# Just to Inflame you.



## Luke (Jun 6, 2006)

Program mode is for idiots
and selective colouring is inane, the novelty died once it had been done thrice.
just to make you argue with me, but i do largely believe what i said.
EDIT:
yeah sorry, allow me to be more clear, i just wanted to know what other people thought, and figured i couldnt do it without an argument, but yeah, i just find it annoying when people selectively colour, cos usually, it doesnt look too good, just cheesy.  and i also am an advocate of people really learning about aperture and shutter, rather than leaving it on program and letting the camera think.


----------



## motcon (Jun 6, 2006)

trolling. now there's a new forum concept.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 6, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> i do largely believe what i said.


We are all entitled to our beliefs.


----------



## bigfatbadger (Jun 6, 2006)

Although bandying them around without thought for the effect on others may be different altogether.

I don't get the point of this thread? Are you asking for an argument?


----------



## Luke (Jun 6, 2006)

yeah sorry, allow me to be more clear, i just wanted to know what other people thought, and figured i couldnt do it without an argument, but yeah, i just find it annoying when people selectively colour, cos usually, it doesnt look too good, just cheesy.  and i also am an advocate of people really learning about aperture and shutter, rather than leaving it on program and letting the camera think.


----------



## Torus34 (Jun 6, 2006)

Not annoyed at all.  I'm too busy working in B&W film to worry about what others are doing.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 6, 2006)

I taught my son in law on a manual camera... he went digital when I retired... Nikon d100 then d200 now... he went through all the phases and is back to shooting most everything manual... Not sure what that has to do with anything....


----------



## Luke (Jun 6, 2006)

Torus34 said:
			
		

> Not annoyed at all.  I'm too busy working in B&W film to worry about what others are doing.


yeah thats th way to be, i just started noticing it all after joining the photo forum, and im very judgemental and unfair.  i love BW film.  'ilford delta 400' will you marry me?


----------



## bigfatbadger (Jun 6, 2006)

You modern buggers, I'm currently using daugerrotypes to photograph a music gig. The metering is a bit tricky and the hour long exposures can be difficult, but I'm getting the hang of it. ;-)


----------



## 2framesbelowzero (Jun 6, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> Program mode is for idiots


 
trying telling that to an astronaut  



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> i do largely believe what i said.


 
that's a relief. you wouldn't want to be just talking in 'programme-mode', and not doing the thinking (which is important!)  



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> i just find it annoying when people selectively colour, cos usually, it doesnt look too good, just cheesy.


 
it annoys you and you consider it cheesy. that's fine. that's allowed.

programme mode is convenient. if a computer understands exactly what i want to do, i'm happy to let it decide the settings.

i've used a 35mm slr for over 25 years. when i select 400 iso on the dial, i don't know what's really occuring mechanically/electronically/piezo-electrically (?) that feeds those parameters to the light-meter.
i don't really care either. 

the same thing when i drive a fuel-injected car, instead of one with a mechanical carburetor.


----------



## 2framesbelowzero (Jun 6, 2006)

bigfatbadger said:
			
		

> You modern buggers, I'm currently using daugerrotypes to photograph a music gig. The metering is a bit tricky and the hour long exposures can be difficult, but I'm getting the hang of it. ;-)



  which group ? don't tell me .. Blur, right ?


----------



## motcon (Jun 6, 2006)

2framesbelowzero said:
			
		

> which group ? don't tell me .. Blur, right ?




that was worth the chuckle...


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jun 6, 2006)

When leaning composition it&#8217;s nice to be able to put the camera in program mode and not to worry about the lighting, also program can be very helpful with action shots, along with shutter or aperture priority too. 

Most of my shots with my EOS Canons are ether taken in program or aperture priority. And then I will dial it up or down with in the exposure


----------



## Unimaxium (Jun 6, 2006)

I find when I shoot with a digital camera I am a lot more comfortable using it in manual mode than when I shoot with my 35mm. I wish I shot more manual, but I'm usually more concerned with getting the shot so I just set it in program so that I will at least get something that I'm pretty sure will be usable, rather than using it in manual and accidentally screwing something up. With digital, it's a lot easier because I can always check the shot and delete it if it's crap. (Btw just to clarify, I currently shoot 95% 35mm and will sometimes use a friend's or teacher's dslr on occasion)


----------



## usayit (Jun 6, 2006)

I sometimes shoot in program mode.... when I'm too busy doing other things and don't mind something else worrying about exposure on my behalf

I sometimes shoot aperture priority....  when I've got DOF in mind...

I sometimes shoot shutter priority.... when I've got motion stop in mind...

I sometimes shoot in full manual mode.... when I want full control over everything.  Slows me down... makes me observe.. makes me compose.

I sometimes shoot in evaluative metering mode... when I don't mind the camera doing that too.  

I sometimes shoot in spot metering mode... when I want to take readings from specific points and take advantage of my camera(s) multi-spot meter.  (I love this metering mode)

I sometimes shoot without a meter at all.... when I feel like enjoying the whole shooting with a vintage camera experience.

