# Automatic vs. Manual?



## picturephotos (Jan 2, 2012)

I started out letting the camera choose my settings.  Now I choose all my own settings on manual.  What are your thoughts on automatic vs. manual.  Do you always shoot one or the other or do you  mix it up?  If you shoot manual, what method do you use to remember settings for different situations?


----------



## willis_927 (Jan 2, 2012)

I always shoot in Manual. I don't remember what settings to use for certain situations, I choose the settings to make the photo looks the way I want it to. Large aperature if I want a smaller DOF. Faster shutter speed if I want to stop motion etc.


----------



## JClishe (Jan 3, 2012)

Totally depends on the situation. If I'm in a studio or doing still life stuff with OCF or CL than it's manual. Obviously any night shots on a tripod are manual too. For everything else I'm usually in Av and I use exposure comp for quick adjustments as necessary.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 3, 2012)

I don't let my camera chose my settings. I let it calculate the variables I want it to. Depending on the situation most of my shots will be aperture priority and some will be shutter priority or full manual. 

I tried shooting full manual for every situation. Frankly I hated not being able to flick on my camera point and click. I missed more golden moments during my manual only period than any other time. 

These days I only shoot full manual if I have the time (landscape work, night photography, studio etc), or I know my camera on auto wouldn't cut it (fireworks, motor racing etc).


----------



## iresq (Jan 3, 2012)

Most of the time motion is not an issue.  I generally shoot in Av mode.  I let the camera pic shutter.  Of course I always check what the camera wants to do pre-click and review the info post click.  When shooting shots with motion, I generally shoot Tv mode.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 3, 2012)

Much like the others.  Aperture or shutter priority with exposure compensation most of the time, manual when the situation necessitates it.  I didn't buy a smart camera just to dumb it down.


----------



## ann (Jan 3, 2012)

Usually manual mode, being doing that for over 64 years when that was the only way to meter; however, sometimes, one does what ever if takes to get the shot.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 3, 2012)

Alway shoot manual, never remember settings because there is no point every situation is different


----------



## analog.universe (Jan 3, 2012)

Manual most of the time...  pretty much any time I have more than half a second to prepare the shot actually.  Otherwise I'm in Av.

And like others, I don't remember settings.  I remember what f/2.0 looks like at 35mm, and what a fast moving subject looks like at 1/100 second, and what sensor noise looks like at ISO4000.  There's no way to remember settings for a scene though, because you never shoot the same scene twice.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 3, 2012)

Never auto. Hardly ever a priority mode unless I am teaching someone how to use it. Why would you let the camera control anything if you know how to do it yourself and get the exact results you are wanting? Seems like a huge risk in letting the camera think for you.


----------



## Overread (Jan 3, 2012)

The mode dosn't matter one bit - what matters is that you get the settings best for the situation you're shooting in for the creative result you want based on the lighting present (both natural and any added light such as flash or even reflectors). 

f4, ISO 200, 1/250sec will give you the same photo no matter what shooting mode you use from full auto to full manual. 

However what is important is getting those settings you want in the situation. When you start out this can often be a maze since you've still got to build up the experience of shooting in different conditions, with different subjects and lighting to learn what is going to be and what is not possible in certain situations; as well as what your creative side wants to make. 


Also a lot of people say they shoot in one mode all the time, but even then it can depend. From my own experiences:
1) if I'm shooting flash dominated situations (that is where I'm adding the majority of light for the exposure with flash lighting) then I'll shoot in full manual mode. This is because I want a certain creative result and I've set the lights to achive that, but the camera meter can't read the flash light (its not there to be read till the flashes fire). So I've got to take over part of the metering process*


Whilst if I'm shooting general outdoor or wildlife I'll be in aperture priority mode. I want to set the aperture based on the sharpness and depth of field I want in the final shot; I also want to control the ISO (the noise level) in the photo. The rest of the time the shutter speed is being set by the camera, its already doing the metering that I'm basing my shutter speed off so might as well let it set that final setting since its going to be much faster at changing it for any lighting shifts than I ever will. 
Note of course that I've still got control; I've still got to check that shutter speed; make sure its fast enough and if its not adjust the two settings I do control to get that shutter speed fast enough

Then if I'm shooting aircraft with propeller blades or panning a shot then I'll be in shutter priority. Here the creative part I want control over is the shutter speed, so that I can get a slow enough speed so that the rotor blades will blur - aperture (depth of field) takes second place and then you have ISO - so I control the ISO and let the camera balance the aperture based on the lighting. 


Against all that you've also go to learn to understand when the meter will be tricked/fooled by the lighting. A good example is if shooting a very snowy scene when the camera will try to expose it all as grey; when you know that the scene is brighter. You can balance against this using manual mode or you've also got your exposure compensation in the two semi-auto modes. 




All that sounds really complicated I'll bet - but in general its simple principles; the trick is practice. Lots and lots of it combined with lots of experiments. Mess around with the settings and try out different things to see what effects and results you get. Most good photography books (either film or digital) will also go into learning how to control your camera. 
Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson is an often recommended beginner book on learning exposures and giving some creative ideas.




In the very end my view still stands that the mode itself does not matter - but that the photographer has learnt to control the camera first. Learn to use the semi-auto and the full manual modes fully. You can then make the choice upon which to use upon personal preference, style and what will get you the best result you want in the specific situations.


* - note in an ideal world with a more static/slow scene you'd use an external flash meter to help set the lighting values for the flash units.


