# Something Very Annoying Happened Tonight



## chrisburke (Feb 22, 2009)

sitting in a room with a bunch of my friends, we're all just hanging out have supper, having a good time... then my buddy starts talking to one of the girls about photography...  asking her questions, stuff like that, because he wants to get a new camera, either an advanced PS or a low end dslr... 

so shes telling him all about the ifs ands and whys about dslrs and things of that nature... she is a "self proclaimed photographer" who really thinks she knows what shes doing, but, she doesnt... shes the type who would take a job at a wedding, and show up with her point and shoot...in fact, she use to have a D80, and i brought her along to second shoot a wedding with me, basically so she could get some experience.. she got there, her camera wasnt working, so I gave her one of mine.. she shot on auto the whole time...

anyways, so shes talking to my buddy, telling him info and such... but its all wrong... because as I said, shes an "auto shooter" she doesnt understand shutter speed or aperture or anything like that.... i didn't want to pipe in because shes already annoyed with me that i've taken photography further than her in the 2+ years i've been shooting (to her 6 or 7 years)...

I guess i'm just frustrated and needed a place to vent... how do you guys deal with people who think they know it all... do you just let them go on, or do you try to correct them>????


----------



## Seefutlung (Feb 22, 2009)

I used to be confrontational ... but I hope I have matured and don't sweat the small stuff.  The problem is that your bud may buy a camera based on wrong info ... so give him a call/text/email and give him the straight stuff.  No need to belittle her also in your communique ... just that you over heard "Susie" and she wasn't entirely right ... 

Gary


----------



## chrisburke (Feb 22, 2009)

yea, i think thats what i'm going to do... i just dont want it to seem to him like i'm trying to bad mouth her...


----------



## Overread (Feb 22, 2009)

part of the problem is not that she is using auto mode
the problem is that - to her - auto mode gives her shots that are better than (I suspect) when she has tried the other modes. And when you spend that much money on a camera a lot of people today assume that the auto mode computer is doing a lot of work when infact its not really doing that much (when compared to the other modes on a DSLR)

As for how I would approach the problem - well I would try teaching her (though if she is already bitter against you this might be a deadend road - you could try, just that you would have to be extra polite)
As for the other friend I suspect confruntation in person might have led to a conflict between you and the girl - and your other friend would quickly have been left way behind in the argument - so good on not butting in then. Just have a chat with him about your views on cameras and what is best for him - but don't rush out to say that your other friend was "wrong". Instead just offer your position on the discussion without bias. If you try to start countering all her points you just start building on a war with her which now involves others as weapons (which camera he picks becomes the battleground)
just remain neutral


----------



## gsgary (Feb 23, 2009)

chrisburke said:


> sitting in a room with a bunch of my friends, we're all just hanging out have supper, having a good time... then my buddy starts talking to one of the girls about photography... asking her questions, stuff like that, because he wants to get a new camera, either an advanced PS or a low end dslr...
> 
> so shes telling him all about the ifs ands and whys about dslrs and things of that nature... she is a "self proclaimed photographer" who really thinks she knows what shes doing, but, she doesnt... shes the type who would take a job at a wedding, and show up with her point and shoot...in fact, she use to have a D80, and i brought her along to second shoot a wedding with me, basically so she could get some experience.. she got there, her camera wasnt working, so I gave her one of mine.. she shot on auto the whole time...
> 
> ...


 

That's because she shoots Nikon


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 23, 2009)

I would have said something. I'm not scared. Don't doubt me.


----------



## Kegger (Feb 23, 2009)

I'm with VI, I would have shot her down in a heartbeat. I'd rather piss one person off than let them spread disinformation. 

You think I'm kidding, go ask the local Best Buy camera pukes, lol.


----------



## roadkill (Feb 25, 2009)

There is a certain satisfaction in shutting down people like that.  Depending on their intent and who they are (i.e. a friend or business associate).  Usually, in my experience, if you give them enough rope they'll hang themselves.  If not a few well placed questions will bring their full ignorance into a glorious spotlight.


----------



## flea77 (Feb 25, 2009)

The real question here, that no one has asked, is she cute? 

Allan


----------



## MikeBcos (Feb 25, 2009)

chrisburke said:


> I guess i'm just frustrated and needed a place to vent... how do you guys deal with people who think they know it all... do you just let them go on, or do you try to correct them>????



Shoot them down, works even better is you can produce facts to back you up there and then!


----------



## cayuse (Feb 25, 2009)

The person she is talking to may only want something to point and shoot.  Most people do not want to get seriously involved in photography, just talk a good game.  Keep out of it.


----------



## benjieO (Feb 25, 2009)

i wouldn't have shut her down but would have joined the conversation and correcting the wrong info she gave.


