# Auto ISO - Yay or Nay



## sovietdoc (Apr 24, 2012)

I read people's photoblogs and they always say "use full manual, don't use any auto settings."  While this may be true and good in some exteme cases where you can't rely on camera's built in meters, I had a question about Auto ISO.  

So, I played around with it a little bit and found that for me it makes no sense to set it manually because if I do, it's just an extra parameter to keep track of, while if set to auto, it does the same thing.  It always defaults to the lowest ISO setting while having my shutter speed limited manually.  

The question is, is there a particular reason why I wouldn't want to use it? Besides when I really want to keep it down for IQ's sake?  I generally don't like the camera doing things automatically for me but in this case I don't see how it can do harm unless like I said, I just wanna keep the noise down in dim lighting conditions..


----------



## DiskoJoe (Apr 24, 2012)

Manuals setting are when you want to shoot something carefully and get consistency. This is not always possible depending on what you are doing and sometimes what you are shooting is not really important enough to bother with all the extra mess. Set everything manually for the really important stuff and use auto more for leisure.


----------



## murklemark (Apr 24, 2012)

I use auto ISO, I set the maximum I want to the camera to go to depending on the location I'm in (I never go above 1600 on my camera though) and then that lets me be in manual mode and change my shutter and aperture to get the shot I want. I have no issue with it, my images don't come out poorly exposed, and it saves me time to get my shots.


----------



## SCraig (Apr 24, 2012)

There are three variables that govern exposure: Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO.  I have no problem with the camera picking ONE of those three since I know what range it is going to be in (it will be an aperture change if I'm shooting shutter priotirty or a shutter speed change if I'm shooting aperture priority).  I do not want it picking two of them and me not knowing which is changing without having to look each time (it might be shutter speed but it might be ISO or it might be both!).  I tried auto ISO once and did not like the way it behaved so I've had it disabled since.


----------



## markj (Apr 24, 2012)

murklemark, do you get noticeable noise at 1600?


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 24, 2012)

There is a time, and a place to use each auto setting, Aperture/Shutter/ISO. Tools in the bag are for using. 


I might use Auto ISO if I need to keep my speed at a minimum setting or faster, say inside a dark hall or church. If I have time to use a tripod or for most anything else I set my ISO manually.


----------



## bhop (Apr 24, 2012)

I don't really agree with the 'use full manual' mindset.  Sure it's good to know how to do it, and maybe to learn exposure by using manual, but the way I see it, you're paying for this technological wonder that is the modern dslr (or late gen film slrs) and all the features that go along with it, so why would you want to treat it like a basic no-frills camera?  If you wanted that, then buy a cheap Pentax K1000 or something.  

That said, I don't ever use full auto on my SLRs either, that's giving up too much control.  I like aperture or shutter priority (depending on what i'm shooting), because then you can still have creative control, and I trust my cameras meters enough to get many keepers.  Combine those with the EV adjustment buttons and you can be set up for shots faster than you could if you were shooting fully manual. (unless you're zone focusing)

To answer the original question.  Auto ISO?  I think it'd depend on the camera.  The reason is because some cameras have good higher iso IQ than others, but generally I think it's fine.


----------



## murklemark (Apr 24, 2012)

markj said:
			
		

> murklemark, do you get noticeable noise at 1600?



Depends what you mean by noticeable? My D3100 does show grain at 1600, not so noticeable on a standard printed photograph, but you will notice it when viewing it on a monitor or large print out. It's a little bit higher than I would like to go but required for some indoor shots.


----------



## MReid (Apr 24, 2012)

I always have it on. 
Only time I turn it off is indoors if I am using flash then I go full manual and set to one ISO.
I have a little different philosophy however. I set my camera settings before I leave the house and never touch them again. The only thing I ever adjust is the exposure compensation dial....which is not much since the auto Iso keeps the exposures in the pocket for the most part.
I spend all my mental effort and energy on light, compensation and interfacing with my subject, be it animate or inanimate.


----------



## DScience (Apr 24, 2012)

It totally depends on the camera. If I had anything less than a Nikon D700 then I wouldn't use auto ISO. However, since the D700 takes great photos even at ISO 3200, I usually leave it on. Why? Well it doesn't change the settings for most of my shooting. It only changes ISO in certain situations like indoor/night shots. In those cases it almost always turns out great when using auto ISO and aperture priority mode.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 24, 2012)

Nay!  ISO is the one parameter that, IMO, should NEVER be set to Auto.  There's nothing wrong with using Auto exposure if the occasion calls for it, but the dange with Auto-ISO is that it can drive the ISO up to an undesirable/unusable range without the photographer noticing.  Granted, like every "rule", there are exceptions, but for 99.999% of work, choose your ISO yourself.


----------



## MReid (Apr 24, 2012)

Have to disagree.
Set the ISO range and minimum shutter speed to the conditions you are shooting in and have at it, you are still controlling the ISO yourself.


----------



## DScience (Apr 24, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Nay!  ISO is the one parameter that, IMO, should NEVER be set to Auto.  There's nothing wrong with using Auto exposure if the occasion calls for it, but the dange with Auto-ISO is that it can drive the ISO up to an undesirable/unusable range without the photographer noticing.  Granted, like every "rule", there are exceptions, but for 99.999% of work, choose your ISO yourself.



What camera do you use? Please tell me it's a crop sensor??? The reason I ask is because when you use Auto ISO you can select the highest ISO that will be used. Like I said, if you set this to 3200 on D700 then you won't get unusable images! LOL


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 24, 2012)

he did say for .01% it's ok to do.....

I will only use AISO for demanding situations and even then it's probably not necessary. I do use a D700 and yes, ISO 3200 is very usable if your exposure is good. My Roman Pool image is ISO 3200


----------



## murklemark (Apr 24, 2012)

tirediron said:
			
		

> Nay!  ISO is the one parameter that, IMO, should NEVER be set to Auto.  There's nothing wrong with using Auto exposure if the occasion calls for it, but the dange with Auto-ISO is that it can drive the ISO up to an undesirable/unusable range without the photographer noticing.  Granted, like every "rule", there are exceptions, but for 99.999% of work, choose your ISO yourself.



I don't agree, the camera will only drive the ISO to the limit you set, so if you've tested your camera and know the ISO limits, the camera won't drive the ISO any higher than you yourself would drive it. So the images are no worse than if you setting the ISO yourself.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Apr 24, 2012)

You can also cap your max ISO at a range you're comfortable with.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Apr 24, 2012)

murklemark said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This. 

In theory, you could cap the max auto ISO at 400 or 800 if you wanted to. Even 200.


----------



## sovietdoc (Apr 24, 2012)

The reason I am bringing up this auto ISO thing is the fact that I like my camera to do as much work by itself as it can do properly.  I used to shoot everything in full manual when I was learning photography, but the more I learned it, the more I've learned to use shutter or aperture priority modes.  Usually, I just shoot everything in aperture priority because shutter priority only becomes useful to capture moving subjects without a blur.  

The way I shoot, unless doing panoramic nature shots, I don't have much time to stand still and play around with camera settings to take a shot.  This is why I am trying to offload as much of that as possible to the camera itself.  And I guess it's okay to let it handle ISO unless like I said, I am shooting in some sort of extreme setting where I need IQ control or if I am shooting with flash. 

Current DSLRs have so many settings to play with that if I want to take a shot quickly, I have to have it pre configured.  Problem is, in a lot of situations I can't have it pre configured the environment changes dynamically.  Even simple outside shooting requires different settings depending on amount of sunlight, angle, shadows, clouds and etc.  So I used to shoot in full manual setting Shutter speed, aperture, ISO, custom white balance, focus points, flash settings and I've learned to try to automate as much of that as possible in order to take shots quickly in changing environments.  

So based on suggestions here, I think I've made a correct decision to use Auto ISO because 5D3 handles it fairly well and unless I am using flash or in dark dark indoors, I should be fine.

EDIT:

Yes, I just set the upper limit for auto ISO at a setting I know will still be acceptable.   Yes, technically I can even auto ISO from 100 to 200 or whatever is 1/3 increment


----------



## Dominantly (Apr 24, 2012)

No, I never use auto ISO, I see no point in it.

Manipulating the triangle is really quite easy, so I fail to see the point of using an auto mode. It may be a bit different if one is using a body without dual command dials, so I can't speak for everyone on the ease of use.

But really, ISO is the last thing I touch. I go Aperture- Shutter- Fill light- ISO.


----------



## ann (Apr 24, 2012)

nope, not auto ISO,


----------



## Dominantly (Apr 24, 2012)

How much are the scenes you are shooting, really changing?
I'm trying to imagine one that would cause me to lag on manipulating the settings, and can't come up with anything.