I sometimes shoot digital.... when its techno-advantages serve me.  When my geeky side wants a voice.

I sometimes shoot B&W film.... when I see my self in the darkroom slaving for the perfect print.

I sometimes shoot with medium format... when I see a need for a no compromising negative to enjoy in the darkroom.


I sometimes shoot....  just because....








and I could care less what other people think...


----------



## Luke (Jun 7, 2006)

usayit said:
			
		

> I sometimes shoot in program mode.... when I'm too busy doing other things and don't mind something else worrying about exposure on my behalf
> 
> I sometimes shoot aperture priority....  when I've got DOF in mind...
> 
> ...


yah, thats cool, but i still think (yes i see the irony in that you said you dont care what i think, but you posted it, so obviously you deserve some reply) theres no reason shooting program mode when you've got aperture priority at least.


			
				2framesbelowzero said:
			
		

> trying telling that to an astronaut
> 
> 
> 
> ...


right, no problem with that. im not saying dont let the camera do anythin. but what mode do you shoot in, aperture priority? shutter priority? manual? fully auto or 'program'?

GEESH, people seem to think im advocating all manual, and never letting the cam do anything.  i use aperture priority usually.
My point is that so much can be achieved if you actually think about your shot, rather then just going snap happy and not wanting learn about how light works.  don't get me wrong, i'm only criticising those who can't be bothered learning, and those who use it when they don't have to.  
'I use it when I don't really care, and im just shooting my kids, if i need control, i know how to use it'  --> please dont post that here, obviously im not criticising that, im criticising using it cos you're stupid or lazy or both.

props to the guy with the band shooting joke>
and to the guy with the counter joke about the band being blur.


----------



## Luke (Jun 7, 2006)

right, by PROGRAM
i mean FULL AUTO
aperture priority and shutter pri. don't count.


----------



## usayit (Jun 7, 2006)

My point was that there is a need and time for everything...  and what I mean about "don't care" is that I "don't care" about what other people think about those specific modes.... its a tool and how you make use of it (I posted how I use them)... but a true photographer could make a wonderful photo given any tool.

Feel free to use what ever mode you feel works for you.  I use all of them depending on many things (aperture / spot being the most often).

Of course I care what people "think" in general...  why would I be on the internet...  interaction with people in general with an OPEN MIND without JUDGEMENT is the key to learning.


----------



## markc (Jun 7, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> obviously im not criticising that, im criticising using it cos you're stupid or lazy or both.


It wasn't obvious to many of us because of the over-the-top way you stated it. 

My personal observation has been that many photographers go through stages. Early on, there is a lot of experimentation. Things like old barns, cemeteries, selective coloring, fancy digital frames, etc., all can seem cliché to those who have been photographing for a long time (or at least looking at photographs for a long time), but for someone who's in that experimenting stage, they have to suss out what works for them and what doesn't. It's rare for me not to find a selectively colored image more distracting than creative, but just because that's where I am. It doesn't stop people from enjoying them or experimenting with them.

There's another stage that many photographers go through. After learning a bit and finding some things that work (or don't work) for them, they can become judgemental of those that are still experimenting with these things. They can feel superior about their bit of knowledge, or at least use it as a way of showing themselves that they've gotten somewhere. After some time, that can lead to acceptance as they understand that the world of photography is so much bigger than just where they themselves are at this very moment.


And back to the "lazy or stupid", well, I do agree that it's good for people to think for themselves, but if someone is lazy, then they are making the choice that the effort of paying attention to exposure isn't worth it for them. So be it. If they are stupid, well, is that their fault?


----------



## ThomThomsk (Jun 7, 2006)

bigfatbadger said:
			
		

> Are you asking for an argument?



Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour..?


----------



## 2framesbelowzero (Jun 7, 2006)

hi Luke
yea me too -  aperture priority. nearly always..with my film camera.
when i had a digital, i'd use  manual or programme.


----------



## Unimaxium (Jun 7, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> right, by PROGRAM
> i mean FULL AUTO
> aperture priority and shutter pri. don't count.



But program is not the same thing as full auto. At least not on canon cams, and I don't think on Nikons either (considering they have options on the dial for both auto and program like canons do). You're right, full auto should never be used. But program is nice because it will make its decisions for you, but still allow you to change things if you want. And I think it's just wrong to say that Program should never be used, considering that you're not actually giving up manual control; instead, the camera is simply recommending a starting point for you, at which point you can adjust any of the aspects of the exposure as you see fit.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jun 7, 2006)

I have taken several thousand photos in full program mode on my old Canon A1 or AE1P with fabulous results


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 8, 2006)

Full auto is helpful for those whose eye-sight is dwindling even though they have enjoyed a lifetime of manual (film) photography, like in my dad's case whose one eye turned blind but he STILL would like to take some good photos.

I have started out photographing with my SLR in full auto and have gradually, in a learning-by-doing manner, worked my way to manual. On the DSLR now ... and I enjoy it more, I do admit.