----------



## DeadEye (Feb 25, 2009)

I hear folks ask advise all the time about what cam to get. MOST PEOPLE WANT A POINT AND SHOOT. I ask do you want to learn photography ~ Its a few years to get there or do you want to push the button and get a real nice snapshot. Most wanna shortcut to the snap.  So I say get a powershot or coolpix.


----------



## NateOntario (Feb 25, 2009)

You'll meet plenty of people like that, lol


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 25, 2009)

flea77 said:


> The real question here, that no one has asked, is she cute?
> 
> Allan


 
Doesn't matter. Girls like assholes.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 25, 2009)

True, most people want a point and shoot.  On the other hand, the D40 is as cheap as ever these days ($400 on Amazon with a kit lens, the last I checked) and very easy to use.

Ask him if he actuallyi wants to get into photography.  If yes, suggest the D40 kit.  If no, tell him that every P&S camera is pretty much the same.


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 25, 2009)

roadkill said:


> Usually, in my experience, if you give them enough rope they'll hang themselves.  If not a few well placed questions will bring their full ignorance into a glorious spotlight.



You literally took the words right out of my mouth.

The only thing I can ad is, check your motives.  What is it you want to achieve?  If you feel you have to set the record straight, then go for it.  If you're feeling she needs to be knocked down...  punished...  well, then just quietly smile and let her ramble.  It's likely others in the room will see what's going on...  both with her and you.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Feb 25, 2009)

set her up...be passive aggressive.
ask her questions that seem obvious that you KNOW she doesnt know the answers to, and when she tries to answer, gently correct her or even do the whole "oh, that's weird, i was always under the impression that A B C..."

theres a guy at work that has a similar attitude toward everything, and ive called him out on more than one occasion using the tactic above, and he has backpedaled everytime.
it's an intrinsic victory, but a victory none the less.

video tape it and you tube it!


----------



## KvnO (Feb 25, 2009)

Personally, I don't see the point of being an ass about it (unless you want to look like an ass).  If the information is _really_ bad, you can correct her politely.  Maybe she'll even appreciate it. 

In a situation like this, I'd let it go.  If he has an interest in an SLR, chances are he'll be happy if he decides to choose one over the point and shoot.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 25, 2009)

I think what you did, Chris, was the best.  Let the waters of her lack of knowledge roll off you like rain off a RainX'ed window... lol

It did not cause you to lose any money, it did not make you look bad, it had no adverse affect on you as a person or a photographer... you did good by not raising any stink.

I would love to have competition in my town as poor as she appears to be... my business would KILL hers on a daily basis.

Meh... come here, vent a little, we make fun of her stupidity a bit and move on.  Thats the best way to handle these kinds of situations.

Something that I often tell my friends to know how important things are or not...

"As yourself... in 25 years, *HOW* important will that conversation be and how will it impact your life?... oh, not very much, huh?... then it is not very important now, so don't let it get under your skin."


----------



## stsinner (Feb 25, 2009)

I'm always amazed when people belittle, "Auto shooters."  I've seen many times where auto pictures are better than pictures taken by, "Manual shooters."  Auto does fine until you get in a certain circumstance where the camera can't figure something out or you want to control the exposure or do something funky with the picture or control DOF.  Can you honestly tell me that Auto mode doesn't take good pictures?  It's the same tired argument, and if someone wants to blow a ton of cash on a nice camera and shoot auto, why should we care?  It's their money, and with more money probably comes a better auto mode.  Since everyone does PP anyway, why not just shoot in a mode where you know you'll get a good basic shot and then do to it whatever you would have tried to do to it by manipulating your camera?  If I have time to play around and retake pictures I'm in manual, but if I really need to get a shot, I use auto because I know that it's kind of like an insurance policy..  You can totally blow a shot in manual, but it's hard to blow a shot in Auto. It will more often than not be a pretty decent shot.  Now I know that there are reasons for shooting outside auto, such as stopping motion with a faster shutter speed, forcing low-light pictures to expose, etc.  

As for your conversation, I'd have corrected any misinformation, but if she was just giving her opinion then let her babble away..  If she was trying to educate the chap with misinformation, then you can summon all the tact you can muster and join the conversation while remaining cordial.  Right is right, and a few Wiki searches or thumbing though some books would have been on the agenda.  You said you were having fun-plus, you all seem to enjoy photography, so flipping through some books could have been additional fun and learning for your two froends all at the same time..


