# Shooting Manual or Auto-unhijacking the other thread



## stsinner (Feb 25, 2009)

Continuing our discussion on the merits of shooting in Auto:

gotta run...be right back, but feel free to wage your arguments for or against.

....back

Continuing our discussion on the merits of shooting in Auto:

What it sounds like to me, and I'm not trying to be an a-hole, but what it honestly sounds like to me is people who took the time to study photography, took some courses, likely started back in the day when photography actually took skill to get a decent shot, saying, "Dammit, I took the time to learn how to set my camera up to take pictures in manual then you come along and take a picture in lazy auto mode and want to call that a good picture?" Then, without even looking at the picture feel they've won the argument and the auto picture is declared bad by default because you're insulted that you think auto mode can hold a candle to your years of knowledge and dedication.. Hate to be the one to break it, but new cameras are tracking faces, they're detecting smiles, they're getting smarter every day, so I think you're going to see more and more quality Auto shots.. 

And you know what else? My camera won't even allow me to take a bad picture in auto mode! If I don't have the focus or the exposure isn't right if I've got the flash disabled, it won't beep to signal ready. That will save many shots that would be killed in Manual mode.. 

Now, i love learning. I'm learning more and more every day-I've bought the Understanding Exposure book recommended to me here and two books on lighting, and I've learned an immense amount. But I'm not too proud to go to Auto in a pinch, and I've yet to have a picture under exposed or black, as I have in manual while learning. I like manual because it's neat to know that you set the shot up, but it is in no way a badge of honor, nor would I ever look down on someone who shoots in auto because having an eye for what will make a good shot and then composing that shot are just as much a part of photography as learning to set up your camera by yourself.. Seems to me that getting good at manual simply means figuring out how your camera would have set up the shot in auto and achieving that shot-until it gets artsy.

The rabid anti-Auto rhetoric here is astounding.. Almost like you'd be offended if you loaned someone your camera and they actually took picture though your lens in Auto mode.. How DARE they do that.. Tarnished my damn shutter. It's really an arrogant argument to belittle someone for not shooting manual, I have to be honest. I'm not trying to piss you guys off because I have learned something from each and every one of you, but I'd argue that for more people than not, Auto mode is better than pictures they could take in manual. Obviously not most of you because you're enthusiasts, but I'll bet that if we took a worldwide poll-if there was such a thing, and put pictures up from all over the world taken in auto we'd find award winning photos taken in Auto and that many people love not having to think. And the number of bad shots-not the ones taken on accident, but actually on purpose shots that turned out with bad exposure or ISO would be few.

While I'm steering away from auto more and more, I'm just really amazed by this pervasive attitude.


----------



## Dao (Feb 25, 2009)

Auto mode can take good pictures in most of the situations.  I agree.  However, in some situation, it will not work.  And that is the time you can use manual mode.


Personally, I strongly believe it is nothing wrong using Auto mode as long as you get the result you want.  However, if the auto mode cannot achieve the desire result, then of course, you need to use manual.


----------



## MikeBcos (Feb 25, 2009)

I've been shooting since I got my first Brownie in 1974, I worked my way up through a string of manual cameras, many with no light meters. I know how to set a camera to get a good photograph, I can look at a scene, decide what I want exposed correctly and set the camera for that area first go.

But - right now my camera is set on P (not full Auto - I want to decide on when to use the flash), the vast majority of my shots are snapshot type, they are memories, they are meant to record an object or an event - for that P mode is perfect.

But - when I go hunting for photographs I use A or M modes, ISO is set where I want it and the lens is quite often on manual focus.

My camera is a tool, it has settings suitable for various tasks, P mode is one of those settings, if it suits my needs I will use it, and if anyone else uses it I won't disparage them, it has its uses.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Feb 25, 2009)

Be careful that you don't paint your adversaries as angry and irrational when they're really not. That's known as the strawman fallacy and it hurts your argument.

Yes, some people who truly understand the concepts of photography look down on the people who shoot in Green mode and then claim it's just as good or better than real knowledge or experience.  Why? Because no matter how smart a camera gets, no matter how many faces it can detect, it will never understand the context of the scene.

If someone claims that they get a better shot in green mode than they can in any other mode, that's a revealing statement about the photographer.  It says nothing of the value of the feature.


----------



## lockwood81 (Feb 25, 2009)

Auto mode will result in good pictures in situations.  But I don't use it because it doesn't know what DOF I am trying to capture.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 25, 2009)

The simple fact is that it doesn't matter what mode the camera dial is set to...F8, 1/125 and ISO 100 is the same in any mode and will give you the same results.

These days, some digital cameras do funny things when you are in some of the auto modes but for the actual exposure it doesn't matter.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Feb 25, 2009)

And let's be clear here. There's Full-auto(green) mode and there's full manual (M), but there are modes in between too, like aperture and shutter priority.  About 90% of photographers use these pseudo-automatic modes anyway.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Feb 25, 2009)

I'm sorry, stsinner, I don't mean to be so combative, but here's a challenge for you.

Do you see these photos:
warmth of winter on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Half a million views today... on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Ah, felicitÃ  su quale treno della notte viaggerÃ ... on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Knob on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
S-Bend (ii) on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
(None of these are by me)

Show me one photo taken in green mode that compares to these. Just one photograph from anywhere by anyone.  I'll bet you can't find one.  Do you know why this is? Because anyone who knows how to use their camera does not use green mode.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 25, 2009)

I shoot a lot in Manual Mode.  I started doing this so I would completely understand what it takes to get the image I want. It's the only practical way I personally will learn.

Now it's second nature, I have to force myself to shoot in a creative mode.  I never use any of the completely auto-modes, ever.  My camera almost always wants to fire the on-board flash when I do, and I could live without that flash even being on my camera.  That's one reason I really want to migrate to a 5D... gets rid of the useless (to me) auto-modes, leaves the creative modes, deletes the flash and gives me FF.  But I digress.

When I was at the Chicago Auto Show I had to force myself to put my camera in P, Av and Tv mode.  But I did.  This allowed me to get quicker shots that I wouldn't have been able to get in M.  The images turned out ok, so I'm happy.  But after leaving I went right back to M mode.

I would be PO'ed if I loaned my camera to you and it came back in Portrait, Macro, Landscape, etc. mode.  I do believe that would be the end of our friendship and I would likely sue you in small claims court for destroying my camera.