----------



## Luke (Jun 8, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> It wasn't obvious to many of us because of the over-the-top way you stated it.
> 
> My personal observation has been that many photographers go through stages. Early on, there is a lot of experimentation. Things like old barns, cemeteries, selective coloring, fancy digital frames, etc., all can seem cliché to those who have been photographing for a long time (or at least looking at photographs for a long time), but for someone who's in that experimenting stage, they have to suss out what works for them and what doesn't. It's rare for me not to find a selectively colored image more distracting than creative, but just because that's where I am. It doesn't stop people from enjoying them or experimenting with them.
> 
> ...


yeah nicely put, i suppose you don't see many pros doing selective colouring, its more a fun thing, so i guess im just being reactive.  anyway, it's not that i feel superior to people that use full auto, it's just that i think that if you can get nice results with full auto, imagine what you could do with manual, and if you had a goood understanding.  i've not been shooting long, only about a year, but im bias to the way i started which was a lot to do with thinking bout exposure etc, and then when i see people that just go and take some nicely (or poorly i guess) composed pictures on full auto it annoys me because i think, gee, they're sorta wasting that talent/skill in composition, if they spent the learning time, then thered be no limits.
yeah, lazy is a bad thing to be, but you cant help being stupid i guess....


----------



## Luke (Jun 8, 2006)

Unimaxium said:
			
		

> But program is not the same thing as full auto. At least not on canon cams, and I don't think on Nikons either (considering they have options on the dial for both auto and program like canons do). You're right, full auto should never be used. But program is nice because it will make its decisions for you, but still allow you to change things if you want. And I think it's just wrong to say that Program should never be used, considering that you're not actually giving up manual control; instead, the camera is simply recommending a starting point for you, at which point you can adjust any of the aspects of the exposure as you see fit.


yeah, sorry, terminology conflict, i shoot old camera, so program means, no control, i remember using my friends EOS, prgramon that is awesome, like aperture and shutter priority in 1.


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 8, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> if they spent the learning time,


What makes you conclude that they aren't learning?


----------



## terri (Jun 8, 2006)

ThomThomsk said:
			
		

> Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour..?


bahahahaha!!!!! Or simple contradiction?


----------



## ThomThomsk (Jun 8, 2006)

terri said:
			
		

> bahahahaha!!!!! Or simple contradiction?



At last! Someone with the same cultural references as me... (or just of a similar age).


----------



## Oldfireguy (Jun 8, 2006)

_i've not been shooting long, only about a year

_Oh thank God for that.  At first I thought you were a novice but you must at least be an expert by now.

So if you judge others as lazy or stupid because they don't do as you do, then based on your spelling and poor grammar, am I to judge you as being stupid? Or are you being lazy? Do you see my point?

Does it really matter what mode people shoot in?

If it really, truly bothers you that much, then take the time to teach them how to do it the way you think is right. You may even find out that they are not really lazy or stupid. Just lacking knowledge.


----------



## Meysha (Jun 8, 2006)

ThomThomsk said:
			
		

> At last! Someone with the same cultural references as me... (or just of a similar age).


No she's not.


----------



## JamesD (Jun 8, 2006)

As Unimaximum pointed out, with Canon EOS cameras, there's very little difference between Program and either Shutter or Aperture Priortity.  Mainly, I notice that it locks the shutter speed, and therefore aperture, if you have the flash up (but you can still dial in exposure compensation); and it won't let you select a shutter-aperture combination that will cause the meter to read over or under-exposure (except for whatever compensation you've dialed in).

I've often wondered why cameras, particularly the top-line models, include any modes other than the "Creative Zone" modes (P, TV, AV, M, and Dep).  I suppose it's because those who are rich enough to have "the best camera," but lack sufficient interest in photography to worry about exposure, want modes which will suit their preference of convenience over understanding.  However, each of these modes is essentially the same as the Program mode, with various curious deviations (such as, in the "Landscape" mode, it won't fire the flash).

Historically, I've used full manual 95% or more of the time.  Lately, I've been using AV a lot more; don't ask why, because I don't really know.  TV gets used quite infrequently, and once in a blue moon, I'll actually use Program--generally when I'm getting the shots I want but have short notice that the shot is coming up.  A good example would be the homecoming at the airport, when an entire company of soldiers welcomed their fellows back from the desert.  Even then, however, I believe I was using TV... I wanted to make sure my shots weren't blurred.

Idle thoughts...


----------



## castrol (Jun 8, 2006)

Fun thread.

I dislike selective coloring as well. Not really sure why, but I find it a huge 
turn off when I see it. Like the photo isn't good enough to stand on it's own,
there has to be some special touch to it to make it that way.

*shrug*

What do I know? I am a serious novice.

I would have never stated this opinion had this thread not been created. I feel
much better now after saying (typing) it though. Thanks for allowing me to 
release this burden from myself.