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 25, 2009)

^^ What Jerry said.  Plus ask you friend if he'd like to come along one day and see how your camera shoots to see if he would like one like it.  You can correct any misconceptions then.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 25, 2009)

stsinner said:


> I'm always amazed when people belittle, "Auto shooters." I've seen many times where auto pictures are better than pictures taken by, "Manual shooters." Auto does fine until you get in a certain circumstance where the camera can't figure something out or you want to control the exposure or do something funky with the picture or control DOF. Can you honestly tell me that Auto mode doesn't take good pictures? It's the same tired argument, and if someone wants to blow a ton of cash on a nice camera and shoot auto, why should we care? It's their money, and with more money probably comes a better auto mode. Since everyone does PP anyway, why not just shoot in a mode where you know you'll get a good basic shot and then do to it whatever you would have tried to do to it by manipulating your camera? If I have time to play around and retake pictures I'm in manual, but if I really need to get a shot, I use auto because I know that it's kind of like an insurance policy.. You can totally blow a shot in manual, but it's hard to blow a shot in Auto. It will more often than not be a pretty decent shot. Now I know that there are reasons for shooting outside auto, such as stopping motion with a faster shutter speed, forcing low-light pictures to expose, etc.
> 
> As for your conversation, I'd have corrected any misinformation, but if she was just giving her opinion then let her babble away.. If she was trying to educate the chap with misinformation, then you can summon all the tact you can muster and join the conversation while remaining cordial. Right is right, and a few Wiki searches or thumbing though some books would have been on the agenda. You said you were having fun-plus, you all seem to enjoy photography, so flipping through some books could have been additional fun and learning for your two froends all at the same time..


 

Auto does not take good pictures if you shoot sport


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Feb 25, 2009)

Auto doesn't take good pictures if you use wide aperture lenses and want to take advantage of it.  

- What if you're at that wedding and you want to isolate the subject(bride) walking down the isle?  You've got a f2.8 lens on, but that camera won't touch that wide aperture in green mode! Nope, it will choose something completely inappropriate, like f8, iso 400 and 1/45th shutter.  Sure, it's going to give you the correct exposure, but the shutter's too low, the ISO can go way higher, and the aperture needs to be much wider for the effect.  Green mode can't figure that out.

- What if you are in a hockey rink and want to concentrate on having the fastest shutter possible?  Green mode can't figure that out.

- What if you're in that hockey rink taking photos for a newspaper and having really noisy pictures won't matter? (noise doesn't show up at all in newsprint)  Green mode would give you typical middle-ground settings like f4, 1/60th shutter and ISO 400-800 or something completely stupid like that.  What you'd really need in a hockey rink is f2.8, 1/250th and ISO 1600/3200.  Green mode couldn't figure that out.

So sure, you could, in theory, get a better shot in Green mode than someone shooting in another mode, but it would be a *fluke.* 

I don't trust green mode.


----------



## Moglex (Feb 25, 2009)

Well, obviously you can think up a billion examples where full auto will destroy your chances of a decent shot.

That doesn't alter the fact that for a great many people the majority of the pictures they will want to take will be perfectly acceptable using auto. Not the best obtainable but that's not what they're after.

And when the auto fails they'll just classify that type of shot as 'difficult' and avoid it in the future. It may seem a sad waste of equipment to an enthusiast but it keeps them relatively happy.

Of course people such as that are wasting their money if the buy an all singing all dancing SLR and keep it 'on green'. Plus the size of the thing may well inhibit them from taking it out at all.

As always, 'horses for courses'.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 25, 2009)

stsinner said:


> I'm always amazed when people belittle, "Auto shooters."  I've seen many times where auto pictures are better than pictures taken by, "Manual shooters."  Auto does fine until you get in a certain circumstance where the camera can't figure something out or you want to control the exposure or do something funky with the picture or control DOF.  Can you honestly tell me that Auto mode doesn't take good pictures?



It takes "ok" pictures, no it doesn't take a picture to the maximum possible quality.  It is there only for one thing... to hand a crutch to those that are clueless.

Anyone that understands photography and how to use their cameras... knows this to be a fact.

Anytime and EVERY time you see someone take a better picture in auto vs manual... you are looking at someone that doesn't understand either his camera, exposure, photography in general, or any/all combinations of the above.

Auto mode has made people lazy and not need to know anything.  This was certainly not the case in the film days where there was no such thing as auto mode as it is today (auto focus, auto expose, auto compensate, and "whatever" aperture it takes to get the shot at the minimum shutter speed set up in the camera).

I am not trying to be insulting or saying that anyone here is like that, but I can guarantee you that in 5 years, if you ever get photography down... you will look at your statement above... and laugh.


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 25, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Auto does fine until you get in a certain circumstance where the camera can't figure something out...



I'll give auto a try when *I* can't figure something out!

-Pete


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 25, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> I'll give auto a try when *I* can't figure something out!



  :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Seefutlung (Feb 25, 2009)

Much of the impact with an image is derived from the creative side ... while I am personally ignorant of seeing first hand what "auto" can do for me ... I think that that "auto" will severely limit one's creative options.

