposure...

[Desmond Chan]

In dynamic mode the focus point is also the metering point and it will move thru the frame with the subject..

That's what it supposed to do but in reality, most if not all the time it can't follow the subject through the frame. Perhaps it would if the subject is slow enough. I heard that it works for large subject that moves side to side, like when shooting a tennis player from the side line.

Hate to tell you, Steven, but I do find your way to get the exposure is...kind of complicated :bg3:

[Desmond Chan]

Now, if you or someone else would direct me to a good source where I can begin figuring out how to properly use manual mode more often, I would appreciate it.

Just do it, Don. Experiment. Once you know how well you can use manual exposure mode, you'll know when to use it.

[Arthur Morris]

I will use it whenever I know another metering mode will be fooled.

Steve, Manual mode can never be fooled.

[Charles Glatzer]

Hate to tell you, Steven, but I do find your way to get the exposure is...kind of complicated :bg3:

I have to agree, way more complicated than necessary. And, confusing for the rest of us. But, if it works for you :S3:

Chas

[Steven Kersting]

Steve, Manual mode can never be fooled.

Metering can always be fooled (regardless of mode)
I agree that for difficult situations Manual may be the only solution for reliable results.

[Arthur Morris]

When someone gets the wrong exposure in Manual mode it is because either they have been fooled or because they made a mental error. Manual mode is not metering, it is an expression of how smart (or dumb) the operator is....

[Steven Kersting]

That's what it supposed to do but in reality, most if not all the time it can't follow the subject through the frame. Perhaps it would if the subject is slow enough. I heard that it works for large subject that moves side to side, like when shooting a tennis player from the side line.
There are several variables that affect the accuracy of the tracking. One of the biggest is the focus delay setting (if your camera has it, entry level models don't give any control over it). Basically, if the subject is too fast for autofocus, if you can't keep the subject in the primary FOV, or if the focus delay is set too short it won't work well.
In those cases I'll usually have to set up with either "trap focus" (just flip to single servo, but it still won't work for fast small subjects), or zone focus. But if I'm doing that, I'm probably pretty stationary with a subject that I can anticipate (or I'm trying anyways). In that case I would also probably switch towards more manual control.

But that said, it doesn't matter because the issue isn't camera settings it's metering error. If you can anticipate it and eliminate it, it's not a problem.


Hate to tell you, Steven, but I do find your way to get the exposure is...kind of complicated :bg3:

It is. I stated earlier that to be fluent with the auto modes is more difficult than full manual, and it still won't always work reliably.

For me it is easier, once I've made a couple of decisions I often don't have to change any primary setting. Maybe switch metering modes or add EC.

But again, it largely comes down to shooting style/subject. I tend to think more about "getting the shot" and not about "getting the perfect shot". If I am working differently (i.e. stationary) I will usually end up with settings much closer to full manual.

[Steven Kersting]

When someone gets the wrong exposure in Manual mode it is because either they have been fooled or because they made a mental error. Manual mode is not metering, it is an expression of how smart (or dumb) the operator is....

Whoa, are we talking about running around applying the sunny 16 rule? I've forgotten most of that.

If not, then it always starts with metering. If you are able to compensate for metering errors in manual, then you should be able to do it using an auto mode.

I get that in full manual I can compensate for metering errors once and largely not think about it for a while (shooting style dependent). But you really *should* be thinking about it every time you click the shutter (regardless of method).

[jack williamson]

Outstanding discussion! I am here to learn and if you can't learn on this site...well.

Jack

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Steve; can you explain to me why you need a meter at all in manual exposure? In manual exposure you are not compensating for anything.

regards~Bill

[Don Thompson]

When someone gets the wrong exposure in Manual mode it is because either they have been fooled or because they made a mental error. Manual mode is not metering, it is an expression of how smart (or dumb) the operator is....

Please explain further. Do I not use the meter in the camera to tell when I have the correct exposure. Or do I just SWAG it and until I have enough experience to get the exposure correct, I just pray I am correct?

Maybe I am dense, and this may be clear to those of you who have done this for years/decades, but to me with less experience, I am more confused than ever.

Sorry.

[Charles Glatzer]

Metering can always be fooled (regardless of mode)
I agree that for difficult situations Manual may be the only solution for reliable results.

If you are interpeting the meter recommedation, choosing the exposure variables, and physically setting them into the camera how can it be the Meters Fault?

The meter only does what is is programmed to do, it is you who decides what to do with the info provided.

Chas

[Arthur Morris]

If not, then it always starts with metering. If you are able to compensate for metering errors in manual, then you should be able to do it using an auto mode.



Steve, I am starting to get frustrated trying to get you to understand the important points below one last time.

When the light is relatively consistent and the background is changing or may change rapidly from moment to moment nobody is smart/fast enough to work in an automatic mode like Av. So we determine the correct exposure (usually via a histogram/blinkies check) for a given subject and then set that exposure manually. If a subject with a different tonality comes along it is easy to make the required changes quickly and easily say by adjusting the shutter speed (as most of us have learned to do).

As has been said above in so many words, trying to spot meter a bird in flight is totally insane.

Respectfully.

[Charles Glatzer]

Please explain further. Do I not use the meter in the camera to tell when I have the correct exposure. Or do I just SWAG it and until I have enough experience to get the exposure correct, I just pray I am correct?

Maybe I am dense, and this may be clear to those of you who have done this for years/decades, but to me with less experience, I am more confused than ever.

Sorry.

Don,

The Meter provides a recommendation, which may or may not be the correct exposure, it is up to you to know what to do with the suggestion according to the choice of pattern and tonal values therein. Many are under the false assumption that if they center/null the meter manually or the camera does it in Auto Mode that the correct exposure has been found.

Chas

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Don, remember way back when Ofer started this post? I shoot exactly the same way, although occasionally I'll let the camera pick the shutter-speed, not because it produces better results, it doesn't, but after a few hundred (or thousand) shots I get a bit fatigued and I start making errors.
Read Ofers post, ignore everything else, and you'll be OK.


Thanks for your comments guys!
Melissa, here is the "secret" how I expose.... I simply NEVER expose AV or TV - only Manual. I always expose in a way that the brightest element in the image (particularly on the bird) is almost hot - in this case the white. You should have the highlight alert ON. Exposing manually with the histogram pushed as much as possible to the right without burning anything will result in the best possible image with the best signal to noise ratio, and the best colours. It may not look very nice in camera as it will be a bit bright but when opened in photoshop and adjusted a bit you will see the beauty of this technique. Don't relay on the camera to do this simple thing for you when you can do it so much better.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>Just my 2 cents,<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>Cheers,Ofer<o:p></o:p>


My and Ofer's 2 cents. regards~Bill

[Arthur Morris]

Don, re:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris: When someone gets the wrong exposure in Manual mode it is because either they have been fooled or because they made a mental error. Manual mode is not metering, it is an expression of how smart (or dumb) the operator is....

Please explain further. Do I not use the meter in the camera to tell when I have the correct exposure. Or do I just SWAG it and until I have enough experience to get the exposure correct, I just pray I am correct?

Maybe I am dense, and this may be clear to those of you who have done this for years/decades, but to me with less experience, I am more confused than ever.

Sorry.

No problema. Even when you are in Manual mode the metering pattern that you have set is active. When you play with the shutter speed and the aperture the indicator of over or under-exposure on the analog scale in your viewfinder changes. It is the photographer through study and understanding and with digital, via histogram/blinkies checking who determines where the indicator should be resting.

Please see my next post here. It may help :)

[Arthur Morris]

Below is a feature from an old Bulletin that may help the newer folks.

I still plan on doing a blog post on when and why I use various modes not just manual :)

WORKING IN MANUAL MODE

Here is an excerpt from ABP II (https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=19)for those who need help with working in Manual mode.

Many professional and serious amateur photographers work in Manual mode most of the time. I do not because working in Av mode and entering exposure compensation is faster whenever the background is of a relatively constant tonality. When the background tonality is changing from moment to moment but the light is constant, it is best, however, to work in Manual mode. In either case, I rely on Evaluative Metering. Here are some examples of rapidly changing backgrounds: a shorebird on a rock along the edge of the ocean with waves breaking behind it. Birds flying against a blue sky with occasional white clouds. Cranes flying by in front of a variety of backgrounds that might include sky, mountains, yellowed grasses, or water.
As many folks are confused as to how to work in or set exposure compensation when working in Manual mode, I offer the following basic tutorial.

#1: When you work in Manual mode you select and set the shutter speed and you select and set the aperture. With my Canon cameras the default has you changing the shutter speed with your index finger dial and the aperture with the thumb wheel.

#2: After selecting Manual mode, point your camera at a scene or stationary subject and lock your tripod head so the framing remains constant. Next select and set the desired aperture. Then adjust the shutter speed until the analog scale in the viewfinder nulls out to zero. With Canon pro bodies this scale is laid out vertically along the right side of the viewfinder display (when you are working in horizontal format). With many of the pro-sumer bodies the analog scale is laid out horizontally at the bottom of the viewfinder display. The zero or null indicator is at the center of the analog scale. The three full stops above the null symbol (marked in 1/3-stop increments) indicate overexposure. The three full stops below the null symbol (also marked in 1/3-stop increments) indicate underexposure. If you change the aperture and you do not see the small square moving, check either the top or the bottom of the analog scale. You will note a small triangle at the top if you are way overexposed or a small triangle at the bottom if you are way underexposed. If the former, rotate the dial and choose faster shutter speeds, if the latter, choose slower shutter speeds. In either case, you will soon see the small square moving up or down the analog scale. At first, you will simply want to practice nulling the meter, that is, getting the small square to rest on the null symbol. This indicates that you have now set the metered exposure (as determined by the camera's Evaluative Metering system.

#3: When you work in Manual mode it is not possible to set exposure compensation. To come up with the exposure that you wish, simply change the aperture or shutter speed as above until the small square indicates the amount of over- or under-exposure that you desire. If you wish to work at +2 stops, you need adjust either the shutter speed or the aperture until the small square rests on the symbol that is two full stops above the null symbol. If you wish to underexpose by 1/3 stop, you need adjust either the shutter speed or the aperture until the small square rests on the symbol that lies just below the null symbol.

With a bit of practice you should quickly become comfortable whenever the need to work in Manual mode arises.

[Charles Glatzer]

Steve; can you explain to me why you need a meter at all in manual exposure? In manual exposure you are not compensating for anything.

regards~Bill

Bill,

The meter pattern provides a suggestion in any/all Priority Modes, thereafter you more than likely wiill need to alter the initial recommendation by adding or subtracting exposure via f/stop, shutter-speed, ISO or a combination therein to obtain the correct exposure for the subject at hand.

Meter patterns, reference values, etc are used to determine Exposure, regardless of the Priority mode being used.

Chas

[Charles Glatzer]

Below is a feature from an old Bulletin that may help the newer folks.

I still plan on doing a blog post on when and why I use various modes not just manual :)

WORKING IN MANUAL MODE

Here is an excerpt from ABP II (https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=19)for those who need help with working in Manual mode.

Many professional and serious amateur photographers work in Manual mode most of the time. I do not because working in Av mode and entering exposure compensation is faster whenever the background is of a relatively constant tonality. When the background tonality is changing from moment to moment but the light is constant, it is best, however, to work in Manual mode. In either case, I rely on Evaluative Metering. Here are some examples of rapidly changing backgrounds: a shorebird on a rock along the edge of the ocean with waves breaking behind it. Birds flying against a blue sky with occasional white clouds. Cranes flying by in front of a variety of backgrounds that might include sky, mountains, yellowed grasses, or water.
As many folks are confused as to how to work in or set exposure compensation when working in Manual mode, I offer the following basic tutorial.

#1: When you work in Manual mode you select and set the shutter speed and you select and set the aperture. With my Canon cameras the default has you changing the shutter speed with your index finger dial and the aperture with the thumb wheel.

#2: After selecting Manual mode, point your camera at a scene or stationary subject and lock your tripod head so the framing remains constant. Next select and set the desired aperture. Then adjust the shutter speed until the analog scale in the viewfinder nulls out to zero. With Canon pro bodies this scale is laid out vertically along the right side of the viewfinder display (when you are working in horizontal format). With many of the pro-sumer bodies the analog scale is laid out horizontally at the bottom of the viewfinder display. The zero or null indicator is at the center of the analog scale. The three full stops above the null symbol (marked in 1/3-stop increments) indicate overexposure. The three full stops below the null symbol (also marked in 1/3-stop increments) indicate underexposure. If you change the aperture and you do not see the small square moving, check either the top or the bottom of the analog scale. You will note a small triangle at the top if you are way overexposed or a small triangle at the bottom if you are way underexposed. If the former, rotate the dial and choose faster shutter speeds, if the latter, choose slower shutter speeds. In either case, you will soon see the small square moving up or down the analog scale. At first, you will simply want to practice nulling the meter, that is, getting the small square to rest on the null symbol. This indicates that you have now set the metered exposure (as determined by the camera's Evaluative Metering system.

#3: When you work in Manual mode it is not possible to set exposure compensation. To come up with the exposure that you wish, simply change the aperture or shutter speed as above until the small square indicates the amount of over- or under-exposure that you desire. If you wish to work at +2 stops, you need adjust either the shutter speed or the aperture until the small square rests on the symbol that is two full stops above the null symbol. If you wish to underexpose by 1/3 stop, you need adjust either the shutter speed or the aperture until the small square rests on the symbol that lies just below the null symbol.