----------



## brush (Jan 3, 2012)

If I can control the environment, I like manual. But only when I can take the time to fine tune everything just so. So like landscapes, planned out portraiture, studio(ish) stuff etc.  If I'm tooling around looking for cool shots I spend most of my time in a mostly auto configuration stored as custom so I can get back to it quickly, then bounce to the priority modes as needed sometimes. I don't think I've ever used the full auto settings since buying this camera. Oh wait I lied, if something epic is happening in the moment & I need to capture it fast, like a flock of birds taking flight or something you only have moments to catch, I'll flip it over to the sports mode & start firing. That's quicker than taking the time to up my ISO, shutter speed, drive mode, AF, etc.


----------



## paigew (Jan 3, 2012)

I try to shoot manual all the time. But if its a moment I just cant miss/mess up I quickly switch to auto. This is more for stuff with the kids where the memory is more important than the quality of the photo. Eventually I hope to not ever need auto.


----------



## KmH (Jan 3, 2012)

I learned to do photography when Manual was the only option, and have used manual mode so extensively that it long ago became an ingrained automatic, requires no concious thought, response to change the settings on the fly and not miss shots.

However, there are many shooting situations where the semi-auto modes, like aperture and shutter priority are very useful.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 3, 2012)

I had a five-speed manual for a number of years. Now I have a four-speed automatic. I dunno...I sometimes miss being able to stuff it into 3rd gear and mash down on the gas and blow through curves in 3rd with the tach wayyy up there...but in heavy stop-and-go traffic on the freeway in the evenings or mornings, the automatic is just soooooooo much more convenient, and easier on my knee. I learned on a manual....then got an automatic.....then a manual...then an automatic....then a manual for a long time...and now, back to automatic. What's odd to some people, to whom manual versus automatic is like The Crusades, filled with religious-level fervor, girding of the loins in armor,prayers to the God of Manual, and so on, is that I was always able to get to the same,exact destinations, no matter if my chariot was a manual one, or an automatic one.


----------



## bazooka (Jan 3, 2012)

I drive a Magnum which is an automatic, but it also has a slap shift so I can run as a pseudo-clutchless-manual.  I don't ever use it though.


----------



## Destin (Jan 3, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Alway shoot manual, never remember settings because there is no point every situation is different



I disagree. 

I shoot lots of concerts, and I can tell you that most of the time my exposure will be in the neighborhood of iso1600, f2.8, and 1/125th. 

I shoot lots of high school football at night. I can tell you the exact exposure required for the 4 closest football fields to me. 

I shoot lots of basketball with OCF. Same settings every time. 

Being able to remember settings is a HUGE time saver.


----------



## Patrice (Jan 3, 2012)

I get a kick out of these 'shoot manual' threads. They come up pretty regularly. Some guy suddenly figures out how to sort out exposure settings and how thy work and soon after we get a 'shoot manual' thread. Invariably the thread brings out the 'I must be good because I only shoot manual' blokes. Big deal. 

I paid good money to get a really nice D700 with lots of features and I'm gonna use them. The trick is to understand how the auto and semi-auto modes work, when they'll work and when they won't. Even the the oh so frowned upon scene modes have a place in photography and they work very well when used correctly, just like any other feature of these smart cameras.

I remember how happy I was when I got an F4s with matrix metering, auto focus, aperture priority, shutter priority, intervalometer back and the program mode. What a joy to have so many new and useful tools in the kit bag, and all in one easy to use camera body. Manual is nice, but it is not the 'be all' of camera operation. Modern cameras have a ton of useful features, an accomplished photographer will have a working understanding of all of them and know when and how to use them.

My opinion. Yours may differ.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 3, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Alway shoot manual, never remember settings because there is no point every situation is different


I am like Keith and I shoot manual all of the time because it's how I work. It's ingrained in my brain. However, I am not an advocate of all manual all of the time like Gary is.
 I can dial in settings most of the time just by looking at the situation and be correct. It's fast and it's natural to me, however I do NOT believe it's the answer for everyone or even almost everyone. There are not many people who shoot like we do in all manual all of the time. 

I know when and how to use the priority modes and I teach them often. It's just more complicated to ME to use a semi-manual mode. For me I have to then watch my other setting to be sure it's falling correctly, be aware of my metering and what my meter is hitting and if it will make a bad call. 

The post processing of a priority mode is a nightmare for me. It forces me to have to look at every individual image and make sure the camera exposed it properly. When I am controlling the exposure it's consistently exactly the same and there is no having to look and make sure of anything in post. It's all the same. 

Then there is the whole EC thing... It's not as easy to dial in EC as it is to just dial in the correct settings in manual. It takes looking at the back of the camera, navigating thru the quick menu and then dialing in. If my exposure is slightly off in manual I never have to take my face from the viewfinder to change the settings... It's just harder for me to use the assisted modes and doesn't make sense. 

In 95% or more of all situations your lighting is not changing constantly. If you put settings in that are correct they don't change for every image. They only change when your lighting changes. 

I find that in football I have to adjust my settings about two to three times as the sun goes down. It's not a constant thing. I am usually shooting from a time when there is full sunlight until well after dark. I also have to change those settings at each end of the field after dark. I know those settings after the first trip to the end zone in a new school. I know what it will already be at our home school and have it programmed in to my C1 and C2. 

Is that the way EVERYONE should shoot? HELL NO! You shoot what is right for you and if it's aperture and shutter priority used correctly and you are balancing the things I can't manage? Well, my hat goes off to you cuz it's just plain a pain in my butt to do it your way. You have a talent I DEFINITELY LACK!


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 3, 2012)

I don't actually have any cameras that have a full-blown, green-box auto mode...  (Well, I do have some, but they're in the closet and haven't been used in a very long time...)  I do use aperture priority a lot though.  Some cameras I pretty much only use in manual, others I pretty much always use in aperture priority.  Just depends...  Aperture priority is pretty good as long as you know when it's going to need exposure compensation.

If I'm using a flash, it's 100% manual all the time.