Gary


----------



## leighthal (Feb 25, 2009)

I'm one of those "auto shooters". I'm learning photography and I think it's the best way to learn. I take offence at the hot debates that I am wasting my time (or somehow your time) having a DSLr and using it on auto. Why would I want the limitations of a PS if I am trying to learn a new hobby? You would never instruct someone to buy a soapbox cart if they are trying to learn how to drive. Soapbox cars may have the basics but they will never get you on the highway.

If I ever do get the hang of exposure and such I hope that I never come back here and become a "manual elitist", trying to feed my ego at the expense of others. 



chrisburke said:


> I guess i'm just frustrated and needed a place to vent... how do you guys deal with people who think they know it all... do you just let them go on, or do you try to correct them>????


 

I tend to tell them that what they say can be harmful (or hurtful). If that fails I walk away and don't listen. Deafness has saved me tons of anxiety.


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 25, 2009)

Seefutlung said:


> ... while I am personally ignorant of seeing first hand what "auto" can do for me ... I think that that "auto" will severely limit one's creative options.




Of course it does.

But remember....  some of here are making pictures.  Others are _taking_ pictures, and that's what auto is for.

I'm not asserting there's no value to that.  You just can't compare the two.

-Pete


----------



## stsinner (Feb 25, 2009)

I started a new thread to unhijack this one...


----------



## LokiZ (Feb 25, 2009)

It is sounding to me like this post is contradicting what we all would hopefully know.  What many of you are plainly saying is that without manual mode there is no hope for great pictures even good pictures is a stretch for the cameras auto mode. 

This seems rather comical to me when I recollect the many many many posts that I have seen.  Those whom are more skilled then me, and those who have better hardware then me, boast on and on the fact that it is not the camera that takes the good picture but rather the person behind the camera. 

Don't get me wrong.  Generally I follow that same belief that it's the operator not what is operated that is the driving force behind what you all are calling good photographs.  It's just that the way you are all carrying on in this post... one has to question whether you truly believe what many of you preach concerning that matter. 

Concerning the actual topic of this post I believe what was done was the correct response.  Lay low on the confrontation to prove your sincerity lays with your love of photography not your love of being right about photography knowledge.  If you are concerned about the man spending money on a camera he will out grow far to soon then take him aside in private and softly update him.  Otherwise leave it alone. 

Some people say that photoshop is cheating as opposed to lessor more feature lacking apps.  Or that using filters in photoshop rather then just the defualt tools is some how cheating.  Features are features.  Just because you choose or choose not to use a feature rarely guarantees any level of good, great, or the best.  Such is the manual feature.  It is added power power some can handle and power some never will.  But just like with lighting... we work with what we have, work with what we strive to master.


----------



## AlexColeman (Feb 25, 2009)

I spend my weekends destroying the Best buy morons, as a 14yr old, it is a little funny.


----------



## Joves (Feb 25, 2009)

The way I look at it is you are always going to run in to the know it alls in life. The only ones I have ever got nasty with are the ones I have trained in the work I do. I used to ask then why the hell am I training you and toss them the remote box. It is at this point they quit knowing everything and listen. To me when I run across these people I pretty much ignore them. I will only correct what they say when Im asked by the person they are expounding their wealth of misinformation on. 
 As far as people wanting to shoot in auto, it makes no diffrence to me. It is their equipment and their shots so, why should I care if they are happy doing it. Now if they ask me something about how I got a shot or how to do something with the camera, I will galdly help as best as I can.


----------



## DRoberts (Feb 25, 2009)

Why has every one turned this into a "witch hunt" towards this girl? Even statements like "set her up".
She was asked questions and gave her honest opinions, you may disagree, but the ultimate responsibility of your friend is to research and consider more than one source. I'm sure if you gave her your honest opinions on the same questions you would find people who would not agree with you either. 
Does that make you as pathetic as you are making her out to be?
I would stay out of it unless I was specificaly asked. And then I would give my opinion on what I know, and refer him to some resources that explain what he needs to know.


----------



## chrisburke (Feb 25, 2009)

wow,  i hadn't looked at this thread since the first day i wrote it...  seems that i struck a chord with people...  dont worry about starting a new thread for fear of hijacking.. i'm fine with it.. i enjoy starting up conversations... especially heated ones...


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 26, 2009)

LokiZ said:


> This seems rather comical to me when I recollect the many many many posts that I have seen.  Those whom are more skilled then me, and those who have better hardware then me, boast on and on the fact that it is not the camera that takes the good picture but rather the person behind the camera.



Easy to answer.  When the camera is in AUTO mode... who is making the important decisions, the operator, or the camera?  I'll give you a hint... its not the operator.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Feb 26, 2009)

It's not about how smart the mode is.  It can be very excellently designed, but it still can't read your mind.  

How would have auto mode shot this?