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 9, 2006)

Selective colouring is for play.
It is a fun device.
When I finally found out how it is done (which was a big achievement for me in my getting myself familiar with PS, thank you Artemis for the online tutorial once again ), I just had to apply it to some photos.
But selective colouring does not change a mediocre photo into a piece of art.
I doubt that those who use it here and show their results mean to express that.
I am sure they also only enjoy the process and the result because it is something you could not do to photos (other than handcolouring them partially, of course) just that easily before digital photography and PS came up. 
But it remains "fun" - "play". Why not allow people to also have fun with their favourite pasttime when they work on their pictures in front of their screens? I think it is just ok - as long as it is all taken in good fun.


----------



## jemmy (Jun 9, 2006)

Boo Hoo Hoo.... i have done selective colouring - spank me! and yes i am relatively new to the fancy photography world so when i read on this forum how to do it, i was over the moon at my accomplishment.  Sure it may look a little tacky but some non-photog people actually like it.  For example the baby with blue eyes in a past post of mine, my friend asked me to do it and a lot of other girlfriends with bubs/kids liked it... and want me to do the same for them.... so do i say no? No - i'll give them what they want regardless of whether i like it or not.  I know i will continue to grow as a "photographer" by learning off this forum and it's talented members and will certainly attempt 'new' techniques as i find them - poxy or not.......So Luke, if you were trying to be  a S*#%-stirrer, looks like you succeeded!!  xx


----------



## Luke (Jun 9, 2006)

fredcwdoc said:
			
		

> _i've not been shooting long, only about a year
> 
> _Oh thank God for that.  At first I thought you were a novice but you must at least be an expert by now.
> 
> ...


yeah, right, the first bit was okay, nice touch of sarcasm but meh, i know what i know.
yes, my poor spelling and grammar is the result of laziness, most definitely. The difference is, I don't aspire to be a great internet forum nerd, so I could give a *bad word* about my spelling and grammar in such an informal situation, I asure you, I'm not illiterate, far from it.  So, why can i say it's bad for others to be lazy with cameras when i am lazy with spelling?  simple, i completely advocate the use of auto for anyone that doesnt want to get good beyond snap shots, anyone that is just taking holiday photos etc.  It's when they want to be good, or more pro, and they don't seem to go past AUTO MODE. Anyway, you missed the point of what i said, I indicated a negative predisposition towards those who might use AUTO, despite their aspirations towards 'PROdom', simply because they are lazy or stupid.  I realise i didnt limit my feelings to the aspiring, but it didnt come up you see. 'Do you see my point?'

Of course it matters what mode people shoot in.  It will directly affect their photographic lives.

Now, 'You may even find out that they are not really lazy or stupid. Just lacking knowledge.'  Yeah, Im sure some are lacking knowledge, but they should most definately seek that knowledge, instead of riding on their light meters wings.  i never said they were lazy or stupid because of it, i said its bad if they use auto because they are lazy or stupid, quite different.  now, if indeed a lazy or stupid photographer comes my way, i will advise them, harshly and arrogantly that they should exploit that little switch that goes to  'M'. 


			
				danalec said:
			
		

> What makes you conclude that they aren't learning?


perhaps they could be learning about composition, but otherwise, nothing is learning exposure, the light meter is doing it, and it can't learn.


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 9, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> It's when they want to be good, or more pro, and they don't seem to go past AUTO MODE


 
Never forget there are people out in this world who have spent decades of manual photography - even in a semi-professional manner - who still love it for a hobby but their eye-sight no longer allows them to go all manual, who now best rely on Full Auto because they still know how to compose a good photo but can no longer see properly to achieve it. I will not let anyone say about someone like my own father, who HAS TO rely on full-auto nowadays, with only one seeing eye left, at 76 years of age, that he is too silly to do otherwise!

But I understand that all you really wanted to do here is rile us, Luke.
I think you succeeded. And therefore this thread will have to come to an end soon.


----------



## Luke (Jun 9, 2006)

LaFoto said:
			
		

> I will not let anyone say about someone like my own father, who HAS TO rely on full-auto nowadays, with only one seeing eye left, at 76 years of age, that he is too silly to do otherwise!
> 
> But I understand that all you really wanted to do here is rile us, Luke.
> I think you succeeded. And therefore this thread will have to come to an end soon.


As if I've the nerve to insult someone that uses it because they have to, based on physical problems, of course I don't think you're Dad's lazy.  Really, if you've got a good excuse, then thats fair enough.
Yeah I've seeme to rile up a few people, really wish I hadn't phrased it in such a strong way, but you know.  The thread is still sorta interesting.


----------



## Luke (Jun 9, 2006)

jemmy said:
			
		

> Boo Hoo Hoo.... i have done selective colouring - spank me! and yes i am relatively new to the fancy photography world so when i read on this forum how to do it, i was over the moon at my accomplishment.  Sure it may look a little tacky but some non-photog people actually like it.  For example the baby with blue eyes in a past post of mine, my friend asked me to do it and a lot of other girlfriends with bubs/kids liked it... and want me to do the same for them.... so do i say no? No - i'll give them what they want regardless of whether i like it or not.  I know i will continue to grow as a "photographer" by learning off this forum and it's talented members and will certainly attempt 'new' techniques as i find them - poxy or not.......So Luke, if you were trying to be  a S*#%-stirrer, looks like you succeeded!!  xx


i still hate selective colouring  but whatever you say... XD


----------



## ThomThomsk (Jun 9, 2006)

Meysha said:
			
		

> No she's not.