I also believe that there is a bit of an artistic twist to nailing YOUR desired exposure, that the camera isn't tuned to do.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 24, 2012)

I've never found conditions desirable for me to set my cam to auto-iso


----------



## tirediron (Apr 24, 2012)

*200, 400 ISO...  pines nostalgically for Kodachrome 25 and Panatomic-X*  I'm curious, OP, what sort of work are you doing where you are faced with such dynamic conditions and so little time to prepare for a shot?


----------



## manaheim (Apr 24, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Nay!  ISO is the one parameter that, IMO, should NEVER be set to Auto.  There's nothing wrong with using Auto exposure if the occasion calls for it, but the dange with Auto-ISO is that it can drive the ISO up to an undesirable/unusable range without the photographer noticing.  Granted, like every "rule", there are exceptions, but for 99.999% of work, choose your ISO yourself.



Yeah, I really agree with this.

I always advocate using whatever tool you need to use to get the job done, but auto-ISO can REALLY mangle your pictures.


----------



## MReid (Apr 24, 2012)

Have the auto iso naysayers ever tried it?
Why wouldn't you use it is a better question.


----------



## sovietdoc (Apr 24, 2012)

> I'm curious, OP, what sort of work are you doing where you are faced  with such dynamic conditions and so little time to prepare for a shot?



Okay, for example taking pictures at someones birthday party or a wedding or at a concert.  Having to constantly run inside, or run outside, even inside, always turning the lights on and off, outside could-sun-cloud all the time.  The exposure settings change like no other and I am having to spend more time readjusting my camera settings than actually shooting.  One way I've solved this is using C1 2 and 3 modes, this way I can preconfigure the camera and just flip a switch but those 3 presets can only provide a baseline for the shoot, not fine-tuned details that keep changing.  Concerts are usually more relaxing but they throw different lighting FX from time to time which can throw off some of the shots.

Basically in a lot of situations just changing exposure isn't enough.  There are a ton of flash settings and firing modes depending on lighting conditions, focal length and the surroundings, plus white balance (primarily inside a building), plus changing AF modes and AF points and I need to be always ready to take a picture in a second.  Because the conditions are always changing, I keep adjusting my camera settings and having less of a focus on what's happening around me. Recently I've been playing around with all different auto modes, only learning that the more I can offload to the camera, the better.  

I totally understand a lot of comments that say "Auto anything? DON'T DO IT" because believe me, I don't like relying on anything automatic because somehow it always just "isn't it" but if it comes to having a more or less decent picture, or no picture at all because I was fiddling with the settings, I'll stick with some settings offloaded for the camera to do.  I believe that as long as automatic settings are controllable, you can always shape that automation to help you get good results quick, rather than ruin your shots.

I am not talking about "auto ISO 50-100k+" here.  I am merely asking about auto-iso 100-1600 outside, and maybe MAYBE up to 12800 inside.  For people (moving subjects) I still always have to have a decent shutter speed like 1/125 so even it it raises my iso inside to match 1/125, it's better to have 1 stop higher ISO than underexposed image and motion blur (unless that is what I initially wanted)


----------



## Derrel (Apr 24, 2012)

How well AUTO ISO works is dependent upon the implementation of the feature and the user's understanding and experience WITH using AUTO ISO. For many generations of cameras, Canon cameras had no AUTO ISO, and then a very primitive incarnation of it. As I understand it, the new 5D-III is the first Canon to come close to the Nikon implementation. Pentax has long had a superb AUTO ISO implementation. Nikon introduced AUTO ISO with the D70 back in 2004, and it has grown more and more capable. The thing that makes AUTO ISO more useful than ever before is the increasing use of slow, variable maximum aperture lenses among users who want to shoot run-n-gun style on family/candid/street/documentary/action subject matter; with slowish zoom lenses, one can EASILY "*run out of f/stop*" when a subject merely slips in to a shady spot. With a 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 VR Nikkor for example, the maximum f/stop if f/5.6 at the longer focal lengths...if one spots a subject in a shaded area with that lens on the camera, the shutter speed can easily drop from 1/500 second in the sun to 1/8 second in a shaded doorway or on the "other side of the street"...there simply *is no other way* many times to gain shutter speed except by elevating the ISO.

If the camera has a capable AUTO ISO system, it makes sense to use it. But then again, one needs to know "how" to use it. With the rise of sow-speed consumer and pro-sumer level zoom lenses topping out as low as f/5.6 at maximum aperture, AUTO ISO has never made as much sense as it does today. And now that the better cameras allow shooting between ISO 100 and ISO 800 with almost no visible penalty, it makes more sense than ever. With the better FF cameras shooting well at up to and including 3,200, AUTO ISO has become another useful tool for those who have the smarts to actually understand how and when using it can offer a significant advantage.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 24, 2012)

MReid said:


> Why make it harder than it has to be?


Why indeed?  One of the things I think you might be over-looking is the fact that "perfect" exposure is not necessarily the right exposure.  Just because your histogram is a perfect bell curve, does not mean that it's the ideal exposure for the scene.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Apr 24, 2012)

Derrel said:


> How well AUTO ISO works is dependent upon the implementation of the feature and the user's understanding and experience WITH using AUTO ISO. For many generations of cameras, Canon cameras had no AUTO ISO, and then a very primitive incarnation of it. As I understand it, the new 5D-III is the first Canon to come close to the Nikon implementation. Pentax has long had a superb AUTO ISO implementation. Nikon introduced AUTO ISO with the D70 back in 2004, and it has grown more and more capable. The thing that makes AUTO ISO more useful than ever before is the increasing use of slow, variable maximum aperture lenses among users who want to shoot run-n-gun style on family/candid/street/documentary/action subject matter; with slowish zoom lenses, one can EASILY "*run out of f/stop*" when a subject merely slips in to a shady spot. With a 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 VR Nikkor for example, the maximum f/stop if f/5.6 at the longer focal lengths...if one spots a subject in a shaded area with that lens on the camera, the shutter speed can easily drop from 1/500 second in the sun to 1/8 second in a shaded doorway or on the "other side of the street"...there simply *is no other way* many times to gain shutter speed except by elevating the ISO.
> 
> If the camera has a capable AUTO ISO system, it makes sense to use it. But then again, one needs to know "how" to use it. With the rise of sow-speed consumer and pro-sumer level zoom lenses topping out as low as f/5.6 at maximum aperture, AUTO ISO has never made as much sense as it does today. And now that the better cameras allow shooting between ISO 100 and ISO 800 with almost no visible penalty, it makes more sense than ever. With the better FF cameras shooting well at up to and including 3,200, AUTO ISO has become another useful tool for those who have the smarts to actually understand how and when using it can offer a significant advantage.



Brilliantly said Derrel, as usual.

The key is: know WHEN and HOW to use it. Then it can be a tool to your advantage. I don't use it all the time, but when I do, I cap the auto ISO limit at a level of digital noise I'm comfortable with usually 800 or 1600.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 24, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> ...Okay, for example taking pictures at someones birthday party or a wedding or at a concert. Having to constantly run inside, or run outside, even inside, always turning the lights on and off, outside could-sun-cloud all the time. The exposure settings change like no other and I am having to spend more time readjusting my camera settings than actually shooting...


Okay, I understand your rationale; not really sure that I agree with it, but I understand it.  

Question (and I mean this seriously, this is not a put-down, dig, slur, etc):  Are you someone who can adjust their camera on the fly without looking at the controls?  In otherwords, in a pitch-dark room, without removing your eye from the viewfinder, can you confidently manipulate all of the key exposure controls on your camera?


----------



## MReid (Apr 24, 2012)

tirediron said:


> MReid said:
> 
> 
> > Why make it harder than it has to be?
> ...



If I want it darker or lighter than "perfect"...I adjust the exposure using the exposure compensation dial, up or down, takes a split second.

Common sense would make me think the auto Iso would then just compensate for the adjustment and the exposure wouldn't change but it does, so auto Iso must not compensate for adjustments via the exposure compensation dial.



I shoot d3 and d700 so am only speaking about Nikon pro grade cameras.
You mileage may vary on consumer grade camera, just saying don't poo-poo auto Iso until you have given it a try.


----------



## KmH (Apr 24, 2012)

As Derrel points out, to a large degree it depends on the camera, in so far as both brand and grade level. In other words, don't expect entry-level grade cameras to perform auto functions as well as pro grade cameras. 