With a bit of practice you should quickly become comfortable whenever the need to work in Manual mode arises.


Badda Bing!!! :bg3:

Chas

[Don Thompson]

Below is a feature from an old Bulletin that may help the newer folks.

I still plan on doing a blog post on when and why I use various modes not just manual :)

WORKING IN MANUAL MODE

Here is an excerpt from ABP II (https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=19)for those who need help with working in Manual mode.

Thank you. Very simple and easy to understand. This is as I understood it. All the other discussions had me confused and thinking that me doubting myself.

Now, understanding and doing, especially quickly, is another matter. Still looking forward to your post as to more information on when to use all the different modes.

[Arthur Morris]

Many thanks Don. :S3: I can teach, and I can write, and I can make things simple and understandable. All of those every bit as much responsible for my success as my images. Though those don't suck either!

[Steven Kersting]

Steve, I am starting to get frustrated trying to get you to understand the important points below one last time.

When the light is relatively consistent and the background is changing or may change rapidly from moment to moment nobody is smart/fast enough to work in an automatic mode like Av. So we determine the correct exposure (usually via a histogram/blinkies check) for a given subject and then set that exposure manually. If a subject with a different tonality comes along it is easy to make the required changes quickly and easily say by adjusting the shutter speed (as most of us have learned to do).

As has been said above in so many words, trying to spot meter a bird in flight is totally insane.

Respectfully.

You're probably getting frustrated because you think I must be dense, you must be right, and there is no validity to what I am saying.

Let me give you an example assuming I am stationary with a scene I can pre expose and push the exposure to the right (i generally don't do that though) based upon the histogram/blinkies.

In this case I will probably be in manual mode but I will have the iso set to an auto range. For various subjects I will use EC or change metering pattern and the camera will trade ISO (I paid a lot of money for that ISO performance). If I choose to change aperture or SS for the scene (not subject. i.e. I suddenly care about shallow DOF more than optimal aperture) then the auto ISO will correct back to my original exposure. If I choose to both change metering mode and aperture for subject and scene I hold down a button (change metering mode) and rotate a dial and click, the ISO adjusts to give me a good exposure....all in fractions of a second.

If you are in "full manual" your first/ perhaps only option is to give on Aperture or SS (changing ISO manually on my Nikon is the hardest thing to do). Those are both things I'd rather not "give" on first.

In most cases Aperture is the critical choice. In those cases I will be in aperture priority with the camera set to an auto ISO range. In that case the camera will make exactly the same choices I would make. It will trade ISO first, then it will trade SS. To adjust for variances in subject I change metering mode or EC. Usually the only thing I have to do is change metering mode. Again, I'm giving on ISO first because that's what I care the least about.

If you can give on ISO first in full manual as quickly as you can SS/aperture, then great. If not I would suggest that my method is probably "better". It is for me.

As for the dynamic spot metering...ok, but I have good results. Not perfect, but good. If the metering is off, so is the focus. I much more often have auto focus issues than I have exposure issues with BIF. (I don't find trap/zone focus a suitable alternative for BIF) This is an area I am still working on as I have not found a great solution.

I did admit to having many more images using center weighted metering than spot, but I also have many more images taken w/ a D200/D300 than my current D3.

We don't have to agree, but I'm not an idiot. I learned manual mode when that's all there was and I could even get decent results from my FM when the battery froze and the meter died.

[Steven Kersting]

Steve; can you explain to me why you need a meter at all in manual exposure? In manual exposure you are not compensating for anything.

regards~Bill

What do you use as your starting point for exposure? How do you know if you have enough compensation set?

I suppose you could start with "f/16, SS=ISO". I had to do that on more than a few occasions *a long time ago*....

[Geoff Warnock]

Steven, nicely explained. Perhaps it is your point, but I would not consider using AutoISO in manual mode 'working manually', in fact I think it's near the same level as using aperture priority - the camera is choosing your exposure by altering ISO.

I too use Nikon, and have used autoISO, but mainly for indoor people photography. It's a useful tool, though I rarely use it lately.

I too also use manual when the background is changing, or in a tough exposure situation (sports - rugby - where one team is in a light coloured strip with the other in black for example) but tend to use Av with some exp compensation whenever possible otherwise. As Artie says - I find it faster.

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

Let me repeat; too fast a shutter-speed will not effect image quality. This gives you any shutter-speed above the the minimum to work with, and any exposure can be achieved with right or left clicks with one just one thumb wheel. Basically you start with a faster speed than you need, reduce toward the motion blur point to increase exposure, and go the other way to decrease exposure. Need more light and you've reached the minimum shutter-speed? Just up the ISO and start over; a higher SS than you need and right or left clicks with the SS thumbwheel as needed.
The starting point is determined with the histogram.
You will always have both the minimum SS and the DOF you need. No errors, no surprises. Being comfortable with higher ISOs and an understanding of digital noise and how it can be minimized becomes important and quite useful with this type of exposure.
So is there anything wrong with this method? Also I can't imagine that this is an original idea.

regards~Bill

That might work in Florida or southern California. In the Northeast in winter and shade, I doubt it. There's just not enough light. Even shooting at the maximum ISO I can plausibly use on my camera (800), I pretty much need to be at wide open aperture (f/4 or f/5.6 depending on lens) to hope to get *up* to the desired shutter speed. Coming down to that speed is not an option. Shutter speeds range from about 1/60 to 1/800. If the sun actually deigns to come out, and I'm not shooting under trees, then I'll drop the ISO to 400, and maybe then if I'm still getting shutter speeds over 1/1000 I'll consider manual exposure.

At more southerly latitudes, or in summer, it's not hard to get enough sun to shoot at 1/1250 and f/11. There you're right that you do have a lot more room to play with the shutter speed. I don't meter the same way in southern Texas I do in southern New York, especially not in winter. But 9-10 months out of the year up here in New York the only plausible aperture is wide open, especially for handheld cameras or moving subjects. That value is essentially fixed no matter what metering mode you use. And at that maximum aperture, I'm taking the best shutter speed I can get, not picking the one I want. :-(

[Greg Basco]

Interesting discussion all around on this thread. I would simply add that choice of modes may differ according to what and where one is photographing.

I shoot full-time in tropical rainforests and, as Eliotte implies above, that is another place that is quite different from the kinds of things and the kind of environment in which many posters on this thread apparently are shooting.

I shoot about half the time in manual mode with spot metering and half the time in aperture priority with evaluative metering. As Chas and Arthur have stressed, understanding what's going on and then knowing when to use what to get what you want in your image is the key.

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Steven Kersting]

Steven, nicely explained. Perhaps it is your point, but I would not consider using AutoISO in manual mode 'working manually', in fact I think it's near the same level as using aperture priority - the camera is choosing your exposure by altering ISO.


Yes, it is my point. I seldom ever use full manual because I prefer to change ISO first. But the camera is not choosing my exposure. I am choosing my exposure and allowing the camera to maintain it by altering ISO. If I need to change the exposure the camera is maintaining I'll use EC or a different metering pattern.

My point, which I think many may be missing, is that I am not giving up control to the camera. I am choosing settings so that the camera makes the exact same choices I would make and I don't have to. The more confined the goals/subject the more confined my settings are, up to the point of occasional full manual (no auto ISO).

Let me give another example. I set my base settings to give the desired exposure and because the lighting is pretty flat I add some EC. Now, if I swing into a darker scene (tree line) or a distinctly lighter scene (water/ dry reeds) the auto ISO will automatically keep the same exposure and I don't have to do anything. If you are in full manual you have to change something.
If it is a dark subject/light background then all I have to do is change metering mode. If you are in full manual you have to change something as well, but you also have to estimate the required offset which will probably be less accurate (or also change metering mode).

I am fully admitting that my methods will not always give ideal exposure SOOC, but I also almost never get an unusable exposure. If I have the time to fine tune a manual exposure I also have the time to fine tune an auto exposure (auto ISO in Manual mode probably).

I find my methods work better for me than full manual in most instances. I have never said auto anything is better than full manual. But I do say manual is definitely not "better" than auto settings if auto is used properly. (manual is easier to understand though)

[Desmond Chan]

I set my base settings to give the desired exposure and because the lighting is pretty flat

Say on a cloudy day with a scene that has nothing particularly bright or dark around, Steven? The suggested reading by the exposure meter should work well here without any compensation adjustment needed at all, I'd say, as it sounds like it's an "average" scene here, kind of like shooting a big 18% grey card.


I add some EC. So you choose to over-expose? All right then, the shadow would appear not as dark and bright areas become brighter.


Now, if I swing into a darker scene (tree line) Without any EC the darker scene will appears lighter than it should be in the final photo and so, -EC should be used to render the final image darker as it should be.


or a distinctly lighter scene (water/ dry reeds) Without any EC the lighter scene will appear darker than it should be in the final photo and so + EC should be used to render the final image as bright as the actual scene should look like.


the auto ISO will automatically keep the same exposure You mean the aperture and the shutter speed stay the same as before? I'd agree as the camera is now adjusting the ISO instead. I don't think the exposure -- exposure value -- is the same though; the exposure value of, say, f2.8 1/250s ISO 400 is not the same as f2.8 1/250s ISO 800. It's one stop difference there.

Also, as you have add some EC -- I assume you mean + EC -- and you does not adjust the EC afterward even though you are facing two different scenes, i.e., one darker and one brighter. I'd say only one of the resulting photos would have the exposure closer to the "correct" one and the other shot would have its exposure off by quite a bit.


I am fully admitting that my methods will not always give ideal exposure SOOC, If the above describe how you actually work, it appears to me -- I'm guessing -- more than half of the time you'd have your exposure off :S3:


but I also almost never get an unusable exposure. Well, these days, a bit off in exposure could be rescued in post-processing. Actually, it has always been like that only that back then, you fixed that when developing the film and during printing in the dark-room.

[Charles Glatzer]

Steven,

With the best of intentions....

My final suggestion is to wipe the slate clean and completely start over with a class on exposure fundamentals. I find your understanding, rational, and workflow flawed and beyond bizarre.

Warm Regards, and good images

Chas

[WIlliam Maroldo]

That might work in Florida or southern California. In the Northeast in winter and shade, I doubt it. There's just not enough light. Even shooting at the maximum ISO I can plausibly use on my camera (800), I pretty much need to be at wide open aperture (f/4 or f/5.6 depending on lens) to hope to get *up* to the desired shutter speed. Coming down to that speed is not an option. Shutter speeds range from about 1/60 to 1/800. If the sun actually deigns to come out, and I'm not shooting under trees, then I'll drop the ISO to 400, and maybe then if I'm still getting shutter speeds over 1/1000 I'll consider manual exposure.

At more southerly latitudes, or in summer, it's not hard to get enough sun to shoot at 1/1250 and f/11. There you're right that you do have a lot more room to play with the shutter speed. I don't meter the same way in southern Texas I do in southern New York, especially not in winter. But 9-10 months out of the year up here in New York the only plausible aperture is wide open, especially for handheld cameras or moving subjects. That value is essentially fixed no matter what metering mode you use. And at that maximum aperture, I'm taking the best shutter speed I can get, not picking the one I want. :-(

Elliot, an interesting point, and one I was thinking about since it occurred to me that the lighting conditions I shoot under might be what make manual exposure particularly effective and reliable.
As you have explained it, ISO is your limiting factor.

I may live in a southern climate, but I limit my photography to cloudy, overcast, and even rainy days if I can keep the camera dry. I avoid sunny cloudless days, some would say obsessively. This is because the advantages of low contrast light (overcast, etc) outweigh, by a considerable margin IMO, any advantages of shooting in high contrast light (bright sunny days). . However, as we decrease contrast we are also working with less light, and need higher ISOs.


My working ISO limit is ISO 3200, and I'd guess 20% of the time I use it. Mostly ISO 1000-1600. And this has little to do with the camera I am using, which is by no means a high ISO superstar (Sony A850).
None of this would be possible without the use of "exposing to the right" or pushing exposure as I usually refer to it, and since the ability is to push exposure, and not clip the highlights, corresponds directly to the contrast of the light, the lower the contrast, the higher the ISO that will produce acceptable results. .
I guarantee that if I do not push exposure at ISO 3200 the resulting image will be garbage, and I suspect that many who have visible proof that their camera has a useable ISO limit of lets say ISO 800 when they expose normally, have not tried to "expose to the right".
Again, the key is the contrast of the light.
As I read this it occurred to me I didn't explain why exposing to the right works to reduce digital noise.
In a nutshell, digital noise occurs mainly in the darker parts of an image. If you avoid capturing the darker parts of an image by increasing exposure (exposing to the right), then restore to the correct exposure in post-processing, you reduce digital noise.
regards~Bill

[Geoff Warnock]

Hi Bill, interesting reading from you too, but the fact you can talk about exposing to the right and purposely using overcast days suggests to me that your overcast is some peoples 'blindingly bright'!

From my personal perspective, I'm frequently amazed by the quoted exposures given here on BPN, while people say it was the last of the evening light, or a very overcast day. Here in Belgium this winter we had about 4 months of almost non-stop overcast weather. I was lucky if I could get 1/200th at f5.6 and iso 3200 for a dull exposure, so exposing the right would take me to very low shutter speeds for small birds at 400mm. Even now with great (for people at least) sunny weather, my exposure is around 1/500th at f8 iso400. The realms of shutter speeds 1/2000th and shorter are very rarely found at these latitudes, unfortunately.

