# Shooting in P mode



## The_Traveler

As I think more about the ways to  get comfortable first with one's ability to see images and second with the technical ability to achieve them, I begin to think that this overwhelming disdain for shooting in 'P' actually hurts the development of good photographers more than it helps. By 'good' I mean people who are creative and even, perish the thought, artistic.

When we encourage children to dance and jump around to be expressive, we as parents and teachers, don't tell them it would be much better if they used the traditional balletic movements and positions because we know intuitively that huge obstacle would stifle not only their creativity but take away much of the spontaneous joy that is achieved from that expression.

The prime 'purpose' of (my kind of) photography is the visualization and the rendition of something meaningful, sometimes even beautiful.  The ability to do that depends primarily on the ability to see that meaningfulness and then secondarily to learn to capture it. I don't need to be a great technician, I need only to be good enough to do what I want.  

The emphasis that we read so often here is on the mechanical.  This is what to do, this is the best way to do it and if it isn't what you like, run get a flash. 
That's mechanics, that's not photography. And so we get an enormous volume of stuff, pictures that look essentially the same, and boring. Everyone cares about the f stop, the lens, the lighting - and they see that as the key. And so they turn from making images to running a camera and accessories.

Read any forum here and the questions and concerns, even those involving actual images, are primarily about equipment and technique and f stops and lighting. This all to photographers who haven't even begun to be able to see even the technical inadequacies in their own images and correct them let alone the artistic ones.

So, if anyone asks me what to do, and they are serious about learning to create then maybe I will tell them just to shoot on P for a while and then we'll talk about their images. When they want to learn to control what their camera does in order to make the image better then its time to talk about the other issues. 

Let's not make everyone learn to build and fix a car before they can go for a ride in the country.


----------



## ryanforster

No shame in shooting on full auto even. Gets it right most of the time. just got to pick your battles with it. There are definite times when you need to know the technicalities of how a camera works, but i agree, a good photograph comes from an artist not a technician.


----------



## cgipson1

My only objection to P mode or Auto mode... is when Quasi "PROS" use it because they don't know how to shoot in any other mode. Even then it is not P or AUTO mode that is the problem..... it is the so called "PRO"!

Also I think that extensive use of P or AUTO modes tends to make a photographer disregard their meter.... a bad habit to get into.


----------



## Overread

I think you're kind of presenting a good argument for learning to shoot in Auto mode rather than P mode; or someone who shoots in P mode like its auto mode. 

The thing is P mode lets you change settings, its whole concept is more like and advanced auto mode with a user control element. The thing is in order to be able to use P mode to its best effect you've got to be able to have some understanding of what those different numbers which are changing actually mean. Otherwise they'd be safer just fun shooting in auto mode because otherwise they are just going to get confused as to how the changing numbers are affecting their photos. 


As for people on the forum being encouraged into learning the basics, I think that is the right direction to take. Whilst there is a good argument for letting people grow on their own and settle into camera shooting I think that its something that doesn't really work well with distance learning. With distance learning anyone who comes to the site with the intent of learning is going to already be at the stage where, in their mind, they want to be out of auto or P mode. They want to be a "photographer" or at least understand a little more about it. Pointing them in the direction of resources to give them the very fundamentals of control is the right method for the beginner. You can have all the artistic eye and talent in the world; but if you can't use the tools of your craft it won't do you any good. 

Yes this does mean discussions for beginners focus upon the technical aspects of photography more than the artistic; that's because its where a beginner needs to start their focus early on. Once they've grasped those fundamental basics of camera control then they are in a position where they can start to commit those methods to long term memory and (through time) they'll be come the instinctive part of shooting. Letting them then focus more readily upon the compositional elements without having to worry about the random nature of leaving the camera in charge of the settings for the shot. 

Now I can say that there is a distinct lack of discussion on advanced and even quite basic compositional elements on the site as well as artistic instruction and foundation. Sadly its a bit of a black area when it comes to many because a lot of people don't have any artistic training and many also give it a very romantic aspect in the "there are no rules/theories/fundamentals its all just random fuzzy thoughts that just happen" kind of approach. Indeed some people can get quite aggressive if its suggested that there is a technical and structured side to learning the craft of art itself. 

The other aspect is that many people often don't quite come back to learn the art side; they get good at the technical and don't often push themselves as strongly to really learn the artistic side beyond picking up on the good old "rule of thirds" aspect as well as maybe one or two others like a basic idea of leading lines or repeating patterns. 



So yes I'm one of those who says lets learn those basic technical aspects - it is the path I took and I do think its the right path to make. Not just because its the path I took, but because; when starting to learn photography, that is where you need to start. Its like drawing - if you want to learn to draw you've got to put the time into not mastering art first, but mastering the pencil - drawing repeat examples, copying, learning how to hold the pencil etc..... all those dull "not creative" technical aspects that are often as dull as watching paint dry. But once you've learnt them - once you've got those basics then you can build up from them. 
Of course life is not just a single pathway and I'd always encourage people to dip into learning some art elements early on as well - just don't let it be the focus first. One primary focus at a time until its more instinctive then shift the primary focus.


----------



## unpopular

I firmly believe that great photographers don't see this dichotomy between the artistic and the technical. There simply isn't anything that a newbie cannot understand about exposure control, and great photographers have, until very recently, learned photography using manual exposure. In fact, even when I was learning photography, only 15 years ago, teachers would routinely instruct students to not use AE. This "training wheels" approach to photography is new, and only makes exposure control seem more complicated than it is.

In fact, typically and in any given meter mode simply lining up null is doing the exact same thing as AE is. AE adds a level of intelligence to the camera which just isn't really there. Program mode does nothing really, except make the very simple principles of exposure ratio seem more complicated - and in fact, exposure ratio is hardly even the difficult part of exposure control.

AE does not prevent the need to learn exposure placement and exposure compensation. But it does create a detachment from the technical and the artistic, incorrectly misleads people's understanding of exposure as something technically specific and scientific, and delays the understanding of what how exposure actually works and how it can be used to further artistic vision and solve technical problems.

AE is a useful tool, there is no doubt. But it shouldn't be used in leu of actually learning photography for instant gratification. You may not expect much technical ability from a five year old ballet dancer. But at the same time you don't see the instructor on the stage moving his or her arms and feet on their behalf, either.


----------



## Mully

To really learn shoot in manual.... you focus your camera. pick a shutter speed. and even the aperture.  To understand the relationship of the latter two really helps you choose how you want your photo to look and take the time to actully create the image .... this is the core of being a photographer and not an arm with a technical device.


----------



## EIngerson

I thought the "P" stood for Pro mode. Oh well, back to the green box for me.


----------



## KenC

I think it really depends on whether the photographer is able to express their intentions shooting in P mode.  If so, then great, they can explore the artistic side of photography, which of course overlaps the technical anyway, and in time they may learn more about exposure and be even better able to express themselves.  However, if lack of knowledge of exposure basics, e.g., how DOF works or how to freeze motion, prevents expression of the photographer's message, then probably getting out of P early is better.


----------



## cgipson1

EIngerson said:


> I thought the "P" stood for Pro mode. Oh well, back to the green box for me.



Only for a certain type of "PRO"!  lol!


----------



## The_Traveler

Absolutely none of the technical elements means anything unless the image has some meaning or impact.
A perfect image technically may bring some satisfaction to the maker but it may be irrelevant to the viewer.

These beliefs (above) are about how to best train photographers really are aimed at training people to get images into a camera.

I think that there is more benefit to the art of photography in training people how to see images and then we can discuss how to get them into the camera.


----------



## unpopular

And to get an image that matters requires that the photographer THINK about his or her image, not just snap away in the knee-jerk fashion which AE offers new photographers.

Great photographers don't shoot fast, they think and evaluate quickly.