----------



## JClishe (Jan 3, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Then there is the whole EC thing... It's not as easy to dial in EC as it is to just dial in the correct settings in manual. It takes looking at the back of the camera, navigating thru the quick menu and then dialing in. If my exposure is slightly off in manual I never have to take my face from the viewfinder to change the settings... It's just harder for me to use the assisted modes and doesn't make sense.



On my 50D I can simply nudge the Quick Control Dial with my thumb to control EC without taking my face away from the viewfinder, which is both easy and convenient. And fast. But I agree with your point, there is no right or wrong answer here. Personal preference and different button layouts across camera bodies will all likely impact how the photographer goes about controlling the exposure. The only thing that ultimately matters is whether the photographer is able to get the exposure that captures his/her creative intent.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 3, 2012)

I grew up shooting manual, using a light meter. For the most part I learned to make an educated guess at what the correct exposures were without the use of the light meter, (shooting slide film was always metered) Shooting everything on auto is a recipe for photographic disaster, too many opportunites for the camera reading off the wrong light source.  Learning how to shoot manual is a progression in photography that will help make the camera user a better photographer.

I can walk into pretty much any sports venue anywhere in the world and have a pretty good idea what the exposure is going to be, this just comes with experience.  Shooting outdoors, most situations are different, but basically all the same, if that makes any sense. 

Simply said, learn how your camera works, learn how to make manual adjustments, learn how to be a better photographer, isn't that the idea?


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 3, 2012)

I pretty much shoot in Aperture Priority mode 75% of the time because I'm usually photographing flowers, plants, bugs. etc, and DOF is my main concern. I also shoot nearly every picture on a tripod, so a slow shutter speed doesn't bother me. But when I'm shooting anything with movement such as birds or animals, I'm usually in manual mode as I need to set all the exposure values to meet the given situation.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 3, 2012)

i've always used manual mode. for me AE/AF and anything other that spot mode is unnatural and imprecise.

I could get used to AF i think if i had a decent AF lens. But i doubt i'd ever like AE or these new fangled meter modes.


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Jan 3, 2012)

i shoot manual when im doing something i care about > sports/portraits etc.. if im at a friends/family function put it on auto, reason being im not good enough to set up the camera quick enough to catch ketchup squeezing out of a hot dog bun and onto someones shirt.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 3, 2012)

Asked and answered a thousand times here and on other forums, usually ending up in an argument.


----------



## picturephotos (Jan 3, 2012)

I started out shooting automatic when I was doing drag races.  That was years ago and i've since educated myself to manual.  All self taught and it wasn't easy.  I memorize all my settings for different situations.  I'm fortunate to remember those settings since I find it hard to remember anything else.  My first thought way before I start is to get to my spot early, take a few sample shots and fix my settings in time before my subjects appear.  I don't have a meter or anything to tell me if everything is correct.  I very seldom use a flash except on dark cloudy days.  My photos have been consistant.  I am a serious perfectionist.  That has it's pros and cons. lol


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 3, 2012)

picturephotos said:


> I started out shooting automatic when I was doing drag races.  That was years ago and i've since educated myself to manual.  All self taught and it wasn't easy.  I memorize all my settings for different situations.  I'm fortunate to remember those settings since I find it hard to remember anything else.  My first thought way before I start is to get to my spot early, take a few sample shots and fix my settings in time before my subjects appear.  I don't have a meter or anything to tell me if everything is correct.  I very seldom use a flash except on dark cloudy days.  My photos have been consistant.  I am a serious perfectionist.  That has it's pros and cons. lol



You have a meter in your camera. It's not the same as a handheld, but it's really pretty decent.


----------



## pdq5oh (Jan 3, 2012)

I shoot manual the greatest majority of the time. Nearly all. I know what I want and don't want any settings changed unless I change them. I grew up & learned on cameras with nothing but a shutter & aperture ring. Nothing auto until my Pentax ME. Not near enough control on that for me. Learn to see the middle grey in your scenes and expose for it. Auto setting will compromise the whole scene to middle grey. Whites generally won't be white, and blacks won't truly be black. I only use auto settings when light changes too fast to keep up manually. Moving subjects going in and out of light & dark areas quickly. Otherwise, as Patrice says, I'm good enough to not need auto settings.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jan 4, 2012)

Same.


JClishe said:


> Totally depends on the situation. If I'm in a studio or doing still life stuff with OCF or CL than it's manual. Obviously any night shots on a tripod are manual too. For everything else I'm usually in Av and I use exposure comp for quick adjustments as necessary.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 4, 2012)

I have to say... I am rather impressed with this discussion. It's the first of the controversial posts that I've seen in here not go south in a hell of a hurry. 
It's kind of refreshing to see that we can agree that there is no one perfect way for everyone!


----------



## unpopular (Jan 4, 2012)

Yeah, because we all know that if you use AE you're either lazy or a noob.

(sorry. my grandmother on my father's side was a troll)


----------



## GreatPhotoRace (Jan 4, 2012)

Learning to shoot in manual helped me become a more confident photographer since I knew how to get the shot that I wanted with out having to cross my fingers and pray it turns out how I want it to. It's worth it for that alone, in my opinion. But I agree that it depends on the situation. Sometimes it's not absolutely necessary.


----------



## ld3davis (Jan 5, 2012)

Both.  I'm a hobbyist.  From my point of view there are times when it's super fun being crazy creative and setting up props and creating exposures as I see fit and trying to create the perfect photo and doing portraits of the kids and friends blah blah blah. Then there are times when putting the camera on cruise controls works best to capture the moments.  Either way we love viewing the photos later and reliving those moments.  Again, that's just from my hobbyist point of view.  It is amazing seeing what and how something can be creatively captured however.