Anyway, I'm straying away from the discussion about manual mode, though I can say I used full manual mode, with manual focus, for some remote camera shots of my shy garden birds!

[Roger Clark]

As I read this it occurred to me I didn't explain why exposing to the right works to reduce digital noise.
In a nutshell, digital noise occurs mainly in the darker parts of an image. If you avoid capturing the darker parts of an image by increasing exposure (exposing to the right), then restore to the correct exposure in post-processing, you reduce digital noise.
regards~Bill

Bill,
Actually as one exposes to the right noise increases! But signal increases more. So our perception is that noise is reduced. We perceive signal-to-noise ratio. Most of the noise we see in our digital camera images is due to photon noise (Poisson counting statistics from counting photons over the short time interval-our exposure time). Photon noise is the square root of the photons collected.

As we increase ISO we are not changing the actual sensitivity of the sensor, only a post sensor amplification. Above about ISO 400 to 800 one is digitizing a small enough photon range that the A/D converters are digitizing pretty much all the real signal there is to digitize. So one can shoot at say ISO 800 (or 1600) and set the exposure one wants (thus "underexposing") and bring the brightness up in post processing. The advantage here is that one has a greater dynamic range at the lower ISO. The disadvantage is the LCD display is a little dark.

Expose to the right is important only for lower ISOs where one needs to maximize signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range.

For example, say you determine the correct exposure is 1/500 second at f/4, ISO 3200. Well, image at 1/500 second, f/4, ISO 1600 (or 1/500 second, f/4, ISO 800). You get a whole stop (or 2 stops) of headroom and dynamic range. In each exposure (1/55 at f/4, ISO 800, 1600, 3200) the signal-to-noise ratio on the subject is the same.

The above is true for newer cameras (less than about 3 years old that have good low level response without a lot of fixed pattern noise.

Roger

[Steven Kersting]

Desmond.

Everything you are saying is correct. Except for the exposure being "off". That comes down to whether you want a dark scene to be dark ("correct") and a light scene to be light (again "correct") based upon an average metering, or if you would rather have a dark scene lightened and a light scene toned down. I would generally choose the latter.

[Steven Kersting]

Steven,

With the best of intentions....

My final suggestion is to wipe the slate clean and completely start over with a class on exposure fundamentals. I find your understanding, rational, and workflow flawed and beyond bizarre.

Warm Regards, and good images

Chas


Ok, here's my "class on the exposure triangle".

http://skguitar.com/exposureTriangle.html (http://skguitar.com/exposureTriangle.html)

I created this based upon the "sunny 16 rule". (Max the light level out for "sunny day" ISO 100, f/16, 1/125 will give correct exposure)

[Roger Clark]

the auto ISO will automatically keep the same exposure




You mean the aperture and the shutter speed stay the same as before? I'd agree as the camera is now adjusting the ISO instead. I don't think the exposure -- exposure value -- is the same though; the exposure value of, say, f2.8 1/250s ISO 400 is not the same as f2.8 1/250s ISO 800. It's one stop difference there.

Yes, Steven is correct. Changing ISO when f/ratio and exposure time are held constant does not change exposure. ISO does not change the amount of light captured by the sensor, it only changes the level the A/D digitizes. See my other post in this thread from a few minutes ago.

Once one is above about ISO 800, there really is no difference (on newer good cameras) on the recorded image. Say one needs ISO 3200 at 1/500 second, f/4. One can set manual mode ISO 800, 1/500 second, f/4 and image forever (as long as the light doesn't get too bright) and brighten the image in post processing. The advantage is one has a higher dynamic range (2 stops in the example given). The disadvantage is the image will be dim in the LCD.

Roger

[Peter Hawrylyshyn]

Roger -
You've lost me. I see a white egret on a dull overcast day. By checking the histogram to make sure i'm protecting my whites : determine optimal exposure at ISO 3200 , 1/500 at F4. Why would I ever want to drop to ISO 800 1/500 F4 thereby shifting my image to the left?

I thought the idea was to shift to the right to optimize the amount of digital information you'll capture whether in Manual or Priority modes

[Desmond Chan]

Yes, Steven is correct. Changing ISO when f/ratio and exposure time are held constant does not change exposure. ISO does not change the amount of light captured by the sensor, it only changes the level the A/D digitizes. See my other post in this thread from a few minutes ago.

Once one is above about ISO 800, there really is no difference (on newer good cameras) on the recorded image. Say one needs ISO 3200 at 1/500 second, f/4. One can set manual mode ISO 800, 1/500 second, f/4 and image forever (as long as the light doesn't get too bright) and brighten the image in post processing. The advantage is one has a higher dynamic range (2 stops in the example given). The disadvantage is the image will be dim in the LCD.

Roger

So, the exposure value of ISO 3200 1/500s f4 is the same as ISO 800 1/500s f4 and also is the same as ISO 200 1/500s f4?

OK, it's something new here, Roger. So, what is exposure?

Traditionally, the above settings all give different exposure as we the mortals or most of us would understand it. If we look at the resulting photos straight off the camera (film or sensor), I believe we can all see the different among them: they don't look the same. Based on what you say, it seems to suggest that as long as they can be fixed in post-processing and get to the same or closely the same look, they actually all have the same exposure? And the fact that it can be done shows that they have the same exposure?

I could agree though that a bit off in exposure can be fixed in post-processing (or development and printing in the old days). But then what I just said is wrong, too, since, based on what you said, there is no such thing as a bit off in exposure at all !? Or are we just playing with words here?

[Desmond Chan]

Desmond.

Everything you are saying is correct. Except for the exposure being "off". That comes down to whether you want a dark scene to be dark ("correct") and a light scene to be light (again "correct") based upon an average metering, or if you would rather have a dark scene lightened and a light scene toned down. I would generally choose the latter.

And I'm referring to what most people would want in general, i.e., not turning a night scene photo into daylight shot :S3:

[Geoff Warnock]

I'm intrigued by what you're saying now Roger, and I can immediately see a use (choose a higher shutter speed to control motion, therby underexposing in camera, but brightening in processing).

My understanding up to now was that brightening an image in post would increase the perception of noise - is this no longer true?

Presumably at some point you do lose information to black once you drop out of the dynamic range of the sensor - so is about a 2-stop underexposure the sensible limit, or is this highly sensor (camera) dependent?

[Roger Clark]

My understanding up to now was that brightening an image in post would increase the perception of noise - is this no longer true?

Geoff,
Above about ISO 800 this has never been true. The problem with older cameras (more than about 3 years) there was larger fixed pattern noise and larger read noise. Fixed pattern noise still exists, but is greatly reduced as is read noise. So once you are up to about ISO 800, there is effectively no difference in signal-to-noise ratio from highlights to deepest shadows.




Presumably at some point you do lose information to black once you drop out of the dynamic range of the sensor - so is about a 2-stop underexposure the sensible limit, or is this highly sensor (camera) dependent?

With a good camera once you get above about ISO 800, you can boost in post processing. For example, ISO 1600 versus 100,000: you'l get the same results if the f/ratio and exposure times are the same. People tend to think of higher ISO delivering shorter exposure time, which means less light captured, so apparent noise goes up. But it is the less exposure time, not the ISO affecting the noise. So if you keep exposure time and f/ratio the same, it does not matter what the iso is above about ISO 800.

Detail sensor perfoemance at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/

Roger

[Mike Milicia]

Roger, I understand that there will be no difference regarding the amount of light that is collected at the sensor for the following two exposure settings : 1/500, f/5.6 ISO 800 and 1/500 f/5.6 ISO 3200. The only difference between these two settings is the amount of hardware amplification that will be done to the image data in the camera AFTER the shutter closes. Since the amount of light collected is the same in both cases, the amount of inherent noise in the initially captured data will be identical. With the ISO 800 image, you will have to boost the exposure by 2 stops in the RAW converter to get the image to look the same as the ISO 3200 image. Which ISO is "better" comes down to who does a better job of maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio during the post-capture amplification, the camera's hardware amplifier or the the RAW converter software. The "Expose to the Right" methodology is about maximizing the amount of light collected at the sensor. This is only affected by the aperture and shutter speed, so leaving those two things the same and just increasing the ISO to "expose to the right" is not really buying you anything. Lowering the ISO will generally reduce noise but only because you also then use a slower shutter speed or larger aperture which will mean that the sensor will collect more light. Increasing the ISO will generally increase noise but most of the increase in noise is due to the fact that you also then use a faster shutter speed or smaller aperture will mean that the sensor will collect less light.

Assuming the above is correct (probably a big assumption so please elaborate or correct as needed), I still have a couple of questions about your recent posts :

1 - Are you saying that on the latest cameras, ISO 800 is the point at which the signal-to-noise ratio of the end result becomes the same between increasing it further in camera or boosting the exposure in the RAW converter? Is this true of all the latest cameras? Does it matter what RAW converter you use? How did you arrive at ISO 800?

2 - You state in your example that reducing the ISO to 800 (vs. 3200) and underexposing by two stops gives you two more stops of headroom and dynamic range? How is that the case if I have to boost the exposure in the ISO 800 image by 2 stops in RAW conversion anyway?

Thanks for your help.

P.S.
Even thought the amount of light collected at the sensor at image capture time is the same in both cases, I would still consider 1/500, f/5.6 ISO 800 and 1/500 f/5.6 ISO 3200 to be two different "exposures" since the resulting RAW file data will be different. Also, since there are situations where ISO 3200 would result in unrecoverable blown highlights and ISO 800 would not, it is hard for me to call them the same "exposure".

[Roger Clark]

Roger -
You've lost me. I see a white egret on a dull overcast day. By checking the histogram to make sure i'm protecting my whites : determine optimal exposure at ISO 3200 , 1/500 at F4. Why would I ever want to drop to ISO 800 1/500 F4 thereby shifting my image to the left?

I thought the idea was to shift to the right to optimize the amount of digital information you'll capture whether in Manual or Priority modes


So, the exposure value of ISO 3200 1/500s f4 is the same as ISO 800 1/500s f4 and also is the same as ISO 200 1/500s f4?

OK, it's something new here, Roger. So, what is exposure?

Exposure is the amount of light captured by the sensor. When we change f/ratio or exposure time, we change the amount of light on the sensor. Many, many concepts from film days need to be thrown out the window. ISO is one of them. ISO does not change the amount of light the sensor captures. Digital (electronic) sensors have only one sensitivity (set by the quantum efficiency). (Film is similar, but different--another story.) ISO changes the range over which the signal from the sensor is digitized. Because of the fast readout requirements of photography, the A/D converters only have a dynamic range of 11 to 12 stops. Digital DSLR sensors have 14 or more stops. At low ISO, the noise in the shadows is dominated by noise from the A/D converters, not the sensor. Once gain is increased about 3 stops or more from the minimum ISO, the A/D can cover the range just fine. That is why once we go from ISO 100 to 800 the A/D can now cover the range of data from the sensor. Above that and one is wasting dynamic range while not improving the results from the sensor.

So even though in manual mode, one is not "exposing to the right" above ISO 800, one is not losing any data nor is one making the apparent noise worse.



Traditionally, the above settings all give different exposure as we the mortals or most of us would understand it. If we look at the resulting photos straight off the camera (film or sensor), I believe we can all see the different among them: they don't look the same. Based on what you say, it seems to suggest that as long as they can be fixed in post-processing and get to the same or closely the same look, they actually all have the same exposure? And the fact that it can be done shows that they have the same exposure?

I could agree though that a bit off in exposure can be fixed in post-processing (or development and printing in the old days). But then what I just said is wrong, too, since, based on what you said, there is no such thing as a bit off in exposure at all !? Or are we just playing with words here?

Traditionally, as we boost ISO we get shorter exposures, so less light to the sensor. It is the less light that results in more perceived noise, not that ISO increases noise. But working in manual, where we fix exposure time and f/stop, changing ISO above 800 only changes the brightness of the resulting image on the LCD screen and clips the highlights in the recorded data. It doesn't change the noise floor enough to be perceptible (one can measure a tiny difference in controlled laboratory conditions up to about ISO6400 on a 1DIV, for example, when there is no light on the sensor).

In the most difficult low light photography, astrophotography, amateur astronomers typically use a max ISO of 800 or 1600, because going higher just reduces dynamic range with no additional low light benefit. This has been practiced since the Canon 10D era (when was that, 2003??, or many camera generations ago).

What we need for the field is auto LCD image brightness, so if we underexpose at high ISO, we can still see the image on the screen. Then we can see our images in the field and fix brightness in post.

A next big improvement in DSLRs, I predict, is better A/Ds so we don't need ISO at all. With autoscaling on the LCD brightness, as long as we don't clip at minimum ISO, then all data get recorded from the sensor and we can choose an effective ISO (brightness) in post processing, like we can choose white balance now in post.

But until then, above about ISO 800, we are effectively there in terms of getting everything from the sensor. Just work in manual and cap ISO at 800 or 1600. The problem is reviewing images on the LCD.