----------



## MikeBcos (Feb 25, 2009)

Dubious Drewski said:


> Because anyone who knows how to use their camera does not use green mode.



Read my post above, I use green mode, it has its place, it also has its limitations. The trick is to know those limitations and know when to switch from green mode.

My D40 has a nice feature in green mode, you can roll the thumb wheel and that will roll the exposure settings up and down the scale, this allows for A with a little control, I can increase depth of field or shutter speed without ever leaving A.

Now, I am in no way saying A will ever produce a better photo than M, I know that is not true, what I am saying is that A does have its uses and A users should not be looked down upon.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 25, 2009)

Like i said before green auto will not get the shots i shoot + 1 of my cameras does not have green auto


----------



## Overread (Feb 25, 2009)

f5.6, ISO 200, 1/125sec

Those settings will give you a shot - in manual, aperture priority, shutter prioirty, green auto mode - no matter which one you pick the end result will be exactly the same shot.
What is important is how you arrive at those settings and why you arrive at them.

In green auto mode the camera is making all the choices, it meters the scene and then places settings for that scene - usually trying to keep things like shutter speed above a base value (that of 1/60sec I belive since this is the slowest relibable handhold able speed for shooting without camera shake).

In aperture priority mode you pick the aperture - this is normally based on your understanding of depth of field the lens you have, the range to subject, the subject itself and what sort of image you want to create from the scene. Based on your choice the camera picks the shutter speed for you (within the allowable limits of the camera)

In shutter priority mode its similar to the above, only times time its the speed of the camera that you are understandiing and setting - so that means understanding the speed of your subject as well as the end effect you are after. Based on your choice the camera auto meters the aperture for you (or the best it can within the limits of the lens)

Full manual - here you are choosing shutter and aperture to get a shot - you have to decide which is the more important setting for the scene and also have to meter off the other setting. The difference is that now you can push the settings beyond what the camera things - this migh very well cause under or over exposure - but sometimes that is what we are after (or have to suffer) for the shot we want.

I don't look down on those that use the auto modes, but I do encourage them to get an understanding of the less automatic modes - to start to understand the camera as a creative tool and to be able to see what it can create. Even the semi auto modes unlock a lot of diversity and creativity - oh and shooting the moon in auto just does not work = nor does using flash support either (f13, ISO 200, 1/200sec + flash is my macro shooting area - without using manual mode the camera will never give me those settings so manual is the mode I have to shoot in)

Sometimes we do just want a record shot of something - a shot where we don't want to be artistic - or maybe we just don't know how to present the scene before us - so we let the camera do the thinking - and sometimes it gets it right


----------



## stsinner (Feb 25, 2009)

MikeBcos said:


> \
> 
> Now, I am in no way saying A will ever produce a better photo than M, I know that is not true,



Are you kidding me?  So you actually believe that you could never take a better photo in A than you can in M?  You can't possibly believe such a broad statement.  You would have to quantify that statement greatly and narrow down the situation, but you most certainly could take better shots in A than M if the conditions were right.  The only reason I use A mode is to control my DOF, while having the computer determine my shutter speed..


----------



## stsinner (Feb 25, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I would be PO'ed if I loaned my camera to you and it came back in Portrait, Macro, Landscape, etc. mode.  I do believe that would be the end of our friendship and I would likely sue you in small claims court for destroying my camera.



LOL!!


----------



## jordan! (Feb 25, 2009)

The first camera I shot with was a fully manual film camera, so I didn't really have the choice of auto mode. By the time I got a DSLR with all the fancy program modes and stuff, I was just really used to shooting in manual. I feel like if I switched to auto mode now, I would lose all the artistic control that makes photography really fun for me.

I can definitely understand the modes like aperture or shutter priority,  because sometimes you may not have time to tweak every setting. Since I don't shoot sports or news or anything important, I stick to manual mode and manual focus, just because it gives me the control I like.

I don't have anything against people shooting in auto mode, but I have more respect for shots taken in manual, as they require a deeper understanding of what's going on with the camera and the subject.


----------



## stsinner (Feb 25, 2009)

jordan! said:


> I don't have anything against people shooting in auto mode, but I have more respect for shots taken in manual, as they require a deeper understanding of what's going on with the camera and the subject.



Very reasonable.


----------



## Overread (Feb 25, 2009)

jordan! said:


> I don't have anything against people shooting in auto mode, but I have more respect for shots taken in manual, as they require a deeper understanding of what's going on with the camera and the subject.



I hold respect for shots I find impressive (for many reasons) however mode used is not one I list as a reason. Infact were I to list it I would say that a good shot in auto mode might impress me more than if the same shot were taken in manual mode - it takes a bit of skill to shoot really well when you are not in full control of the camera (and might have to resort to tricks to get the shot right).


----------



## EhJsNe (Feb 25, 2009)

Well....I would greatly appreciate the option of a manual mode.....BUT, I dont. I have a Fully Manual Nikon FM10 with a broken light meter. Every now and then I use faster shutter speeds than i should have (I used 1/250 second in a gym without a flash at f/4....the next time i used a flash at 1/125 (max flash sync) at f/4 (max aperture on the lens i used)) Even if the pictures are underexposed, you can still make out details, even if I do screw them up.


----------



## Overread (Feb 25, 2009)

ouch on the meter - you know you can get normal light meters (and flash meters too) which are external to the camera - that might be an option for you - I take it that repairing the camera is not that viable (ie costs too much either based on your budget or on the cameras overall worth)


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 25, 2009)

I shot in M mode all the time.
I look through the viewfinder and turn my Shutter speed or Aperture wheel until the internal meter shows +/-0.

Hmm, isn't that manually setting what the auto exposure is expecting ??

Up until a year ago my camera's never had Auto/Program exposure, so it is second nature to me to manually control my Shutter speed and Aperture settings. I take what the internal camera meter or my hand held meter tells me of multiple areas of the scene ... then I use my experience to set the Shutter/Aperture settings.

Using Manual exposure can be either ... so saying you shoot Manual is not a great gauge.

Now saying this ... I have begun to appreciate the automated exposure for quick shots or for scenes that I know will produce the exposure that I expect. Though if I go auto I will use Shutter/Aperture priority most often.


I am a Auto shooter !!! (who understands the limitations of programmed exposure systems).


----------



## Overread (Feb 25, 2009)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photo-themes/157569-amazing-auto.html#post1546229

its time to fight it out!