----------



## BZSPhotography (Jan 5, 2012)

The best way, in my opinion, to describe this is relating it to automobiles. Automatic gear cars give you relief and do everything for you, all you have to do is brake and drive. On the other hand, Manual gives you more control over the photo. Its more work on your side, but if you do it correctly, you'll have a perfect outcome that you will like and enjoy. So, if you are proficient in using Manual mode I say you'll have better outcomes than automatic.

Hope this helps.


----------



## usayit (Jan 5, 2012)

Bulb... and let my finger decide the exposure.  Somehow its dead on each and every time.....  well sometimes I am a little too far to the right once my finger gets to about 1/8000 of a sec.  I am getting a bit old and my reaction time isnt what it used to be.

I have never owned a slushmatic car in my life.  I cant stand driving a vehicle without a manual stick.   Yes.. even in my daily bumper to bumper commute.  Ok... maybe I would make one exception to a Porsche which I dont think I would ever own.


----------



## nickzou (Jan 7, 2012)

I find myself using aperture priority mode a lot on my GF2. It's just easier. And since I don't auto ISO most of the time I would probably choose the same shutter speed as the meter anyways. At most it is 1/3 of a stop off the exposure I want. But most of the time it's perfect. 

As for my D7k I usually go full manual because Nikons front and rear dials are just so fun.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jan 7, 2012)

I have been using manual just to force me into thinking more about where my setting are and what i need to do to get the photo's I want.  it was awkward and i forgot things at first. but now im starting to just adjust things without really thinking about them. it's nice once you get over that curve.


----------



## zcar21 (Jan 7, 2012)

I use Av + evaluative mode most of the time. If the evaluative if off, I know when to expect it, I use exposure compensation.


----------



## MarkCSmith (Jan 8, 2012)

I personally think all photographers shooting SLRs should learn how to get proper exposure in Manual mode, simply to educate themselves how different settings affect the exposure. Other than that, whatever gets you the exposure you want is what you should use. I am quite often shooting in Aperture priority because I've become accustomed to it and most of my work I find the aperture to be the only thing I want or need to set myself.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 8, 2012)

^^ to use AE effectively, one should learn manual exposure to better understand how, when and most importantly why it may not behave as expected.


----------



## thinkricky (Jan 10, 2012)

Is using aperture priority a bad thing? One of my posts I was insulted for using it.  Referred to it as me using it like a point and shoot.  But many people say they use it too to capture the quick moments.  So... I don't get it.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 10, 2012)

There is nothing wrong with AE so long as you know how to use it. The problem is that it's hard to know how to use it without first learning manual.


----------



## MarkCSmith (Jan 10, 2012)

thinkricky said:


> Is using aperture priority a bad thing? One of my posts I was insulted for using it.  Referred to it as me using it like a point and shoot.  But many people say they use it too to capture the quick moments.  So... I don't get it.



Anybody who said that is an idiot and probably doesn't understand the mechanics of their camera themselves. So no, it's not a bad thing. Use whatever you need to get the image you want to capture.


----------



## Hickeydog (Jan 10, 2012)

I do most shooting in aperture priority.  Where the lighting is fairly constant, or I'm going for a really specific shot, I switch to full manual.


----------



## JClishe (Jan 10, 2012)

thinkricky said:


> Is using aperture priority a bad thing? One of my posts I was insulted for using it. Referred to it as me using it like a point and shoot. But many people say they use it too to capture the quick moments. So... I don't get it.



Most photographers use aperture priority most of the time. There are always reasons to switch to the other modes but Av is a good default.


----------



## thinkricky (Jan 10, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with AE so long as you know how to use it. The problem is that it's hard to know how to use it without first learning manual.



I hear from most to use AE as you learn.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 10, 2012)

thinkricky said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I really don't agree. Basic exposure should not be an advanced topic, lots of people have successfully learned photography using manual cameras. I can understand the sentiment, but manual exposure is certainly within the abilities of any dedicated beginner.

Its just one of those things, it really isn't that hard once you get yor head around it.


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 11, 2012)

Personally, I use Aperture Preferred as my default setting. Why? Because the vast majority of my outings are of florals, close up florals, and scenics. I'm mostly concerned with DOF, so my aperture setting is most important to me. I shoot all my florals and scenics on a tripod, so shutter speed isn't very important the vast majority of the time. As for ISO, I'm looking for the lowest setting I can get away with.  

Yes, there are times when the conditions such as wind or plant movement will cause me to switch manual in order to be able to have a better handle on those conditions and still control DOF.


----------



## Dao (Jan 11, 2012)

- I believe some people claim they only shoot manual mode just to be coooooool.  

- I know there are people shoot manual mode because they just know without even need to help of the any light meter including the camera build-in light meter.     (or with the help of an external flash meter)

- I know some people shoot manual mode and do not like to shoot auto or semi auto because they believe they can control everything, but all they do is shoot in manual mode, dial the aperture and then change the shutter speed until display meter is point to  0  (-|---0---|-)


For me, I just use the mode that can get the shot I need.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 11, 2012)

Dao said:


> - I know some people shoot manual mode and do not like to shoot auto or semi auto because they believe they can control everything, but all they do is shoot in manual mode, dial the aperture and then change the shutter speed until display meter is point to  0  (-|---0---|-)



This could not be _*further*_ from the truth.


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 11, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > - I know some people shoot manual mode and do not like to shoot auto or semi auto because they believe they can control everything, but all they do is shoot in manual mode, dial the aperture and then change the shutter speed until display meter is point to  0  (-|---0---|-)
> ...



just out of curiosity, how do you know that it's not true?  I know a few photographer friends who do exactly that the vast majority of the time. Or they want to make an adjustment to the exposure of lets say 1/2 stop, so they use manual mode. But as I've pointed out to them it can just as easily be done in aperture preferred mode using EC.