Roger

[Roger Clark]

Roger, I understand that there will be no difference regarding the amount of light that is collected at the sensor for the following two exposure settings : 1/500, f/5.6 ISO 800 and 1/500 f/5.6 ISO 3200. The only difference between these two settings is the amount of hardware amplification that will be done to the image data in the camera AFTER the shutter closes. Since the amount of light collected is the same in both cases, the amount of inherent noise in the initially captured data will be identical. With the ISO 800 image, you will have to boost the exposure by 2 stops in the RAW converter to get the image to look the same as the ISO 3200 image. Which ISO is "better" comes down to who does a better job of maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio during the post-capture amplification, the camera's hardware amplifier or the the RAW converter software. The "Expose to the Right" methodology is about maximizing the amount of light collected at the sensor. This is only affected by the aperture and shutter speed, so leaving those two things the same and just increasing the ISO to "expose to the right" is not really buying you anything. Lowering the ISO will generally reduce noise but only because you also then use a slower shutter speed or larger aperture which will mean that the sensor will collect more light. Increasing the ISO will generally increase noise but most of the increase in noise is due to the fact that you also then use a faster shutter speed or smaller aperture will mean that the sensor will collect less light.

Yes, that is correct.




Assuming the above is correct (probably a big assumption so please elaborate or correct as needed), I still have a couple of questions about your recent posts :

1 - Are you saying that on the latest cameras, ISO 800 is the point at which the signal-to-noise ratio of the end result becomes the same between increasing it further in camera or boosting the exposure in the RAW converter? Is this true of all the latest cameras? Does it matter what RAW converter you use? How did you arrive at ISO 800?


It might be dependent on raw converters, but these days most are doing a very good job. For example, it depends on the internal math used. As dynamic range approaches 14+ bits, 16-bit math will be a limitation and will limit results. There will be a need to switch to 32-bit integers or 32-bit floating point. For example, this page:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/raw.converter.shadow.detail/

shows the difference between an older version of photoshop versus a 32-bit floating point raw conversion in ImagesPlus. I need to update the page and see what CS5 delivers.





2 - You state in your example that reducing the ISO to 800 (vs. 3200) and underexposing by two stops gives you two more stops of headroom and dynamic range? How is that the case if I have to boost the exposure in the ISO 800 image by 2 stops in RAW conversion anyway?

See, for example, figure 5b at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/

look at the 5D Mark IV. At ISO 800 the dynamic range is 11 stops, and then after ISO 1600 is follows a log-linear line down. The A/D converter is digitzing all the way to the sensor noise floor at ISO 1600 and above. So increasing gain is no longer helping to lower the noise floor but is hurting the highlights.





P.S.
Even thought the amount of light collected at the sensor at image capture time is the same in both cases, I would still consider 1/500, f/5.6 ISO 800 and 1/500 f/5.6 ISO 3200 to be two different "exposures" since the resulting RAW file data will be different. Also, since there are situations where ISO 3200 would result in unrecoverable blown highlights and ISO 800 would not, it is hard for me to call them the same "exposure".

I agree this is the traditional view, but it is incorrect. It is incorrect because the amount of light (true exposure) collected is the same. It is no different than changing exposure in the raw converter. If you boost the brightness in the raw conversion by one stop, do you then report a stop higher ISO?

Roger

[Mike Milicia]

For example, this page:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/raw.converter.shadow.detail/

shows the difference between an older version of photoshop versus a 32-bit floating point raw conversion in ImagesPlus. I need to update the page and see what CS5 delivers.

See, for example, figure 5b at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/


Thanks, Roger! I guess I have some reading to do. :w3





I agree this is the traditional view, but it is incorrect. It is incorrect because the amount of light (true exposure) collected is the same. It is no different than changing exposure in the raw converter. If you boost the brightness in the raw conversion by one stop, do you then report a stop higher ISO?

No, I don't typically indicate changes to the Exposure in RAW conversion at all but it would make good sense to do so and we probably should. You make a good point that reporting it as a higher or lower "effective" ISO would be a sensible way to do it but it might be easier to just indicate the change independently as a fourth parameter.

[Desmond Chan]

Digital (electronic) sensors have only one sensitivity (set by the quantum efficiency).

All right.


So even though in manual mode, one is not "exposing to the right" above ISO 800, one is not losing any data nor is one making the apparent noise worse. So exposing to the right does not exist even though we "over expose", or in other words there's no what we traditionally called over-exposure at all after "ISO" 800 given the same f stop and shutter speed?




In the most difficult low light photography, astrophotography, amateur astronomers typically use a max ISO of 800 or 1600, because going higher just reduces dynamic range with no additional low light benefit. This has been practiced since the Canon 10D era (when was that, 2003??, or many camera generations ago). Is that true for camera of other brands, too?

[Desmond Chan]

I agree this is the traditional view, but it is incorrect. It is incorrect because the amount of light (true exposure) collected is the same.

I could agree technically it's incorrect given what you said.


It is no different than changing exposure in the raw converter. If you boost the brightness in the raw conversion by one stop, do you then report a stop higher ISO? Although most don't report it, but wouldn't that be essentially the same as in doing it through the camera? That's what I've been thinking anyway.

And, how do you teach and communicate with others about exposure in photography? Do you still use the concepts of stops and exposure value? Do f2.8 1/500s ISO 400 still have different exposure values than f2.8 1/500s ISO 1600?

[Roger Clark]

Although most don't report it, but wouldn't that be essentially the same as in doing it through the camera? That's what I've been thinking anyway.

And, how do you teach and communicate with others about exposure in photography? Do you still use the concepts of stops and exposure value? Do f2.8 1/500s ISO 400 still have different exposure values than f2.8 1/500s ISO 1600?

Hi Desmond,

Yes, post processing increasing exposure (above ISO 800) is effectively the same as doing it in camera. But in post, one can decide how much so watch for clipping highlights. Thus one has more control.

"Do f2.8 1/500s ISO 400 still have different exposure values than f2.8 1/500s ISO 1600?"

No, they are the same exposure, as you delivered the same amount of light to the sensor. Over most of the dynamic range, the signal-to-noise ratio will be the same. In the stop closest to zero intensity, the ISO 400 image will have a little more noise because the A/D converter noise will be a factor. In the best cameras, that would be difficult to see in practice.

Roger

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

Very interesting. Let's see if we can boil this down to practical field rules.

First, which cameras are "modern" cameras? I assume the 7D, 60D, and 1D Mark IV all qualify. How about the 50D, 5D Mark II, and 1D Mark III? Any Rebels?

Second, assuming one has such a modern camera, you are recommending that one set the ISO to 800 and leave it there, correct?

Third, now suppose my camera is at ISO 800 and f/4. How do I determine the correct shutter speed? Do I aim at a neutral gray target and then underexpose two stops from what the camera thinks is the correct exposure?

[Roger Clark]

Very interesting. Let's see if we can boil this down to practical field rules.

First, which cameras are "modern" cameras? I assume the 7D, 60D, and 1D Mark IV all qualify. How about the 50D, 5D Mark II, and 1D Mark III? Any Rebels?

Hi Elliotte,
Yes, the 7D, 60D, and 1dIV qualify, as does the 5DII and T2i. The T1i and 50D maybe, but I need to see the sensor data to be sure. Nikons of similar vintage also qualify. Probably also Sony's (as Nikon uses Sony sensors).



Second, assuming one has such a modern camera, you are recommending that one set the ISO to 800 and leave it there, correct?

Not at all. What I was saying is that if you work in manual and you need an exposure time that would meter at a higher ISO than 800, then you really do not need to increase the ISO. Cap it at ISO 800 or 1600 and if underexposed, correct in post processing.



Third, now suppose my camera is at ISO 800 and f/4. How do I determine the correct shutter speed? Do I aim at a neutral gray target and then underexpose two stops from what the camera thinks is the correct exposure?

Let's try this example. Say you are at your fastest opening (f/4) and you want a shutter speed of 1/1000 second to freeze the action. Imaging a gray card, or similar, your light meter says you need ISO 6400 to get that 1/1000 second. I'm saying that if you are working in manual, set the camera to f/4, 1/1000 second and cap ISO to no more than about 1600. That gives the same exposure and same noise as imaging at ISO 6400, f/4, 1/1000 second, but gives you 2 stops of headroom.

Now if you can get your 1/1000 second f/4 exposure at a lower ISO (say the meter says you get this at ISO 100), then by all means use the lower ISO because the higher ISO (e.g. 800) would cause too much saturation. If you only need 1/1000 second to freeze action, don't go faster as you capture less light resulting in lower signal-to-noise ratios.

Expose to the right is really about longest exposure time and/or fastest f/ratio to deliver the most light, not ISO.

Roger

[Roger Clark]

All right.

So exposing to the right does not exist even though we "over expose", or in other words there's no what we traditionally called over-exposure at all after "ISO" 800 given the same f stop and shutter speed?

Desmond, yes that is correct, given the same f/stop and shutter speed.



Is that true for camera of other brands, too?

Yes. However, some data for the latest Nikons seem to show that the Nikon A/Ds have better performance than the Canons. I say seem to show, because I have not seen the definitive data to prove this (e.g. Nikon raw data may not be as "raw" as one might hope). If the performance is true, then with some Nikons the ISO where one is digitizing the sensor read noise well is below ISO 800, perhaps even ISO 400 (this is good).

Roger

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

Hi Elliotte,
Let's try this example. Say you are at your fastest opening (f/4) and you want a shutter speed of 1/1000 second to freeze the action. Imaging a gray card, or similar, your light meter says you need ISO 6400 to get that 1/1000 second. I'm saying that if you are working in manual, set the camera to f/4, 1/1000 second and cap ISO to no more than about 1600. That gives the same exposure and same noise as imaging at ISO 6400, f/4, 1/1000 second, but gives you 2 stops of headroom.


OK. Assume I'm imaging at f/4, 1/1000 second and ISO 1600 when the meter suggests 6400. The "2 stops of headroom" mean what exactly? Simply that my raw converter needs to add two stops? Or is there something more?

If I understand it, in this situation the JPEG preview will look way underexposed, but the final image after mechanically adding +2 in the raw converter should be as good or better as the image had I shot at 6400 in the first place.

[Roger Clark]

OK. Assume I'm imaging at f/4, 1/1000 second and ISO 1600 when the meter suggests 6400. The "2 stops of headroom" mean what exactly? Simply that my raw converter needs to add two stops? Or is there something more?

That is correct. But the advantage is that in case there was a highlight that you wanted you could add only 1.5 stps in the raw converter and not saturate those highlights which would have happened if you had set the camera to ISO 6400.




If I understand it, in this situation the JPEG preview will look way underexposed, but the final image after mechanically adding +2 in the raw converter should be as good or better as the image had I shot at 6400 in the first place.

It will not be better regarding signal-to-noise ratio, but if you had highlights, you can get the best "exposure" in post processing and not saturate those highlights. In that case, you can get a better image. If you sim[ply add the two stops, then the image will effectively be the same as if you imaged at ISO 6400.

Here is a situation where I always use this method: night scenes, and in particular, night scenes with stars. For example, with a 30 second exposure of a scene with stars, I'll never go above ISO 1600. The advantage is that more of the brighter stars are not saturated, so retain their colors. In post processing I do not use levels; I use curves to increase brightness. Often I image such scenes at ISO 400 and fix brightness in post.

The disadvantage is that the jpeg and LCD preview is dark. So I may boost ISO to take a test image so I can see I have composition like I want it, then go back to ISO 1600 for the main images.

Another example: low light images at a party. With lights in the room, light levels vary a lot, but if the metering says it will always be above ISO 1600 for a fast enough shutter speed, I go to manual, set aperture and shutter speed, ISO 1600 and image away.

Roger

[Steven Kersting]

Yes, Steven is correct. Changing ISO when f/ratio and exposure time are held constant does not change exposure. ISO does not change the amount of light captured by the sensor, it only changes the level the A/D digitizes.
Roger

LOL, while this is technically correct, it is not what I was trying to say. I was saying that when using auto ISO an overall dark scene will be lightened and an overall light scene will be darkened which is generally what is desired.

Yesterday I went and shot a "car show". Lighting was everything from bright midday sunlight to dark under tent. Light pink Thunderbirds in the sunlight and black Cadillacs under tent. The only setting I changed was switching from CH to CL so I could snap single shots. I took about 40 images and only about 4 were "bad". Those 4 were due to either getting too low a SS that I couldn't handhold (no tripod, not worth going above ISO 1600...suppose I could have taken the CPL off :e3 ) and one in which the dynamic range was just excessive (no tripod, not worth HDR/image blending).
(I had many others I am not so happy with either due to BG or reflections (the cars were on top of each other and people were everywhere) which I recognized at the time but I was hoping the "fix" would be easier.) Basically, I was able to spend the afternoon focused on composition/lighting/adjusting the CPL and not worrying about my exposure.

As for the ISO discussion:
*I* though the only "real" ISO for a camera was it's native/base (200 in my case) and not "up to approximately 800." I also understand that for absolute best image quality you should stay with "base ISO" and use full stop increments up to about ISO 800/1600. Not that the camera is changing the amount of light actually captured up to that point, but that it does a great job of adjusting the exposure up to that point.

Given the need I will use higher ISO's in brighter light (1600+), and lower ISO in lower light (1600 and under). In average lighting I use 200-800 without concern.

[Peter Hawrylyshyn]

Roger
In Pane#94 you gave the example of the brown bear against the white water. You set up in Manual mode checking against the white water.