It would have used a fast shutter speed to freeze the action. Ok, but that would be boring compared to what was done instead.

And how would it have shot this?




It would have tried to expose for the dog and the snow, probably wrecking the intended silhouette.

How would it shoot this?




It would pick some weird middle-ground aperture, requiring a very long shutter and making it impossible to handhold this shot like I did.

And this shot:




Who knows what settings green mode would have chosen or where the autofocus would have decided to focus.  But this shot benefited because the photographer was in control on the photo, and the camera just helped, not the other way around.

I am telling you all, I'm not merely suggesting it, if you know your camera, Green mode is never the best choice. NEVER.  If in doubt, plain old aperture priority is the way to go.


----------



## pez (Feb 26, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Doesn't matter. Girls like assholes.


 Little snippets of wisdom crop up in the strangest places...


----------



## flea77 (Feb 26, 2009)

You know, I find all this talk about newbies using auto and "real photographers" never using it rather amusing.....

When I started learning photography from a real professional (made their living for many years off the camera alone) he believed in making the image on the film, and only on the film. No post processing, no dodging, no burning, no cropping, no nothing. In addition, you did not use ANYTHING automatic, no aperture priority, no shutter priority, no auto-focus, no auto-flash, nothing. His theory was that if you could not get the picture right the first time, you were just a vacation snap-shooter and not worthy of his time. I almost got into real trouble for owning a motor drive but got a pass because I had to have it to shoot some sports I was doing (I was not allowed to use it when he was teaching me though).

So now we have to figure out where the "line" is. Is auto exposure for newbies but auto focus is OK? Is auto flash for newbies but auto bracketing OK? How about post processing, is contrast manipulation OK but cloning out items just for people too lazy to get it right the first time?

My personal opinion is that the objective is to get the picture as perfect as humanly possible in the camera, then use minimal PP. If that means shooting on auto, I think that is just fine.

Allan


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 26, 2009)

flea77 said:


> You know, I find all this talk about newbies using auto and "real photographers" never using it rather amusing.....



I don't see the issue, this is not rocket science.  Let me put it in the easiest terms possible:

Modern digital cameras, when placed in "AUTO" mode are making ALL the choices (except when to press the shutter), for you.  The moment you leave all intelligence inside your camera bag instead of using your "noggin", you are NOT the one in control of the process, you are NOT the one taking the pic, you are just the clueless schmuck pressing the shutter... becuase some Japanese engineer in some dark room years ago (during the design phase of YOUR camera), made YOUR creative decisions about how YOUR camera is supposed to take pictures for you.  Not you... them.  

A better analogy is not about a motor drive or not... but about giving the totally manual camera to someone that doesn't know how to work it, then give it to someone who is good (but NOT excellent) in the darkroom and is saving the novice's hiney in post process.  There is very little that is going to come out at the peak of it's quality... if anything.

How in the world can that camera designer know what conditions I shall encounter?  How will that person know I am shooting snow and not a gray wall, or a black wall and do NOT want it gray?  How can that person know that I will be at a football game at night under weak lights?

He cannot, but becuase the mindless auto user is both non-cogniscent of how cameras work, what photography is, nor in general really even care, they "ass-U-me" that what is coming out of the camera is the cat's pajamas.

Sorry... anyone that knows their equipment and understands something about photography KNOWS that the real magic happens when the person holding the lens has some level of understanding about photography AND can transfer that understanding to a level of functionality by over-riding the camera's AUTO choice of settings.

In plain English... if you are a good photographer, it is easy to consistently "out think" a camera on auto, and this results in better pictures.


----------



## leighthal (Feb 26, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> the mindless auto user is both non-cogniscent of how cameras work, what photography is, nor in general really even care, they "ass-U-me" that what is coming out of the camera is the cat's pajamas.
> 
> 
> Wow, thanks for enlightening me. I didn't realize I was mindless.
> ...


----------



## Joves (Feb 26, 2009)

flea77 said:


> When I started learning photography from a real professional (made their living for many years off the camera alone) he believed in making the image on the film, and only on the film. No post processing, no dodging, no burning, no cropping, no nothing. In addition, you did not use ANYTHING automatic, no aperture priority, no shutter priority, no auto-focus, no auto-flash, nothing. His theory was that if you could not get the picture right the first time, you were just a vacation snap-shooter and not worthy of his time. I almost got into real trouble for owning a motor drive but got a pass because I had to have it to shoot some sports I was doing (I was not allowed to use it when he was teaching me though).
> 
> Allan


 Actually in the darkroom you did alot of what you just listed. I personally have no problem with Auto shooters as I said. It is their option but, it would be nice if they would try and learn about their hobby.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 26, 2009)

leighthal said:


> JerryPH said:
> 
> 
> > the mindless auto user is both non-cogniscent of how cameras work, what photography is, nor in general really even care, they "ass-U-me" that what is coming out of the camera is the cat's pajamas.
> ...