----------



## cgipson1

The_Traveler said:


> Absolutely none of the technical elements means anything unless the image has some meaning or impact.
> A perfect image technically may bring some satisfaction to the maker but it may be irrelevant to the viewer.
> 
> These beliefs (above) are about how to best train photographers really are aimed at training people to get images into a camera.
> 
> I think that there is more benefit to the art of photography in training people how to see images and then we can discuss how to get them into the camera.



I agree..... but a well composed, very artsy photo is still crap if the exposure and focus is bad! It has to be a combination of both technical and art... and the technical is easier to learn (and teach) first.... and is much less confusing. Let the Art come as it will.. through exposure, classes, books, etc... when they are at least capable of using the tools in a competent manner.

I don't care how knowledgeable a photographer is about composition, the "rules", etc or has a Masters in ART.... if they can't use the tools well, they will not get good images. Maybe in P mode, they will get OK images.. but with GOOD tool usage, they will get EXCELLENT images!


----------



## unpopular

Am I the only one who really doesn't see a difference between the artistic and the technical? When you folks go out, is tehre really a switch in your head that you switch after you compose, going into "technical mode"? Am I the only one who sees this as a continuum of the same process?

I kind of doubt it.


----------



## cgipson1

unpopular said:


> Am I the only one who really doesn't see a difference between the artistic and the technical? When you folks go out, is tehre really a switch in your head that you switch after you compose, going into "technical mode"? Am I the only one who sees this as a continuum of the same process?
> 
> I kind of doubt it.



That is what I tried to state above! But for a total beginner... I do believe that technical should take precedence in the learning curve, at least initially!


----------



## Rick58

Back in the film days, before "AUTO" anything, you had to learn the basics first. You had to learn aperture, shutter speed and DOF, and the relationships to each other before you could even think about composition or being artsy.
Learning to throw the camera on "AUTO" from the beginning can very easily breed laziness.


----------



## The_Traveler

unpopular said:


> And to get an image that matters requires that the photographer THINK about his or her image, not just snap away in the knee-jerk fashion which AE offers new photographers.
> 
> Great photographers don't shoot fast, they think and evaluate quickly.



You are making the connection that AE and AF makes people shoot fast and that great photographers are somehow different.

That's your rationalization for justifying how you work.
And quite surprisingly dogmatic.

I think that none of this is important, what is important is the image and training people how to see the image and get to that image.
How they decide to do it is of no importance, this isn't ice dancing.


----------



## unpopular

cgipson1 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who really doesn't see a difference between the artistic and the technical? When you folks go out, is tehre really a switch in your head that you switch after you compose, going into "technical mode"? Am I the only one who sees this as a continuum of the same process?
> 
> I kind of doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I tried to state above! But for a total beginner... I do believe that technical should take precedence in the learning curve, at least initially!
Click to expand...


I agree, and I think the only way to get there is learning exposure control intuitively, so that it's second nature.


----------



## Overread

The_Traveler said:


> Absolutely none of the technical elements means anything unless the image has some meaning or impact.
> A perfect image technically may bring some satisfaction to the maker but it may be irrelevant to the viewer.
> 
> These beliefs (above) are about how to best train photographers really are aimed at training people to get images into a camera.
> 
> I think that there is more benefit to the art of photography in training people how to see images and then we can discuss how to get them into the camera.




I can see the angle you're taking but I think you're taking it more in the position of someone who wants to view great art rather than someone who wants to train photographers. The thing is if the site is about learning and furthering photographers then we are always going to focus upon training photographers. Part of that core training at its onset is learning the technical. Yes those technically perfect artistically dull photos are artistically boring - yes they will bore the heck out of someone who wants to view art. But those are just the kinds of photos beginners need to learn to take. They need to learn how to take them so that when they come to the artistic elements they can control the camera not be controlled and constrained by it and the "brain" inside the camera. 
They also need to be able to control it from another aspect, self confidence. If they lack the self confidence in the tools that they have and in their own ability to control them it could very well give them a great underestimation of their own ability and also their potential. Indeed they might come to think that each scene; each situation can only be viewed in a very limited number of ways (or even a single way) because of the nature of how not having the experience to technically control the tool leaves them at the mercy of the cameras unchanging auto mind


----------



## unpopular

The_Traveler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> And to get an image that matters requires that the photographer THINK about his or her image, not just snap away in the knee-jerk fashion which AE offers new photographers.
> 
> Great photographers don't shoot fast, they think and evaluate quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are making the connection that AE and AF makes people shoot fast and that great photographers are somehow different.
> 
> That's your rationalization for justifying how you work.
> And quite surprisingly dogmatic.
Click to expand...


Not at all. What I am saying is that AF/AE should augment the skills of the photographer. A street photographer must think quickly and clearly, AE/AF compliments this ability.


----------



## The_Traveler

So many people seem to be tied into what I see as a basic error - that the process by which you get an image is somehow the important part.

Fast, slow, auto, non, up, down - who cares.
But this emphasis on process produces boringly same automatons who run for a specific lens or who shoot in a proscribed way.

If your way is important to you, OK

I don't care about 'a way', I care that they person sees an image and then learns the best way for him or her to capture that image but it is always the image and not the way that is important.


----------



## unpopular

This is kind of ironic. You're saying it doesn't matter the method, then advocate teaching people on Program mode.

What you're not realizing is that what myself and gipson are promoting is that in order to teach vision, you must teach technique. The two are not inseparable.

No matter if your an abstract or photorealist, you need to know how to handle paint. Neither method is "inferior art", but they both do involve the mixing and applying of medium onto a canvas.


----------



## JAC526

cgipson1 said:


> My only objection to P mode or Auto mode... is when Quasi "PROS" use it because they don't know how to shoot in any other mode. Even then it is not P or AUTO mode that is the problem..... it is the so called "PRO"!
> 
> Also I think that extensive use of P or AUTO modes tends to make a photographer disregard their meter.... a bad habit to get into.



But I thought the P stood for "Pro Mode."  It doesn't?  Seriously?


----------



## The_Traveler

The very way most critique is given forecloses on some creative thinking.
I think that we need to start at a higher level of abstraction and show people how there is some thought behind even the most mundane shor.

What is it that you want to show?
What do you want the viewer to feel and think?
What parts of the image - composition, technical aspects - hurt or help that impact and why?
How better could the picture be done to improve its effect on the viewer?

Show that the technical part is subordinate to what the photographer wants to portray.


----------



## cgipson1

The_Traveler said:


> So many people seem to be tied into what I see as a basic error - that the process by which you get an image is someone the important part.
> 
> Fast, slow, auto, non, up, down - who cares.
> But this emphasis on process produces boringly same automatons who run for a specific lens or who shoot in a proscribed way.
> 
> If your way is important to you, OK
> 
> I don't care about 'a way', I care that they person sees an image and then learns the best way for him or her to capture that image but it is always the image and not the way that is important.



If I am talking to an Really Excellent, Very Experienced Artist who does phenomenal paintings or sculpture (whatever media), *but has never used a camera*... and they have an image in their head of a wonderful shot that they want to capture....

I hand them my camera..... 

Can they capture that image, with all of the nuances and such, that they are visualizing? Will Program or AUTO allow it? Unlikely! 

But give them even six weeks of technical training on the camera... and maybe a crash course in how to achieve the lighting they want... and Voila!