If the brown bear now moved onto a dark grey stone shore against dark green grass (ie - only dark and midtones left in the image), and the lighting & sun angle have not changed - would you adjust the exposure settings (F stop or SS) on your camera to improve the "noise" in darkest parts of the image before taking the image? Most "guru's" say the answer should be yes, but after reading the above, no longer so sure.

How dependent is the answer on your ISO setting?

Could you achieve the same effect in post processing by just adjusting the exposure setting in RAW convertor? Asked another way - how critical is the exposure compensation Artie, Charles, and others recommend while taking the photo given today's sensors and RAW converters?

[Desmond Chan]

Exposure is the amount of light captured by the sensor. When we change f/ratio or exposure time, we change the amount of light on the sensor. Many, many concepts from film days need to be thrown out the window. ISO is one of them. ISO does not change the amount of light the sensor captures.

The amount of light that reaches the sensor or film is always controlled by the size of the aperture and how long the shutter stays open. The sensor or the film just receives light passively. As far as I know, film ISO number is a way to tell us how sensitive the film is to light. With sensor, it's post sensor amplification (is it still "amplification" when we lower the ISO?). So, although the way we understand ISO number may need to be changed, but the use of ISO number could still be useful as a way to communicate to most of us "something has changed" ...at least up to a certain extent :w3

[Steven Kersting]

The amount of light that reaches the sensor or film is always controlled by the size of the aperture and how long the shutter stays open. The sensor or the film just receives light passively. As far as I know, film ISO number is a way to tell us how sensitive the film is to light. With sensor, it's post sensor amplification (is it still "amplification" when we lower the ISO?). So, although the way we understand ISO number may need to be changed, but the use of ISO number could still be useful as a way to communicate to most of us "something has changed" ...at least up to a certain extent :w3

My take on it is it's not amplification if you are at the base ISO, above that yes. Additionally, full stops of ISO only use the A/D converter while "in between" ISO's rely on the processor for "fuzzy math". (Not always that great and no way to prevent it when using auto ISO.)

I do think ISO is relevant information, certainly up to the point of max benefit and further as information to evaluate improper use of ISO or poor exposure SOOC due to ISO selection.

It is odd, but I am much more comfortable using high ISO in good light and lower ISO in poorer light. But I will generally sacrifice SS in poorer light; I haven't found a post solution that really works significantly better than increasing ISO in-camera. Maybe image stacking for certain subjects (not that I've looked very hard).

[Desmond Chan]

I do think ISO is relevant information, certainly up to the point of max benefit and further as information to evaluate improper use of ISO or poor exposure SOOC due to ISO selection.

It is odd, but I am much more comfortable using high ISO in good light and lower ISO in poorer light. But I will generally sacrifice SS in poorer light; I haven't found a post solution that really works significantly better than increasing ISO in-camera. Maybe image stacking for certain subjects (not that I've looked very hard).

"Adjusting" exposure in post-processing is not new. Those who have played around in Photoshop likely knew about it. I suppose the better you're with Photoshop, the better will the results be (isn't that obvious?). Here's an example from Artie (scroll down to Sometimes I Even Impress Myself):

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/page/2/


A lot of the time, when something happens and I have no time to change the settings (I use manual 99.9% of the time), I'll just shoot (or move the dial fast and hope for the best) and fix it in post. It works for me quite a few times. I guess it's a way to use the sensor's ability to its utmost (like push/pull development of films in the past and all those dodging and burning to squeeze out everything a printing paper can offer). Anyhow, I likely will do some experimentation and see if the result is really as good as Roger suggested.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

I appreciate the feedback from my posts in this thread by all concerned, and apologize to have drifted off-topic, though the subject of ISO seems to have been prominent. It seems that I have made errors in certain assumptions based on interpretation of images I've taken, and it might be useful to explain why (and of course, admit that I was wrong).
My primary errors involve the effect of ISO on digital noise, and the idea that with the same amount of light , a higher ISO with optimization of the S/N ratio can have less noise that an image at a lower ISO without S/N optimization.
I know I wasn't getting this across very well in my posts, but it was the basis for my thinking. The responses to the idea seemed to suggest that it may be a zero sum gain, and although I thought this might be the case, I started wondering if it may actually be worse than that, and the higher ISO would be a poorer choice.
So I tested the hypothesis. I used a tripod mounted Sony A850 with a Sony 70-400G.
The light remained constant.
Two photographs were taken. The first image was at ISO 400, 1/1000 sec at F5.6 that resulted in a histogram that was mostly showing midrange .
With the second image I raised the ISO 2 stops to ISO 1600, with the same 1/000 sec at F5.6. I made sure there was no highlight clipping or blocked blacks in either image and all other variables remained constant. The histogram showed the 2 stop shift to the right and it read mostly in the high range.
In ACR the exposure of the second image was decreased 2 stops, so the final histograms were roughly the same between the 2 images, although the 2nd image had a somewhat less dynamic range as expected.
So did the 2 images have similar amounts of digital noise?
Two factors worth considering; If you increase from ISO 400 to ISO 1600 there will increase in the amount of digtal noise since the signal is being amplified more, yet if the histogram indicates a more advantageous S/N ratio with the higher ISO, as opposed to the lower ISO, there maybe a decrease in digital noise. Would the amount of noise be similar between the two ISOs? This is assuming that S/N ratios increase from left to right on the histogram, and the closer it is to the right the more it is optimized. Then again, you know the saying about assuming?
The results: They optimized S/N ratio does seem to counteract digital noise, but not enough, and there are other factors. There is also the possibility I am misinterpretting the results.
The higher ISO, after exposure correction, showed more noise than the ISO 400 image, though not alot more and certainly less than ISO 1600 where the histogram didn't show the right shift. This would suggest that S/N optimization had an effect. Nonetheless the image did show more noise. As to be expected noise was most noticeable in darker parts of either image. There was also an increase of detail visible in the darker parts of the higher ISO image. So shadows were opened up a bit. Although more detail was visible it was "noisey detail". However the detail resolution in the lighter parts of the image was considerably worse with the higher ISO image. It is my opinion that this alone completely offsets any advatages of the higher ISO.
Increasing the ISO to create a histogram with a optimized S/N ratio , and correcting exposure in ACR, has a small advantage in that it opens up shadows a bit more, and although the digital noise isn't a whole lot worse, there is an obvious loss of detail in other parts of the higher ISO image.
Verdict; I was wrong and it is overall worse than a zero sum gain.
Second question. Roger made a suggestion concerning underexposure and fixing it in post at high ISOs.
Again, the light source remained constant.
I was wondering what would happen if I underexposed an image by 2 stops at ISO 6400, shot the same image with normal exposure, and one with 2 stops overexposure and then compared the images after the underexposed and overexposed images were corrected in ACR. Same light, same subject, everything identical except the exposure. I was not surprised by the results.
The digital noise of the corrected underexposed image is substantially worse than the normally exposed image, and the corrected overexposed image shows considerably less noise than the normally exposed image,
Sony A850 (same sensor as Nikon D3X)
regards~Bill

[Arthur Morris]

Bill, There is an error in your shutter speeds above; you wrote 1/000 sec. Not sure if that would be really fast or really slow. Heck, didn't they always teach us that you cannot divide by zero. A typo for sure.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Thanks Arthur, fixed the typo. Should be 1/1000. regards ~Bill

[Roger Clark]

I was wondering what would happen if I underexposed an image by 2 stops at ISO 6400, shot the same image with normal exposure, and one with 2 stops overexposure and then compared the images after the underexposed and overexposed images were corrected in ACR. Same light, same subject, everything identical except the exposure. I was not surprised by the results.
The digital noise of the corrected underexposed image is substantially worse than the normally exposed image, and the corrected overexposed image shows considerably less noise than the normally exposed image,


Bill,

A couple of questions. When you changed the settings in ACR to make the images equal, what sliders did you move?

Then, regarding the above quote from your 6400 test, you say you changed exposure. What did you change (shutter speed, f/stop)? What were the settings (f/ratio and shutter speed)?

Roger

[WIlliam Maroldo]

At IS0 6400, obviously in manual mode, I changed the shutter-speed until the meter in the VF showed -2, o, and +2. Actually I didn't keep track of the shutter-speeds, and I thought I had kept the files, but it seems that the overexposed one, which was at 1/5 sec, was all I could find. The f stop was kept at F5.Easy enough to repeat the test, this time keeping track of the shutter speeds. Exposure was adjusted in ACR with the exposure slider only. regards~Bill

[Roger Clark]

At IS0 6400, obviously in manual mode, I changed the shutter-speed until the meter in the VF showed -2, o, and +2. Actually I didn't keep track of the shutter-speeds, and I thought I had kept the files, but it seems that the overexposed one, which was at 1/5 sec, was all I could find. The f stop was kept at F5.Easy enough to repeat the test, this time keeping track of the shutter speeds. Exposure was adjusted in ACR with the exposure slider only. regards~Bill

Hi Bill,
As you changed the shutter speed, you changed the amount of light captured by the sensor, so you changed the signal-to-noise ratio in your iso 6400 test.

In the other test, the results should have been very close to the same IF the ACR exposure slider is linear. I looked at it and it appears close to linear, but seemed slightly non linear. In one test I tried, the green and red histogram peaks changed relative position at I moved the slider, indicating some non-linearity. That might explain the small differences you observed.

Roger

[Roger Clark]

Roger
In Pane#94 you gave the example of the brown bear against the white water. You set up in Manual mode checking against the white water.

If the brown bear now moved onto a dark grey stone shore against dark green grass (ie - only dark and midtones left in the image), and the lighting & sun angle have not changed - would you adjust the exposure settings (F stop or SS) on your camera to improve the "noise" in darkest parts of the image before taking the image? Most "guru's" say the answer should be yes, but after reading the above, no longer so sure.

How dependent is the answer on your ISO setting?

Could you achieve the same effect in post processing by just adjusting the exposure setting in RAW convertor? Asked another way - how critical is the exposure compensation Artie, Charles, and others recommend while taking the photo given today's sensors and RAW converters?

Peter,
Sorry for not answering sooner--too many posts in this thread so I missed it.

It is an interesting question and my answer would be dependent on my intention for the image.

If I wanted the dark bear to appear dark, I would leave the exposure the same.

If I wanted to maximize signal-to-noise ratio, I would lengthen the exposure and expose to the right, assuming the exposure remained short enough to freeze action that I wanted frozen. Then in post processing I could darken the image to show the dark bear, and have better control of noise.

Roger

[Steven Kersting]

As I said earlier, I haven't found (nor really looked for) a method in post that produced significantly better post recovery over just increasing ISO (other than image stacking for certain subjects) I'd love to learn the trick...

The main advantage I see from what Roger noted is the ability to keep a sufficient SS and recover in post, assuming I've hit excessive ISO amplification.....I haven't really explored this yet, but it seems a factor you have "negated"...of course, the significance of this is subject dependent.

My experience is there is much more room for recovery at the overexposed end as opposed to underexposed when working in RAW. And dark areas are easier to "fix" acceptably...

What you are saying tends to support my observations....but I definitely think that camera capabilities really play in here...(many of my methods work for crap w/ a D90/D200)

I'm watching for answers....

[Steven Kersting]

Peter,
Sorry for not answering sooner--too many posts in this thread so I missed it.

It is an interesting question and my answer would be dependent on my intention for the image.

If I wanted the dark bear to appear dark, I would leave the exposure the same.

If I wanted to maximize signal-to-noise ratio, I would lengthen the exposure and expose to the right, assuming the exposure remained short enough to freeze action that I wanted frozen. Then in post processing I could darken the image to show the dark bear, and have better control of noise.

Roger

Aw c'mon, almost no one would keep dark dark (or light light) unless going for an artistic interpretation (high/low key).

I would let auto ISO "fix" the situation for me. EC is only necessary if there is meter confusion or trying to "expose to the right"...choose the right metering mode and EC is not needed.

One thing I can't seem to get across..if I am in A (Av) or S (Tv) modes with the ISO locked down I am still in "full manual" mode. Even if I am in one of those modes with auto ISO settings, if the lighting/scene is constant I am still in "full manual" control. It's when things change unexpectedly that the difference becomes apparent (as in the example given).

ISO gain is always a consideration. And, as I noted earlier, different cameras have different capabilities in dealing with difficult situations

[Todd Frost]

Steven,
As a fellow nikon user and knowing how the auto iso is implemented with these cameras (much different than others) know the usefullness in certain situations. Your statement "One thing I can't seem to get across..if I am in A (Av) or S (Tv) modes with the ISO locked down I am still in "full manual" mode." is very understandable. You (IMHO) will never get that point across as it doesn"t make any sense, in AV or TV or have implemented auto iso "you are no longer in manual mode" in any way shape or form. Your camera is making a choice for you, be it shutter speed, aperture or iso it is still making the choice. To be fully manual you have to be just that, setting all of these things manually. From what I get from your statements is that making a choice over one of these variables constitutes control therefore meaning manual. Correct me if I am hearing you wrong, but this could lead to the difficulty in bringing your point across.