----------



## KvnO (Feb 25, 2009)

The camera uses the same meter for both *auto* and manual *modes*.  

People using *manual* tend to have a better understanding of photographic principles and how to achieve them through the use of it over *auto*.  

People know what they want in a camera.  If they buy an SLR and leave it in auto, that's their prerogative.  SLRs have other advantages rather than just easy access to manual controls.


----------



## stsinner (Feb 25, 2009)

KvnO said:


> People using *manual* tend to have a better understanding of photographic principles and how to achieve them through the use of it over *auto*.



Though they may have a better understanding of what the camera is looking for and why it does what it does, that doesn't make their pictures necessarily better.

I liken this argument to the microwave and popcorn..  Someone who is hellbent on manual would go buy the individual components and position them around the bag of popcorn, then they would sit on the bicycle that produced the electricity and pedal until the bag was fully and perfectly popped..  

I would pop my bag of microwave popcorn into my microwave and program 10 minutes (since the popcorn button never gets it right) and let it pop until I hear 5 or so seconds between pops and open the door, revealing a perfectly popped bag of popcorn..  

Both are delicious and perfectly done, but i got mine done without knowing how the microwave works, and that pisses the other guy off..  

I respect them for putting forth the effort, but I simply prefer doing it my way since the results are the same..  

You CANNOT SAY that every picture taken in P is better than every picture taken in Auto..  I would even argue that if we went looking for the most botched pictures in each mode, P would win, hands down...


----------



## Rushes (Feb 25, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Though they may have a better understanding of what the camera is looking for and why it does what it does, that doesn't make their pictures necessarily better.
> 
> I liken this argument to the microwave and popcorn.. Someone who is hellbent on manual would go buy the individual components and position them around the bag of popcorn, then they would sit on the bicycle that produced the electricity and pedal until the bag was fully and perfectly popped..
> 
> ...


 
Haven't you just debunked your own theory? The automatic 'Popcorn' setting on your microwave doesn't do what it should so you MANUALLY program the microwave to acheive the desired result. 

I'm all for using automatic modes when you want but if you can master the manual modes you'll become a far better photographer than someone who hasn't mastered them.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 25, 2009)

How about shooting in Auto/Program Exposure ... and using Exposure Compensation to over-ride the camera meter > would that be considered shooting Manual ?


----------



## stsinner (Feb 25, 2009)

Rushes said:


> Haven't you just debunked your own theory? The automatic 'Popcorn' setting on your microwave doesn't do what it should so you MANUALLY program the microwave to acheive the desired result.
> 
> I'm all for using automatic modes when you want but if you can master the manual modes you'll become a far better photographer than someone who hasn't mastered them.



The difference is that the other side reverse engineers the microwave and builds it from scratch-I don't care how it works and just pop my bag in and hit start...

And you can be a better _photographer_, but that doesn't automatically mean that your pictures are better.


----------



## Enough Already (Feb 25, 2009)

Your meter is your guide no matter what mode you use. Some people dont care about DOF or even know it exists. They just want a shot properly exposed. I use Av 95% fo the time. The other 5% is for when the meter has problems setting the correct shutter, like at city skyline at night. What is the difference between me using Av, setting the aperture at f8 and letting the meter select the shutter? Am I not going to be looking at my meter anyway in M mode and turning the dial until its in the middle?? Am I not going to end up with the same shutter speed?? I say shoot in what ever mode you are comfortable with. If its auto, so be it. Let people get bent out of shape, its none of their business.


----------



## Rushes (Feb 25, 2009)

stsinner said:


> The difference is that the other side reverse engineers the microwave and builds it from scratch-I don't care how it works and just pop my bag in and hit start...
> 
> And you can be a better _photographer_, but that doesn't automatically mean that your pictures are better.


 
I disagree with your microwave reverse engineer analogy. A camera and a microwave are both tools. They both have automatic and manual settings. You just stated that the automatic setting on your microwave gave you an undesirable result so you used a manual setting of ten minutes. 

I don't know exaxtly how my digital camera or microwave works but I know how to set them up to get the desired result if the automatic settings fail.

That's what most people have been saying. People that can't understand what is going wrong (for whatever reason) and then adjust their tools accordingly can't get decent popcorn or pictures.

True, better photographers don't always take better pictures but 99% of the time they do.


----------



## uplander (Feb 25, 2009)

I'm a guy who is on the fence here. I find I use many of the creative zone modes ( which includes M) . I usually shoot in Ap of Tv and I have some custom settings set up (C1,C2,C3 on a 40D). I shoot a lot of field trials( hunting dog competitions) the action at times is very fast. I also do a lot of wildlife photography and time is of the essence many times.

When the action is fast paced and it takes all you have to just to look through the view finder and acquire the subject, I use Tv, but more often than not I use the sport mode in the basic (auto) zone.

When it comes done to it, I sell photos and how I get the best ones has little to do with my ego. the truth is  (at field trials I probably shoot and sell more photos shot in the sport mode than any other mode) I simply cannot change settings ( shutter speed , aperture, ISO, and so forth ) and still get the shot in time allowed to get the shot!

A good photographer will do what it takes to get the best shot no matter mode he/she has to rely on. If time permits, full manuel gives the photographer complete creative control over his work. Yet technology has given all of us the benifit to help us get the shot we need. 

Sometimes using the basic modes is nothing more different than us relying on are cameras techno advances in being able to use higher iso's, better ccd's and cmos's, light sensors, AF points  and such.

If someone says point blank that using a camera in manuel mode alone is the only way to take a shot and do it right, well that person has missed the boat completely and if he expects photography to be his/her livlihood than he/she will be living on beans and macaroni and cheese while the rest of us who use what technology has given us can have that nice dinner and bottle of wine once and awhile


----------



## jordan! (Feb 25, 2009)

Overread said:


> I hold respect for shots I find impressive (for many reasons) however mode used is not one I list as a reason. Infact were I to list it I would say that a good shot in auto mode might impress me more than if the same shot were taken in manual mode - it takes a bit of skill to shoot really well when you are not in full control of the camera (and might have to resort to tricks to get the shot right).



I guess I never really thought of it like that. I feel like knowing how to trick the camera into taking a picture a certain way in auto and getting there yourself in manual are two different skills though. A good photograph is a good photograph, regardless of how it was achieved. If someone takes an awesome auto shot, I'll like it. The mode a photograph is taken in certainly does not have any effect on it's legitimacy.