----------



## ann (Jan 11, 2012)

What happens when one wants to make different changes, quickly and on the fly? EC is a bit tricky then, manual , just a tweak of the thumb.

The meter for me is just a recommendation. They neither know what i see or what i want, and rarely use what it consider the "normal" exposure.

I do use what ever mode is necessary to get the shot, but manual is my main option, but probably because that is the way I began learning 64 years ago.

Unlike what most are saying here, I start with the shutter speed being my main decision, but this again can change depending of the  type of image I am making.

Understanding your tools and when it is best to use which options is far more important than being locked into "the method".  Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 11, 2012)

ann said:


> What happens when one wants to make different changes, quickly and on the fly? EC is a bit tricky then, manual , just a tweak of the thumb.
> 
> The meter for me is just a recommendation. They neither know what i see or what i want, and rarely use what it consider the "normal" exposure.
> 
> ...




Ann,  from you post I gather that you hand hold most of time, and your subject matter does in fact move. The complete opposite from me. So I would expect you to either use shutter priority, or manual.


----------



## Dao (Jan 11, 2012)

> Understanding your tools and when it is best to use which options is far  more important than being locked into "the method".  Just my 2 cents.



This is I think the key point


----------



## unpopular (Jan 11, 2012)

Joel_W said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...



Ok.

The zero does not indicate "proper exposure" it indicates "0ev from reference". What this means is that there is as much light at the meter as there was when the meter was calibrated in the first place, which is 12.5% or 18% reflected light, depending on the meter. You may already know this, but few photographers really realize what that means is pretty unsubstantial.

Zeroing a meter will render whatever is being metered or chosen by the fancy-pants, multi segment is going to be rendered in a similar way to it's calibrated reference. But this says absolutely nothing about the scene itself, and more important how you want the scene to be rendered - and what if there is no middle grey to choose from? The result will be a missed exposure.

Modern in-camera meters do a pretty good job of compensating for the latter, but they do so in accordance of their programming, which is great, especially in situations where you don't have the luxury of diddling around with a spot meter - after all, these systems were developed for the press photographers of the late 20th century who needed fast, objectively accurate and most important predictable results in less than ideal circumstances.

But in other situations where control is more valued that speed these metering systems are often far from idea. What if you want a near silhouette with ample but subtle shadow detail against a turbulent, yet brightly lit sky? You could use AE and compensate - but by how much would you compensate?

To do this, you could spot meter off the tree. If you dialed in "zero" it would render too bright, and it is likely that the sky would blow out. You could meter off the sky and zero it in, and while the sky might have enough detail, the tree would have no detail at all.

Instead, of just "zeroing" the meter to whatever arbitrary condition it was calibrated, you can use "zero" as a predictable reference. We know that whatever the meter says, by stopping down two or three stops the tree will render how we expect it to. So, to do this, you can meter off the tree, and decrease exposure by two stops - placing it in Zone III. Provided that the highlights aren't blown, you done.

There are better ways to handle this, ofcourse, but every method requires exposure compensation one way or another. And yes. You can certainly do this in AE as well using the EC parameter. However, manual mode works well because you are not fixed to just shutter or aperture adjustment. In manual mode I can consider what the drawbacks and advantages of every change I make in relation to the subject: will increased noise be better than shallow DOF; will increased DOF be better than a shorter exposure; is this photograph even possible in the current circumstances.

But using AE makes it very hard to visualize what each parameter is doing and how they are related. And this is really essential to having complete control over your camera - no matter what metering mode or exposure method is used.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 11, 2012)

I really need to write a tutorial on this...


----------



## ann (Jan 11, 2012)

Joel_W said:


> ann said:
> 
> 
> > What happens when one wants to make different changes, quickly and on the fly? EC is a bit tricky then, manual , just a tweak of the thumb.
> ...



Quite a bit, it varies depending on my intent, but hand held or on a monopd, tripod, etc. I use manual metering 99% of the time, but again, am not admit about what others should use or not use. That is up them.

This is also true  for me regardless of the format I am using, be it LF, medium format or 35.

Clearly subject matter would dictate the base line decision. DOF/ speed which should it be.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 11, 2012)

OMG!  I must be more of a man than Derrel since I drove a 18-speed manual... :lmao:


More seriously, *WHO CARES?*

Some situations will require manual but aside from that do what ever yo want. It makes no difference because, if you are serious about photography, the only thing that really matters is the results.

And yes, I said results (plural), because if you luck out and get a nice photo once every few months then you still have a lot to learn. You need to get decent to very good results consistently. And if you are a pro (or going pro tomorrow), it'd better be excellent results consistently.


Cheers.


----------



## ph0enix (Jan 11, 2012)

I never shoot in full Auto (anymore) - sometimes in P, a lot of times in A and S but mostly in M.  It's the way to go.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 11, 2012)

U know, its not really manual if your camera has a light meter.  U should try guessing exposure without looking at the meter, it makes u think and slow down, both good things.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 11, 2012)

djacobox372 said:


> U know, its not really manual if your camera has a light meter.  U should try guessing exposure without looking at the meter, it makes u think and slow down, both good things.


If that is the criteria, then it is not really a manual camera if it has a shutter release or variable aperture.  You should have to remove the lens cap and figure out how long to leave it off and live with what ever aperture your lens has.


----------



## ann (Jan 12, 2012)

djacobox372 said:


> U know, its not really manual if your camera has a light meter.  U should try guessing exposure without looking at the meter, it makes u think and slow down, both good things.




A long time ago , 40 years or more, we would practice learning to "read" the light without the use of the meter. 