Todd

[WIlliam Maroldo]

I'm with Steve on this one.
I think, for the time being, the fact that the camera is really making decisions needs to be suppressed. Although a dose of confusion can't hurt, and although Steve has valiantly and tirelessly worked to this end, this alone may not be enough.
Steve's repeating things over and over until they become true seems to have worked well for others in the past, so why not now? And the usually reliable changing the definition of words isn't quite working either. Why not?
Certainly changing the definition of the word manual to mean allowing the camera to make decisions is a good place to start, but why are people showing so much resistance to the concept? These people are trying the exact same tactic of repeating the same thing over and over again, in this case that auto doesn't mean the same thing as manual, but though repeating the same thing over and over should eventually make it true, meanwhile it is just showing their ignorance. They simply do not understand, and as gifted as Steve is at communication, and as many times as he tries to make the same point with different words, he is not breaking through. Must be very frustrating.
I would suggest that a dis-information campaign seems to be in order, and samples are the way to go. For example, Steve could use images to prove that it doesn't matter what ISO the camera chooses and indeed ISO isn't very important anyway, far less important than shutter-speed and aperture. He could show images he claims shot at ISO 1600 and ISO 400, and show that there is no difference in the amount of digtal noise and detail resolution. Just to make sure that there aren't any unreasonable pixel peepers out there, and people that allow their anti-auto bias to cloud their judgement, it probably would be safer to have both images shot as ISO 400 and just say one was shot at ISO 1600. After all, He has an important point to make and facts, and even word definitions, simply are not relevant. Hint; be sure to exclude EXIF data from the images. :S3::S3: regards~Bill

[Roger Clark]

Aw c'mon, almost no one would keep dark dark (or light light) unless going for an artistic interpretation (high/low key).

Hi Steve,

If one wants to keep shutter speed short enough to freeze action and have a dark subject look relatively dark, that is the way to go instead of letting the meter make it middle gray!




I would let auto ISO "fix" the situation for me. EC is only necessary if there is meter confusion or trying to "expose to the right"...choose the right metering mode and EC is not needed.

But ISO doesn't "fix" the situation. In fact, it could make it worse.




One thing I can't seem to get across..if I am in A (Av) or S (Tv) modes with the ISO locked down I am still in "full manual" mode. Even if I am in one of those modes with auto ISO settings, if the lighting/scene is constant I am still in "full manual" control. It's when things change unexpectedly that the difference becomes apparent (as in the example given).

You can't get it across that Av or Tv is still "full manual" mode because it isn't! Full manual means the photographer sets all the parameters: f/ratio, shutter speed and ISO. In Tv or Av modes, the camera sets one. Sure you can add exposure compensation up to a degree, but that is fighting the camera and any change in light means the photographer must fight some more. And there are many cases where the camera does not have enough compensation in those auto modes. That is not really control,
and de.

In the case being discussed (the bear at the falls), use of any auto mode would have resulted in poorly exposed images simply because one could not dial in compensation to counter the rapidly changing background.

Roger

[Steven Kersting]

Hi Steve,

If one wants to keep shutter speed short enough to freeze action and have a dark subject look relatively dark, that is the way to go instead of letting the meter make it middle gray!

EC would have been originally set to compensate for meter error...In A mode I just need to select a wider aperture to keep the same SS as things change. The bear doesn't ever become "middle gray".



But ISO doesn't "fix" the situation. In fact, it could make it worse.
IMO, used properly it does "fix" a lot of situations; many more than it makes "worse". But yes, it can make things worse in some situations.


You can't get it across that Av or Tv is still "full manual" mode because it isn't! Full manual means the photographer sets all the parameters: f/ratio, shutter speed and ISO. In Tv or Av modes, the camera sets one. Sure you can add exposure compensation up to a degree, but that is fighting the camera and any change in light means the photographer must fight some more. And there are many cases where the camera does not have enough compensation in those auto modes. That is not really control,
and de.

In the case being discussed (the bear at the falls), use of any auto mode would have resulted in poorly exposed images simply because one could not dial in compensation to counter the rapidly changing background.

Roger
Yes, Tv/Av modes are full manual (with locked ISO or constant light/scene). If the camera has control of SS and I have control of Aperture (A/Av mode); I simply change aperture to override the camera's choice of changing SS..I win, and I am in control, end of story.

In the situation being discussed, in full manual mode when the scene/lighting changes you have to adjust the settings or accept that the bear would be lighter in a brighter scene/ darker in a darker scene. Generally your only (realistic) option is to trade aperture in order to keep SS in a rapidly changing setting.

Lets assume I was there long enough to decide in advance (or general subject dictated) that SS was my primary concern. So I'm in S (Tv) mode (I don't typically use this mode for reasons previously noted). While the bear is in a given setting I meter (or judge) that 1 stop underexposure is required for the bear and metering mode used (let's say center weighted). So I set my EC to -1 (With my Nikon I have 5 stops of EC either side, more than enough for most scenarios). Now the bear goes into a dark setting w/ shadows where the metering is going to want to brighten the bear to middle gray...the bear is automatically underexposed by the 1 stop. Then the bear passes into a patch of bright light/water where the meter is going to want to "darken" the bear to middle gray; again, exposure of the bear is automatically adjusted to -1. Always the bear is -1 from middle gray and I haven't had to do anything. In S mode my camera will trade Aperture and then ISO in order to keep the bear -1 which I generally don't prefer, but it is your only real option in full manual mode in a rapid situation..I would personally choose aperture priority mode with an ISO auto range. With these settings the camera would first trade ISO, then SS. If I see SS being cut below the default 1/1000 due to reaching ISO limit I manually trade aperture to keep an acceptable SS, but the bear is always at a "correct" -1 exposure. I never have to "continually fight" w/ the metering system....(If 1/1000 in't fast enough I will be in manual w/ auto ISO range). In Manual mode you have to continually "fight" with the camera, or disregard it entirely.

I disagree that setting EC is "fighting" with the camera. It is relying on the camera to give a consistent exposure determination and telling it that it's determination is going to be consistently wrong based upon metering mode/subject. This is reliable.

In full manual you have to continually second guess the metering system and guesstimate the required offset. Or you accept a dark bear in a dark setting is going to be dark ("correct") and a dark bear in a light setting will be lighter (again "correct").

To me this is akin to saying "it was taken under incandescent lighting and everything really was orange". True enough, but not really desirable.

IME full manual requires constant adjustments for changes of situation; anything less is a compromise. (unless you have constant lighting and an incident reading, and sometimes even then)

Regardless, I am never not in full control of what the camera is doing. I am simply using different settings to make adjustments and letting the camera do for me what I would choose to do in full manual mode (some choices much more efficiently than I could do). If I don't like what the camera is doing (or is going to do) I change methodology. The camera doesn't get to do whatever it wants, it get's to do whatever I allow it to do.

I will say that when using a D90/D200 my methods often tended more towards full manual because the camera just wasn't as capable... But when I pay more, I expect more. (I.e. spot metering/dynamic focus mode was almost pointless w/ a D90/D200)

I almost think that many are locked into a methodology that 'worked" back in film/ early digital and haven't figured out how to leverage all of the new technology to your benefit..technology you are paying for but not using. That seems a waste to me.

Obviously, I am fairly alone in my opinions regarding this on this board. Or at least I am the only one willing to state my opinions....maybe it's time to quit this debate. I give up.

All I can say is: If you learned full manual 10+ yrs ago; the rules have changed since then (heck, they are changing every other year now).


I think I'm done now.....

[Geoff Warnock]

Steven, I don't think anyone is disputing that you have 'full control' of your camera, just some terminology.

If I'm not mistaken Roger is a scientist or at least has a comprehensive scientific background. I too am a scientist though somewhat younger than Roger. I think it is in our nature to want very clear definitions that are universal.

So, you describe very clearly how you have full control of exposure, and utilise your camera to the maximum, but (at least in my opinion) it would be clearest to describe manual mode (operator defined shutter, aperture and iso) as 'Full Manual', as this is what the majority on this thread are talking about.

A clear term for your situation is escaping me slightly at the moment, but the definition of that term for me would be along the lines of 'full control of exposure by the operator through manual compensation for the scene tonality'.

It's all too easy for tempers to fray when a point isn't coming across clearly. What is clear is that most here have exposure nailed >99% of the time in any camera mode, which is good I think!

[Desmond Chan]

All I can say is: If you learned full manual 10+ yrs ago; the rules have changed since then (heck, they are changing every other year now).
I have to disagree, and I think your statement is misleading and could be even irresponsible as some beginnings could even believe it as truth (just like some believe that Canon revolutionizes exposure with their new cameras and their evaluative system that one has to relearn about exposure).

What I do today as far as determining exposure is concerned is the same way I did when I picked up my first film slr camera years ago. The cameras have changed, certainly, but the principles that make them work stay the same, IMO.

And as pointed out, Steven, as far as talking about exposure is concerned, you seem to be speaking in a foreign language.

[Arthur Morris]

In full manual you have to continually second guess the metering system and guesstimate the required offset.

Steven, The exact same thing is true in Av, Tv, or P. I make less than 10% of my images at the exposure suggested by the camera. And by learning to evaluate the histogram and work to to the edge of blinkies no guessing is necessary unless the light or the situation is changing rapidly. It is those situations that the photographer who is well versed in exposure theory has the advantage.

[Roger Clark]

EC would have been originally set to compensate for meter error...In A mode I just need to select a wider aperture to keep the same SS as things change. The bear doesn't ever become "middle gray".


IMO, used properly it does "fix" a lot of situations; many more than it makes "worse". But yes, it can make things worse in some situations.

Steven,
While the thread is getting large, if you go back and read my posts, I argued for cases where manual was not the ideal mode to use and that a partial auto mode, something like Av, is better.

But you are torquing my example. My example was the bear against a dark bank with constant light and diving into white water. The example bear image I posted in this thread had proper exposure, and that exposure would be the same if the bear was against the bank in that same constant light. No matter where the bear moves in that constant light, the exposure is the same. In Av mode, every time the bear moves, or you change composition, the exposure would change, so you would have to constantly change exposure compensation. But the problem is the exposure from dark background to white water is more than 5 stops and I know of no camera that has +/- 5 stops of compensation in Av or Tv mode. So in this case, one would be fighting to keep a constant exposure and hitting stops. Av or ANY auto mode would result in many bad exposures with a lot of effort to keep exposure constant. It is much more efficient and accurate to use full manual.

We can look at definitions regarding manual (I'm making some of these up--let's see how they fly with others):

Full auto: camera makes all decisions, photographer just points and shoot. (green square on Canon)

Mostly auto: camera makes all decisions, but photographer can do program shift.

Partial manual: photographer makes 1 decision, camera makes others (shutter priority, aperture priority, ISO priority). E.g. aperture priority with camera changing ISO and shutter speed. EC adds limited control

Mostly manual: photographer fixes all parameters but one. E.g. aperture priority: set aperture and ISO and camera sets shutter speed. EC adds limited control.

Full manual: photographer sets all parameters: aperture, shutter speed, ISO.





Yes, Tv/Av modes are full manual (with locked ISO or constant light/scene). If the camera has control of SS and I have control of Aperture (A/Av mode); I simply change aperture to override the camera's choice of changing SS..I win, and I am in control, end of story.

But you do not have complete control. You only have limited control with EC. And because if anything changes (light, background, subject) the camera changes settings, and that is not full manual.







I disagree that setting EC is "fighting" with the camera. It is relying on the camera to give a consistent exposure determination and telling it that it's determination is going to be consistently wrong based upon metering mode/subject. This is reliable.

In the example being discussed, the bear at the falls, one can not change EC fast enough, nor far enough to maintain the correct exposure when the bear decides to jump into the white water. it is really very very very very very simple: keep the exposure constant all the time in this case. Letting the camera make any decision and then trying EC to get back to the correct exposure is certainly fighting the camera.



In full manual you have to continually second guess the metering system and guesstimate the required offset. Or you accept a dark bear in a dark setting is going to be dark ("correct") and a dark bear in a light setting will be lighter (again "correct").

But there is no second guessing. The light is constant. The exposure is constant. In the real-world example, I chose to check exposure every 20 minutes or so. That is a lot easier than guessing what exposure compensation to dial in with the camera varying all over the place on every frame!




IME full manual requires constant adjustments for changes of situation; anything less is a compromise. (unless you have constant lighting and an incident reading, and sometimes even then)

And Av mode doesn't? Wow! What you describe is full of constantly changing EC in a mode like Av.



Regardless, I am never not in full control of what the camera is doing. I am simply using different settings to make adjustments and letting the camera do for me what I would choose to do in full manual mode (some choices much more efficiently than I could do). If I don't like what the camera is doing (or is going to do) I change methodology. The camera doesn't get to do whatever it wants, it get's to do whatever I allow it to do.

I have encountered many situations where in Av mode, the camera does not have enough EC range to get the best exposure.

How did those Moon images work out? How did you meter and expose the Moon?
First quarter is in few days if you want to try again.
(I always use full manual for a Moon image.)

Roger

[Roger Clark]

Steven, I don't think anyone is disputing that you have 'full control' of your camera, just some terminology.

If I'm not mistaken Roger is a scientist or at least has a comprehensive scientific background. I too am a scientist though somewhat younger than Roger. I think it is in our nature to want very clear definitions that are universal.


While I am a scientist, my views originate from the confusion I see with photographers, and confusion is increasing due to several things: digital is similar but different than film, sensor sizes adds another variable, pixel sizes adds another variable, and the incorrect descriptions and incorrect use of terminology on the web adds up to vastly increased confusion.

Calling Av mode full manual is just adding more confusion, kind of like the confusion of a statement like: "increase your aperture." Or I did a 30% crop. Or telephoto reach with cropped sensors. etc.