But are we talking about the end result, or the process that gets us there? If we are talking about photography as an art, everyone should at least have an understanding of how to shoot in manual. If you can achieve the same shot in auto mode, great! It's not like auto mode composes the picture or picks the subject for you.

So to sum it up, is one mode better than the other? Probably not. A great photograph can be taken with any camera by any means. Does manual offer more creative control? For a photographer who understands each element of exposure, I think it does.

EDIT: My initial comment in my first post was that I had more respect for a photograph taken in manual. I should have said I have more interest in the photographic process of a manual shot. As I said above, I don't particularly care how a picture was taken. If it's good it's good.


----------



## stsinner (Feb 25, 2009)

uplander said:


> When it comes done to it, I sell photos and how I get the best ones has little to do with my ego. the truth is  (at field trials I probably shoot and sell more photos shot in the sport mode than any other mode) I simply cannot change settings ( shutter speed , aperture, ISO, and so forth ) and still get the shot in time allowed to get the shot!
> 
> A good photographer will do what it takes to get the best shot no matter mode he/she has to rely on. If time permits, full manuel gives the photographer complete creative control over his work. Yet technology has given all of us the benifit to help us get the shot we need.




Wow.. Well said.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 25, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Though they may have a better understanding of what the camera is looking for and why it does what it does, that doesn't make their pictures necessarily better.


I can take a better exposed picture of something like this...







...in Manual mode vs. automatic.  Light meters are easily fooled by things like lots of white.  Since the camera tries to meter everything at 18% grey, it's never going to get it right on it's own.  So you have to know how to compensate.


----------



## uplander (Feb 25, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I can assure you I can take a better exposed picture of something like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

But yes, a static shot you have all the time in the world  to set it up in manual and i'm not disputing this (yet fading light is a factor) there is still sometimes when time is of the essence  and a shot is captured or loss.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 25, 2009)

uplander said:


> But yes, a static shot you have all the time in the world  to set it up in manual and i'm not disputing this (yet fading light is a factor) there is still sometimes when time is of the essence  and a shot is captured or loss.


I have already agreed with this in an earlier post. I was responding to a specific point raised by stsinner.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Feb 25, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I can take a better exposed picture of something like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That's what exp comp is for...


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Feb 25, 2009)

Yet another thread that has the appearance of its sole purpose is to stir dissention and controversy.  Such a shame.

The FINAL result is paramount.  The path taken is irrelevant.  Arguments on one side or the other is fodder for fools.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Feb 25, 2009)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> Yet another thread that has the appearance of its sole purpose is to stir dissention and controversy.  Such a shame.
> 
> The FINAL result is paramount.  The path taken is irrelevant.  Arguments on one side or the other is fodder for fools.




whew... good thing i just renewed my fool permit...

I nearly got busted for foddering without proof of foolsmanship...


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Feb 25, 2009)

^^  I am a card carrying fool myself.  I got proof, somewhere.


----------



## KvnO (Feb 26, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Though they may have a better understanding of what the camera is looking for and why it does what it does, that doesn't make their pictures necessarily better.



I never said that it did.  I meant that people shooting in manual know what they want out of an image (depth of field, blur, etc), and know how to achieve the results through the various settings.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 26, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> That's what exp comp is for...


Still, that's a manual setting.  The camera doesn't set its exposure compensation automatically.


----------



## bdavis (Feb 26, 2009)

Auto is helpful when something happens fast and you need to get the shot quickly. An example would be if you were doing street photography and a person did something really fast like sneezed or made a unique facial expression. Other than that, I cant think of any benefits to auto.


----------



## stsinner (Feb 26, 2009)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> Yet another thread that has the appearance of its sole purpose is to stir dissention and controversy.  Such a shame.
> 
> The FINAL result is paramount.  The path taken is irrelevant.  Arguments on one side or the other is fodder for fools.




This is a DISCUSSION forum..  So now we should only start threads if we're all going to agree on the all points raised?  I think it's a splendid conversation with good points raised from both camps, and that's why I come here-to learn.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 26, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> How about shooting in Auto/Program Exposure ... and using Exposure Compensation to over-ride the camera meter > would that be considered shooting Manual ?


 
No


----------



## gsgary (Feb 26, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Wow.. Well said.


 

I would never use auto for sport because you never know what your going to get, shoot sports mode for motorsport and you get no motion in the wheels and thats no a good shot, shooting field sports i want to know what DOF and shutter speed i have so i know what i am going to get i don't want the camera telling me me what i am having


----------



## stsinner (Feb 26, 2009)

I was thinking about this thread today as I was in the waiting room at the doctor's office and I think some people may have misunderstood what I'm proposing here. 

I know that strict manual shooters understand photography more than auto shooters, and that's commendable, but what I'm railing against is the disdain for auto shooters that some express, as if it's any of their business what mode anyone else shoots in..  Why the disdain?  It's come up several times, and of course I don't expect this thread to change that.  It will always be.  I know it must suck for someone who has always been into photography, taken multiple courses, read multiple books and made a career out of learning the craft when an amateur picks up a camera for the first time, puts it in auto and achieves photo gold, but it is pretty common..  Auto will usually grab a good shot.  No need to get pissed.  Just rest on your laurels that you could get the difficult shot better than the auto shooter when that time comes and let it be.  It doesn't make someone stupid if they like to shot auto..  Many of us have very busy lives with work and kids and dinner to make and what-not, so learning the intricacies of photography may be at the bottom of our priority list, if its on it at all, but we know that a good camera takes good pictures, and it's the pictures we want, not the knowledge of how it was achieved..  

I think it comes down many times to the difference between the hobbyist/professional and everyone else who just wants to make memories.

In fact, I'll bet you that if one of the big three made a dSLR that eliminated all the confusing modes and buttons and was essentially always in auto with just a power button and a shutter release, it would sell like hotcakes!!  People want a nice camera, and for most people more $$ translates to a better camera, so even though such a camera might be more expensive than a P&S, I'll bet it could find its niche. (My wife would be first in line..)