----------



## emdiemci

Overread said:


> I think you're kind of presenting a good argument for learning to shoot in Auto mode rather than P mode; or someone who shoots in P mode like its auto mode.
> 
> The thing is P mode lets you change settings, its whole concept is more like and advanced auto mode with a user control element. The thing is in order to be able to use P mode to its best effect you've got to be able to have some understanding of what those different numbers which are changing actually mean. Otherwise they'd be safer just fun shooting in auto mode because otherwise they are just going to get confused as to how the changing numbers are affecting their photos.
> 
> 
> As for people on the forum being encouraged into learning the basics, I think that is the right direction to take. Whilst there is a good argument for letting people grow on their own and settle into camera shooting I think that its something that doesn't really work well with distance learning. With distance learning anyone who comes to the site with the intent of learning is going to already be at the stage where, in their mind, they want to be out of auto or P mode. They want to be a "photographer" or at least understand a little more about it. Pointing them in the direction of resources to give them the very fundamentals of control is the right method for the beginner. You can have all the artistic eye and talent in the world; but if you can't use the tools of your craft it won't do you any good.
> 
> Yes this does mean discussions for beginners focus upon the technical aspects of photography more than the artistic; that's because its where a beginner needs to start their focus early on. Once they've grasped those fundamental basics of camera control then they are in a position where they can start to commit those methods to long term memory and (through time) they'll be come the instinctive part of shooting. Letting them then focus more readily upon the compositional elements without having to worry about the random nature of leaving the camera in charge of the settings for the shot.
> 
> Now I can say that there is a distinct lack of discussion on advanced and even quite basic compositional elements on the site as well as artistic instruction and foundation. Sadly its a bit of a black area when it comes to many because a lot of people don't have any artistic training and many also give it a very romantic aspect in the "there are no rules/theories/fundamentals its all just random fuzzy thoughts that just happen" kind of approach. Indeed some people can get quite aggressive if its suggested that there is a technical and structured side to learning the craft of art itself.
> 
> The other aspect is that many people often don't quite come back to learn the art side; they get good at the technical and don't often push themselves as strongly to really learn the artistic side beyond picking up on the good old "rule of thirds" aspect as well as maybe one or two others like a basic idea of leading lines or repeating patterns.
> 
> 
> 
> So yes I'm one of those who says lets learn those basic technical aspects - it is the path I took and I do think its the right path to make. Not just because its the path I took, but because; when starting to learn photography, that is where you need to start. Its like drawing - if you want to learn to draw you've got to put the time into not mastering art first, but mastering the pencil - drawing repeat examples, copying, learning how to hold the pencil etc..... all those dull "not creative" technical aspects that are often as dull as watching paint dry. But once you've learnt them - once you've got those basics then you can build up from them.
> Of course life is not just a single pathway and I'd always encourage people to dip into learning some art elements early on as well - just don't let it be the focus first. One primary focus at a time until its more instinctive then shift the primary focus.



This response was very useful.


----------



## unpopular

The_Traveler said:


> What is it that you want to show?
> What do you want the viewer to feel and think?
> What parts of the image - composition, technical aspects - hurt or help that impact and why?
> How better could the picture be done to improve its effect on the viewer?


----------



## thetrue

I kind of agree with unpopular here. Part of the art IS IN the technical, so realistically even if I use shutter or aperture priority, I NEED to have more control than P mode can offer. I've been this way since the day I bought my camera, took a couple snapshots and thought "damn, the color and brightness look good, but I really hate how it looks" - this was with only the experience of disposables and cell phones prior.


----------



## The_Traveler

cgipson1 said:


> If I am talking to an Really Excellent, Very Experienced Artist who does phenomenal paintings or sculpture (whatever media), *but has never used a camera*... and they have an image in their head of a wonderful shot that they want to capture....
> 
> I hand them my camera.....
> 
> Can they capture that image, with all of the nuances and such, that they are visualizing? Will Program or AUTO allow it? Unlikely!
> 
> But give them even six weeks of technical training on the camera... and maybe a crash course in how to achieve the lighting they want... and Voila!



But we aren't, in general, dealing with an experienced artist.
In general, we are dealing with people who don't know how to see things and instead of emphasizing what and how to parse what they are seeing, you want to substitute some mechanical way of dealing with it.

It's sort of interesting that you think I am dogmatic when you guys are really tied to the mechanical process.
Well, look at what you are seeing here - countless repetitive people poses with plastic smiles, captured with a flash in mid-rictus
They are essentially one photo, just change the heads.
And they get praise if the exposure is correct and the composition not too horrible and the focus pretty good - and all terribly boring 

What's the fun or the reason for training people to be mediocre clones rather than saying, 'forget this technical crap for a while and get some spontaneity and interest and excitement.'?


----------



## unpopular

I suppose traveller's position is more expressionist, but in my world view (see what I did there) everything I don't like is modern.

Of course, it could be argued that expressionism/impressionism is early modernism. And I tend to agree, I do see a lot of Manet in Picasso.


----------



## Overread

The_Traveler said:


> The very way most critique is given forecloses on some creative thinking.
> I think that we need to start at a higher level of abstraction and show people how there is some thought behind even the most mundane shor.
> 
> What is it that you want to show?
> What do you want the viewer to feel and think?
> What parts of the image - composition, technical aspects - hurt or help that impact and why?
> How better could the picture be done to improve its effect on the viewer?
> 
> Show that the technical part is subordinate to what the photographer wants to portray.



Those are quite advanced parts of the learning curve for most people and often they are questions that they've not really considered in any depth. They also require that the photographer understand that they have "options" when they shoot. Both creative and technical options to choose from. If you eliminate one or both paths (eg using auto to remove the technical choice) then suddenly that person is removing an element of their creative choice from the process. 

They are great questions, but they are intermediate questions. You start asking them once they can use the tool and once they have a few basic artistic concepts. They are questions that can only really start to appear in someones workflow once the technical and the artistic are becoming instinctive. If you try to start with them you end up overloading the learner as they are trying to think of their vision whilst not having all the base tools to carry it out with. 

It's akin to learning maths - yes you can jump in and teach people quadratics right from the get go - but honestly they'll be vastly superior and pick things up a lot faster if you first spend months teaching them their times tables - then their basic maths and then working with equations and then eventually building up to the quadratics.


----------



## Rick58

There simply is no choice but to learn the basics first. 
Do you want the background in focus or out. Ok...How do I do that?
Do I want to stop or enhance the feeling of speed...How do I do that?
My snow looks like an 18% gray blanket...Why and how do I fix it?

THEN...when you make any of these changes, you need to know how it will affect the other settings.
I'm not sure how you can even begin to make an artistic photo without knowing the basics first


----------



## Overread

The_Traveler said:


> What's the fun or the reason for training people to be mediocre clones rather than saying, 'forget this technical crap for a while and get some spontaneity and interest and excitement.'?



The problem is that you're attacking this the wrong way. You can't change this element by forcing people to teach art first. Those beginners need those basic lessons and they need the skills to be able to produce that "boring dull photo" because only then do they have the operational control over the tool to be able to then be introduced to the concepts of choice and creativity. It's at that point where you can step in and start to teach them to unlock their creative side and to expand into learning artistic concepts and theories as well as how to express their own artistic direction. 

In the end no one is denying that we need more such intermediate discussions on the site. Heck I'm all for and would love more of them to appear (it is my own weakest area). The thing is I'm not going to force those lessons upon the beginner. It's the intermediate who needs those lessons and those expansions upon their thought. If you want to take things in that direction then the BEST and ONLY way is to step up and start giving that kind of critique to the right kind of photographer. Only once people who are in the know start giving to those in the not can the site advance its level of critique level


----------



## cgipson1

The_Traveler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I am talking to an Really Excellent, Very Experienced Artist who does phenomenal paintings or sculpture (whatever media), *but has never used a camera*... and they have an image in their head of a wonderful shot that they want to capture....
> 
> I hand them my camera.....
> 
> Can they capture that image, with all of the nuances and such, that they are visualizing? Will Program or AUTO allow it? Unlikely!
> 
> But give them even six weeks of technical training on the camera... and maybe a crash course in how to achieve the lighting they want... and Voila!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we aren't, in general, dealing with an experienced artist.
> In general, we are dealing with people who don't know how to see things and instead of emphasizing what and how to parse what they are seeing, you want to substitute some mechanical way of dealing with it.
> 
> It's sort of interesting that you think I am dogmatic when you guys are really tied to the mechanical process.
> Well, look at what you are seeing here - countless repetitive people poses with plastic smiles, captured with a flash in mid-rictus
> They are essentially one photo, just change the heads.
> And they get praise if the exposure is correct and the composition not too horrible and the focus pretty good - and all terribly boring
> 
> What's the fun or the reason for training people to be mediocre clones rather than saying, 'forget this technical crap for a while and get some spontaneity and interest and excitement.'?
Click to expand...