We would look at a scene, subject, what ever, announce what we would use and then check that against our meters.  I had a friend to could "guess" down to 1/4 of a stop. Basically we started with what is known as the sunny 16 rule.  

In fact for years, Kodak had recommendations posted on their film boxes about what numbers to use in varies lighting conditions.

Before that the directions were, sun behind the left shoulder, point and shoot, these box cameras were using around 1/125 @ f16. Lots of wonderful photos made that way.

Frankly I don't think it is guessing as it is training our brains . A lot of the old masters never used a light meter, they didn't exist but they managed ! .


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 12, 2012)

djacobox372 said:


> U know, its not really manual if your camera has a light meter.  U should try guessing exposure without looking at the meter, it makes u think and slow down, both good things.



  Your kidding, right?  The key is understanding exposure and applying it to the photograph you're presently taking. Why guess when you have the proper tool to do the job at hand?


----------



## Joel_W (Jan 12, 2012)

ann said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> > U know, its not really manual if your camera has a light meter.  U should try guessing exposure without looking at the meter, it makes u think and slow down, both good things.
> ...



Ann, call it what you want, but it's guessing. You learned to guess when there weren't light meters, you came close, and you also blew a lot of shots. Also back in the good old days, we did a lot of correcting from miss guessing in the darkroom while printing our pictures. 

A light meter is just a tool. Tools help you get the job done more efficiency, more quickly, and with repeatable results.

This is the same type of conversation one would have talking about why have a automatic transmission. we learned on a manual  trany, or why have power steering, you loose the feel of the road. etc.


----------



## BadPictures (Jan 12, 2012)

I tend to shoot manual because of an explanation I got in a class that I took.  You can feel free to try this at home.  Go outside during the day (i.e., not at night) and set your camera on one of the modes other than manual.  Aim your camera so that the horizon is somewhere near halfway up the frame and take note of the exposure it chooses and take a picture of something in front of you.  Then aim a little lower.  As you remove bright the settings will change.  Take another picture.  What happened to the object in front of you now that is really the subject of your photo?  Odds are you didn't get a consistent shot of that thing.  

So the explanation given to me after that example is that the easiest way to get consistent results is to get a meter reading that ensures that your subject is lit appropriately and then leave the settings alone as long as the light doesn't change.  Even if you have to take a shot or five before you take "The Shot" and chimp the histogram until you get it right, who cares?  It's not like the film days where you are blowing through film, right?  Take some trash shots in the location you're in and get your exposures right... then go looking for what you really want to shoot. So pretty much, you set it once... and until you change locations, you don't have to fiddle with exposure much or hope that the camera chooses something that works right for what you're trying to accomplish each time you hit the shutter.  It'll just be right.  I wish I could explain it as well as the instructor did that day, because I can tell you I went from always chasing the exposure and getting the occasional luck shot on program or aperture priority to most of my pictures being consistently well exposed.  Whether they are good or not is another thing entirely, but at least they're not blown out or terribly dark when I don't want them to be.   

After awhile I do seem to be able to 'guess' pretty closely what will be well lit and normally the first one or two test shots is pretty spot on.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 12, 2012)

ann said:


> A lot of the old masters never used a light meter, they didn't exist but they managed ! .



This is a bit misleading for a few reasons. First of all, black and white film has way more effective latitude than digital and with many of these "old masters" contact printing grain is pretty insignificant except on the densest of negatives.

Second these films were orthochromatic, very, very slow and could very easily be developed by inspection under a dim incandescent light or flame. I don't know how many of the "old masters" developed by inspection, but I am guessing that this was a pretty common practice as soon as it was realized that the plates would not expose to red light - and because incandescence was the only light available at the time, I'd think they'd learn this very quickly.

Finally they did a LOT more chemical intensification and reduction back then, a practice which is almost completely lost today except in the case of missed exposure or some special scenarios.

As far as guessing within 1/4ev - maybe. But guessing how much light is available isn't nearly as useful as guessing how much light is being reflected, and that's a much harder thing to approximate - far from impossible, but much harder.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 12, 2012)

And come to think of it, they also had these slide rules they'd carry around, they'd put in various variables like month, time of day, latitude and maybe some conditions about the atmosphere and get an approximate exposure.

So even if they did not have light meters, people still had tools available to guide exposure. I have no idea how commonly used they were.

Here is the Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actinograph


----------



## Derrel (Jan 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> And come to think of it, they also had these slide rules they'd carry around, they'd put in various variables like month, time of day, latitude and maybe some conditions about the atmosphere and get an approximate exposure.
> 
> So even if they did not have light meters, people still had tools available to guide exposure.



That type of "light meter" was called an "extinction meter". I had a beautiful old Bell & Howell 8mm key-wound movie camera that had a FANTASTIC, round, metal "calculator" or "slide-rule style" light meter that had the season of the year, and the hemisphere of the planet!!!, and then the proper f/stop to use at the various ASA settings, and it worked AMAZINGLY well shooting narrow-latitude color reversal (color transparency) movie film. It was a work of genius!

There have also been ways to determine exposure by chart wayyyyyyyyyyback in the olden days of photography, by using the lens itself, and stopping down the lens while viewing the image on the groundglass, and noting at what f/stop "the shadows disappear".

As far as the exposure latitude of B&W films, there was an old,old joke: "What't the right exposure for Tri-X?" Answer: "f/5.6 at one two-fiftieth." Follow-up: "Under what lighting"?
Answer: "anytime from from breakfast to supper".


----------



## unpopular (Jan 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> As far as the exposure latitude of B&W films, there was an old,old joke: "What't the right exposure for Tri-X?" Answer: "f/5.6 at one two-fiftieth." Follow-up: "Under what lighting"?
> Answer: "anytime from from breakfast to supper".