----------



## gsgary (Feb 26, 2009)

stsinner said:


> I was thinking about this thread today as I was in the waiting room at the doctor's office and I think some people may have misunderstood what I'm proposing here.
> 
> I know that strict manual shooters understand photography more than auto shooters, and that's commendable, but what I'm railing against is the disdain for auto shooters that some express, as if it's any of their business what mode anyone else shoots in.. Why the disdain? It's come up several times, and of course I don't expect this thread to change that. It will always be. I know it must suck for someone who has always been into photography, taken multiple courses, read multiple books and made a career out of learning the craft when an amateur picks up a camera for the first time, puts it in auto and achieves photo gold, but it is pretty common.. Auto will usually grab a good shot. No need to get pissed. Just rest on your laurels that you could get the difficult shot better than the auto shooter when that time comes and lt it be. It doesn't make someone stupid if they like to shot auto.. Many of us have very busy lives with work and kids and dinner to make and what-not, so learning the intricacies of photography may be at the bottom of our priority list, if its on it at all, but we know that a good camera takes good pictures, and it's the pictures we want, not the knowledge of how it was achieved..
> 
> ...


 
I'm not against auto, but if you were stood next to me and you shot in auto or sports mode you would not get the same shot


----------



## Eldrich (Feb 26, 2009)

I myself have gone on some walks and wanted to grab a few shots since I was out, but I wanted to spend the time enjoying the scene, not fiddling with my camera, so I put the camera in auto and didn't think about it, just snapped away.  I enjoyed the walk more because I could concentrate on what I was seeing, not what my camera was seeing.  

but if I go out with the sole intent to take pics, then it is worth the time to use manual to get the shots i really want.  

But its impossible to argue that I am stupid, or even that I know less about photography than anyone else (though I most certainly do) based only on the fact that I shot in auto, simply because i just wanted to enjoy the walk.


----------



## stsinner (Feb 26, 2009)

gsgary said:


> I'm not against auto, but if you were stood next to me and you shot in auto or sports mode you would not get the same shot



But my shot would be just fine for my scrapbook, I'll bet.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 26, 2009)

stsinner said:


> But my shot would be just fine for my scrapbook, I'll bet.


 

Auto would not handle the light conditions i shoot in it would be using the flash and thats not on


----------



## stsinner (Feb 26, 2009)

gsgary said:


> Auto would not handle the light conditions i shoot in it would be using the flash and thats not on



Oh, I agree, Gary.  I will concede that Auto is not the perfect mode.  You do sometimes need to tell your camera what to do, but my point is that Auto is not the leper of the modes.  I shoot manual most of the time now that I know what I'm doing-learned a ton over the Christmas season with the Christmas tree light difficulty-Auto mode blew those shots all to hell, but in the thread that spawned this on and in many more like it over the months, auto shooters have really been what I would have to call belittled, and I think that's wrong..

I used to be strictly an Auto shooter until I came here and someone, probably BigMike, told me to get out of auto mode when I was saying that I couldn't capture a shot well.  And I did.  Since then I've done tons a research and reading.  But I would argue that back in the auto days I got some gorgeous shots...


----------



## gsgary (Feb 26, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Oh, I agree, Gary. I will concede that Auto is not the perfect mode. You do sometimes need to tell your camera what to do, but my point is that Auto is not the leper of the modes. I shoot manual most of the time now that I know what I'm doing-learned a ton over the Christmas season with the Christmas tree light difficulty-Auto mode blew those shots all to hell, but in the thread that spawned this on and in many more like it over the months, auto shooters have really been what I would have to call belittled, and I think that's wrong..
> 
> I used to be strictly an Auto shooter until I came here and someone, probably BigMike, told me to get out of auto mode when I was saying that I couldn't capture a shot well. And I did. Since then I've done tons a research and reading. But I would argue that back in the auto days I got some gorgeous shots...


 
The people that only shoot auto could save themselves a fortune and buy a cheap point and shoot or a G10


----------



## inTempus (Feb 26, 2009)

stsinner said:


> This is a DISCUSSION forum..  So now we should only start threads if we're all going to agree on the all points raised?  I think it's a splendid conversation with good points raised from both camps, and that's why I come here-to learn.


Pipe down you foolish trouble maker.  :mrgreen:


----------



## BoblyBill (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm in the camp that says it doesn't matter HOW you shoot it but what the end result looks like. A photograph doesn't all of a sudden lose it's quality just because people found out that it was shot in Auto. Nor does a photograph increase in quality because it was shot in Manual. Just like it was stated before... 1/160th, f/8, at 100 ISO is going to look the same in any mode, the only difference is WHO choose those settings. Also, just because you shoot in Auto, doesn't AUTOMATICALY mean that you don't understand the workings of the camera, or lighting. Maybe you use Auto because you know exactly what the output will be and its faster to point and shoot than set the settings manually and get the same result. I don't understand the snobbery that comes with people thinking one way is better than the other. Take for instance, you have two photographers that go to the same spot and shoot the same sceen at the same time of day. One shoots in manual has the setting of 1/125th f/8 and 100 ISO, the other shoots in Auto and the settings are the same. It would be rediculous to have one of the photographers critize the other because of the mode they shot in... it's petty...


----------



## dEARlEADER (Feb 26, 2009)

gsgary said:


> The people that only shoot auto could save themselves a fortune and buy a cheap point and shoot or a G10




Not really... One could still realize ISO benefits of shooting auto with sensors larger than p&s... they also could enjoy the benefits of interchangeable zooms... faster fps....less shutter lag...etc..


----------



## dEARlEADER (Feb 26, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Still, that's a manual setting.  The camera doesn't set its exposure compensation automatically.




hmm.... more of a manual adjustment to an automatic setting....

a draw i suppose...


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Feb 26, 2009)

stsinner said:


> This is a DISCUSSION forum.. So now we should only start threads if we're all going to agree on the all points raised? I think it's a splendid conversation with good points raised from both camps, and that's why I come here-to learn.


 
Im a friend to discussion and debate.  Your opening salvo, however, left little to discuss.  You were making a stance on your one-sided observations.  They were plenty of generalizations, pigeon-holing, innuendos and personal opinions though.

It came across to me as if you were drawing a line in the sand and daring anyone to cross.  Where is the prompt for asking others opinions on this matter?  Apologies if I overlook it.


----------



## stsinner (Feb 26, 2009)

Just curious what people think, and, of course, this is a mostly rhetorical question-if we went to an event, say an open-air concert at a state fair, if we found 900 people with cameras how many would we find in auto mode?  

My guess:  800-850.