----------



## leighthal (Feb 26, 2009)

There you go assuming again. Hee---hawww!!!


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 26, 2009)

Some of the most famous pictures I know












These could have been taken on a Nikon CoolPix and they would still be incredible photos.  Both sides of this debate are ridiculous.  Auto has its place (to capture a fleeting moment), but of course there will be situations when Auto won't capture the desired effect -- such as a landscape with a high dynamic range.  

In my mind (as someone who rarely shoots in Auto), the makeup of the quality of an image would _usually_ be something like this:

60% subject interestingness
25% lighting
10% composition
5% everything else

Rarely does the 5% matter as much as this thread makes it seem


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 27, 2009)

mosu84 said:


> Some of the most famous pictures I know
> 
> These could have been taken on a Nikon CoolPix and they would still be incredible photos.



But the fact is... during the times any of those pictures you post were taken (somwhere in the 40s-60s), a Coolpix or auto cameras did not exist.  These were taken in full manual mode.

I wonder how they ever "captured the moment" before the creation of point and shoots? Seems to me they replaced the automation of today's cameras with a little extra thought, and did pretty darn well.  Auto mode makes one lazy and the quality of the shots, since there is no thought process involved, mechanical, bland and less than what it could be, each and every time.  

Does Auto work?  Yes.  Shall the quality of your photography rise if you put the camera in a manual mode AND know something about photography?  Without a doubt.  That is the point I am making.  People who think that auto mode is as good as knowledge and skill... are deluding themselves.

BTW, just as a matter of correctness, TPF rules state that you should not show pictures that are not yours, a link is acceptable, though.


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 27, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> ...anyone that knows their equipment and understands something about photography KNOWS that the real magic happens when the person holding the lens has some level of understanding about photography...




I don't know about magic, but I do agree a photographer has to know what's going on when he/she trips the shutter.  That's our job.

The technology has come a LONG way since the first auto cameras were introduced.  They can perform well.  

In the end, they're all tools (not the photographers...  the cameras).

Use 'em.  But do know what they're doing.

Auto is one more choice for a photographer.  I seldom choose it (virtually never), but I seldom work in rapidly changing conditions.  I suspect if I did, I'd be getting to know my auto settings a lot better.  I doubt I can out think a computer's speed.  But I would HAVE to have control over what the computer is computing so, when I trip the shutter, I KNOW what is happening.

-Pete


----------



## mosu84 (Feb 27, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> But the fact is... during the times any of those pictures you post were taken (somwhere in the 40s-60s), a Coolpix or auto cameras did not exist.  These were taken in full manual mode.
> 
> I wonder how they ever "captured the moment" before the creation of point and shoots? Seems to me they replaced the automation of today's cameras with a little extra thought, and did pretty darn well.  Auto mode makes one lazy and the quality of the shots, since there is no thought process involved, mechanical, bland and less than what it could be, each and every time.
> 
> ...



I agree with you, I was just pointing out that subject, composition and timing often seriously outweigh the method of taking the shot.  I mean, do you think people are really going to complain about the blown out sky in those pictures?


----------



## Honu (Feb 27, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> I think what you did, Chris, was the best. Let the waters of her lack of knowledge roll off you like rain off a RainX'ed window... lol
> 
> It did not cause you to lose any money, it did not make you look bad, it had no adverse affect on you as a person or a photographer... you did good by not raising any stink.
> 
> ...


 
Truly sage advice!


----------



## anubis404 (Feb 27, 2009)

leighthal said:


> I'm one of those "auto shooters". I'm learning photography and I think it's the best way to learn. I take offence at the hot debates that I am wasting my time (or somehow your time) having a DSLr and using it on auto. Why would I want the limitations of a PS if I am trying to learn a new hobby? You would never instruct someone to buy a soapbox cart if they are trying to learn how to drive. Soapbox cars may have the basics but they will never get you on the highway.



But what's the point if someone else is driving the car for you?


----------



## jordan! (Feb 27, 2009)

I feel like the argument about capturing the moment by shooting auto is ridiculous. If you're worried about not having the right setting, just take a meter reading off your hand whenever the light changes or something. I usually spend a couple hours a day doing street photography, which is all about capturing a fleeting moment, and I've never felt like I was missing a shot because I couldn't get my settings in time.


----------



## millix7 (Feb 28, 2009)

Needless to say, it's almost impossible to change people in the way that you want them to be.. because we are all different. Of course you can say things to her but if you approach with "I'm right(better) and you're wrong(worth)" type of mind-set, she'd get defensive and probably she'd stay the way she is anyway... If I were you, I'd change the way i look at her by focusing on things she is good at or nice things about her rather than her negative trades. If you can do that, believe me, you won't be annoyed anymore.