----------



## tehbuffalo (Jun 9, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> Program mode is for idiots
> and selective colouring is inane, the novelty died once it had been done thrice.
> just to make you argue with me, but i do largely believe what i said.
> EDIT:
> yeah sorry, allow me to be more clear, i just wanted to know what other people thought, and figured i couldnt do it without an argument, but yeah, i just find it annoying when people selectively colour, cos usually, it doesnt look too good, just cheesy. and i also am an advocate of people really learning about aperture and shutter, *rather than leaving it on program and letting the camera think*.


 
The computer dosn't really think that hard. Don't worry about it...:thumbup: 


Jake


----------



## Luke (Jun 9, 2006)

tehbuffalo said:
			
		

> The computer dosn't really think that hard. Don't worry about it...:thumbup:
> 
> 
> Jake


exactly, better to leave it into the hands of a human. humans are generally more perceptive and competent than light meters


----------



## craig (Jun 9, 2006)

I understand your concerns. Can not say that I have ever shot program or used selective colouring. That's just me. Program mode is what it is. If the photographer chooses not to investigate further why should I care? Generally I am concerned with the work first and the process second. Art is a personal journey. We should never judge that.


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 9, 2006)

craig said:
			
		

> Art is a personal journey. We should never judge that.


I like that!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 10, 2006)

exactly what is program mode, auto focus and auto exposure....


----------



## bigfatbadger (Jun 10, 2006)

Good point, why is everyone so snobby about auto exposures but not about auto focus?


----------



## Corry (Jun 10, 2006)

craig said:
			
		

> Art is a personal journey. We should never judge that.



I'm with Danalec! Definitely worth quoting twice, too.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 10, 2006)

NO NO, I honestly have no idea what this is all about.. I don't own a camera with any of that... Well i do have this toy thing for ebay.  Otherwise I have no idea what all the fuss is about.


----------



## JamesD (Jun 10, 2006)

The idea is that it's bad to let the camera's built-in calculator read the built-in meter and select an aperture and shutter speed from a table programmed into it's memory.  Then have it set those to produce a "properly exposed" negative (which it will only do for an 18% gray card).

That's all auto-exposure does. It reads the meter, which gives it the average luminosity of the metered area; in other words, and exposure value.  It takes that EV to a lookup table and finds a shutter speed and aperture that match (for a given film speed).  Or it might calculate it mathematically, I don't know the internal workings.  If you spin the control to tell it "No, I want a larger aperture," then it goes to the next cell in the chart for that same EV.  If you dial in exposure compensation, then it adds or subtracts whatever you tell it to from the EV, and looks it up in the table (or calculates it, whatever).

Fact is, I can do exactly this process with a pencil and paper, but that built-in processor chip does it faster, because it doesn't have to count on my fingers.

Further fact is, I can actually do this, literally by counting on my fingers, with no meter and the sunny-16 rule.  But with the meter, it's more accurate, and with the chip, it's faster.

So, if you really want to remove autoexposure, you have to use the sunny-16 rule, or use trial and error.  You can't use a meter, built-in, hand-held, or any other kind, other than your calibrated eyeball.  Any meter, and the knowledge of the process for calculating exposure (or a cheat-sheet graph, which is what the camera uses), automatically equals auto-exposure (to at least some degree) because it makes it faster and more accurate through the use of rules and/or equations, and measurements; or, alternatively, because at least some of the work (ie trial and error) is already done for you.

Since I doubt that anybody, even Luke, is going to entirely throw away all meters, calculators, charts/tables, and calculations in the head, and resort strictly to trial and error, I believe that it's really a moot point.

As for autofocus, I think that nobody (well, few people) object to it, because we all have imperfect eyesight, and it's much harder to tell whether something is in tack-sharp focus when viewing in that itty-bitty window, as compared to eyeballing a 4X6 or 8X10 print up close.  Mainly, though, it's just not controvercial enough, because it generally improves the focus of the image.  Nevermind that the mastermind using autofocus and autoexposure forgets (or doesn't know) to recompose the scene so it's aesthetically appealing.  In fact, without understanding "art theory" (kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?) they won't even realize that their picture could be better from an artistic standpoint.  As long as it shows what they wanted to show, in focus, and not too light or too dark, they're happy.

As am I.  My methods just differ a little.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 10, 2006)

Sounds a lot like that photolab that caters to the lowest common denominator to me.

Oh yeah with a hand held meter you decide which combination of shutterspeed and f stop you want. I know programed mode does that but you have to remember to switch it from portrait to action ect. Seems easier to say oh yeah thats what I want. But I don't have a choice so I cant speak for anyone else.