I don't know what my point is, but I do think that auto is the main mode used by 95% of people holding cameras.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Feb 26, 2009)

stsinner said:


> I don't know what my point is, but I do think that auto is the main mode used by 95% of people holding cameras.



I don't know what your point is either.... it really doesn't equate to anything..


----------



## stsinner (Feb 26, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> I don't know what your point is either.... it really doesn't equate to anything..



It usually doesn't.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 26, 2009)

stsinner said:


> I don't know what my point is, but I do think that auto is the main mode used by 95% of people holding cameras.



I think this was your point, or did I miss your point?







:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:


----------



## jordan! (Feb 26, 2009)

What if they invented an auto-pen. You would still pick the scene and the composition, but the pen would do all the drawing. If you spent a lot of time working on your drawing skills, and someone "drew" the same picture with their auto-pen, would you still be like "Wow, what a great drawing!" or would you feel like maybe, despite the result being the same, the method the person used to get there somehow took away from the final result.

I think that's what it comes down to when you discuss something like this. There are always going to be people who feel like choosing the right settings and knowing exactly what you're doing and why are just as important as the final result when we talk about the craft of photography.

Now, if we're debating whether or not more people shoot in auto than in manual, yeah, probably more people shoot auto. But that doesn't make for a very interesting discussion does it?


----------



## mrodgers (Feb 26, 2009)

How many people here drive a car with an automatic transmission?  Are you still "driving" the car?

My current car is driving me crazy (wife's car actually).  Everything is automatic.  Auto transmission, I can not select the gear I want.  Auto AC, I can not turn the AC off if I just want to heat up the interior via the defrost and floor as I hate the heated air blowing on my face.  Auto AWD, it senses slip and kicks in the AWD.  If it senses slip, hasn't it already slipped and isn't it too late?  If the road is slippery, I can not threshhold brake to come to a stop.  The antilock brakes kick in and lets go of the brakes.

I can not control the car.  I can point it in the direction I want and make it go and stop, but that's it.  It takes all control of everything pertaining to driving and automatically controls it.

Thus, I am not driving.  I am only steering, braking, and moving.  People call this driving, I do not.

Much is similar with this debate of photography and Auto vs. Manual mode.  In Auto, you can not select your ISO so you can not control noise.  You can not select flash or no flash, so you can not control one aspect of light.  You can not select aperture so you can not control DOF.  You can not select shutter speed, so you can not control motion.

I do agree with the disrespect people get just because they use auto mode.  I have nothing against auto mode.  It is only the fact that I have one particular friend who thinks that just because he has a better camera (XTi vs. my Fuji superzoom) that he gets better photographs than I do.  He shoots snapshot of his kids with his $1500 worth of camera while I play around with photography in manual with my $200 superzoom.  It's an ongoing arguement between us.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 26, 2009)

My camera doesn't even _have_ an auto mode. 


My girlfriend who shoots with my D70 hates using the auto mode, because she says that it's like the camera made the picture, not her - I completely agree with her. In the auto mode, you completely forfeit all control except the shutter release and composition.  


The more and more you know, and get comfortable with your camera, the less you use auto mode because you will want control. That's why you're using an SLR in the first place.


----------



## stsinner (Feb 26, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I think this was your point, or did I miss your point?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I like this one better:


----------



## jordan! (Feb 26, 2009)

Was that shot taken in auto mode?


----------



## dEARlEADER (Feb 26, 2009)

Sw1tchFX said:


> That's why you're using an SLR in the first place.



No... that's why you're using an SLR in the first place....

There are plenty of people out there with money to burn that buy SLR's with no intention of learning photography to the degree that we do.

Believe or not, these people have a right to do this.  Just as they have the right to buy expensive wine without knowing what they're tasting, and the right to buy exotic sports without any ambition to drive them fast.

Is it that we need to make these judgements in order to make ourselves feel better?  Guess that's why I periodically watch TMZ.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 26, 2009)

As Tharmsen pointed out ... is this about being a Cool Dude or a Loser ?

I have forgotten what the initial point was.


BTW, a number of photographers use SLR's for it expandability concerning Lenses, Flash, and other accessories.


----------



## Parkerman (Feb 26, 2009)

I shoot either Aperture Priority or Manual, Sometimes I might go to shutter priority, but rarely.


----------



## MikeBcos (Feb 26, 2009)

stsinner said:


> I like this one better:



Looks just like my Pentax ME 35mm SLR, it has two modes, Auto and Flash Sync.


----------



## stsinner (Feb 26, 2009)

jordan! said:


> Was that shot taken in auto mode?



No, I drew it on a canvas and colored it with pigments from the Orient.  I took some art classes in college, and I would hate to waste that talent.  Only a lazy boob would take this picture with a camera when they have a perfectly good canvas, pencils and yak hair brushes lying nearby..


----------



## adamwilliamking (Feb 26, 2009)

My non professional opinion is this; 

Automatic mode is like Auto-Focus, and not just because they both feature the word auto. Anyways, recently I noticed that when I use the feature on my D90 that allows me to magnify my liveview, and use it to focus, the sharpness I get is far greater than simply auto-focusing on the subject from what I see through my viewfinder. To me, this is kind of comparable to Auto-Mode on most cameras. The cameras ability to auto-focus only goes so far, just like the cameras ability to choose a proper shutter speed/apeture/iso/WB/etc. and perfectly apply it to your situation. Its going to do a "damn good job" just like all modern auto-focus systems, but theres always going to be "that much extra" that is acheivable by simply using your obtained knowledge and personally applying settings in that fashion. In the same regard, as some are saying, because these Automatic picture taking systems have grown so advanced, you can (in a way) reverse engineer what is going on and trick the camera into giving you what it is that you are looking for.


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 26, 2009)

A good photo is a good photo.  Certain shots -- waterfalls, night shots, etc -- will most likely require manual mode (or A or S mode at minimum), but other than that, why would anyone care what mode a picture is taken in?


----------



## anubis404 (Feb 26, 2009)

You may get a good shot out of auto mode, but calling an auto shooter a "photographer" is a stretch. A guy that shoots auto is like a painter who sketches something and has someone else paint it for him.


----------



## Ecas32 (Feb 26, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> You may get a good shot out of auto mode, but calling an auto shooter a "photographer" is a stretch. A guy that shoots auto is like a painter who sketches something and has someone else paint it for him.