----------



## chrisburke (Feb 28, 2009)

wow,  i started a big discussion... to those who gave advice on my OP, thanks for it, especially jerry, what you said made lots of sense (so did everyone elses to, jerry's just rang with me)

to those in the discussion about auto/manual.. im finding it very interesting!!! i personally am obviously against auto (hense my OP) but, its great to read what people say... its very clear who here shoots auto (because they are defending it) all I have to say is, take the time to learn this art you've taken up, and take better pictures.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 28, 2009)

It's easy to get frustrated by this kind of thing, and understandable too.  I got ticked off earlier this morning on this very forum about this.

The problem is that people wind up making big decisions and messing themselves up.  My very own mother did it because for some annoying reason she chose to listen to the idiot working the counter at Ritz (they're not all idiots, but this guy was) instead of me.

The thing I always struggle with is this... why do I care?  I actually care a lot less than I have in the past, but why does it burn me that someone makes a bad decision based on bad information.  It has absolutely zero affect on me, personally... but there must be a reason since it's a common thing for people to get annoyed by givers of bad advice.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 28, 2009)

Now I've read the rest of the thread and I see it's turned into one of those "Anyone who shoots any method other than the one I do is a moron" threads.

Awesome.

I started the day on a thread packed with ignorance on TPF, and evidently I'll end it in the same way.

I am, for all intents and purposes a paid professional photographer.  I made more money last year as a part time photographer than a lot of people make in full time jobs.  

I have taken many many thousands of images of all different types, including sports, portraits, commercial real estate, and about a billion pictures of my kids. (figure that one out... thousands to billions)

I'm not bragging here, I'm level-setting.

I use ALL of the modes of my camera.  Odds are if I had an actual Auto setting I wouldn't use it, but only because I do not like it when the camera selects ISO, but I have even had occasions when I have used the auto-focus-point selector.  It's rare, but I have used it.

A camera is not just a tool these days, but a whole tool BENCH... shrugging off an entire mode of the camera as "for the noobs" is about as intelligent as saying that "Hammers are for amateurs!  I only use a MAUL!"

Simply stated, if you stick to any given mode and dismiss all the other modes all you are succeeding in doing is either making certain types of shots a lot harder, or nearly impossible.  

Use the appropriate tool for the job.  Use whatever tools are available.


----------



## roadkill (Mar 1, 2009)

I love this stuff.


----------



## adamwilliamking (Mar 1, 2009)

mosu84 said:


> Some of the most famous pictures I know


 
Irrelevant. Those photos are famous for their subject matter and content, not their photographic values.


----------



## Jamesy (Mar 1, 2009)

Just get over yourself and get on with it. There are always going to be people like this and just because you think you're a better photographer than them doesn't mean they shouldn't talk about their interests. By all means, politely correct them, but just dont be a d*ck about it. It's hardly the end of the world.


----------



## Seefutlung (Mar 1, 2009)

adamwilliamking said:


> Irrelevant. Those photos are famous for their subject matter and content, not their photographic values.


 
Actually that is true ... the greater the image impact the less image quality is needed for an exceptional photograph. In a round-about way ... there is some relevance which pertains to this discussion ...

1) There wasn't an "auto" mode back then, (an auto was a car not a camera setting), the photogs, Adams and Eisenstaedt, needed to know how the camera worked and understand how to manipulate the camera controls to create a reasonably exposed negative. 

2) A P&S would not have been able to capture the two images as they were but fleeting moments, by the time the P&S finished thinking, the moment would have been gone. (A dSLR on auto may/would have worked.)

3) The usual methodology in the pre-auto days was the photog was constantly evaluating the light and making adjustments accordingly. Before the photog stepped outside, they would pre-set using the sunny 16 rule as a guide then adjust accordingly with a deference to lens length, the on-board light meter, (if the camera even had one), was used more as a secondary check. 

While I agree that shooting "auto" one is capable of stunning images ... knowing the fundamentals will significantly increase one's chances of attaining the exceptional image.

Ansel Adams, (not related to Eddie Adams of Vietnam), had a concept he named "previsualization". One previsualizes the final image, (in Adams' case a final print), then one manipulates the camera's settings and lens to attain that pre-visualized image.

Sorta hard to do on auto mode.

Gary


----------



## NucleaRR (Mar 2, 2009)

To the OP, I feel that if you want to help your friend out don't worry too much about correcting your female acquaintance. Suggest to your friend that when he is ready that you are willing to go with him when he shops for a camera. This way you are there to help him along. I believe that the advice that you give him while shopping will stick in his mind more that the ideas she portrayed.

Now to the debate.