That was sort of my point..  IF even a "Really Excellent, Very Experienced Artist" can't capture their "vision" without the technical skills..... how in HELL is a beginner with no training in ART or anything else going to do it?  lol!


----------



## unpopular

Rick58 said:


> My snow looks like an 18% gray blanket...Why and how do I fix it?



And AE only complicates this issue by promoting the "proper exposure" myth.


----------



## The_Traveler

unpopular said:


> I suppose traveller's position is more expressionist, but in my world view (see what I did there) everything I don't like is modern.



I can only shake my head at this statement.
It's a bit passive aggressive by addressing me in the third party and startlingly inconsistent.

You use a modern camera with modern AF and modern exposure modes that captures on a digital sensor and exports to a computer and you edit with software that transforms bits into visual data yet you reject even thinking about an idea because it is 'modern'?

I'm just suggesting that we encourage beginning photographers to be less tied to a mechanical process and show them that there is thought and concept and intent in even the humblest shot. 
The only thing less 'modern' than that is making piles of pretty pebbles.


----------



## pixmedic

Overread said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely none of the technical elements means anything unless the image has some meaning or impact.
> A perfect image technically may bring some satisfaction to the maker but it may be irrelevant to the viewer.
> 
> These beliefs (above) are about how to best train photographers really are aimed at training people to get images into a camera.
> 
> I think that there is more benefit to the art of photography in training people how to see images and then we can discuss how to get them into the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see the angle you're taking but I think you're taking it more in the position of someone who wants to view great art rather than someone who wants to train photographers. The thing is if the site is about learning and furthering photographers then we are always going to focus upon training photographers. Part of that core training at its onset is learning the technical. Yes those technically perfect artistically dull photos are artistically boring - yes they will bore the heck out of someone who wants to view art. But those are just the kinds of photos beginners need to learn to take. They need to learn how to take them so that when they come to the artistic elements they can control the camera not be controlled and constrained by it and the "brain" inside the camera.
> They also need to be able to control it from another aspect, self confidence. If they lack the self confidence in the tools that they have and in their own ability to control them it could very well give them a great underestimation of their own ability and also their potential. Indeed they might come to think that each scene; each situation can only be viewed in a very limited number of ways (or even a single way) because of the nature of how not having the experience to technically control the tool leaves them at the mercy of the cameras unchanging auto mind
Click to expand...


and much of this is reflected on how people view a photo for C&C. whats one of the FIRST questions people ask when they start nitpicking a photo thats been posted? "what mode did you shoot in?" the answer varies as to the degree of the shooters knowledge, experience, or level of laziness for that particular shot. And when the Exif data is viewed, or the OP says it, and the answer is *GASP* the dreaded Program Mode...or even aperture or shutter priority, the topic almost always immediately shifts from actual C&C of the picture to "you need to learn to shoot manual!"  now, neither I, nor anyone else here i think, is denying the sheer usefulness of learning how to use your camera in manual.   However, I do think that as an amateur photographer, it matters less in the beginning HOW you took the shot, and more that you TOOK the shot.  Like any hobby, dancing, painting, photography....as you advance from the just interested stages, into amateur, hobbyist, serious hobbyist,  and so on, your level of knowledge should increase as well. 
of course a Pro should know the technical aspects of their trade. that should be expected. and of course we should encourage all levels of photography enthusiasts to learn the exposure triangle, and how to control lighting...but it should be done from the photographers level, and their pace. not everyone has the same learning curve, and to think that everyone can read a book, or a website,  and jump right in to pro level settings is unrealistic. when your kid paints you a picture at school, do you put it on your fridge and praise them? Or do you tell them how they should have scumbled more, or used more glazing, or less brush blending? People should be encouraged to branch out from whatever mode they are using when they have reached the limit of what that mode can do for them. they should WANT to move on to higher techniques because they have reached a plateau and have the desire to do more with the equipment they have, and are comfortable with using the "other" modes. NOT because someone online is telling them that using something besides manual mode is a cop out.  I absolutely believe that if you want to be even remotely serious about photography, then you should learn to shoot in manual. I just think the way we sometimes go about "encouraging" that trend gets a little skewed, almost to the point of "manual mode fanaticism"


----------



## cgipson1

Rick58 said:


> My snow looks like an 18% gray blanket...Why and how do I fix it?



Does it matter, as long it is well composed, and has a really interesting, properly placed (if underexposed, and probably fuzzy) subject?


----------



## unpopular

The_Traveler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose traveller's position is more expressionist, but in my world view (see what I did there) everything I don't like is modern.
> 
> 
> 
> You use a modern camera with modern AF and modern exposure modes that captures on a digital sensor and exports to a computer and you edit with software that transforms bits into visual data yet you reject even thinking about an idea because it is 'modern'?
Click to expand...


uhm.... i think you missed the bus on that one, buddy.


----------



## cgipson1

pixmedic said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely none of the technical elements means anything unless the image has some meaning or impact.
> A perfect image technically may bring some satisfaction to the maker but it may be irrelevant to the viewer.
> 
> These beliefs (above) are about how to best train photographers really are aimed at training people to get images into a camera.
> 
> I think that there is more benefit to the art of photography in training people how to see images and then we can discuss how to get them into the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see the angle you're taking but I think you're taking it more in the position of someone who wants to view great art rather than someone who wants to train photographers. The thing is if the site is about learning and furthering photographers then we are always going to focus upon training photographers. Part of that core training at its onset is learning the technical. Yes those technically perfect artistically dull photos are artistically boring - yes they will bore the heck out of someone who wants to view art. But those are just the kinds of photos beginners need to learn to take. They need to learn how to take them so that when they come to the artistic elements they can control the camera not be controlled and constrained by it and the "brain" inside the camera.
> They also need to be able to control it from another aspect, self confidence. If they lack the self confidence in the tools that they have and in their own ability to control them it could very well give them a great underestimation of their own ability and also their potential. Indeed they might come to think that each scene; each situation can only be viewed in a very limited number of ways (or even a single way) because of the nature of how not having the experience to technically control the tool leaves them at the mercy of the cameras unchanging auto mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and much of this is reflected on how people view a photo for C&C. whats one of the FIRST questions people ask when they start nitpicking a photo thats been posted? "what mode did you shoot in?" the answer varies as to the degree of the shooters knowledge, experience, or level of laziness for that particular shot. And when the Exif data is viewed, or the OP says it, and the answer is *GASP* the dreaded Program Mode...or even aperture or shutter priority, the topic almost always immediately shifts from actual C&C of the picture to "you need to learn to shoot manual!"  now, neither I, nor anyone else here i think, is denying the sheer usefulness of learning how to use your camera in manual.   However, I do think that as an amateur photographer, it matters less in the beginning HOW you took the shot, and more that you TOOK the shot.  Like any hobby, dancing, painting, photography....as you advance from the just interested stages, into amateur, hobbyist, serious hobbyist,  and so on, your level of knowledge should increase as well.
> of course a Pro should know the technical aspects of their trade. that should be expected. and of course we should encourage all levels of photography enthusiasts to learn the exposure triangle, and how to control lighting...but it should be done from the photographers level, and their pace. not everyone has the same learning curve, and to think that everyone can read a book, or a website,  and jump right in to pro level settings is unrealistic. when your kid paints you a picture at school, do you put it on your fridge and praise them? Or do you tell them how they should have scumbled more, or used more glazing, or less brush blending? People should be encouraged to branch out from whatever mode they are using when they have reached the limit of what that mode can do for them. they should WANT to move on to higher techniques because they have reached a plateau and have the desire to do more with the equipment they have, and are comfortable with using the "other" modes. NOT because someone online is telling them that using something besides manual mode is a cop out.  I absolutely believe that if you want to be even remotely serious about photography, then you should learn to shoot in manual. I just think the way we sometimes go about "encouraging" that trend gets a little skewed, almost to the point of "manual mode fanaticism"
Click to expand...