 
.....or a country singer who gets other people to write their songs, and they sing it.

you stole the words right out of my mouth


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 26, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> You may get a good shot out of auto mode, but calling an auto shooter a "photographer" is a stretch. A guy that shoots auto is like a painter who sketches something and has someone else paint it for him.



Scott Kelby says he regularly shoots on Auto when he's in cities so that he can quickly capture a scene.  Not a photographer?


----------



## anubis404 (Feb 26, 2009)

mosu84 said:


> Scott Kelby says he regularly shoots on Auto when he's in cities so that he can quickly capture a scene.  Not a photographer?



Scott Kelby may shoot auto on occasion, but he is not an auto shooter.


----------



## Overread (Feb 26, 2009)

oh dear I have a feeling the thread is falling apart - debating what makes a "photographer" a photographer is a whole different debate and its inclusion here will simply sidetrack this thread from its original topic.

besides the examples both stated - and artist sketching a scene and having another paint it - are you saying that a sketch is not a work of art? Or that the art of painting is far superior to the art of sketching?
Again with the second example there is a whole - you say that a musician cannot be one unless they both play and write their music - so any person who simply plays music written by others is what? Are you saying that the abilty to play music is not worthy of recegnition?

I understand what you both intend by the analogies but they are both badly flawed and thus invalid.


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 26, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> Scott Kelby may shoot auto on occasion, but he is not an auto shooter.



Give the best photojournalist in the world a disposable camera and they will still produce better shots than you or I ever will.  There's so much more to photography than choosing the right aperture and shutter speed.


----------



## jordan! (Feb 26, 2009)

Overread said:


> oh dear I have a feeling the thread is falling apart - debating what makes a "photographer" a photographer is a whole different debate and its inclusion here will simply sidetrack this thread from its original topic.
> 
> besides the examples both stated - and artist sketching a scene and having another paint it - are you saying that a sketch is not a work of art? Or that the art of painting is far superior to the art of sketching?
> Again with the second example there is a whole - you say that a musician cannot be one unless they both play and write their music - so any person who simply plays music written by others is what? Are you saying that the abilty to play music is not worthy of recegnition?
> ...



I don't think that his example had anything to do with sketching being inferior to painting. The point I think people are trying to get at is that seeing a scene worth photographing and having the knowledge and skill to photograph it are two different things. Or being able to play a song but not knowing how to write a good one yourself.

The process by which something is created can sometimes be as important as the final product.

Maybe we can all meet in the middle and shoot in aperture priority.


----------



## In2daBlue (Feb 26, 2009)

mosu84 said:


> Give the best photojournalist in the world a disposable camera and they will still produce better shots than you or I ever will.  There's so much more to photography than choosing the right aperture and shutter speed.



As a working photojournalist, I can tell you this is kinda true. Disposable cameras don't take very good images though. 

Bottom line is this: Professionally speaking, my editors don't care what my camera settings are at -- they care about the quality of the image. There is nothing wrong with Auto mode shooting if it gets you a good image, because a good image is the end goal, right? 

Now, professionally speaking, I can assure you that if you don't know how to work in M mode you will run into situations where you don't come back with the best image possible. The Auto modes on the cameras are good and getting better but there is no substitute for the human eye. And, sometimes, especially in low or crazy artificial light, the Auto modes in the best cameras can't cut it. 

Anyone who claims Auto mode can do everything in every situation has not shot in every situation. It's an ignorant statement. Period. But, anyone who says M mode will always get you a better image is also just as ignorant and probably a little pompous as well. 

People on both sides of this argument need to get over themselves. That's my two cents.


----------



## Joves (Feb 26, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> You may get a good shot out of auto mode, but calling an auto shooter a "photographer" is a stretch. A guy that shoots auto is like a painter who sketches something and has someone else paint it for him.


 Or uses paint by numbers. 
I have no problem with Auto shooters. BUT what I find most annoying is the people who claim the camera sucks because it didnt catch the shot right. Well no kidding there is only so many variables the makers can stuff in there. The other thing is when you make a suggestion on settings and, they wont listen or dont care enough to learn about their hobby more. 
 I shoot in manual and Aperture alot of the time myself. But then I started in film so I learned to control my cameras. It is a habit I cant and dont ever want to break. If all I was doing was pointing the camera at something and, not being involved in how it was shot, Id have been bored with it long ago and, given it up.
 Now granted the majority of the camera buying market is people who shoot their vacations, kids and, other snap shot events. Which is fine by me it makes the equipment I buy more affordable because of volume sales. So hey let them shoot Auto.


----------



## mrodgers (Feb 26, 2009)

stsinner said:


> No, I drew it on a canvas and colored it with pigments from the Orient.  I took some art classes in college, and I would hate to waste that talent.  Only a lazy boob would take this picture with a camera when they have a perfectly good canvas, pencils and yak hair brushes lying nearby..


I think you are lying.  The EXIF tells differently.....


----------



## Micah (Feb 26, 2009)

I currently shoot almost exclusively in apperature mode. When I know what I want I shoot in Manual. Once I figure out apperature mode, I will switch to shutter mode. Its all a learning experience that is leading me to manual. I havent shot in auto since I found this forum and started learning a bit.


----------



## Joves (Feb 26, 2009)

Micah said:


> I currently shoot almost exclusively in apperature mode. When I know what I want I shoot in Manual. Once I figure out apperature mode, I will switch to shutter mode. Its all a learning experience that is leading me to manual. I havent shot in auto since I found this forum and started learning a bit.


What are you shooting with? Because some cameras are easier than others in Manual. And it is good you are going to the darkside.


----------



## stsinner (Feb 27, 2009)

Although I shoot a lot of manual, my problem with it is this:  When I shoot manual, being new to it, I'm usually just taking an educated guess as to what the settings should be, so I then have to look at the screen and see if the exposure and WB and ISO etc. were all correct and adjust and re-shoot if necessary..  It is a learning experience.  With Auto I can shoot with my sun shade closed and never worry because I know that every single picture I took that day was exposed correctly.  Of course I had no control over DOF, stopping motion, etc, but I know that if the flash needed to fire it did, the settings were damn close to where they needed to be and I will recognize the picture when I look at it.  

Manual is getting easier all the time, but Auto is my failsafe.


----------



## mrodgers (Feb 27, 2009)

Stsinner, think of it this way, auto mode will expose to this:  |..|..0..|..| and center the exposure at 0 on your meter display.  In manual, all you do is expose the same, center to 0.  They will be the same.  It isn't a guessing game, you have a meter display right in your viewfinder (I think with most cameras).  Disregarding DOF and motion, just getting a generally "correct" exposure as far as comparing auto to manual is a piece of cake.