Anyone recommending absolutes like 'always use Auto ISO' is giving bad advice.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 24, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > How well AUTO ISO works is dependent upon the implementation of the feature and the user's understanding and experience WITH using AUTO ISO. For many generations of cameras, Canon cameras had no AUTO ISO, and then a very primitive incarnation of it. As I understand it, the new 5D-III is the first Canon to come close to the Nikon implementation. Pentax has long had a superb AUTO ISO implementation. Nikon introduced AUTO ISO with the D70 back in 2004, and it has grown more and more capable. The thing that makes AUTO ISO more useful than ever before is the increasing use of slow, variable maximum aperture lenses among users who want to shoot run-n-gun style on family/candid/street/documentary/action subject matter; with slowish zoom lenses, one can EASILY "*run out of f/stop*" when a subject merely slips in to a shady spot. With a 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 VR Nikkor for example, the maximum f/stop if f/5.6 at the longer focal lengths...if one spots a subject in a shaded area with that lens on the camera, the shutter speed can easily drop from 1/500 second in the sun to 1/8 second in a shaded doorway or on the "other side of the street"...there simply *is no other way* many times to gain shutter speed except by elevating the ISO.
> ...


Well said, and as I said in my first post, there are times to break "rules".


----------



## Derrel (Apr 24, 2012)

Pentax has an interesting feature in some models, called TaV mode. It allows the user to select a desired Time value AND a desired Aperture value setting, and then the camera automatically selects the needed ISO value to make sure that the pre-selected aperture and shutter values lead to the correct exposure.

That would be a very useful exposure mode for fast shooting when subjects will move from sunlight to shade, or when a camera will be set up remotely, or for any situation where a SPECIFIC f/stop AND a SPECIFIC shutter speed are both needed. Let's say we have a 300mm f/4 lens and are shooting pictures from aboard a sport boat, and we are in moderate seas, so we need a shutter speed of 1/2500 second to prevent the motion of the boat and or engine vibrations from ruining all our shots. We want to shoot at f/4.5. The sun is playing peek-a-boo behind big,white,puffy clouds. There is plenty of fill lighting from the water, and so the lighting really is not all that high in contrast. The desired parameters are 1/2500 second for motion-stopping and vibration-stopping, AND we want shallow depth of field. TaV will always ensure that the right exposure is given at the desired shutter speed and f/stop--no matter whether the sun is out, partially out, or hidden behind clouds.

Let's say the situation is reversed, and we want to shoot with a 20mm lens, and shoot at the lens's absolute best f/stop, which happens to be f/11. We also want a high-ish shutter speed of 1/640 second so we can shoot quickly, one-handed actually, while hanging on to the tour bus handstrap. TaV will always make sure the camera gets the right exposure at f/11 and 1/640 second, no matter the light level.

A camera set up remotely might need f/5.6 and 1/500 second to ensure the right kind of photos can be captured. TaV will ensure that the needed speed and f/stop will be exposed correctly, across a wide range of times, from dawn to noon to dusk.


----------



## sovietdoc (Apr 24, 2012)

> Are you someone who can adjust their camera on the fly without looking  at the controls?  In otherwords, in a pitch-dark room, without removing  your eye from the viewfinder, can you confidently manipulate all of the  key exposure controls on your camera?



I might have misspoken somewhere, the problem isn't adjusting controls in the dark.  The problem is spending too much time adjusting all the controls.  So the question was is it okay to let camera like 5d3 set auto ISO for me so I don't have to worry about it.  And with all posts in this thread being very helpful, I am leaning towards conclusion "yes, I can just use auto ISO" as long as I understand how it works, its limitations and how to use it properly without ruining my shots with worse color reproduction and noise.

Yes, I can set things like ISO/Aperture and Shutter speed blindfolded.  Probably could do the same for AF modes, but manual point selection would be tricky.  I could just press on the joystick to reset it and then move it left or right counting "clicks" but it's doable.  Thankfully these cameras are built in such a way that you can easily adjust settings without looking at it.  And in the dark, its got illuminated upper lcd and just the big lcd on the back that can help adjusting settings in the dark.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 24, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> ...I might have misspoken somewhere, the problem isn't adjusting controls in the dark. The problem is spending too much time adjusting all the controls. ... Yes, I can set things like ISO/Aperture and Shutter speed blindfolded.


 No, you didn't mis-speak; I was just wondering out loud.


----------



## sovietdoc (Apr 24, 2012)

Oh okay.  Well, the information provided to me in this thread was exactly what I was hoping for.  Thank you all for discussing this.


----------



## coastalconn (Apr 25, 2012)

I use auto-iso for wildlife/birds and it is an awesome (imho) tool on my D90.  I set min shutter between 1/500th and 1/1000th depending on lighting and type of bird/environment.  I set camera to base iso and max 1600 or 800 depending on settings.  It allows me to shoot my tamron 200-500 handheld (although I've been using a monopod more often) and gives me one less thing to think about as some birds are fast.   But for almost all other shooting I do not use auto-iso, but that's just me...


----------



## Netskimmer (Apr 25, 2012)

I have been using it more recently, I don't see what the problem is with it. Most people wouldn't think twice about using shutter or aperture priority and those actually impact the artistic nature of the photo. Usually ISO should be set as low as possible while getting a proper exposure. (unless you want noise for some artistic reason) 
I set my max to something safe like 800 or 1600 and the I choose the aperture and shutter to achieve the visual effects I want and let the camera bring up the ISO. If the scene is a little too light or dark I adjust with exposure compensation and if I find I'm shooting a scene that requires high ISO or is somehow tricky then I just switch to manual ISO. I have used it situations similar to what coastalconn described without any trouble.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 25, 2012)

Someone said you can limit how high your ISO goes in auto, not all cameras allow this. In tv or av auto ISO gives you no idea what settings your camera will utilise. In fully manual auto ISO can be very handy. You want to keep your speed and aperture so a little noise might not matter for example when photographing a sports event


----------



## Netskimmer (Apr 25, 2012)

jaomul said:


> Someone said you can limit how high your ISO goes in auto, not all cameras allow this. In tv or av auto ISO gives you no idea what settings your camera will utilise. In fully manual auto ISO can be very handy. You want to keep your speed and aperture so a little noise might not matter for example when photographing a sports event



Hmmm, I see your point on that. The D7000 lets me set a minimum shutter  speed and maximum ISO. It also shows me what ISO it intends to use and  recalculates it in real time as I change the shutter and/or aperture  settings, this works in shutter and aperture mode as well as manual. If it did not do those things I could see not wanting to use  it.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 25, 2012)

The D7000 seems to have great custom functions. It is great you can set it up and keep it inside settings you will happily use but halo it a little tolerance to balance your shot if the might drops etc


----------



## JClishe (Apr 25, 2012)

KmH said:


> Anyone recommending absolutes like 'always use Auto ISO' is giving bad advice.



Same goes for people giving the opposite absolute advice like "never use Auto ISO". There is a time and a place for everything, it's up to the photographer to understand the options and make appropriate choices.


----------



## Austin Greene (Apr 25, 2012)

I'm of the same mind as a few others here, but apparently not the majority. I always shoot full manual. Not because I think I'm a badass, but because I like to have complete control to get the exposure I want, which is not often what the camera wants. Even with my T3i's single dial, I have yet to encounter many situations where I haven't used manual. The only one I can think of is handheld hummingbird photography, where ill set my Aperture, crank the SS , and then let AISO finish off the exposure as I'm following the buggers around, but that is the only time I've used it.


----------



## sovietdoc (Apr 25, 2012)

I agree that for most of the times manual is the way to go because it lets you adjust everything just the way you want, but in situations where you need to keep taking shots and you don't have much time to even rotate the dial (fast moving objects like birds for example), I think using a "semi-auto" configuration can be useful.  

Someone said that in Av or Tv modes you have no idea what AISO does.  I thought you can still set the maximum sealing limit for it and it will be capped at say 800 or 1600.  Plus everytime you read exposure, it will display the ISO setting it wants to use in the viewfinder.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 25, 2012)

Graystar said:


> togalive said:
> 
> 
> > I always shoot full manual. Not because I think I'm a badass, but because I like to have complete control to get the exposure I want, which is not often what the camera wants.
> ...


This is true to some extent (well, not P). The problem is that it's much more intuitive to adjust exposure compensation than using the EC values. I can effectively switch between Av and Tv modes 'in my head' when shooting manual to get the best possible exposure for the situation considering how I want it to be conveyed.

I do think though that shooting in one of the computerized meter modes kind of defeats the point of manual exposure. I shoot exclusively in spot mode/manual so that I can adjust exposure according to intended placement, rather than what some engineer has determined is the best case for the situation regardless of subject matter.