Roger

[Geoff Warnock]

Thanks Roger, you cover the points nicely (another afternoon of sports shooting in 'full manual' just completed!).

[Steven Kersting]

Hi Steve,
How did those Moon images work out? How did you meter and expose the Moon?
First quarter is in few days if you want to try again.
(I always use full manual for a Moon image.)

Roger

:S3: I haven't forgotten, just been several weeks with rain/cloud cover/ no-moon, and I've been flying nvg's last week and next. But I *should* get the opportunity this weekend.

[Steven Kersting]

Steven,
As a fellow nikon user and knowing how the auto iso is implemented with these cameras (much different than others) know the usefullness in certain situations. Your statement "One thing I can't seem to get across..if I am in A (Av) or S (Tv) modes with the ISO locked down I am still in "full manual" mode." is very understandable. You (IMHO) will never get that point across as it doesn"t make any sense, in AV or TV or have implemented auto iso "you are no longer in manual mode" in any way shape or form. Your camera is making a choice for you, be it shutter speed, aperture or iso it is still making the choice. To be fully manual you have to be just that, setting all of these things manually. From what I get from your statements is that making a choice over one of these variables constitutes control therefore meaning manual. Correct me if I am hearing you wrong, but this could lead to the difficulty in bringing your point across.

Todd

Doesn't anybody use exposure lock?

Nikon, Canon, and Pentax all have some verion of "hyper-program/ hyper-manual" that can be enabled. "Hyper" is what pentax calls it, Nikon calls it "easy exposure comp" and "variable program", I don't know what it is called w/ Canon.

With these settings enabled there are some very neat advantages. In A mode (on my Nikon) I move the aperture dial and the SS/Aperture swaps keeping the same exposure (but ISO will change w/ new scene), if I move the SS dial the SS changes and the exposure is adjusted (ISO still changes w/ new scene; in S mode it behaves a bit differently and prioritizes SS).
If I don't want the ISO to change w/ a new scene I just hit Exposure lock. Auto meter off delay needs to be set to a longer time to really make this effective (mine is set to 10 minutes)
Everything is very quick and easy. No menus, no two finger maneuvers, etc.

[Steven Kersting]

Steven, The exact same thing is true in Av, Tv, or P. I make less than 10% of my images at the exposure suggested by the camera. And by learning to evaluate the histogram and work to to the edge of blinkies no guessing is necessary unless the light or the situation is changing rapidly. It is those situations that the photographer who is well versed in exposure theory has the advantage.

Art, I almost never use the "recommended exposure" either. But for a given time and metering mode simply setting a base EC will be 90% as effective as adjusting for each image individually. (I am usually at a +.3-.7 to push the exposure rt). If that other 10% is critical or you have the time, by all means you should go full manual and check the histogram.
I will generally just go w/ EC and EL as I don't have to switch between modes. (see above post)

[Steven Kersting]

Calling Av mode full manual is just adding more confusion, kind of like the confusion of a statement like: "increase your aperture." Or I did a 30% crop. Or telephoto reach with cropped sensors. etc.

Roger

Maybe I should have said "can be" if Exposure lock is used, or "can have the same results as" if the scene doesn't change....

[Jay Gould]

What would I do without The Blog?!!

The Blog is da bomb!!

And, it brought me to this wonderful thread which I missed since I have been overseas for almost two months.

Now, having read all of the posts, let me for MY education suggest that no one really really really works in Manual in that everyone, repeat everyone, regardless of the mode being used, looks at the histogram, AND

if it isn't right next to - I would not say "against" the RHS - we add light either by a slower shutter speed, a larger aperture, a faster ISO, or a bit of exposure compensation; and,

if it is "against" the RHS and the blinkies are doing what they are supposed to do - blink too much - we subtract light using one of many methods available.

I would suggest that the benefit of being in M instead of Av or Tv is that in M you can quickly change either the aperture or the SS; whereas if you are in Av you have to make more changes depending upon what you want to accomplish in the final image.

For those shooting BIFs, I would think that M is the preferred mode most of the time as more options are quickly available; however, when shooting landscapes (Roman?) where you are locked down on a tripod and the DOF is, perhaps, critical, except in rapidly light changing circumstances such as at the beginning or end of sunrise or sunset, Av might offer the best option.

I know this may be semantics; however, I have really had trouble with the concept of Manual Mode since at the end of the day the camera's light meter based upon the parameters you have chosen (ISO, SS, Av) creates a histogram which we all rely upon to determine if we have enough or too much exposure.



by learning to evaluate the histogram and work to to the edge of blinkies no guessing is necessary unless the light or the situation is changing rapidly.

Doesn't this statement by Artie say it all regardless of the mode in which you are working? While you are not relying on the camera to determine exposure, you are relying on the camera's histogram to determine if the exposure is or is not sufficient, aren't you?

[Jim Neiger]

What would I do without The Blog?!!

The Blog is da bomb!!

And, it brought me to this wonderful thread which I missed since I have been overseas for almost two months.

Now, having read all of the posts, let me for MY education suggest that no one really really really works in Manual in that everyone, repeat everyone, regardless of the mode being used, looks at the histogram, AND

if it isn't right next to - I would not say "against" the RHS - we add light either by a slower shutter speed, a larger aperture, a faster ISO, or a bit of exposure compensation; and,

if it is "against" the RHS and the blinkies are doing what they are supposed to do - blink too much - we subtract light using one of many methods available.

I would suggest that the benefit of being in M instead of Av or Tv is that in M you can quickly change either the aperture or the SS; whereas if you are in Av you have to make more changes depending upon what you want to accomplish in the final image.

For those shooting BIFs, I would think that M is the preferred mode most of the time as more options are quickly available; however, when shooting landscapes (Roman?) where you are locked down on a tripod and the DOF is, perhaps, critical, except in rapidly light changing circumstances such as at the beginning or end of sunrise or sunset, Av might offer the best option.

I know this may be semantics; however, I have really had trouble with the concept of Manual Mode since at the end of the day the camera's light meter based upon the parameters you have chosen (ISO, SS, Av) creates a histogram which we all rely upon to determine if we have enough or too much exposure.




Doesn't this statement by Artie say it all regardless of the mode in which you are working? While you are not relying on the camera to determine exposure, you are relying on the camera's histogram to determine if the exposure is or is not sufficient, aren't you?

Jay we rely on experience and the cameras meter to determine exposure, then use the tools on the camera LCD to evaluate how we've done and adjust if needed. I think the flashing highlight alert and the jpeg on the lcd are more useful than the histogram. The histogram is not very useful when the lightest tones are not on the subject. My best tool for determining exposures is experience.

[Arthur Morris]

Jay, You are beginning to get a good grasp of this stuff. But, re:

I would suggest that the benefit of being in M instead of Av or Tv is that in M you can quickly change either the aperture or the SS; whereas if you are in Av you have to make more changes depending upon what you want to accomplish in the final image.

Not sure what you are talking about there. Given a constant amount of light you always need to change two things in M, but just one in Av. So in Av you have to make fewer changes....

Jim, yes, experience is a great tool. I am trying to teach the folks without experience :).

[Jim Neiger]

Jay, You are beginning to get a good grasp of this stuff. But, re:

I would suggest that the benefit of being in M instead of Av or Tv is that in M you can quickly change either the aperture or the SS; whereas if you are in Av you have to make more changes depending upon what you want to accomplish in the final image.

Not sure what you are talking about there. Given a constant amount of light you always need to change two things in M, but just one in Av. So in Av you have to make fewer changes....

Jim, yes, experience is a great tool. I am trying to teach the folks without experience :).

I think it's easier to start out in manual mode and then apply what you have learned to shooting in other modes than it is to learn to shoot in one of the program modes initialy and then switch to manual. I think manual is easier to learn, because you don't have to figure out what the camera is going to do first. The experiences you build shooting in manual mode make you better and better at getting the perfect exposure consistantly, because you are always in tune with what the settings were and how they affected your images. In the program modes, you only remember the compensation values which aren't as meaningful for future shoots.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

[QUOTE=Jay Gould;669020]What would I do without The Blog?!!

I know this may be semantics; however, I have really had trouble with the concept of Manual Mode since at the end of the day the camera's light meter based upon the parameters you have chosen (ISO, SS, Av) creates a histogram which we all rely upon to determine if we have enough or too much exposure.




QUOTE]
Jay, as far as I know the histogram is based on what the sensor reads and the meter is a seperate system. regards~Bill

[Jim Neiger]

[QUOTE=Jay Gould;669020]What would I do without The Blog?!!

I know this may be semantics; however, I have really had trouble with the concept of Manual Mode since at the end of the day the camera's light meter based upon the parameters you have chosen (ISO, SS, Av) creates a histogram which we all rely upon to determine if we have enough or too much exposure.




QUOTE]
Jay, as far as I know the histogram is based on what the sensor reads and the meter is a seperate system. regards~Bill

The histogram is based on the jpeg that is generated by the camera using the raw data file and camera settings.

[Arthur Morris]

I think it's easier to start out in manual mode and then apply what you have learned to shooting in other modes than it is to learn to shoot in one of the program modes initialy and then switch to manual. I think manual is easier to learn, because you don't have to figure out what the camera is going to do first. The experiences you build shooting in manual mode make you better and better at getting the perfect exposure consistantly, because you are always in tune with what the settings were and how they affected your images. In the program modes, you only remember the compensation values which aren't as meaningful for future shoots.

With all due respect you are way off base. Whatever mode you learn/work in you must know what the camera (read metering pattern) is doing. I am not saying that one mode or the other is better/easier for folks learning, just that folks need to understand metering and exposure.

And for whatever reasons, many beginners are too scared of Manual to even tr it....

[Charles Glatzer]

I think it's easier to start out in manual mode and then apply what you have learned to shooting in other modes than it is to learn to shoot in one of the program modes initialy and then switch to manual. I think manual is easier to learn, because you don't have to figure out what the camera is going to do first. The experiences you build shooting in manual mode make you better and better at getting the perfect exposure consistantly, because you are always in tune with what the settings were and how they affected your images. In the program modes, you only remember the compensation values which aren't as meaningful for future shoots.

Jim,

I do not think exposure consistency is directly related to one method over another. If someone shoots long enough with one method they should be able to become proficient in its use. However, I do find many/most of those who start out using Auto Priority Mode tend not to be in tune with light quality and/or quantity, figuring the Auto Mode will do what is necessary. Exposure comp is used mostly as a means to make the image lighter or darker.

When painting a picture the artist needs to understand how different brushes will render light upon the canvas. But, the brush is of no use without the paint or an eye for lighting.

Manual Priority by its nature keeps the photographer better connected with the light. I advocate learning Manual Mode before moving to Auto Modes.

Best,

Chas

[Jim Neiger]

Jim,

I do not think exposure consistency is directly related to one method over another. If someone shoots long enough with one method they should be able to become proficient in its use. However, I do find many/most of those who start out using Auto Priority Mode tend not to be in tune with light quality and/or quantity, figuring the Auto Mode will do what is necessary. Exposure comp is used mostly as a means to make the image lighter or darker.

When painting a picture the artist needs to understand how different brushes will render light upon the canvas. But, the brush is of no use without the paint or an eye for lighting.

Manual Priority by its nature keeps the photographer better connected with the light. I advocate learning Manual Mode before moving to Auto Modes.

Best,

Chas

Chas,

Generaly speaking, I agree with everything you said, but when it comes to bird photography that includes action such as flight, I believe that manual mode produces more consistantly correct exposures than any of the program modes. When shooting action with changing bgs, you just can't predict what the camera is going to do and dial in the correct compensation fast enough. I reliaze that there may be similar situations with changing light that make a program mode a more consistant choice, but in bird photography, changing bgs are a much more common situation.

[Charles Glatzer]

Chas,

Generaly speaking, I agree with everything you said, but when it comes to bird photography that includes action such as flight, I believe that manual mode produces more consistantly correct exposures than any of the program modes. When shooting action with changing bgs, you just can't predict what the camera is going to do and dial in the correct compensation fast enough. I reliaze that there may be similar situations with changing light that make a program mode a more consistant choice, but in bird photography, changing bgs are a much more common situation.


Jim,

As you already know ;~) I fully agree on Manual being the way to go for birds in flight for the reasons you stated above. And, I have said so for many years.

Best Amigo,

Chas

[Jay Gould]

Thanks for your comments guys!
Melissa, here is the "secret" how I expose.... I simply NEVER expose AV or TV - only Manual. I always expose in a way that the brightest element in the image (particularly on the bird) is almost hot - in this case the white. You should have the highlight alert ON. Exposing manually with the histogram pushed as much as possible to the right without burning anything will result in the best possible image with the best signal to noise ratio, and the best colours. It may not look very nice in camera as it will be a bit bright but when opened in photoshop and adjusted a bit you will see the beauty of this technique. Don't relay on the camera to do this simple thing for you when you can do it so much better.<!--?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /--><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>Just my 2 cents,<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>Cheers,Ofer<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>http://www.oferlevyphotography.com<o:p></o:p>


Ofer, and other manual advocates, let's look at this from a tutorial point of view.

Ofer, you have manually set Av and Tv based upon........what?

How do you independent of the camera's computer zero your meter? What is the "manual" process?