And for autofocus you get what is dead center in focus.  Can't focus on the bride, then reframe for the cake in front and still have her in focus.  Well i think you acutally can but hard to look past her to focus.  Im rambling tell me to shut up please


----------



## Luke (Jun 11, 2006)

JamesD said:
			
		

> The idea is that it's bad to let the camera's built-in calculator read the built-in meter and select an aperture and shutter speed from a table programmed into it's memory.  Then have it set those to produce a "properly exposed" negative (which it will only do for an 18% gray card).
> 
> That's all auto-exposure does. It reads the meter, which gives it the average luminosity of the metered area; in other words, and exposure value.  It takes that EV to a lookup table and finds a shutter speed and aperture that match (for a given film speed).  Or it might calculate it mathematically, I don't know the internal workings.  If you spin the control to tell it "No, I want a larger aperture," then it goes to the next cell in the chart for that same EV.  If you dial in exposure compensation, then it adds or subtracts whatever you tell it to from the EV, and looks it up in the table (or calculates it, whatever).
> 
> ...


RIGHT, totally missed the point, completely.  What you are talking about is a diff definition of program mode.  Im talking bout auto mode, it sets it, and you cant decide what shutter, or what aperture, like a point and shoot digi.  giving you know contorl over depth of field, motion, or what it exposes for.  which  is different to what you do when canon user use program, which gives them control over that, i thought we cleared up this terminology difference a few posts ago.



> Since I doubt that anybody, even Luke, is going to entirely throw away all meters, calculators, charts/tables, and calculations in the head, and resort strictly to trial and error, I believe that it's really a moot point.


actually i do that, when i do street photography, never assume my dear boy.  I don't want to look into my  slr for fear of making my subject self concious, so i just set them based on my eye's percieved value, and shoot from the hip.  no sunny 16 anymore though I learnt to guess exposure by using it.  im getting better too, about 70% spot on these days, and rarely do i produce an unusable negative.


----------



## Arch (Jun 11, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> im getting better too, about 70% spot on these days, and rarely do i produce an unusable negative.



It was said earlier that its the end result that really matters........ and i agree.

Lets just say you were shooting from the hip one day...... you see an old haggard guy crossing the road..... you take three shots before he reaches the other side...... the first and second fall into your 30% over/under exposed shots...... but for the last you swith to auto. 

When you get the pictures home you open them to see the auto shot came out spot on....... his expression, the tones..... everything looks good...... everybody you show it to likes the shot...... are you gonna bin it because of the technicality that it was shot on auto?...... would you consider yourself lazy?...... after all, you were there to see the potential....... and its your artisitc eye that wanted to capture the shot...... the camera was just the tool to get what you wanted.

I hardly ever shoot on auto either...... but if i did, and the result was usable.... i wouldn't consider it lazy or stupid..... sure i would have prefered a bit of control, but auto can be used as just another option on your camera.

As for people who are learning..... i think its more important to figure out what and why you are shooting the subjects you are...... rather than worry about the cameras functions. There is alot of 'look at the dof i'v achieved this shot'...... rather than looking at the subject matter itself, and asking why you have photographed it.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 11, 2006)

But I think everyone agrees the mark a real photographer is being able to know what caused the picture to be great, and being able to reproduce it.  If you know why the auto shot was great, you can force it for another customer.  Otherwise you have to wait for that same set of remarkable circumstances so your auto camera can capture just he right combination of depth and speed.

That said let me join the other side a second.  An overwhelming majority of the shot's value is in how it is composed.  The lighting came make a good shot great.  But it can't make a bad shot anything but an inspired bit of trash.  I have a room full of those by the way.  So I'm not pointing fingers at anyone else.

These are the opinions of a hopelessly behind the times photographer.


----------



## Arch (Jun 11, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> But I think everyone agrees the mark a real photographer is being able to know what caused the picture to be great, and being able to reproduce it.



everyone agrees???......:mrgreen: 

Yea i know what your saying...... its is important to know how these processes work...... but that wasn't my point.....

My point was...... you have two sets of pictures in front of you, both shot by a photog with only 6 months experience....... one set is technically good, but consists of the most mundane, boring and predictable subjects you can imagine....... your tying not to yawn as you look through them.

The other lacks techinical knowledge and often has to use auto, but every single one of the shots is inspired. The photog naturally has a great eye...... they can see things, angles, shapes, textures, forms etc.....

Having done some support teaching for art classes..... I know which one i would say has the most potential for a great photographer....... and i'd hope you would see it too.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 11, 2006)

I'm not sure but you still have to able to transmit your vision.  Auto cameras are great for shooting a hundred shots to get your vision.  Trust me we did it for years in 35mm and paid the price... There is nothing wrong with it.

My point was, at least I hope it was, that if you are making one of a kind, oil painting for instance, then creating a great picture without knowing why is peachy keen.  Actually I have seen some that were done that way.  Go to a sidewalk sale and look at one artist with twenty painting, but only one of them gets any real attention.

But alas my poorly made point was, if I show Janie a portrait with a short dof and neato fuzzy flowers, and if she wants one like it.  I really do need to know how it happened.  

But alas,  I have also said before you can fix a lot of er er stuff, but you can't fix what ain't there.  But that goes to the marriage of technical and artistic which is what photography has tried to be for the last hundred years.  It might be taking off into a new direction there days, one neither you nor I understand just yet.