I think a problem with a lot of this new technology isn't that any one part of it is bad. AE isn't bad. Evaluative metering isn't bad. But if you use these technologies in a way to avoid making a technical decision, you'll only end up limiting yourself.

Auto ISO, though, is bad, and is unneccesary. Just adjust ISO manually according to the situation. If you can't get teh dof you want or handhold when you want it, bump up the ISO. I don't know what possible situation auto ISO would be neccesary, unless you pay absolutely no attention to the camera.


----------



## MReid (Apr 25, 2012)

QUOTE] I don't know what possible situation auto ISO would be neccesary, unless you pay absolutely no attention to the camera.[/QUOTE]

Winner.

The auto iso keeps you in the exposure pocket without having to make camera adjustments.
All I care about the exposure when I am shooting is that it is not blown out and that I am somewhere in the ballpark of a proper exposure.
I adjust just about every frame in post where I can take my time and get the light and shadow and exposure perfect.


----------



## Austin Greene (Apr 25, 2012)

Graystar said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Graystar said:
> ...



I'm sorry, but in my opinion (and take that for what its worth), that is a ridiculous way to shoot if you at all plan on becoming a better photographer. If anything should be *intuitive* in photography after some work its exposure. NOTHING matters more in a photo. You could have the most beautiful landscape in the world, but if you can't expose it properly or as you see fit, it isn't worth a dime. 

A good measure of how creative a photographer is, or how well their creativity can be translated into a photo, can be how they expose a photo. In the case of people setting up in full auto, or passing much of the control over to the camera, that doesn't say much. Even the best camera's out there are *not* designed to do the creative design for you, they only stick with middle of the road, safe exposure values. Your job as the photographer is to infuse the photo with your vision of how you want it to be, and being unaware of proper exposure methods is key to having the most options in that department. 

Cranking around the EC dial huge amounts to compensate for poor knowledge of how your camera works is a generally bad idea. 
Understanding how to actually use your camera, and the roles of SS, aperture, and ISO in the exposure triangle in order to achieve the look you want is not.


EDIT: 


Graystar said:


> This gives me tremendous freedom to experiment because it's so easy to change settings. I've been able to take 5 shots and 5 different apertures in about 7 seconds...and all had the same consistent exposure.



And just another note, I'm not saying full manual is better (I prefer it, but that doesnt make it so), but if you knew how to properly use manual mode you would have no problem with those same shots.


----------



## mwinterlin (Apr 25, 2012)

It depends on the situation. Sunlight? Put ISO at 100-200 and keep it there. Then adjust the brightness using aperture and shutter speed. If you are shooting in changing conditions (Sun going down etc) put the iso at either a mid range or the highest you want to go then adjust the brightness with aperture and shutter speed


----------



## MReid (Apr 26, 2012)

I think there is a disparity between people who cut their teeth on film and people who cut their teeth on nothing but digital.
The facts to me are:
Film photographers had to know how everthing worked and exposure was everything, a LOT of knowledge and experience went into making good photos.....and a lot of wrestling with the camera and tools to get there. With digital all this work and knowledge is not required the camera will do it for you.

Digital....seriously....very little knowledge is required. If you know what F-stops do and what ISO does and set you camera up right to start with....with the camera set up right to begin with, very little input is required to stay in the exposure pocket....it is like pushing the Easy button. All that is required are small adustments of the exposure compensation dial once in a while to get good enough exposures.
Good enough exposures is all you need with digital if you are then processing them.

I started out wrestling the camera years ago thinking I had to control everything...the more experience I gained the more streamlined my process became....now I let the camera do everything possible.....


----------



## Austin Greene (Apr 26, 2012)

Graystar said:


> Well, in my opinion, _letting the camera do the work while maintaining complete control_ is how you shoot when you ARE a better photographer. So I guess we just have a difference of opinion.



You see, but thats the funny part. By shooting in manual I maintain control of *everything*. No pawning poor photos off on the camera, its all me and I take full responsibility. I know my camera well enough that shooting manual is *easy and seamless*, and I'd have no problem keeping up with someone on an auto-mode, so how in the world does that make me a worse-off photographer? At the end of the day I like to look at _my photos_, not _the camera's photos. _



Graystar said:


> The shooting mode has absolutely nothing to do wth exposure, and if you think EC is to compensate for poor knowledge then I'd say you don't really understand how the auto systems in your camera work.



Do what you will, and shoot how you will, but don't misinform folks on the workings of camera systems. At the end of the day on your average DSLR *hundreds of thousands* are spent in R&D for better processing, high ISO noise reduction, faster shutter speeds, better battery life, better sensors, etc. However, at the end of the day, you'd be hard pressed to find any significant amount budgeted to significantly improve the functions of auto mode. In large part, when you buy that $3,000 DSLR your paying for the *hardware*, not the bottom-of-the-barrel auto programming that was done on the software. 

Really, if you want to shoot in auto, get a point and shoot. At least in that case the R&D money goes towards what your using the camera for.


----------



## shmne (Apr 26, 2012)

I have only ever had 1 film camera and it was essentially a "point and shoot" as I had no clue how to use it properly. I learned all of my professional photography skills on a digital camera.

That said, I've never touched any of the auto modes because I am an artist. My teacher trained me very well, however she always said if you are having issues to feel free to use the auto modes. For me, they did not hep me learn how exposure worked and if anything made it more of a confusing experience. I also paint, but I would never let my brush paint for me or let it choose my colors or choice of canvas. It would have terrible taste! Does that mean I don't digitally paint? Not at all! I have a Wacom tablet and would have to say 80% of my paintings are digital. 

What I hate the most about the auto modes is that when you are in an auto mode they don't give you the mistakes that you fall in love with forever! Learning to see a great composition in an otherwise crap shot is probably one of the most rewarding parts of shooting manually. This is something too many people overlook since we are all obsessed with "getting the perfect shot." 

Can more photographers get back into the art please? I'm sick of all of these craftsmen sitting around here talking about getting perfect shots everytime and missing the entire point of a camera. It is a device that captures a moment forever, and it sees differently then how we see. Use that to your advantage more often


----------



## dumeril7 (Apr 26, 2012)

tirediron said:


> *200, 400 ISO...  pines nostalgically for Kodachrome 25 and Panatomic-X*  I'm curious, OP, what sort of work are you doing where you are faced with such dynamic conditions and so little time to prepare for a shot?



Easy.  My kids present wonderful, unexpected, and short-lived photo ops all !@#$ing the time.  And because they are so inconsiderate, they don't let me know when they're about to be cute.  And just as quickly as they present the photo opp -- while I'm taking the time to change my f/stop, shutter speed, and ISO settings from the last photo opp -- it evaporates.  The moment is gone.  Unfortunately my kids are unable to recreate these moments on command.  Life is what happens when you're busy fiddling with your camera.  ;-)

I use some auto settings when not doing so is going to cause me to lose shots.  If I'm going for high art, or I have the luxury of prep time, I'll use full or partial manual control.  I'll also go manual if an auto system is confused by the task I'm presenting to it.  FWIW, I learned in the film era, in which people didn't worry much about ISO while shooting, only when they were loading a new roll.

d7


----------



## JClishe (Apr 26, 2012)

shmne said:


> That said, I've never touched any of the auto modes because I am an artist.



So are you implying that there's a connection between the mode a person shoots in, and whether he/she can be called an "artist"?

If you see a picture that you really like, do you need to find out what mode the photographer used before you'd label the photographer as an artist and whether or not the picture is truly "art". In other words, a great picture shot in manual is "art", but that same great picture shot in Av isn't?

If that's not what you're implying, than your statement above is misleading. If that is what you're implying, then, well, we have a different opinion on the matter. My opinion is that art is about the tangible result and isn't defined by what the dial on top of the camera said. I wouldn't say that an Ansel Adams isn't art because I felt he didn't shoot it right. That would be a preposterous statement but my interpretation of your comments leads me to believe that's the exact logic that you're implying.


----------



## shmne (Apr 26, 2012)

JClishe said:


> an Ansel Adams isn't art because I felt he didn't shoot it right.



Are you implying Ansel Adams isn't art? Funny how when you cut out a sentence from a quote it changes drastically. 

The vast majority of people using auto modes aren't shooting artistic shots and for a reason, the auto modes are not designed for artistic intent. Sure, go ahead and use auto modes to get a shot in pitch black. I'd love to see that. You can use anything for purposes they aren't intended for, but normally artists prefer to use manual mode because there is no limitation established on the camera. That is why I stated what I did, most photographers using the camera for artistic purposes can't use the auto modes even if they wanted to. I thought this was common knowledge though so I apologize for coming off as offensive as you did. 