LMAO. That's awesome.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jan 12, 2012)

picturephotos said:


> I started out letting the camera choose my settings.  Now I choose all my own settings on manual.  What are your thoughts on automatic vs. manual.  Do you always shoot one or the other or do you  mix it up?  If you shoot manual, what method do you use to remember settings for different situations?



Know your light source and you will know photography.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jan 12, 2012)

Joel_W said:


> ann said:
> 
> 
> > djacobox372 said:
> ...



Some of the best lessons in life are learned by taking a chance and making a mistake.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 12, 2012)

The old Kodak professional photo guide was a great tool and chocked full of every disk turn calculator there was.  It actually still is an invaluable tool.  Just don't see many people using them these days.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 12, 2012)

It's the unabridged version of Understanding Exposure:


----------



## jesse101 (Jan 12, 2012)

Overread said:


> The mode dosn't matter one bit - what matters is that you get the settings best for the situation you're shooting in for the creative result you want based on the lighting present (both natural and any added light such as flash or even reflectors).
> 
> f4, ISO 200, 1/250sec will give you the same photo no matter what shooting mode you use from full auto to full manual.
> 
> ...




Agreed! I personally shoot Manual mode most of the time, especially when i have time to shoot the subject.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 13, 2012)

Joel_W said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> > U know, its not really manual if your camera has a light meter.  U should try guessing exposure without looking at the meter, it makes u think and slow down, both good things.
> ...



Not kidding in the least.  One could also say "why draw freehand when you can trace?"  

learning to "read light," will make you a better photographer.  Our minds play a lot of tricks on us when it comes to how we perceive light--like a sub-conscious post-processing with heavy HDR.  If you challenge yourself to read the light intensities as they are (not how you're brain has processed them), then it will aid in your ability to conceive of future photographic opportunities.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 13, 2012)

gryphonslair99 said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> > U know, its not really manual if your camera has a light meter.  U should try guessing exposure without looking at the meter, it makes u think and slow down, both good things.
> ...



You're missing the point. I tend to think that a photographers ability to intuitively read how light and shadow interact in a scene is important, whereas the dexterity to accurately time exposures is not.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 13, 2012)

You need to know how to read the light in order to use a meter, also. Computerized super-meters help automate this process, but they are only effective in objective renderings of typical subjects. 

Again, this is the misconception that a light meter measures "proper exposure" rather than light intensity.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 14, 2012)

My personal thought on this... after much consideration... is to read the other 4,000,000 threads on this very topic.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 14, 2012)

sometimes I feel like I wrote half of those replies in the last six months.


----------



## KristerP (Jan 14, 2012)

Manual or Aperture priority.


----------



## ann (Jan 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> You need to know how to read the light in order to use a meter, also. Computerized super-meters help automate this process, but they are only effective in objective renderings of typical subjects.
> 
> Again, this is the misconception that a light meter measures "proper exposure" rather than light intensity.



ahmen.  I must tell my students a 100 times a session, the meter makes recommendation, it is not an absolute.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 14, 2012)

I would not even call it a "recommendation"; As I am sure you know, it's a "reference". Fancy pants meters just choose the reference that is most likely to fit according to it's program.


----------



## ann (Jan 14, 2012)

what ever   it still isn't absolute and is clueless about the photographers intent and vision.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 14, 2012)

djacobox372 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > djacobox372 said:
> ...



You read, but you do not fully understand, nor can you put what you read to full use.  There is more to understanding light than just how it interacts with shadows.


----------



## PDP (Jan 15, 2012)

*It doesn't matter which mode you use to choose the exposure settings.* 
All the exposure variables also effect other aspects of your image beyond simply creating a correctly exposed image (such as aperature and DOF, shutter speed and motion etc..).
Therefore all that matters is that these variables are such that they create the image you want. It doesn't matter how they are selected, be it automatically, or manually, just as long as they are doing what you want them to do.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 15, 2012)

I use manual when aperture priority won't do.  I have an old Gossen Luna Pro that measures incidental light that has never let me down.  When I can find batteries for it. lol


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 15, 2012)

My first response was honest, I don't care how one got the image I'm looking at. I'm looking at a photo not a technical manual.

That said, however, I wouldn't trust a photog who told me he/she didn't know how to shoot in manual. Kind of like I wouldn't trust someone who can't drive a stick-shift. Stick-shifts, aside from the fact that they teach the driver a lot more about how a car/vehicle works, are very useful/maybe necessary in some situation. Now, true, when in stop-and-go traffic, an automatic is a lot easier on the old knees but I wouldn't trade in my stick-shift vehicles.

Unless, that is, someone comes up with a car which like a camera can switch from manual to auto...


----------



## CouncilmanDoug (Mar 16, 2012)

I drive manual and shoto manual. I did shoot aperture priority the other day though because I was sunglasses and they kept making me overexpose. 
Do you guys shoot manual focus too? I have one lens that I have to shoot manual, but my other main I use auto with manual override and i override it alot


----------



## CAS1951 (Mar 17, 2012)

Why would you spend the $$ for a DSLR if you shoot strictly in auto?  Is it because you don't understand the relationship between the ISO, Aperture and shutter speed?  If this is the case and you don't want to be bothered with it, then perhaps a point and shoot would serve you better (and cost much less).  You have much greater creative control if you shoot using manual settings.


----------



## CAS1951 (Mar 17, 2012)

I should add that I'm STILL practicing!  I'm by no means a snob--it's just that if I'm going to be a half way decent photographer--I want to understand the process thoroughly (and to me, that's half the fun!).