----------



## Luke (Jun 11, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> It was said earlier that its the end result that really matters........ and i agree.
> 
> Lets just say you were shooting from the hip one day...... you see an old haggard guy crossing the road..... you take three shots before he reaches the other side...... the first and second fall into your 30% over/under exposed shots...... but for the last you swith to auto.
> 
> ...


again, missed the point.  first off let me say, im still learning to meter with my eye  so i aim to get 100% effective, further more, im very rarely more than a stop off and black and white negs yield that easily, so the first two would be fine. now, of course i wouldnt bin that shot, provided it's good, if you get a good shot, you've got a good shot (doesn't mean you're a good photographer), i do not judge a shot based on how it was done, except sometimess when digital editing is involved (like if you know that that amazing fire shot really happened, instead of it just being a PS job, it is that much more amazing, but yeah, those shots are rare) anyway i digress.  the reason i hate auto is that you won't be able to reproduce the shots well because you won't have that inate knowledge of photography, and you won't have the skills to constantly get good shots.  when you're learning it is essential to shoot rarely on auto, maybe start with ap. priority. exposure is a big part of every photo, as big as subject matter and composition.  aperture and shutter are not 'functions' they are the basis of every photo.  basically you've got this, subject matter, composition, aperture, shutter.  why you would ever trust the last two artistic elements to a machine i don't know.  
Anyway, with the bum shot, even if it was well exposed, perhaps i would be cursing that it set my aperture to f 4 at  250th of a sec, instead of what i wouldve done with f 8 at 1 60th, and gotten little motion blur and teh onlookers in focus too.


----------



## Arch (Jun 11, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> again, missed the point.



Hmmmm..... i dont think i have at all....... in fact, i think you've missed the point. I am simply giving you the other half of a beginners outlook on photography. You are saying that you should learn how to use the camera properly first........ i am saying you should learn to use your eye first.

Niether of these methods are wrong......... but it is personal preference.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> basically you've got this, subject matter, composition, aperture, shutter. why you would ever trust the last two artistic elements to a machine i don't know.



This demonstrates my point....... why wouldn't you want to develope the first two options first........  sure all four are important to keep up consistant photography........ but from a beginners point of view there would be nothing wrong with learning the first two using auto....... then incorporate the last two elements to start producing really good photography.

As for people who are serious about their photography...... i cant see many of them actually still having to use auto anyway........ so i dont see how you can be refering to them, and not beginners.


----------



## JamesD (Jun 11, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> RIGHT, totally missed the point, completely.  What you are talking about is a diff definition of program mode.  Im talking bout auto mode, it sets it, and you cant decide what shutter, or what aperture, like a point and shoot digi.  giving you know contorl over depth of field, motion, or what it exposes for.  which  is different to what you do when canon user use program, which gives them control over that, i thought we cleared up this terminology difference a few posts ago.



Permit me to be a bit clearer.  In Full Auto mode (as opposed to Program Mode), the camera checks the meter reading, and selects a shutter speed and aperture which will produce an overall 18% shade in the negative.  With full auto, you can't set compensation, nor can you change the aperture-to-shutter ratio, but the process is the same.

In the various Full Auto modes, the camera will alter its selection by reading from a different table.  For Portrait mode, it uses a larger aperture; for landscape mode, it uses a smaller aperture.  In night mode, it even adds a third exposure control: additional light.  In any of these cases, you still have no control, other than selecting the specific Fully Automatic mode you wish the camera to use, over which settings the camera selects.  Is this fully automatic enough for your definition?  In any case, the proces is exactly the same.

A step further:  by selecting which lens (or degree of zoom, if you prefer) you intend to use, and moving closer or farther away, as required, you can force the camera to change depth of field.  You can also change the film speed, or add filters.  Is the average full-auto user going to do this? Probably not.  Does it matter?  Probably not.

Very few people (the vast majority of whom are viewers, rather than photographers, and probably none of whom will be critics), are going to care whether the background and foreground have enough blur, whether whatever else in the scene is in too deep of shadow to be seen, or is rendered too light.  They're interested in whether the subject can be seen clearly.  In addition, with the exposure latitude of most negative films, or the instantaneous feedback provided by a digital camera, combined with the post-processing available at WalMart's photo scanning stations, it doesn't matter whether exposure is spot on.  They can adjust it themselves.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> actually i do that, when i do street photography, never assume my dear boy.  I don't want to look into my  slr for fear of making my subject self concious, so i just set them based on my eye's percieved value, and shoot from the hip.  no sunny 16 anymore though I learnt to guess exposure by using it.  im getting better too, about 70% spot on these days, and rarely do i produce an unusable negative.



First, I'm neither dear to you, nor your boy.  Second, it appears that you've missed _my_ point.  You've still not thrown away your tools.  You're aren't using trial and error at all.  You've done your trial and error in the past, and created your own lookup table in your head.  You evaluate the scene, select which exposure settings, based on experience, which you think will work for the effect you want, and go from there.