Auto doesn't fire the flash because it needs to fire.  It fires the flash because it _thinks_ it needs to fire.


----------



## LarryD (Feb 27, 2009)

I've had a camera in my hands for well over 40 years..  Back "in the day" you had to know how the camera worked and what to expect from it's settings...  but you were also foolish if you didn't have a meter too...  Otherwise, even with the formulas, you were just guessing; and along with that guess, you shot on both sides of your chosen exposure to ensure you got a good shot..

The advent of TTL metering was a godsend because it really reduced the "stuff" you had to carry around and the out-of-hand camera fiddling time..

Today, I'm comfortable shooting in P mode: if I have the time, it's usually what I look at first (like my old meter)........ I can see instantly what the exposure and shutter is, and if I don't have a good reason to change it, I don't.... 
...But I know I can shoot in any mode the camera comes with, and I have a pretty good idea of what to set for the effect I want to achieve....Still, I  have trouble figuring out what shots to delete at the end of the day.....yes, even those shot in P... 

I hardly ever go to Manual..... If I want to control DOF, I'm in Av, if I want to shoot some action, I'm in Tv......Manual is just there if I want to override everything, not to take the place of everything....and unlike some of the comments here... I am always in control of what the camera is doing.... no matter what mode it's set in.

The first thing I think when I read "I ONLY shoot in Manual", or "I shot this in Manual, of course"...... this guy is new to photography and may not really understand the technical marvel he is holding in his hands..

In the end, though, I really don't care what mode you shoot your camera in..... I'm not changen'.


----------



## swatspyder (Feb 27, 2009)

mrodgers said:


> .........
> 
> Auto doesn't fire the flash because it needs to fire.  It fires the flash because it _thinks_ it needs to fire.



QFT

Full auto has become old news to me.  I just hate using it when I know I can have a little bit of control in AV, TV and M.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Feb 27, 2009)

In2daBlue said:


> Bottom line is this: Professionally speaking, my editors don't care what my camera settings are at -- they care about the quality of the image. There is nothing wrong with Auto mode shooting if it gets you a good image, because a good image is the end goal, right?
> 
> Now, professionally speaking, I can assure you that if you don't know how to work in M mode you will run into situations where you don't come back with the best image possible. The Auto modes on the cameras are good and getting better but there is no substitute for the human eye. And, sometimes, especially in low or crazy artificial light, the Auto modes in the best cameras can't cut it.
> 
> ...



Makes sense to me - especially that last line

I use P, Av, Tv & M as I think I need them. So long as you understand what you're going to get out of the P setting and you're happy that will get you what you want, then use it. If it doesn't then pick one of the others and adjust to taste.


----------



## stsinner (Feb 27, 2009)

mrodgers said:


> Stsinner, think of it this way, auto mode will expose to this:  |..|..0..|..| and center the exposure at 0 on your meter display.  In manual, all you do is expose the same, center to 0.  They will be the same.  It isn't a guessing game, you have a meter display right in your viewfinder (I think with most cameras).  Disregarding DOF and motion, just getting a generally "correct" exposure as far as comparing auto to manual is a piece of cake.
> 
> Auto doesn't fire the flash because it needs to fire.  It fires the flash because it _thinks_ it needs to fire.



I'm enjoying this-I'm glad everyone is treating it as a conversation and not a one-sided argument.  

However, you've just exposed what's been my argument all along-you learn how the camera works, then you try to achieve just what Auto would capture by making all the adjustments yourself, instead of letting the camera do it for you just because you know what settings it would choose.  For me, I am enjoying the learning, but it seems like saying, "Why wouldn't you use a rotary phone and develop your film in a darkroom?  Why would you use a touch-tone phone and print digital prints on your Selphy printer when you can make things much harder on yourself!  Why take advantage of new technology?  There are much more difficult ways you could enjoy this hobby."  That's the way the argument sounds for me.  I wholeheartedly disagree with what JerryPH said about shooting in Auto means that you didn't take the picture.  Composure and just recognizing something that would make a good picture are just as important parts as setting up the camera.


Basically, now, I shoot in Manual or A-priority with my dSLR, but with my P&S, even though it has every mode my dSLR has, the only two modes I use on it are movie mode and auto for when I just want to grab a quick shot of the kids or something.  How's that for a trade off?


----------



## mrodgers (Feb 27, 2009)

stsinner said:


> I'm enjoying this-I'm glad everyone is treating it as a conversation and not a one-sided argument.
> 
> However, you've just exposed what's been my argument all along-you learn how the camera works, then you try to achieve just what Auto would capture by making all the adjustments yourself, instead of letting the camera do it for you just because you know what settings it would choose.


An answer to this is yes and no.  It is yes because in the general sense, you do want the same exposure unless you are in a more complicated scene.  With auto mode, I am thinking this, I don't know if you can change the metering areas in auto such as spot, average, etc.  I would think in auto it is metering the entire scene and you can not change it.  If that is the case, then if you have a subject such as a black Lab, you will definitely not get the same shot in auto as you would in manual with a "correct" exposure.  In auto, the dog would be completely black with no detail as the camera would be trying for an overall exposure.  In manual, you would be specifically exposing for the dog to get the dog in "correct" exposure.  This is assuming that you can not change to a different metering mode in auto since I can't look at my camera at the moment.

The answer is no because exposure isn't everything.  If all you are doing is shooting for correct exposure, then you are not really engaging in the art of photography.  There is more to photography than exposure and you do have to factor in DOF, motion, noise, and even flash.  There is no control over any of that in auto mode. 

Thus if your "argument" is only exposure, then you are only touching a single aspect of the art of photography.  I'll go back to what I said a while ago with driving (if you saw that post, 2nd page I think).  Person A drives a car with an auto transmission, antilock brakes, automatic AWD, etc and person B drives a car with a 5 speed manual, no antilocks, or no automatic anything, which person is engaging in the act of driving a car more?  The person who just makes his car go, stop, and turn or person B who actually has to select the proper gear, threshhold brake on slippery roads, and select 4WD when the roads are snowy?  Just as in there is more to driving a vehicle than smashing the throttle to go and smashing the brake to stop, there is more to photography than achieving the correct exposure.


----------