Next time please don't just quote one line, especially when it is in direct reference to the rest of the quote. I went on to speak about how my teacher encouraged us to use the auto modes to help learn but that I felt they hindered me. In fact I continue to say a lot of pertinent information that you clearly chose to ignore ^_^. I even stated at the end that the process is less relevant and it is an issue that everyone is hung up on getting the perfect shot.


----------



## JClishe (Apr 26, 2012)

shmne said:


> Are you implying Ansel Adams isn't art? Funny how when you cut out a sentence from a quote it changes drastically.



Yes, when you EDIT a sentence like you did, it does change it drastically. You EDITED my sentence by deliberately omitting portions of it with the specific intent of altering its original meaning. You can't in good faith compare that to what I did. I quoted your entire sentence, word for word, with the specific intent of summarizing what I honestly felt was an accurate portrayal of the message you were intending to convey. If my interpretation was incorrect than feel free to correct me. In fact I even came right out and asked you if my interpretation was correct.

So don't try to pretend that my quote and your quote had the same intent, you'll only make yourself look foolish.


----------



## MTVision (Apr 26, 2012)

Graystar said:
			
		

> And when I shoot with auto modes I also maintain control of everything. The only reason you think I'm not in control is because you don't understand how to use the auto mode controls of your camera.
> 
> Not anywhere near as seamless or as quick as you could be if you used auto modes.
> 
> ...



This is the stupidest argument ever. Who cares if you shoot in manual, aperture priority, shutter priority, or program as long as you get the shot you want. Some people favor manual and others favor the semi-auto modes - doesn't make either party wrong. Just like some favor Nikon and some favor Canon. 

I shoot in manual because that's what I learned and I honestly don't really know how to shoot in the other modes as well because I haven't used them. But, I don't think manual is the end all be all just like I don't feel that way about the semi-auto modes. Whatever works for you is what you should use.


----------



## shmne (Apr 26, 2012)

Yes please continue walking around my direct statements  It really  proves your points very well. I didn't edit anything by the way, I just  started the quote where I felt the poignant statement was coming from  like you did. To be fair I did forget to include an ellipses. My 9th grade English teacher would be quite upset with me.

So please continue telling me how I'm an elitest jerk! I love when trolls can't keep on topic to what is pertinent. I made several extremely valid points and you just jumped off ship and freaked out about a single sentence that was taken completely out of context.

In fact I have always presented extremely valid information to this topic several times and the auto-jockies always get up in arms about it. I'm sure the manual-meatheads would attack me as well, however since I am a mostly manual shooter they see me as one of their own. Very rarely however have I ever been confronted with how I am wrong, because I've actually pretty much summed up the advantages manual has over auto-modes and auto has over manual. With that said auto modes have a lot of use, I just am not part of that section of photography that uses them most often. 

Outdoors shooting events? Av (consistent depth of field is something I prefer over stopping action, I know a lot of people like to use Tv.) Family and friends around? Honestly I'll probably just throw it in P. Have to get a head shot for the paper? Av. Want to experiment with crazy set ups that the camera can't focus on, let alone expose for? Manual. 

I also light 100% manually, but that is because I don't want to spend the money for an expensive flash I'd never use. The vast majority of my commercial work is done with manual strobes, no TTL, because the last thing I want is any potential inconsistency. It isn't like I'm shooting for high end companies, but it is still important to me to get the image as consistent as possible. In fact almost all of my photography is done in a studio with no need at all for anything but manual firing and lighting.

Isn't that funny? I prefer manual because the field of photography I work in basically needs it. Isn't it also funny that when people prefer auto over manual is usually because they are in a field that benefits more from automatic settings? Wow! How crazy is that logic?

This will always end up in the same result, both sides being almost completely blind to the other and only because they are too ignorant to be able to understand why the other side prefers the alternative.


----------



## MTVision (Apr 26, 2012)

shmne said:
			
		

> This will always end up in the same result, both sides being almost completely blind to the other and only because they are too ignorant to be able to understand why the other side prefers the alternative.



^^^^^ Exactly.


----------



## pisicel (Apr 26, 2012)

I use AUTO ISO since I bought a Nikon 70-300. I really need at least 1/300s speed, so on my D5100 I set auto iso max 3600 and minimum speed to 1/300s.
This allows the camera to manage acceptable speed even in the cloudiest days.


----------



## MTVision (Apr 26, 2012)

Graystar said:
			
		

> It's not a stupid argument.  Why?  Because of what you say next...
> 
> This is the primary issue.  It's not an issue of what a person should use, but of the message given to people who are trying to learn.  I see so many posts from beginners trying to shoot in manual mode because they've been told by some old person, who doesn't understand modern auto mode operation, that manual mode is the only way to fully control your camera.  This is ignorance.  It's not a lie...the manual-mode proponent would need to have actual knowledge of auto modes for it to be lie.  However, there is the element of a conscious effort to not understand auto modes because the person has already made up his mind on the issue.  That's ignorance.
> 
> People tend to learn quicker and with better understanding when a process can be broken down into smaller parts.  When you learn how to control a camera using auto modes, you separate exposure from the effects of shutter and aperture.  That separation is a benefit to learning and understanding exposure...a benefit that's lost on so many beginners pushed to work in manual mode by people who are themselves unwilling to learn anything more than three controls on the camera.





It is a stupid argument. It's the same thing over and over - "I have full control in manual" and you say "I have full control in the auto modes."  Like I said before (that you edited out when quoting me) who cares what mode what you shoot in as long as you get the shot.  But, I'm not going to argue/debate this with you because it's pointless. I could care less what mode people shoot with or what they learned to shoot on. 

Oh and I didn't have anyone person tell me to shoot full manual. I read tons of books and other resources and never once did I see someone say that you will have a better understanding if you start learning with the auto modes. Maybe if I had, and other newbies had, then we wouldn't be missing out on so much      So if you wanna change the way things are then do something about it instead of preaching the benefits. I'm not saying your wrong - because I don't know.


----------



## JClishe (Apr 26, 2012)

shmne said:


> This will always end up in the same result, both sides being almost completely blind to the other and only because they are too ignorant to be able to understand why the other side prefers the alternative.



Now there's something that we agree on. I made my feelings clear in post #44 of this thread:

"There is a time and a place for everything, it's up to the photographer to understand the options and make appropriate choices. "

I don't have a "side". I am neither for any of the auto / semi modes, nor am I for manual. I am for doing whatever appropriately captures the photographers intent and vision. If it makes sense for you to shoot in Av and nudge the Ev dial to fine tune your exposure, than great, go for it. Or if you want to shoot in manual that's great too, knock yourself out. All methods are fully capable of producing works of art that capture the photographers intent. (edit: after re-reading I should clarify this last sentence excludes full auto. Unless you're shooting snapshots of your kids, this is one particular mode that you probably shouldn't be using).

What I am against is exactly what you are: people that are too blind and/or ignorant and/or caught up in their own egos' to realize that works of art can be produced from any mode and that the chosen mode is ultimately irrelevant and this entire discussion is usually pointless.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Apr 26, 2012)

Graystar said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > This is the stupidest argument ever. Who cares if you shoot in manual, aperture priority, shutter priority, or program as long as you get the shot you want. Some people favor manual and others favor the semi-auto modes - doesn't make either party wrong. Just like some favor Nikon and some favor Canon.
> ...



I can't agree with you.  Although this thread was initially about AUTO ISO, which I personally see having its applications and purpose here and there, I can't see eye to eye you on this full auto thing. 



Graystar said:


> togalive said:
> 
> 
> > I always shoot full manual. Not because I think I'm a badass, but because I like to have complete control to get the exposure I want, which is not often what the camera wants.
> ...



My dad drives me crazy with his stubborn refusal to move out of Auto mode with his camera. He recently purchased the G1x, which is basically a DSLR in a P&S body, and he never leaves auto mode. Well, I shouldn't say _never_, once in a while he'll switch over to HQ burst mode . What's even more funny is he's disgusted when the camera doesn't land the perfect shot. Yes, he blames the camera :lmao:. It's quite comical. But I don't think he's necessarily alone. 

 The thing is, you're going to miss shots when you don't have control of all the variables. Are you really going to trust that teeny tiny little microchip nestled in that circuit board somewhere in the camera over your own brain? Do you think that itty bitty microchip knows when your 11 month old is flailing around wildly, and that it needs a minimum shutter of 1/250 to freeze the action? Why would you put so much faith in the decision making capabilities of a tiny circuit board that is only going to stay within safe exposure parameters? It doesn't make sense.

 It really comes down to one simple thing-- are you going to allow the robot brain in the camera to make all the exposure decisions for you, or are you going to make the exposure decisions yourself?