I skew my C&C's depending on the perceived "level" of the photographer.... Noobs get mostly technical..... experienced?? Depends on the shot, but I def look more at the "Artsy" side...


----------



## Overread

Most people are safe shooting in aperture or shutter priority mode so long as they show that they made it their choice and that they have control over the camera. The manual fanatics do tend to come out of the woodwork though if a person is showing that their choice of mode is based upon their ignorance of the controls rather than their understanding and choice. 

I think it is right to encourage (not at a fanatic level) users to learn the manual controls. At the end of the day its all about giving them the power of choice with their photography. Pushing them to learn how the manual controls work frees them to choosing the right mode for their style and situation - just as arming them with the basic underlying principles of composition does.

I guess the problem is we don't have enough intermediate/advanced level photographers asking for critique on technically sound photos and getting artistic focus in the replies. This might have, in part, something to do with the fact that this is an internet forum and thus is more likely to have attracted those with a more natural technical focus in their life and craft. But I think it also highlights the fact that when people think of critique they think of technical. But it also highlights that the vast number of people specifically asking for critique on these forums are either very early beginners who need the technical instruction and advice first or they are not asking in their critique for an artistic direction (And things default to technical).


----------



## pixmedic

cgipson1 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see the angle you're taking but I think you're taking it more in the position of someone who wants to view great art rather than someone who wants to train photographers. The thing is if the site is about learning and furthering photographers then we are always going to focus upon training photographers. Part of that core training at its onset is learning the technical. Yes those technically perfect artistically dull photos are artistically boring - yes they will bore the heck out of someone who wants to view art. But those are just the kinds of photos beginners need to learn to take. They need to learn how to take them so that when they come to the artistic elements they can control the camera not be controlled and constrained by it and the "brain" inside the camera.
> They also need to be able to control it from another aspect, self confidence. If they lack the self confidence in the tools that they have and in their own ability to control them it could very well give them a great underestimation of their own ability and also their potential. Indeed they might come to think that each scene; each situation can only be viewed in a very limited number of ways (or even a single way) because of the nature of how not having the experience to technically control the tool leaves them at the mercy of the cameras unchanging auto mind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and much of this is reflected on how people view a photo for C&C. whats one of the FIRST questions people ask when they start nitpicking a photo thats been posted? "what mode did you shoot in?" the answer varies as to the degree of the shooters knowledge, experience, or level of laziness for that particular shot. And when the Exif data is viewed, or the OP says it, and the answer is *GASP* the dreaded Program Mode...or even aperture or shutter priority, the topic almost always immediately shifts from actual C&C of the picture to "you need to learn to shoot manual!"  now, neither I, nor anyone else here i think, is denying the sheer usefulness of learning how to use your camera in manual.   However, I do think that as an amateur photographer, it matters less in the beginning HOW you took the shot, and more that you TOOK the shot.  Like any hobby, dancing, painting, photography....as you advance from the just interested stages, into amateur, hobbyist, serious hobbyist,  and so on, your level of knowledge should increase as well.
> of course a Pro should know the technical aspects of their trade. that should be expected. and of course we should encourage all levels of photography enthusiasts to learn the exposure triangle, and how to control lighting...but it should be done from the photographers level, and their pace. not everyone has the same learning curve, and to think that everyone can read a book, or a website,  and jump right in to pro level settings is unrealistic. when your kid paints you a picture at school, do you put it on your fridge and praise them? Or do you tell them how they should have scumbled more, or used more glazing, or less brush blending? People should be encouraged to branch out from whatever mode they are using when they have reached the limit of what that mode can do for them. they should WANT to move on to higher techniques because they have reached a plateau and have the desire to do more with the equipment they have, and are comfortable with using the "other" modes. NOT because someone online is telling them that using something besides manual mode is a cop out.  I absolutely believe that if you want to be even remotely serious about photography, then you should learn to shoot in manual. I just think the way we sometimes go about "encouraging" that trend gets a little skewed, almost to the point of "manual mode fanaticism"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I skew my C&C's depending on the perceived "level" of the photographer.... Noobs get mostly technical..... experienced?? Depends on the shot, but I def look more at the "Artsy" side...
Click to expand...


and I agree with you there...the amateur probably needs more technical assistance than the experienced shooter, whereas the experienced shooter probably has the technical basics down already, and is just fine tuning the "craft" to whatever look they are trying to achieve.


----------



## Rick58

cgipson1 said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My snow looks like an 18% gray blanket...Why and how do I fix it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter, as long it is well composed, and has a really interesting, properly placed (if underexposed, and probably fuzzy) subject?
Click to expand...


Yeah, nothing says Christmas like an 18% snowman on the 3rds grid with a perfectly focused trash truck in the background.


----------



## unpopular

F*ck the rule of thirds. It almost sucked the life of me.


----------



## cgipson1

unpopular said:


> F*ck the rule of thirds. It almost sucked the life of me.



Oral sex with guidelines? You are STRANGE!  :greenpbl:  :er:


----------



## thetrue

Hey guys, what is this rule of thirds I see tossed around here?


----------



## unpopular

really gipson? did you HAVE to use the creepy licky face?


----------



## unpopular

thetrue said:


> Hey guys, what is this rule of thirds I see tossed around here?



perhaps the wisest thing said on TPF ever!


----------



## cgipson1

unpopular said:


> really gipson? did you HAVE to use the creepy licky face?



YYYYYEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS, I did!   :raisedbrow: :shock: :scratch:


----------



## cgipson1

unpopular said:


> really gipson? did you HAVE to use the creepy licky face?



YYYYYEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS, I did!   :raisedbrow: :shock: :scratch:


----------



## Derrel

I almost never,ever shoot in P mode, even though my cameras do have it as an option. I prefer Aperture priority auto most of the time, since depth of field control is so fundamental to me. The shutter speed that results from choosing a specific aperture is pretty much a "given", simply based on how bright it is. I mean, if I want to have shallow depth of field, and I have picked f/4.2 as my aperture value, and it's a bright day...I KNOW that the shutter speed is going to be extremely brief...but if I am indoors and it's winter time, I KNOW the shutter speed will be quite slow, like say 1/6 to 1/15 second. This is a really elementary type of "basics" issue that I think even the beginner can handle. Program mode chooses both an aperture value and an appropriate shutter speed, based on a relatively predictable program, and then allows the user to "shift" faster or slower with the touch of one,single control. It is kind of like computer-aided exposure metering. The real skill part is knowing where to point and when to press, or not to press, the shutter release. One thought is that, in 80% of situations, or maybe more, the exact specific exposure values used are quite often not that critical. 

Where the photographer arrives at is more critical than the exact,specific route he drove to get himself "there"...


----------



## Desi

I think that shooting in P is a perfectly acceptable part of learning photography.  It is a stage.

There really is so much to think about when learning (aperture, shutter speed, ISO, metering types, exposure compensation, composition, lighting) that, for a beginner, it can be quite challenging to keep track of all of these things while looking through the viewfinder.  The result can be anxiety and disappointment.

I believe in guided learning, in steps.

"P" allows you to focus on composition, while temporarily ignoring the other things.  No shame in this.  Composition will give you the biggest bang for your buck in terms of getting a pleasant image.  Also, it gives you control of when to use your flash.  From there, you can learn about aperture control and shutter speed.  Then you are ready to experiment with different metering modes.  Then, when you think you know what you are doing, you try manual, but still the camera is controlling your ISO. 

And then......you realize that despite some technical competence, you have such a long way to go.....but you are finally beginning to see the way.

Don't chastise a beginner for shooting in P, just nudge them along and point out what they could have done had they taken more control over their camera.

Desi


----------



## Steve5D

cgipson1 said:


> My only objection to P mode or Auto mode... is when Quasi "PROS" use it because they don't know how to shoot in any other mode. Even then it is not P or AUTO mode that is the problem..... it is the so called "PRO"!