Then, having refused to allow the camera's computer to make the exposure for you in the first instance, you click the shutter and the first thing you do is look at the histogram with the decision making highlight alert turned on. If it is blinking, if then graph is pushed against the right, you either increase your speed or decrease your aperture or decrease your ISO because the camera has said the initial chosen settings set manually do not work.

Artie writes "If the background tonality is changing constantly, learn to work in Manual Mode and to adjust your exposure via the analog exposure scale in the viewfinder. By doing so and then checking the histogram, you will always have the correct exposure for the subject regardless of the tonality of the background (as long as the light level remains constant)."

If you are working in manual and before commencing a shoot you set your triangle (ISO, Av, Tv) by pointing your lens at what you consider neutral and change one or more settings to zero your meter, thereby relying on the cameras's computer in the final instance, how is that different from choosing ISO, and either Av or Tv depending upon your subject (generalizing choosing Tv for avian/wild life and Av for landscape) and letting the camera's computer automatically zero the meter?

I would find it a great assistance, and I am guessing many others would also find it a great assistance, if those advocating manual shooting with different subject matters would, step by step (1., 2., etc) describe the way they initially set their manual exposure and how they maintain it through the shoot.

Roman, Roger, and many other landscapers, appreciate your tutorial.

Ofer, Jim, John, Chas, and many other wildlife/avian shooters, appreciate your tutorial too.

Cheers,

[Roger Clark]

Ofer, and other manual advocates, let's look at this from a tutorial point of view.

Ofer, you have manually set Av and Tv based upon........what?

How do you independent of the camera's computer zero your meter? What is the "manual" process?

Then, having refused to allow the camera's computer to make the exposure for you in the first instance, you click the shutter and the first thing you do is look at the histogram with the decision making highlight alert turned on. If it is blinking, if then graph is pushed against the right, you either increase your speed or decrease your aperture or decrease your ISO because the camera has said the initial chosen settings set manually do not work.

Artie writes "If the background tonality is changing constantly, learn to work in Manual Mode and to adjust your exposure via the analog exposure scale in the viewfinder. By doing so and then checking the histogram, you will always have the correct exposure for the subject regardless of the tonality of the background (as long as the light level remains constant)."

If you are working in manual and before commencing a shoot you set your triangle (ISO, Av, Tv) by pointing your lens at what you consider neutral and change one or more settings to zero your meter, thereby relying on the cameras's computer in the final instance, how is that different from choosing ISO, and either Av or Tv depending upon your subject (generalizing choosing Tv for avian/wild life and Av for landscape) and letting the camera's computer automatically zero the meter?

I would find it a great assistance, and I am guessing many others would also find it a great assistance, if those advocating manual shooting with different subject matters would, step by step (1., 2., etc) describe the way they initially set their manual exposure and how they maintain it through the shoot.

Roman, Roger, and many other landscapers, appreciate your tutorial.

Ofer, Jim, John, Chas, and many other wildlife/avian shooters, appreciate your tutorial too.

Cheers,

Hi Jay,
I think you nailed it above. When I approach a situation, if the background is variable and light constant,Whatever I approaching in, aperture priority, or manual mode, I'll take a quick test exposure, check the histogram and adjust if necessary and make another exposure if there is time, than move to manual if not already in manual mode.

Sometimes I'm in aperture priority with variable light and then I take a test exposure (and check the meter reading) and see if there is an adjustment needed.

Sometimes there is not time. Often, for example, on safari one is driving through the forest and light can be variable, so I'm in aperture priority mode. Sometimes a subject appears and one must get an image very fast. No time for test shots. If there are a few seconds, I'll check the meter reading. If the subject has white and the background dark, I'll dial in exposure compensation (amount determined by experience) and get the image quickly with no tests and no histogram check. If after those first images, I have time to check the histogram and adjust further I will. If the light is constant for the situation, I'll change to manual so the exposure will not vary.

Landscapes are easier--plenty of time (mostly) to check exposure. Unless it is a quick grab shot, I'm in manual and I take some tests and check the histogram. Occasionally for landscapes on the run, e.g. safari and trying to get to a location, I'll put in exposure bracketing and take three shots in rapid succession. from aperture priority mode.

Roger

[Jay Gould]

Hi Jay,
I think you nailed it above. When I approach a situation, if the background is variable and light constant,Whatever I approaching in, aperture priority, or manual mode, I'll take a quick test exposure, check the histogram and adjust if necessary and make another exposure if there is time, than move to manual if not already in manual mode.
Roger

From this description, aren't you really using the camera's computer to determine "correct" preshooting exposure? And, regardless of whether you are shooting Av spot (this acknowledges that wider monitor patterns might consider elements in determining exposure you do not want to use; Chas you use spot to pick the element that you are going to rely upon to "zero with some type of compensation"), or you are using manual, i.e., none of the "triangle" items can change at the moment of exposure, you still immediately look a the histogram and let the camera tell you whether you have reached - for you - the optimum ETR.

While I can understand in fast moving situations if you have preset zeroed exposure on the animal/bird you want "manual" so that the animal's exposure doesn't change as you move the camera to follow, Roman et al, I still haven't grasped the need for manual when locked down on a tripod with a predetermined depth of field that YOU want for a given image. For example, when I am shooting with a large foreground element and with a 16-35 I am very close to the image and I want that element sharp, it seems to make sense to me to shoot in Av. I have set ISO and Av, I do not care if Tv changes to give me proper exposure based upon the meter pattern.

I am beating this horse because I want to "get" it. If I was in the USA I could spend a week with Roger, Roman, Chas, etc, and I would get it. The time I spent with Jim and James was invaluable when it came to birds.

Now, through BPN, I and many others are going to understand the why of manual landscape exposure, or know why we are choosing to continue to reject 100% manual.

Thanks all for continuing to teach!

[Roger Clark]

From this description, aren't you really using the camera's computer to determine "correct" preshooting exposure?


Yes, but I would say it more like: I use the camera's metering system to get close, and my interpretation of the histogram data and the scene to get the best exposure.




Roman et al, I still haven't grasped the need for manual when locked down on a tripod with a predetermined depth of field that YOU want for a given image. For example, when I am shooting with a large foreground element and with a 16-35 I am very close to the image and I want that element sharp, it seems to make sense to me to shoot in Av. I have set ISO and Av, I do not care if Tv changes to give me proper exposure based upon the meter pattern.

If one is taking a single frame, then it doesn't matter if one is in manual or Av. Like Artie said in the beginning of the series, if one finds the correct exposure is -1/3 stop from what the meter says, it will say that whether you are in manual, Av, or Tv. I make many landscape exposure in Av. But as I usually do mosaics, I'll find the best exposure and if in Av, switch to manual and set that same exposure and make my mosaic.

Roger

[Jay Gould]

Down to one question.


If one is taking a single frame, then it doesn't matter if one is in manual or Av. Like Artie said in the beginning of the series, if one finds the correct exposure is -1/3 stop from what the meter says, it will say that whether you are in manual, Av, or Tv. I make many landscape exposure in Av. But as I usually do mosaics, I'll find the best exposure and if in Av, switch to manual and set that same exposure and make my mosaic.

Roger

Why do you bother to switch to manual?

[Roger Clark]

Down to one question.

Why do you bother to switch to manual?

Hi Jay,

When doing a mosaic, you don't want the exposure to vary between frames, so manual fixes the exposure for the entire sequence.
I have, however, done the equivalent of split-density filter mosaics. I'll expose the row of frames that include a bright sky at one
exposure then those below it on the land at a different exposure. Works well.

Example:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.sunset/web/san.juan.mtns.sunset.c09.2007.jz3f6155-69.g-1024.html

Roger

[Matt Fragale]

This was an interesting bit of reading. About a year ago, I had a sparkly new DSLR and no clue how to use it. Well, maybe some clues, but not a lot of them. I had my camera in Aperture priority most of the time because it seemed easier to only have to consider one leg of the exposure triangle and let my camera take care of the rest. I made a ton of poorly exposed photos that way and not a terrible amount of reasonably nicely exposed ones, too. In my noob state though, I wasn't really understanding why some of my photos came out and some didn't (why, why, why is my camera stupid half the time!?). So I looked for some classes to take and people to shoot with and learn from. There was a photography event at a botanical garden near my house in NC (since moved to FL) and during that event there was a beginner's DSLR class that was taught by someone named Haley Glatzer that I signed up for. Haley was young and she was clearly new at presenting this, but knew her stuff and explained things pretty well. Her dad (some guy who also is a photographer named Charles :w3) also sat in and offered some supporting explanation at various points in the class. One of the points where Mr. Glatzer did some extended speaking was on this very topic and I can honestly tell you that what he said at that time changed my photography for the better almost instantaneously. If you've read previous comments you already know more or less what it was. But basically the main points of what he said (and forgive me if you read this Mr. Glatzer and I mangle it terribly) were;

1. Learn to shoot manual first and understand the light (my favorite quote: "you're not shooting for National Geographic, right? Go out there and make some mistakes and learn from them")
2. If the light isn't changing and you have the correct exposure, you can just keep shooting without thinking about the exposure until something changes.
3. Learn how the metering modes work on your specific camera so that when you choose to use Av or Tv mode you understand what the camera is doing and you can manage it (which you can't do until you've first done #1)

I'm paraphrasing that because my memory is not so good. There were more things he said which have since started to make sense to me, but those were the things that I latched onto first and went to work on. After sheepishly asking Haley if she could help me figure out how to change the aperture on my camera in manual mode, which she politely did without giggling at me, pretty much every shot that I took that day was well exposed. Not perfect, probably, but extremely consistent. It was like night and day for me. And since that point, unless I make a major mistake (like forgetting that I set my ISO to 3200 the night before and end up with a few grainy photos until I start to question why everything is able to be shot at f/11 and 1/4000th and looks pretty bright...) I've been able to pretty consistently get a good exposure on most subjects.

So my point for all this: being the one that all of you are talking about when you say "people who are learning", I can verify for those of you who have been at it too long to remember, it is definitely easier to understand and work in full manual than any of the priority modes for a beginner. It sounds scarier to us at first, but it is much simpler because we don't have to keep watching what the camera is doing when we recompose and we don't have to remember to use AE lock or anything. Full manual is idiot proof. Get the correct exposure once and fire away until something changes. Once you take the time to understand metering modes, and how your camera uses them, it's probably a time saver to use one of the priority modes for certain situations. So unlike some who have suggested that "pros should use full manual", my thinking would be that "only pros should use priority modes... noobs stick to manual".

[Arthur Morris]

This was an interesting bit of reading. About a year ago, I had a sparkly new DSLR and no clue how to use it. Well, maybe some clues, but not a lot of them. I had my camera in Aperture priority most of the time because it seemed easier to only have to consider one leg of the exposure triangle and let my camera take care of the rest. I made a ton of poorly exposed photos that way and not a terrible amount of reasonably nicely exposed ones, too. In my noob state though, I wasn't really understanding why some of my photos came out and some didn't (why, why, why is my camera stupid half the time!?). So I looked for some classes to take and people to shoot with and learn from. There was a photography event at a botanical garden near my house in NC (since moved to FL) and during that event there was a beginner's DSLR class that was taught by someone named Haley Glatzer that I signed up for. Haley was young and she was clearly new at presenting this, but knew her stuff and explained things pretty well. Her dad (some guy who also is a photographer named Charles :w3) also sat in and offered some supporting explanation at various points in the class. One of the points where Mr. Glatzer did some extended speaking was on this very topic and I can honestly tell you that what he said at that time changed my photography for the better almost instantaneously. If you've read previous comments you already know more or less what it was. But basically the main points of what he said (and forgive me if you read this Mr. Glatzer and I mangle it terribly) were;

1. Learn to shoot manual first and understand the light (my favorite quote: "you're not shooting for National Geographic, right? Go out there and make some mistakes and learn from them")
2. If the light isn't changing and you have the correct exposure, you can just keep shooting without thinking about the exposure until something changes.
3. Learn how the metering modes work on your specific camera so that when you choose to use Av or Tv mode you understand what the camera is doing and you can manage it (which you can't do until you've first done #1)

I'm paraphrasing that because my memory is not so good. There were more things he said which have since started to make sense to me, but those were the things that I latched onto first and went to work on. After sheepishly asking Haley if she could help me figure out how to change the aperture on my camera in manual mode, which she politely did without giggling at me, pretty much every shot that I took that day was well exposed. Not perfect, probably, but extremely consistent. It was like night and day for me. And since that point, unless I make a major mistake (like forgetting that I set my ISO to 3200 the night before and end up with a few grainy photos until I start to question why everything is able to be shot at f/11 and 1/4000th and looks pretty bright...) I've been able to pretty consistently get a good exposure on most subjects.

So my point for all this: being the one that all of you are talking about when you say "people who are learning", I can verify for those of you who have been at it too long to remember, it is definitely easier to understand and work in full manual than any of the priority modes for a beginner. It sounds scarier to us at first, but it is much simpler because we don't have to keep watching what the camera is doing when we recompose and we don't have to remember to use AE lock or anything. Full manual is idiot proof. Get the correct exposure once and fire away until something changes. Once you take the time to understand metering modes, and how your camera uses them, it's probably a time saver to use one of the priority modes for certain situations. So unlike some who have suggested that "pros should use full manual", my thinking would be that "only pros should use priority modes... noobs stick to manual".

All good stuff. No mode, however, is "idiot proof." If you do not know what the right compensation should be or cannot determine it, you are dead in the water whatever mode you are in :).