----------



## MTVision (Apr 26, 2012)

JClishe said:
			
		

> Now there's something that we agree on. I made my feelings clear in post #44 of this thread:
> 
> "There is a time and a place for everything, it's up to the photographer to understand the options and make appropriate choices. "
> 
> ...



I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this discussion (manual vs auto modes) is pointless.


----------



## Netskimmer (Apr 26, 2012)

I love this all or nothing mentality. I have shot in manual since I got my D7000 a year or so ago and have only been messing with the semi-auto modes for about a month. I know full well how to handle shooting on full manual. I also know that it isn't always necessary. You don't give the camera control of the important variables, you decide what is important to the shot you are trying to achieve and decide on a range that the inconsequential variables can be within let the camera do the grunt work. The key is knowing what each variable is and knowing where the parameters need to be set. That is the key on manual and semi-auto modes. Do you full manual only folks make your own photo paper? Do you mix your own printer ink? Do you code your own raw viewers?

If I am shooting birds on a shady branch and it takes off into a bright sky on a sunny day I will have about 3 seconds or so, if I'm lucky to get a good shot. If I'm in full manual, that's 3 second to adjust my shutter speed, aperture, and ISO to account for the new lighting conditions, frame, focus and fire. Could I do that in manual? Possibly, yes, but I would have a better chance of getting a got shot if I didn't have to mess with every single variable manually and getting a good shot is what counts.


----------



## dumeril7 (Apr 26, 2012)

Netskimmer said:


> You don't give the camera control of the important variables, you decide what is important to the shot you are trying to achieve and decide on a range that the inconsequential variables can be within let the camera do the grunt work.



Well said.

d7


----------



## shmne (Apr 26, 2012)

Graystar said:


> ...I see so many posts from beginners trying to shoot in manual mode because they've been told by some old person...



Just chiming in real quick! I'm not old, 23, and I pretty much teach exclusively in manual mode. I previously mentioned that my teacher allowed us to learn however we chose, except she did push us to understand the relationship on a manual level. I have mentored several photographers now over the course of a couple of years and from my experience people learn faster with manual mode than with auto-modes. This is because by keeping 2 settings constant and having my student alter the third they quickly learned what that third setting did. Not only that but they also learned the inverse relationship of shutterspeed and aperture rapidly as well as how f-stops worked. On average I was able to teach my students the basics of exposure in less than 8 hours to the point where they were confident enough to alter the settings on their own, people that were completely new to the field. Then again I also like to pride myself on being a great teacher, and I use a variety of techniques that don't even involve the camera at all to teach them.

So I don't think it is fair for you to say that, from having taught several people now and being a part of a class of 60.

Now for a person learning on their own, I have no experience at all which is better. Then again I'd never suggest it because it would be akin to learning to paint or draw on your own, there are masters that can cut years of learning out of your training. I don't think anyone actually learns "on their own." 

One last note - You stated that:

"...People tend to learn quicker and with better understanding when a  process can be broken down into smaller parts.  When you learn how to  control a camera using auto modes, you separate exposure from the  effects of shutter and aperture..."

This is actually incorrect, when in auto modes shutter and aperture are quite a part of the exposure still  In fact if you are in say Av - your aperture is constant while your shutter speed changes (that isn't even if your ISO is auto, then you have 2 random numbers being thrown at you). This is an issue for a beginner because what happens is they see the number changing but they don't understand why. They just know that the camera is picking the best number for them. When you do the same example with manual, nothing changes. From shot to shot it is the same. So when my student takes 10 shots they are all the same. Now they click the roller twice to the left to lower the shutter speed - and they start to see blur! However now the image is too bright for them  This is one of the great advantages of the digital age after all, being able to immediately see your image. So now they pull out the chart I gave them and alter their aperture. This not only teaches them the inverse relationship of aperture and shutter speed, but also what f-stops are!

Compare this to learning on any of the automatic modes - where you are only learning how to expose an image, if that. What you are really learning is how to alter the EV, set a stagnant number, and allow the camera to do the rest (especially if also using auto ISO). I'm sorry but having been actively teaching I can't see the benefit of auto as a teaching tool. It is like teaching a child to do math with a calculator, they never understand the true relationship.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Apr 26, 2012)

Graystar said:


> This is what I'm talking about in my previous comments on ignorance.  You quote me saying that I complete control of my camera in auto modes, but instead of asking me how is that possible, your make a comment that clearly indicates you've already made up your mind on auto modes.



Since you like to throw around the word "ignorance",  I too feel it's a little "ignorant" to assume that I don't know already know about all the things you speak of regarding auto modes.  



Graystar said:


> When the meter works, there's nothing you can do with manual mode that you can't do with auto modes. However, there are things you can do with auto modes that you can't do with manual mode. But I'm guessing you wouldn't be interested in that.



Shoot what you want to. But you're never going to bang a drum loud enough to convince the world that forfeiting full and/or partial control of your exposure parameters is superior to actually using your brain.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Apr 26, 2012)

I don't use it.  I usually set ISO manually and let the camera set either one of aperture or shutter speed depending on what I'm doing.


----------



## shmne (Apr 26, 2012)

JClishe said:


> What I am against is exactly what you are: people that are too blind and/or ignorant and/or caught up in their own egos' to realize that works of art can be produced from any mode and that the chosen mode is ultimately irrelevant and this entire discussion is usually pointless.



:lmao::lmao::lmao:
You're adorable :3 I feel like you're my own personal little motivator!

All you do is troll, and feeding you has been fun but I don't want anything following me home today so go back in your little cave there. If you ever wish to continue this discussion further, and more maturely PM and I'll respond, as I always do, in a calm and concise manner with valid facts, points, and opinions.


----------



## JClishe (Apr 26, 2012)

shmne said:


> JClishe said:
> 
> 
> > What I am against is exactly what you are: people that are too blind and/or ignorant and/or caught up in their own egos' to realize that works of art can be produced from any mode and that the chosen mode is ultimately irrelevant and this entire discussion is usually pointless.
> ...



You misread my post. I am not against YOU. I am against the same type of thinking that you are against. 

You said:

"This will always end up in the same result, both sides being almost completely blind to the other and only because they are too ignorant to be able to understand why the other side prefers the alternative. "

And I'm saying that's the exact thinking that I am also against. Ie., we agree.


----------



## shmne (Apr 26, 2012)

Ahh! Alright I was really confused why you would say that to me  

My misunderstanding, I apologize.


----------



## sovietdoc (Apr 26, 2012)

Guys, guys..I feel like we need to throw in a towel here.  This thread has drifted away from its original point onto a big debate on "Manual vs Auto"

Although, I can see how this is also relevant since using Auto ISO brings up all these valid ponts all of you have made for arguing about shooting in Manual or Auto.


Personally, I agree with Graystar because I have a few "pro" photographers as close friends who shoot with their cameras and have never even used anything "automatic" on their camera because they don't know how it works, and they've missed numerous shots because one can only be so quick with manual adjustments.  Obviously, if you have all the time in the world, or even if you're relatively quick with your gear, in most situations this will not be a problem.  But the reason I brought this up (which was originally a question about using Auto ISO) was because I don't know about you, but when I get a piece of gear, I must know it 100%.  This includes all auto,semi-auto and manual modes.  I just don't feel comfortable if there settings there I've never used because although I might have had an idea of how they worked, and I didn't like that, I never could be 100% sure of what I knew.  

It's like if I am driving a car and I don't know enough about it, there is always uncertanty in the back of my mind "what if it stops" because if it does, I have no idea how to fix it.  

Obviously, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to "Always use auto modes" or "always use manual" but I think it makes sense to know and understand your equipment 100%.  I've found out numerous times in the past when I thought I knew how a certain semi-auto mode worked, and then I used it and got crap photos because I actually didn't know how it worked.  So I just blamed the "stupid program in the camera" and said I'd never use auto modes.  But current DSLRs are much better than a fully auto point and shoots. Heck, even PnS cameras nowdays have manual controls.

I suppose it also depends on what you are shooting.  My original question about using Auto ISO has arisen from the fact that in some of my shoots, I had to run all around the place and always having to tweak the camera's settings, really wasn't working well for me because I was missing good shots.  Again, I would agree with Graystar because semi-auto modes still give you control of what you want, while letting the software take care of the rest.  And because this saves you time, you can look more at what you're shooting, versus constantly adjusting multiple settings.  If I am shooting a kid running through the backyard do I care about aperture or shutter speed most?  Well, I could care about both, and so I'd stick with manual, but in most situations I've personally found out I only care about Aperture or Shutter speed, and not both combined.  Again, if I do want both for whatever reason, there is always full manual.  I can still set exposure comp in semi-auto modes which will either change ISO or one of the other "locked" values, so in the end it does give me pretty much the same result.  Except at a fraction of a speed.