----------



## Austin Greene (Mar 17, 2012)

I always shoot manual. For whatever reason I can't stand shooting in Av or Tv where the camera is making half the decisions for me. For most of my photography (wildlife) I usually go for f/8 or f/7.1 on the 55-250 to get enough DoF, and then I'll just set the SS as high as I can for it to meter properly, if I cant get the SS I want, I'll boost the ISO as a last resort. But still, its been manual all the way for me since my second month of having the camera, I just like being 100% in control


----------



## Overread (Mar 17, 2012)

Full auto you've almost no exposure control barring exposure compensation - same for sports, landscape, macro, portrait, no flash etc.. All modes commonly found on entry level DSLRs. All other models will only have the full auto green mode. 

What I think you mean Graystar are the commonly called semi-auto modes. Aperture priority, shutter priority and program mode. Each of which offering you partial camera automation of balancing the exposure based on the meter reading, but whilst giving the photographer direct control over the key setting for the shot (be that aperture or shutter speed) and the ISO (though on newer cameras you can nose use auto for that as well). 

There is a massive difference between the full auto and the semi-auto modes and they should not be confused.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 17, 2012)

Isn't this thread like 40 million years old?

I suppose I shouldn't complain since at least someone didn't start a NEW one, but...

I would think that in SEVEN pages it would have been sufficiently answered and not need to be discussed further.

Hey, I have an idea... why not make a FAQ? Yeah? Idea?


----------



## Overread (Mar 17, 2012)

and FAQ  you mean like this one http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum/123160-tutorial-thread.html


----------



## slackercruster (Mar 17, 2012)

I bracket a lot. Auto is OK for some things. It is fast but not always right on.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 18, 2012)

Always shoot manual, remember settings for indoor venues that I shoot in alot, although they do change depending on the time of day, windows etc. For the most part it will come with experience, like everything else.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 18, 2012)

Overread said:


> and FAQ you mean like this one http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum/123160-tutorial-thread.html



OMFG!!!!

Why aren't we directing people to this.

I'm so adding that to my SIG.

EVERYONE NEEDS TO ADD THIS TO THEIR SIG!

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum/123160-tutorial-thread.html


----------



## andywag (Mar 18, 2012)

I really don't know why people get so hung up on the manual/auto stuff.

Shoot in whatever mode YOU want and whatever gives you the results you want/need.

I shoot in manual, aperture or shutter priority and "shock horror" full auto occassionally. It depends entirely on the situation and what I want to do.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 18, 2012)

andywag said:


> I really don't know why people get so hung up on the manual/auto stuff.
> 
> Shoot in whatever mode YOU want and whatever gives you the results you want/need.
> 
> I shoot in manual, aperture or shutter priority and "shock horror" full auto occassionally. It depends entirely on the situation and what I want to do.



People very easily get sucked into the idea that photography is only about the settings you choose ... and sorta forget that the settings you choose are important only in how you employ them to get the composition and exposure that you need to portray the image, message and feelings that you desire.

There's no doubt that the settings are therefore important... but they are not the primary concern.

Meh.

I guess in the end you need to learn this stuff in order to make it happen... it's just frustrating to see people not understand that every tool available to them is a valid tool and usable at the right time... it's not just "this one or that one".


----------



## trcapro (Mar 18, 2012)

Automatic is a good place to start for anyone who is just getting their feet wet. But, when you get more serious about photography, switching to manual is the way to go. The biggest problem with any pre-set mode is that they tend to generalize the settings. While this can be helpful in some cases, the more automation we use the less control over every aspect of the shot we will have. All in all, I personally use the manual setting all the time. I do not however, ever use manual focus. I leave that in automatic as that it takes to long to get the right focus using manual and there is a good chance you might miss the shot you're looking for.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 18, 2012)

I don't wanna understand!  Just give me the friggin formula to the perfect exposure!  And I need a condensed version of that Tutorial thread.  Too much information.




J/K.


I learned with the instructions on the Kodak box.  Then I got a 35mm slr with a meter that worked, but never gave the correct answer.  Compensated using a Lunasix handmeter.  Exposed thousands of feet of Tri-X, Extachrome, etc.  mostly correctly for the subject at hand.  

Now I have a consumer-level DSLR and...  a good in-camera meter, and lots of dial options.  The choice of tools to use depends on the situation.

Static light, relatively even tonality, OCF, macro:  Manual.

High variability, but DOF control important:  Aperture priority.

High variability, but shutter-speed control important, Shutter priority.

In the end, it's about using the right tool to get to the result you want in the most efficient (quick) way possible.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 18, 2012)

Graystar said:


> trcapro said:
> 
> 
> > Automatic is a good place to start for anyone who is just getting their feet wet. But, when you get more serious about photography, switching to manual is the way to go. The biggest problem with any pre-set mode is that they tend to generalize the settings. While this can be helpful in some cases, the more automation we use the less control over every aspect of the shot we will have.
> ...



Well, yes and no.  Say you're shooting two people in a room, one wearing dark clothes, the other wearing light clothes.  Suppose that the light is constant.  When you're shooting the person in dark, the meter will assume less light, and will increase the exposue.  The opposite of the person wearing light.  So you will get overexposure with one, under-exposure with the other.  It's much simpler to detemine the proper exposure based on the key area (the faces, I would imaging), and as long as the light does not change, keep that exposure constant.  If you're doing that in manual, no problem.  If you're in Av, you'll have to continually adjust the exposure compensation to override the meter's reading of the situation - unless you are using the spotmeter off the face.  So there is a practical difference between using the different modes.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 18, 2012)

Going to have to explore using the AE lock...  I've used it for limited circumstances, but not quite in the way you describe.  Maybe with my equipment it will work, maybe it won't - will just have to try and see.

Totally agree about the difficulty using Manual with changing light conditions such as moving clouds.


----------