Why is that a problem for you?

What someone else does can only affect you if you allow it to...


----------



## CCericola

In my experience, the people that don't want to learn the basics in manual mode also do not have the patients to learn good composition either. Aperture priority and shutter priority modes were added to cameras at the request of professional photographers not to replace learning the basics.


----------



## cgipson1

Steve5D said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My only objection to P mode or Auto mode... is when Quasi "PROS" use it because they don't know how to shoot in any other mode. Even then it is not P or AUTO mode that is the problem..... it is the so called "PRO"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that a problem for you?
> 
> What someone else does can only affect you if you allow it to...
Click to expand...


Why that should be totally obvious!!! Is a "pro" who can shoot only in P or AUTO mode, really a PRO? NOOOOOOOO! That is my objection!   It doesn't affect me except in a ethical, philosophical sense... OK? 

I used to to be proud to be a "Professional Photographer"!! Now they are just a dime a dozen, and most are as useful as tits on a boar hog!!


----------



## CCericola

There is nothing wrong with any of the program modes you just have to know how to use them. Joe Buissink uses the "P" mode often and he does very well. Including shooting J-Lo's wedding and LeAnne Rhimes. But he also says the Auto modes can be a nightmare if you don't know what you are doing in the first place.


----------



## ronlane

thetrue said:


> Hey guys, what is this rule of thirds I see tossed around here?



Isn't that where you have every third picture come out perfect? I'm really not sure, but I noticed my camera had this really cool tic-tac-toe board on the screen. I just can't stop playing that game now, but I wished it was easier to erase the board when we finish.:mrgreen:


----------



## PixelRabbit

Lew, I think that everyone in this thread has made some excellent points including yourself.  I would say that you may be trying to paint with too broad of a brush and you are perhaps missing the value in a strong foundation.  I think that at the beginning of any endeavor, artistic, sports, hobbies, career you have to learn the ropes, you have to put your time in and pay your dues,  learn the basics and make them your foundation to draw on.  In photography that is ingraining technical basics so they are automatic and you no longer have to give them as much time and energy in your thought process but you need to understand them to be able to formulate your creative thought process around them.  Learning how your gear works whether you approach it in a technical manner or a more intuitive manner is part of your apprenticeship.

At the risk of sounding narcissistic I will use myself as an example.  I was brand spanking new to photography one year ago when I dove in and bought my 60D, green as green can be.  I knew zip, zero, zilch, nada.  A couple days after getting my camera I found TPF and I started to learn.  

I took pictures of everything around me.  Mundane stuff, common birds, squirrels, flowers, sunsets, I cut my teeth on all of it.  I spun dials the wrong way, I spun dials to their extremes, I made many mistakes some of them happy, I learned the technical side by doing it over and over and over.  Along the way when I made mistakes I saw things on the screen that I wanted to recreate in an intentional way but I didn't "see" the artistic potential before I saw the shot on my computer screen, my brain was too occupied still working on the technical side of things, I was still paying my dues.

After a while of capturing things "right" and about a bazillion shots of cute squirrels, flowers, pets, rocks, pretty scenes I started to get bored because my brain was no longer being challenged by the technical aspects, they were becoming ingrained, I could start to instinctively spin the dials to an acceptable exposure and tweak it to fire off a "technically sound" shot.  Then is when I was ready to start looking at things as you described in your OP, I paid my dues, I learned enough about my tools to free up the brain power to focus more on the artistic side of things.

I think what you are saying is absolutely correct but there needs to be front end learning of your tools prior to where you are starting in your OP.  You can't create with intent if you don't know how your tools work, the creative process will be stymied by lack of technical knowledge.  Your ideal student has paid their dues and has at least a general understanding of what their camera outputs and how to control it.


----------



## cgipson1

CCericola said:


> There is nothing wrong with any of the program modes you just have to know how to use them. Joe Buissink uses the "P" mode often and he does very well. Including shooting J-Lo's wedding and LeAnne Rhimes. But he also says the Auto modes can be a nightmare if you don't know what you are doing in the first place.



As I said.. if P mode is the ONLY way they know how to shoot, that is a problem! I would be more than willing to bet that Buissink is experienced enough to use any mode if he chooses to, correct? He chooses P mode for a reason, but that reason is not a lack of knowledge and experience!

And I agree.. even P and Auto can be bad.. if there is no knowledge behind them in creating the image


----------



## amolitor

Something I have not heard of, but which I think would be a neat feature would be to change the labels on things.

What if the P mode display changed not from 500 2.8 --> 250 4.0 --> 125 5.6 but: Freeze Motion -> Some Depth -> More Depth or something? That's what we're thinking anyways when we're setting stuff, this process of converting these stupid numbers to desired effects is a good part of what "understanding exposure" is about.

Some people really like the technical stuff, and I struggle to not hate them for it. There's nothing wrong with just plain digging the gear and the numbers and farting around with them. Some people can't stand the gear and the numbers and the technical stuff. It's silly to say "You must learn exposure first, and then art". It's like saying "you have to learn to sail before you can bake a cake". Photography is both, to be sure. Some people like the sailing, some people like the baking, and you gotta have some understanding of both sides to make much headway. Still, you can learn them in parallel, and, depending on what you really want to do, sometimes you can skate by with some pretty skinny sailing or baking skills.


----------



## HughGuessWho

I learned to drive a car with a manual transmission on the steering column. Using the logic given here by some, I would be less of a driver if I were to use an automatic transmission. Why would anyone seriously believe that utilizing advanced technology or features make you less of a photographer. Let's just all go back to kerosene lanterns, wood cooking stoves and out houses. After all modern day technology is only for the incompetent.


----------



## Rick58

amolitor said:


> Something I have not heard of, but which I think would be a neat feature would be to change the labels on things.
> 
> What if the P mode display changed not from 500 2.8 --> 250 4.0 --> 125 5.6 but: Freeze Motion -> Some Depth -> More Depth or something? That's what we're thinking anyways when we're setting stuff, this process of converting these stupid numbers to desired effects is a good part of what "understanding exposure" is about.
> 
> Some people really like the technical stuff, and I struggle to not hate them for it. There's nothing wrong with just plain digging the gear and the numbers and farting around with them. Some people can't stand the gear and the numbers and the technical stuff. It's silly to say "You must learn exposure first, and then art". It's like saying "you have to learn to sail before you can bake a cake". Photography is both, to be sure. Some people like the sailing, some people like the baking, and you gotta have some understanding of both sides to make much headway. Still, you can learn them in parallel, and, depending on what you really want to do, sometimes you can skate by with some pretty skinny sailing or baking skills.



Disagree. It's more like handing someone who never sailed that same sailboat and saying, "Go win the Worlds cup"


----------



## thetrue

ronlane said:


> thetrue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey guys, what is this rule of thirds I see tossed around here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that where you have every third picture come out perfect? I'm really not sure, but I noticed my camera had this really cool tic-tac-toe board on the screen. I just can't stop playing that game now, but I wished it was easier to erase the board when we finish.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

If that's the rule, I'm far exceeding it  :lmao:

Tic tac toe is the only game I can seem to find though. I was hoping to find pacman or something!!!


----------



## oldhippy

Why is that a problem for you?




I used to to be proud to be a "Professional Photographer"!! Now they are just a dime a dozen, and most are as useful as tits on a boar hog!![/QUOTE] 
Thats true unless you are a truely sensual boar hog, like our old boar, Billy Bob  IMHO


----------



## The_Traveler

There is nothing that is more certain to set off a chicken fight than even hinting to a photographer that the way he/she learned to do things or the way they do things now may not be the absolute best way it can be done.

The mere expression of a contrary opinion - and maintaining it - just sets people off.