I am a little over two years in my love affair with photography. I am self taught. So you can take what I say with a grain of salt. I got my start from my wife who for all intents purpose is an auto shooter. She would complain to me that sometimes her shots would come out all wrong. Having a background in music production and sound recording I figured that it must be her execution. After diving head first into the manuals and reading lots and lots of articles and blogs on the net I was able to understand how cameras worked. I explained to my wife that because she was shooting auto it was reducing the control she had therefore the quality.

She really didnt care she continues to this day to shoot auto. I on the other hand use what ever mode fits what I am shooting at that time. I finally was able to convince my wife that auto was not always the best mode. A friend asked her to shoot a wedding knowing that my wife was not a professional photographer. Because there were no expectations my wife accepted the challenge. The lighting situation at the wedding sucked and was constantly changing. The hall had large windows on two sides letting in a lot of ambient light. Also the ceiling was two levels, about a ten foot ceiling around the perimeter while the center was about fifteen feet. Add to that the fact that the sun was setting. To say the least it was a nightmare. I knew that she was going to shoot auto, and that she would experience problems.

While dinner was being served we had a chance to take a look at the shots. She was disappointed with the outcome. She asked me what she could do. I explained to her that because the lighting was different everywhere because of ceiling height and the windows that she needed to control the shots. She needed to know how. I basically put the camera in manual mode and taught her how to adjust the shutter speed. I also said to be mindful of where your flash is bouncing. At the time I figured this was the easiest thing to show her. After dinner she began taking candids and shots of the dancing. After about five minutes she came back to me and said why didnt you show me this earlier.

If youve read this far, thanks. My point here in the context of this thread is that shoot the way that works best for you. My wife was not willing to learn the way her camera worked because she did not need to know, she was happy in auto. Once she got to a situation where she needed to take better photos, luckily I had learned for her. I had in essence become her auto mode. I calculated her shots for her. Now technically if you look at the photo series from the wedding you can immediately tell when I switched the camera to manual. I spent a lot of time correcting the photos that were taken in auto whereas the other photos took no time at all to fix. Mostly just white balance and bracketing fixed them. 

Needless to say I am a very hands-on photographer where my wife is not. I still say do what works for you. Even though my wife now uses other modes on her camera she still shoots in auto when it works for her. Ironically, some of the best pictures I have seen her take are in auto.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 2, 2009)

^^^ nicely written.


----------



## NucleaRR (Mar 2, 2009)

Thanks. It is an honest account of the way things happened for me. The debate reminds me of the argument about which motorcylce helmet is the best. The really expensive one or the cheap one, I always say its the one fits the best and will save your head.

On another topic, I like your signature. My dogs name is Zaphod Beeblebrox, we call him Brox.


----------



## DRoberts (Mar 2, 2009)

Really...WHO CARES?
If John Doe in another country shots Auto...Why should I give a crap? And why should you?
This is just one more example of one of the many pointless arguments that go on in these forums, mainly for the reason of individuals self importance.
Yes, you are all gods of the camera and once again you have wasted your time and efforts on trying to share your endless knowledge of photography to a clueless, moronic world. We should all kneel in reverance with each post of this infinate wisdom. 
How dare anyone not possess the same understandings and knowledge as I. Off with their heads. These heathens shall surely burn in the hottest depths of hell...blah blah blah!


----------



## prixdc (Mar 2, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Use the appropriate tool for the job.  Use whatever tools are available.


Sage advice.

To join in, for those wary of the capital "M," a good compromise (sometimes) is your priority modes (the _other_ capital letters  ).  Shoot in (A)perture priority to see how adjusting just the aperture changes your exposure.  Do the same with (S)hutter priority.  (P)rogram mode does both of these for you, you focus on ISO/WB/exp. comp.  Working in all of these modes individually will limit your focus to one thing at a time, instead of having to think of everything, which can be overwhelming at first.  

"M" is a good place to end up, just make some pit stops along the way to figure it all out.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 2, 2009)

NucleaRR said:


> On another topic, I like your signature. My dogs name is Zaphod Beeblebrox, we call him Brox.


 
 :thumbup:

Awesome!


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 2, 2009)

To the OP:

I may be wrong, but I generally just ignore blowhards.


----------



## C.Lloyd (Mar 3, 2009)

Moglex said:


> *]Well, obviously you can think up a billion examples where full auto will destroy your chances of a decent shot*[/u].
> 
> That doesn't alter the fact that for a great many people the majority of the pictures they will want to take will be perfectly acceptable using auto. *Not the best obtainable* but that's not what they're after.
> 
> ...


 
Good thing... otherwise the world wouldn't need professional photographers. And then where would we be? :mrgreen:

Auto mode seems to me to always be a little too flat and to much DOF for what I'm seeing in my mind's eye.

Auto mode is for taking a snapshot. If you want to create a photograph that says something, then you probably already know how to use the manual mode. Or you're trying to learn.


----------