 Do semi-auto modes have certain limitations? Well, yes.  And that is why I think it's important to know and understand how these modes work, because if you need to take shots fast, they will save you time, but if you don't know the limitations, software will ruin your shots.  

But obviously if you don't care about super speed, you can always play around in full manual, because then in the end, if the picture is ruined you have nobody to blame but yoursef.


----------



## JClishe (Apr 26, 2012)

shmne said:


> Ahh! Alright I was really confused why you would say that to me



Likewise, I was really confused why you replied that way to me.  Until I re-read it a couple times and realized that my intent may not have been worded super clear. We're good.


----------



## unpopular (May 2, 2012)

There is so much absurdity in this thread, such a high level of confusion concerning the most basic principles of exposure and measurement and how the light meter functions, that there really isn't much here to discuss.


----------



## sovietdoc (May 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> There is so much absurdity in this thread, such a high level of confusion concerning the most basic principles of exposure and measurement and how the light meter functions, that there really isn't much here to discuss.



On the contrary, if there is confusion perhaps you could help clear this up.


----------



## unpopular (May 3, 2012)

I can, and did. But it crashed. I'll write more later. Gtg get the kiddles.


----------



## belial (May 3, 2012)

I say shoot which mode you're most comfortable with for your type of shooting and strive to understand and learn all the modes.  Too many people use full manual because they think it makes them a better photographer just because it manual. Using any auto setting is ok IMO as long as you pay attention to what the camera is doing and understand how it's going to affect your work.


----------



## unpopular (May 4, 2012)

I chose this post by Greystar to illustrate some of the common misconceptions about metering. This isn't meant to out Greystar as a poor photographer - I am sure he may be plenty capable within AE. But there are a lot of technical issues here that can be addressed. It is very likely that nobody here will be surprised by what I am saying, with camera control there is a kind of "ah ha!" moment where it just kind of clicks. You can intellectually know everything that is required to intuitively use your equipment in manual mode, but getting it all to fit together is another challenge.




Graystar said:


> Well, I've never believed that controlling exposure was in any way intuitive, but to your point I would say that the "intuitiveness" of exposure settings depends on the approach and point of view of the person.



All cameras measure and record light in a similar way, meter modes differ only in the scope of area which they measure.

Averaging modes, such as weighted, average and the like use a very broad area, while spot modes such as spot and evaluative use a very narrow area. I say evaluative uses a very narrow area because it, as others have said is akin to a manual user making several meterings and using the collective information to choose the 'best' choice (or an average of two or more choices) according to how the camera was programmed to best suit a widest array of circumstances.

This approach assume that there is an absolute proper exposure for every scene regardless of subject. Perhaps the specular hilights are more interesting than the shadows. In such a case you'd need to compensate for less exposure such that the detail in the specular remains unclipped and as full as possible, at the expese of shadows. Without some kind of exposure compensation, the cameras auto exposure will not compensate this correctly. This is of course why we have EC in auto mode.

However, if you use EC in auto mode and you are in a Tv program, then DOF will be affected. If it were the shadows you were interested in, and you were in Av program, then shutter speed might be drawn down so far you risk camera shake. You could use AE ISO, however you risk affacting effective latitude and noise level.

In manual, I can more or less use the camera in Av but I can also decrease shutter speed only to a certain level, and only then start adjusting aperture - preview the DOF and expose with a moderate aperture and shutter speed without affecting ISO unless I absolutely need to.



> My process is to first set exposure, and then I set aperture/shutter for the effect I want. So exposure is purely an exercise in EV, and the selection of shutter or aperture is purely an exercise in effect.
> 
> For example, lets say it's a Sunny 16 day. That's 14 2/3 EV. So my first step is to lock in my exposure at 14 2/3 EV (using any number of methods...metering clear blue sky, the gray card in my pocket, spot metering my palm and setting +1 EC...whatever.) Once that's locked in I allow my camera's auto modes to maintain that exposure while I manipulate the setting of interest. I want a shallow DOF, so I set A mode and open up the aperture. I want to pan subjects in motion for motion-blurred backgrounds, so I set S mode and 1/120s. At this point aperture and shutter are not controls for exposure, but controls soley for effect. And while I'm changing my desired setting, the camera is changing the setting under its control to maintain the locked exposure that I set. I simply change one control, directly to where I want it, and I'm done. In manual mode I would now have to manipulate the other control to restore the exposure.



I don't like questioning people's process, but I think that this is a weird way of looking at exposure. Cameras do not record available light, which I am sure you already know, they record reflected light.

You can certainly preset exposure to a specific reference and everything will be 'correct' based on that reference. The problem is that cameras have only finite latitude. If something you are interested in is beyond that latitude it will either not record at all (clipping) or the data will be unusable (floor noise). Provided you have the opportunity, it is much better to view every scene as a unique exposure with the intent to maximize the data recorded. For this reason I always meter off the hilights and in the least place them accurately by adjusting exposure, if not placing the brightest region at the upper end of latitude range - opening up shadows. You'd be surprised of seldom HDR is actually needed.

By all means you can do this in Av or Tv modes using EC, but when each and every scene becomes a unique exposure it is very easy to loose track, and adjusting only shutter speed is really no different or faster than adjusting exposure compensation in Tv mode, however, manual does not lock down other camera controls according to a predetermined program, either, and I can adjust any control on-the-fly when they are needed for given the circumstances and subject.



> This gives me tremendous freedom to experiment because it's so easy to change settings. I've been able to take 5 shots and 5 different apertures in about 7 seconds...



I am unsure that using manual is any different. I can set an aperture with a specific shutter speed, adjust aperture, increase shutter speed by a factor of two. I have little doubt that I could make a similar bracket in less than 30 seconds. Perhaps not 7 seconds, but who cares.



> and all had the same consistent exposure. And this is also where Auto ISO comes in (at least for Nikon cameras...other cameras need improvements in this area.) With Nikon's Auto-ISO I simply set a minimum shutter speed for the current subject matter. If, while stopping down my aperture, the exposure calls for a shutter speed slower than I'm willing to use, the Auto-ISO function will increase the ISO in order to maintain my minimum shutter speed. So with one turn of a dial I can change three settings. But the important thing to realize is that the settings I end up with are exactly the settings I would have set myself in manual mode. It's my exposure, my shutter speed, and my aperture. The camera isn't deciding anything for me...it's simply carrying out my instructions on how it should manipulate the controls



I truely have no doubt that AE is useful for a select number of subjects, especially sports photography. I guess I can see your point about auto ISO, but if you're within +3EV of your minimum exposure speed at minimum aperture, it is my opinion you should just preset your ISO one stop greater rather than relying on the camera to make a choice on your behalf.

The reason for this is because I know at ISO 200 (where I normally shoot) I have a latitude of -4/+2 1/3ev, at ISO 400 I have a slightly less latitude on the shadows, and at ISO 800 floor noise becomes pretty aparent at -3 and hilight latitude starts to decline. At ISO 1600 hilight latitude is greatly affected - I admit that it's an older camera, and a notoriously noisy one at that, but analog gain will always affect effective latitude. If you're within +3ev of your lowest possible shutter speed at a given minimum aperture, you'll always be away of the consequences of the specified ISO.

So no. I just don't recommend auto ISO. there just isn't any real need for it, IMO.



> while I concentrate on the subject and composition. That's the power and freedom that you get from using auto modes.



It is a very common mistake to believe that exposure is not part of composition, and that it is a purely technical element with no creative flexibility. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I would encourage you to read "The Negative" by Ansel Adams.

I can assure you that if people spent time really appreciating the Zone System, views on exposure would change - and yes, exposure control becomes intuitive.


----------



## unpopular (May 5, 2012)

I was not aware that the reference between evaluative/spot and average differed. But I also know enough that it doesn't much matter provided that you are aware of the difference. The issue is entirely beside the point.



Graystar said:


> But don't go telling people that I have misconceptions when you don't even know how your camera works!



This coming from someone who doesn't find exposure control intuitive.

But whatever. If you understand manual, you'll understand AE. The same cannot be said the other way around.


----------



## unpopular (May 7, 2012)

WHat is there to understand? Exposure compensation adjusts exposure according to a given program.

I just don't understand why you're making this huge deal out of it. AE is nothing special, and does nothing which you wouldn't be doing in manual, only that in auto the camera's computer does it. I prefer manual because I can choose how EC is conducted, rather than being fixed to a specific program. I can adjust exposure by time, aperture, sensitivity or a combination of all three. When one translation isn't suited, I can use another without changing AE mode.