----------



## HughGuessWho

The_Traveler said:


> There is nothing that is more certain to set off a chicken fight than even hinting to a photographer that the way he/she learned to do things or the way they do things now may not be the absolute best way it can be done.
> 
> The mere expression of a contrary opinion - and maintaining it - just sets people off.



Its not about how they learned or continue to do. Its their inability yo accept that some people are not stuck in the 70's and actually embrace the modern day.


----------



## The_Traveler

Let's go after this a little differently and maybe people can ignore my underlying beliefs.

How about we try, whenever possible and appropriate, to insert a little higher level abstraction in our c/c and frame it in terms of the impression we get from the image, what we think the photographer was after and what technical issues stand in the way.

That will frame the issue of 'corrections', not a purely a technical matter aimed at perfection but one that is aimed towards the best possible impact of the image.


----------



## unpopular

I think there is room for both. That's what I try to do, obviously hearing for the upteenth millionth time the laundry list of technical faults isn't very useful.

It's easy to see the technical issues. What a photograph means as an art object takes a bit more concentration.


----------



## amolitor

Many photographers of a certain sort actually cannot see anything except the technical details.

When you spend a great deal of effort learning something, you inevitably wind up with the impression that what you have learned is the Important Thing. When you look at a photograph, you will notice the Important Things, and they will make it extremely difficult to see anything else (not literally, but you'll have a hard time noticing and reacting to other things). Photographers on internet forums has spent a lot of effort learning technical things, and the rest follows pretty much inevitably.

On the one hand, I think it's valuable to regularly talk about these things, to keep up the pressure on the other side, and to support the idea that non-technical things matter, so I applaud these threads, always. On the other hand, I think that it's water off a duck's back to many people reading these threads.


----------



## christop

amolitor said:


> Something I have not heard of, but which I think would be a neat feature would be to change the labels on things.
> 
> What if the P mode display changed not from 500 2.8 --> 250 4.0 --> 125 5.6 but: Freeze Motion -> Some Depth -> More Depth or something? That's what we're thinking anyways when we're setting stuff, this process of converting these stupid numbers to desired effects is a good part of what "understanding exposure" is about.



I'd go for something like Freeze Motion -> Some motion/some bokehs -> Lots of bokehs.


----------



## skieur

The_Traveler said:


> Absolutely none of the technical elements means anything unless the image has some meaning or impact..



I would say it in reverse and of course that changes the meaning

The image has no meaning or impact if the viewer is distracted by major defficiencies in the technical elements.

skieur


----------



## bratkinson

I think we all pretty much learned to drive a car by first having someone demonstrate how to adjust the seat, perhaps the mirrors, turn it on, and start the car moving by watching our parents go through the 'mechanics' of driving an automobile. When it came our turn, they were with us teaching us how the clutch and gas were basically opposite each other, and with a lot of bucking, we could actually make the car go forward. OK, I'm an old geezer! Automatic transmissions simply made driving easier. Now that we could make the car 'go' simply by starting it, pressing on the gas, and steering in the right direction, we were now classed as 'drivers'. We were certainly nowhere NEAR ready for driving in ice and snow, and definitely not ready for the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, but we at least thought we could...until sliding into a snowbank....or another car. How to learn to handle snow and ice? Practice, practice, practice...and more than a couple bent bumpers in my case.

Is this much different than photography? Simply pointing a cellphone in the right direction and clicking the shutter will yield a picture...typically reasonably lit, focused, etc. Not much harder than learning to drive a bumper-car in the travelling carnival. And when advancing to a point and shoot? I'm guessing 95% of the point-and-shoot people never get beyond the green "A" and are happy with the results. They're not out to capture or create 'art'. They want to record history...where they were, what Aunt Mary looked like when we saw her...Little Sarahs' high school graduation...and on and on.

Then they (we) discover we want to get decent looking shots in a very dark setting, or a beautifully blurred background, and the green "A" only produces a well lit photograph, not the scene as we see it...or want to record it. NOW comes the time of "OK, how do I do (or get) THAT image into the camera? Not what the camera wanted, but what I want!". *THAT'S* the motivation to learn the mechanics of photography. Some may become overwhelmed, confused, or just unable to 'figure out' how the exposure triangle works and the benefits and negatives of varying a particular setting. They go back to the green "A" or even try the 'scene' modes like portrait, sports, etc. They're happy enough.

But wait...where's the art in photography? As mentioned above, a skilled 'artiste' with a paintbrush or pen and ink has an idea in their head, but not a clue how to perform the photography mechanics necessary to achieve it. Similarly, a photography 'technician' may be able to make 1000 perfect exposures a day under all conditions, but every picture looks 'blah'. No art...no 'life'...no 'texture'...no 'feeling'. For many of the best-known artists, whether graphic arts or musicians, or actors, etc...they haven't a clue about what makes a car run (fuel, air, spark), but at least they can drive. They likewise have no clue about the exposure triangle. I've seen this first hand with a couple of performer friends as well as my retired university art department chair brother in law. And on the other side of the coin...the 'technicians' (I'm mostly in that camp) don't have a clue *WHY* the Mona Lisa is a great work of art any more than a 3 year olds' finger painting doesn't qualify as art. So when I try to take some 'artsy fartsy' photograph, I really don't have a clue whether it's art or just a waste of pixels. Every now and then, I get lucky and get a 'great' picture...but rarely of the 'artsy fartsy' kind.

As a retired computer consultant, I saw many that had a college degree in computer sciences and couldn't write a simple minded program without having their hand held the entire way. Knowing all the technicalities and details, they completely lacked the ability to visualize any logical 'flow' to get from 'this' to 'that' in a program. Some programmers will never 'get it'. The same holds true in photography...many will never see the 'art' in a simple shot of a lone tree on a small hill with the setting sun behind it *AND* know how to compose it and artfully capture it in pixels....I'm one of them. I'll take a dozen shots and hope one comes out 'looking nice'. I may trash them all, too. Needless to say, my photography falls entirely into the 'documentary' category...not 'art'.

In my mind, "A" is a great way to take a decent picture, 'artsy' if you will, without having to understand a thing about how a camera works. It frees the artist to capture the image, without having to fuss around with a lot of seemingly unrelated technical details. But "A" and its' brother "P", offer a great starting point to learn the details of photography from seeing what the camera would do and experiment from there. Is "A" and "P" (not the grocery chain) good for everyone? How many, or more appropriately, how FEW Ansel Adams were/are out there that have fully mastered the art *AND* camera?


----------



## The_Traveler

skieur said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely none of the technical elements means anything unless the image has some meaning or impact..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say it in reverse and of course that changes the meaning
> 
> The image has no meaning or impact if the viewer is distracted by major defficiencies in the technical elements.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


This is not an exhaustive statement because there may be no distracting technical elements and the image may still not have impact.


----------



## Derrel

Sooo...shooting in P mode...it CAN produce some pretty decent results with a d-slr. Why? Because a d-slr is a modern, 21-st century device, filled with computer power, evaluative metering, and a HUGE memory bank of actual photographs that have been analyzed by the camera company, and programmed into the camera. In the case of Nikons made since 1996, there is full red-green-blue or RGB color metering analysis in each camera, with 420 to 1,005 to what is it now? 3,000 measured color metering points in the D800 and D600 and D4? The camera is always shooting "color positive" (well, for the most part). Not "color negative" and not "B&W negative", which is a HUGE distinction, because with old, color-blind light metering, color NEGATIVE required the users to ADD exposure time on white subjects, whereas with color SLIDE film (aka color positive film, which is like digital) the photographer needed to MINUS exposure, so as not to "blow out" a white object that he aimed his meter at. The d-slr has *ONE, specific capture medium*, its own specific sensor, that is used for ALL exposures. Not one of 350 film types...