By "throwing away" all the tools, I'm referring to shooting with no concept of what EV is required; select a starting point and shooting from there.  Or selecting an aperture relative to the DOF you want and--without considering the brightness of the scene or subject, or the sensitivity of the film, because that's cheating by giving you an idea of which settings you need--a shutter speed to go with it.  No lookup table in your head, no estimating, no cheat sheets; guessing, plain and simple, and not educated guesses either.  No calculations are allowed, no computations, no approximations.  To do any of these is to use a system which is preset to attempt to select (however imprecisely) a correct setting, and whether the computer is in your head, in your camera, or on paper is irrelevant.

And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the difference between knowing in your own mind approximately which settings to select, and letting a camera use its precalculated approximations, is irrelevant.  In practice, they are two entirely different things.  However, the _real_ difference is who did the calculations, and when, and whether or not the user has control over the particulars once the "computer" has made its selection.

Even that's not it.  The _real_ difference is whether or not the user cares.  The viewer won't, or at least shouldn't.  The viewer should never think he knows what the photographer is doing, or wish to exert control over the photographer.  The viewer has no right to do so.  The viewer has only the right to like or dislike the final result, not the process (through which he did not have to go) used to achieve the final result.  If the photographer asks for critique, help, or suggestions, then that's another case, but in the end, the image belongs to and is the responsibility of the photographer, not the viewer.  Not even the qualified critic.

Finally, if the photographer doesn't want to use any particular method for achieving an exposure calculation, then the photographer shouldn't use that method.  If others choose to use that method (whatever their reasoning), then that's their own business, and shouldn't matter a whit anybody but them.

Note that none of this has to do with quality of the image.


----------



## Luke (Jun 12, 2006)

JamesD said:
			
		

> Permit me to be a bit clearer.  In Full Auto mode (as opposed to Program Mode), the camera checks the meter reading, and selects a shutter speed and aperture which will produce an overall 18% shade in the negative.  With full auto, you can't set compensation, nor can you change the aperture-to-shutter ratio, but the process is the same.
> 
> In the various Full Auto modes, the camera will alter its selection by reading from a different table.  For Portrait mode, it uses a larger aperture; for landscape mode, it uses a smaller aperture.  In night mode, it even adds a third exposure control: additional light.  In any of these cases, you still have no control, other than selecting the specific Fully Automatic mode you wish the camera to use, over which settings the camera selects.  Is this fully automatic enough for your definition?  In any case, the proces is exactly the same.
> 
> ...



Everything you've said there is true, and I agree. but some of it i don't see the relation to the debate.  You said some generally true things, but I don't see what you're trying to prove, sorry, maybe I'm missing it (I know that paragraph sounds sort of sarcastic, but I'm being genuine.)
Basically what I'm saying is this basically:
If you want to be a good photographer, then to use full auto mode is stupid (with the exceptions of some situations, Like when you're just mucking around shooting your dog or something).
It is stupid because you loose control of two fundamental elements of photography, aperture and shutter, of course you know the importance of these elements.  While you can still get great shots on auto, theres always a chance you will miss out on capturing the perfect moment perfectly.
I also said that I didn't think people should learn with auto, but i can definately see how it could work better for some.
So yeah, I feel that's a pretty reasonable argument, but what do you reckon?

PS:  'ma dear boy'  ---> lighten up, i was joking around, as i was  with the somewhat harsh 'missed the point completely'.  let's not get angry, after all, we're all just people with internet access and a high regard for photons.


----------



## Luke (Jun 12, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> Hmmmm..... i dont think i have at all....... in fact, i think you've missed the point. I am simply giving you the other half of a beginners outlook on photography. You are saying that you should learn how to use the camera properly first........ i am saying you should learn to use your eye first.
> 
> Niether of these methods are wrong......... but it is personal preference.
> 
> ...



Yes, too true, I did miss the point, sorry man.  I get you, and agree.  I was never saying that I wouldnt like/respect a shot if it was shot on auto as many  seem to asert.  Not sure I would teach people to learn on auto, but I'm sure it would work just as well as long as the person wants to get good.  But I would look out, on this forum in particular for the people I've noticed a couple of times, that are talking about how they are getting serious, and want to shoot weddings etc. but they still use auto... Hmm, maybe im living in the past, but that seems a little naive to me, I mean, I wouldn't dream of shooting anything big on auto.  ANyway, cheers


----------



## Luke (Jun 12, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> But I think everyone agrees the mark a real photographer is being able to know what caused the picture to be great, and being able to reproduce it.  If you know why the auto shot was great, you can force it for another customer.  Otherwise you have to wait for that same set of remarkable circumstances so your auto camera can capture just he right combination of depth and speed.
> 
> That said let me join the other side a second.  An overwhelming majority of the shot's value is in how it is composed.  The lighting came make a good shot great.  But it can't make a bad shot anything but an inspired bit of trash.  I have a room full of those by the way.  So I'm not pointing fingers at anyone else.
> 
> These are the opinions of a hopelessly behind the times photographer.


i agree fully, though i think lighting is around as important as composition.


----------