There is also a difference between instinctively and intuitively. You can intuitively read, but that doesn't mean you didn't have to learn it ... Reading becomes intuitive, despite it having been hard at one time.

Perhaps if I used average metering more, I'd know more about it's reference. It's an interesting tidbit perhaps that average mode meters at one reference while spot modes at another (something I have never heard of, mind you) but its really of no consequence if you meter exclusively in one over the other - and I cannot think of any circumstance when average mode would out perform spot mode, including evaluative modes; at least not once you have a good handle on exposure compensation, manual or otherwise.

Finally, until you can decrease shutter speed by a factor of two, aperture stopped down by three, and increase ISO from 200 to 400 within the same AE mode, I'll stand by my belief that you don't have full control. Perhaps your camera can do it, and I agree my camera is limited, but I have yet to know of a camera which can arbitrarily adjust all controls in auto mode in order to meet specific conditions.


----------



## unpopular (May 7, 2012)

Oh. And how I learned was in the darkroom. And yes, it did just make sense, and rather quickly. I was shooting in some stables at the Park Co., WY fairgrounds with the view camera, and it just kind of came into focus what the meter was doing and how it related to the negative and how the film ought to be processed. I of course had been taught, but it did become intuitive.


----------



## MTVision (May 7, 2012)

Graystar said:
			
		

> Correct...a difference you weren't aware of.  Which is pretty much the theme here...you making proclamations of things you are unware of.
> 
> No, that issue IS the point...you're condeming processes that you don't understand.  If you aren't aware of how things work then how can you make definitive statements about those processes?  The only definitive statement you can make is the one you just made..."I was not aware."
> 
> ...



I NEVER once said that you were wrong (or at least I don't remember saying so).  I believe I said that it doesn't matter how you choose to shoot as long as you get the shot you were going for. I don't think manual is better then any of the other semi-auto modes or vice versa. I know for a fact that I never said that you only have full control of your camera when shooting in manual mode. 

I learned (and am still learning) how to shoot in manual. I haven't had my camera for very long so no I haven't gotten around to learning the other modes. But just because I haven't fully learned how to use them properly doesn't mean that I won't. Or that I don't see the value.


----------



## table1349 (May 7, 2012)

> QUOTE=Graystar;2583452]
> The big difference is that the shutter/ISO changes happen instantly for me, whereas a person shooting manual mode would be fumbling with three controls. This gives me advantages in speed and fluidity of shots.



I get it now.  I finally understand what you are trying to explain.  

You don't really understand your equipment and can't operate the camera smoothly so you let the auto modes do it for you.   Your arguments make a heap of sense to me now.


----------



## MTVision (May 7, 2012)

Graystar said:
			
		

> No, you understand so little that a cheap insult is all you have to counter my explanations.  That's pathetic.



This is what I meant by my earlier comment about this argument being stupid. Not that what you or the other people were saying was stupid. Just that it's kind of like the Nikon vs canon debate. People have their preferences and nothing anyone says is going to really change their opinion. I think a lot of your points are valid. Like the thing about the guy fumbling with his settings so his dad sat down. I'm sure I've missed shots doing that exact thing. 

I am still more comfortable with manual mode (that's not saying much since I haven't been doing so very long) but because of this thread I have been using aperture priority more.


----------



## belial (May 7, 2012)

I shoot in manual aperture and shutter. I agree with graystar that in aperture and shutter you maintain full control. Can't see ever using program though as I feel I'd be giving up creative decisions of dof and stop motion. One thing I like to do is have manual and aperture set to drastically different settings because it allows me to switch between different types of creative exposures with one click of a dial (the camera saves the last setting on each mode other than iso of course)


----------



## coastalconn (May 8, 2012)

Wow, I can't believe this thread has been going on for so long.  Anyways, my only contribution is that auto iso has saved me many times with BIF...  I shoot in A mode and my D90 has a great implementation of auto iso.  Lately if I have tons of light I shoot 1/1000 to 1/1600th of a second with iso on base 200 max 1600.  I don't think anyone (maybe I am wrong) can change ISO fast enough and track a bird like this cormorant taking off from the shade underneath a bridge into bright sunlight.  I think in more controlled shooting that auto iso isn't nearly as important and turn it off when I'm not chasing birds around...


----------



## TheBiles (May 8, 2012)

I only ever use auto-ISO in manual mode when I'm in a low-light situation and I want to maintain max aperture and a set minimum shutter speed. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus


----------



## unpopular (May 8, 2012)

f5.6 -> 8 = 1/60 -> 1/30 is a Tv program 
likewise 1/125 -> 1/250 = f11 -> f8 is an Av program

If an exposure translation is conducted in a relative to another value, then it is in accordance to a program. 

And no. I don't fumble, because I understand how the scene relates to exposure, and how exposure control relates to the image data. I preset aperture, adjust exposure time - just as anyone would in Av mode. Only instead of dialing EC, I directly dial in the shutter speed. If I change the aperture, I just double the exposure time. 

But if I need to translate the exposure by three stops, I have the option to split that translation between aperture and shutter. Say i needed +3ev, I can stop down once and decrease time by a factor of four. I can open aperture by one stop and double exposure time. I can increase ISO by 1ev and leave aperture alone while increasing shutter 2ev. I could decrease shutter speed by 3ev. I could open the aperture three stops. I could increase sensitivity 3ev. It just depends on what I need at the time.


----------



## ClintBalsam (May 9, 2012)

Auto ISO is fine, and a useful feature.


----------



## unpopular (May 9, 2012)

Honestly Greystar, I think we're arguing the same points and the only issue is preference at this point. Maybe it's been so long since I've even had AE available I've lost track of its merit - the last camera I had with AE was my Contax, and that was when Kyocera was still building them - you make valid points, though I still prefer making the changes myself. I am extremely "exposure oriented" in my process - this isn't to say that exposure isn't important to you, but I do think I spend more time thinking about it as part of composition.


----------



## unpopular (May 9, 2012)

I tend to be old school as well, but more black and white than color slide. I don't like to think of the camera as the end, and think of raw processing more like black and white processing. I do ETTR to the extreme right, and compensate in the RAW processor. It's helpful to think of the RAW as unprocessed film, the processed TIF file as the negative and the finished working file as the print. Though thats another topic for another day.


----------



## sovietdoc (May 11, 2012)

Using Auto ISO in Manual mode does mean you're giving avay the exposure control to the camera.  If you had set your shutter speed, aperture and ISO manually, the camera would never change the exposure regardless of what the exponometer tells you. But when you set it to use Auto ISO, it will adjust the ISO setting based on the exposure readout the camera gets while keeping your manually set aperture and shutter.  This can obviously lead to not obtaining the correct exposure you might want in a given situation but you can still "control" this by using exposure lock for "hard control" or exposure compensation for "soft control"  So in the end, if you utilize AE lock, for example, yes, you do get complete control over how your camera will shoot, even in automatic or semi auto modes.

I thought DNG could be referenced to as "unprocessed film" although not being the same.  While to RAW, there is no analogy in film.  I could very well be wrong about these two.


----------



## belial (May 11, 2012)

sovietdoc said:
			
		

> I thought DNG could be referenced to as "unprocessed film" although not being the same.  While to RAW, there is no analogy in film.  I could very well be wrong about these two.


I thought dng was just adobes universal raw format but I could be wrong. As a matter of fact doesn't Leica use dng in place of a manufacturer specific raw format?


----------



## unpopular (May 12, 2012)

belial said:


> sovietdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


DNG is just adobe's nonproprietary RAW format. I agree that there is no 'real analogy' to film; rather this is a mindset or philosophy in how I approach exposure and processing, rather than a literal or technical comparison. How I see it is that, like the latent image, the RAW file contains data about the scene which is of little use until it is processed, and how it is processed determines various qualities - in particular gamma. However, the way I approach exposure and processing is not "mainstream", and is, including processing, heavily influenced by the zone system.

As for AE, I did attach my only AE/AF lens to play around a bit, and found that on my a350 anyway, I can still engage AEL in manual mode. Once engaged, it acts as if in either Av or Tv modes depending on if aperture or shutter is changed. I found this very useful, I could meter for the brightest region as I always do unlocked, and adjust aperture according to shutter while maintaining the exposure compensation previously chosen while unlocked. Once AEL is disengaged, it behaves as if in full manual again. So, at least on a Sony, and I'd imagine others as well, you can have the best of all worlds within manual mode by locking exposure.

I still think auto ISO is unneccesary and just sloppy. But that's just my take on it.


----------