P mode in a modern d-slr, one that has evaluative metering, and color-aware metering, and distance-aware metering, can actually deliver pretty good exposures. The focal length in use can be a factor. So can be the city programmed into the camera's memory, as well as the day and date; combined with the 24-hour clock, and those clues can be used as a part of the metering evaluation matrix; for example, on July 4 at 2:00 PM in any North American city, the light is most likely going to be BRIGHT, and if the EV level is ABOVE EV 13, the camera "KNOWS" that it is being used outdoors. Similarly, on July 4, at 10:30 PM, with an EV value of 1, the camera KNOWS that it is DARK outside in North America. For certain. Nikon invented Matrix light metering and the concept of tens of thousands of pre-analyzed scenes programmed onto a computer chip hooked to the light metering system wayyyy back in the mid-1980's, and premiered the idea in the Nikon FA. And yet, some people do seem to act like it is the 1970's...before P mode was even ON most cameras at all!!!


----------



## christop

Derrel said:


> Not "color negative" and not "B&W negative", which is a HUGE distinction, because with old, color-blind light metering, color NEGATIVE required the users to ADD exposure time on white subjects, whereas with color SLIDE film (aka color positive film, which is like digital) the photographer needed to MINUS exposure, so as not to "blow out" a white object that he aimed his meter at. The d-slr has *ONE, specific capture medium*, its own specific sensor, that is used for ALL exposures. Not one of 350 film types...



I'm a little confused by what you're saying here. If you meter off a white object, the exposure will be set to make that object appear as middle gray, whether it's exposed onto negative or slide film. On either medium you would have to add to the exposure to make the object appear white on film (so the photo doesn't look underexposed). Perhaps since slide film is less forgiving of overexposure than negative film, you wouldn't overexpose the white object as much as you would with negative film--maybe only a stop for slide film versus two stops or more for negative film--but it's still adding exposure.


----------



## skieur

The_Traveler said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely none of the technical elements means anything unless the image has some meaning or impact..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say it in reverse and of course that changes the meaning
> 
> The image has no meaning or impact if the viewer is distracted by major defficiencies in the technical elements.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not an exhaustive statement because there may be no distracting technical elements and the image may still not have impact.
Click to expand...


This is why that BOTH technique (the technical elements) AND composition the artistic elements are a necessary part of an excellent photo.

As you say in effect, if the technical elements are perfect and there is no centre of interest and no impact, then the photo is poor/weak etc.

BUT, the reverse is also true:  If the photo is compositionally excellent but the viewer is distracted by technical deficiencies such as severe overexposure, flare, poor colour etc., then the photo is equally poor/weak etc.


Both the technical and the compositional aspect are excellent in an excellent photo and therefore BOTH are equally important.

skieur


----------



## The_Traveler

skieur said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say it in reverse and of course that changes the meaning
> 
> The image has no meaning or impact if the viewer is distracted by major defficiencies in the technical elements.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an exhaustive statement because there may be no distracting technical elements and the image may still not have impact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why that BOTH technique (the technical elements) AND composition the artistic elements are a necessary part of an excellent photo.
> 
> As you say in effect, if the technical elements are perfect and there is no centre of interest and no impact, then the photo is poor/weak etc.
> 
> BUT, the reverse is also true:  If the photo is compositionally excellent but the viewer is distracted by technical deficiencies such as severe overexposure, flare, poor colour etc., then the photo is equally poor/weak etc.
> 
> 
> Both the technical and the compositional aspect are excellent in an excellent photo and therefore BOTH are equally important.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


There is a third alternative when the image is powerful and the technical defects aren't distracting enough to destroy the impact.

So, as I said originally, technical issues, including composition, are only important when they keep the viewer from appreciating the image.


----------



## Derrel

With slide film, when metering a bright tonal value with a "dumb", color-blind reflected light meter, you want to cut down on down the exposure from the indicated value...and "peg the highlights" by making absolutely SURE you do not over-expose the whites. With color negative film, you want to over-expose whites to make them white. Exactly the opposite practice for slide film as for negative film.

When shooting color slide film, the meter reading of a pure white tone, given by a dumb reflected light meter will OVER-expose the white, and will blow it out, so you want to meter and close DOWN the lens, or speed UP the shutter. That will keep the white value at the "top" of the exposure...ie, it will "peg the highlight".

With color or B&W negative film, you want to ADD exposure to the result given by a dumb, color-lind, reflected light meter reading, by opening the lens wider, or slowing down the shutter.


----------



## christop

It seems to me like the slide film you're talking about has a higher actual sensitivity than its rated sensitivity, or the meter you're talking about likes to overexpose (which wouldn't be apparent with negative film because of its wide tolerance for overexposure). Any film that blows out on middle gray is just too sensitive. Digital is claimed to be like slide film in this regard, and yet I can overexpose a middle gray object by about two and a half stops to make it white.

Even if you do have to underexpose from middle gray for slide film, it really is the same practice as with negative film. It's just a different exposure compensation amount, which could also be accomplished by telling the camera's metering/exposure system that the film has a higher ISO than what the box or roll claims it has.


----------



## Derrel

Sorry.One film is a POSITVE process. The other is a NEGATIVE process. Have you ever shot slide film??? The practice is not , as you said,"the same"..it is entirely OPPOSITE. As in "opp-o-site".

Meter a white sheet of paper with slide film--you must close down the lens iris.

Meter a white sheet of paper with negative film-you must OPEN UP the iris.

See how that works??? Opposite. Different. Not the same. Entirely *opposite.*


----------



## pixmedic

Derrel said:


> Sorry.One film is a POSITVE process. The other is a NEGATIVE process. Have you ever shot slide film??? The practice is not , as you said,"the same"..it is entirely OPPOSITE. As in "opp-o-site".
> 
> Meter a white sheet of paper with slide film--you must close down the lens iris.
> 
> Meter a white sheet of paper with negative film-you must OPEN UP the iris.
> 
> See how that works??? Opposite. Different. Not the same. Entirely *opposite.*



so what your saying is....it isn't the same?


----------



## thetrue

So does all this mean that I'm artsy? Half the time I don't really focus on the technicals as much as I do getting the shot I want...


----------



## EIngerson

thetrue said:


> So does all this mean that I'm artsy? Half the time I don't really focus on the technicals as much as I do getting the shot I want...



I'm going to answer that with a quote.

"If you have to ask, the answer is NO"


----------



## thetrue




----------



## TCampbell

I feel like people have sort of skipped over the whole over-emphasis on shooting in manual mode in their haste to disagree with the use of Program mode.

I started shooting in the 70's ... manual mode was pretty much all we had.  I did eventually get a Canon AE-1, but that was only "semi-auto" (we thought it was a huge advancement) in that if YOU set the shutter speed then IT would set the aperture (amazing.)   We ALSO learned to develop and print our own work... but we don't force people through that learning process anymore.

HOWEVER, I think _everyone_ should LEARN to shoot in "manual" mode, and THEN... not use it except when there's an actual advantage to using manual mode.  I rarely shoot in full manual.  If I pull out my light meter to do a shot THEN I use full manual.  

But for most other occasions, I go through a mental process like this:

1)  I manually pick my ISO based on the light

2)  I ask myself "Is the subject moving?"  

2a)  If the answer is "no" then I pick aperture priority mode and let the camera take care of the shutter speed.
2b)  If the answer is "yes" then I pick an appropriate shutter speed and let the camera deal with the aperture.

3)  I may use exposure compensation based on the shot.

Before anyone gets pedantic, yes... OF COURSE there are exceptions.  But this process works most of the time.  If I'm doing flash photography then the shutter speed needs to be kept below the flash-sync speed.  If the artistic value of the shot depends on the depth of field then aperture wins and if the artistic value depends on shutter speed then shutter speed wins.

There's little point in shooting on full manual ALL time time.  Otherwise your process works something like the following:  

1)  Do steps 1 & 2 above)
2)  Dial in either the aperture or shutter based mostly on subject movement.
3)  Meter the shot to get the camera's advice.
4)  Change the exposure until the setting you picked agrees with what the computer suggested.

So I ask you... if you're just going to dial in the setting to do what the computer told you to do ANYWAY, then why not just let the computer dial in the setting.  You paid for a nice camera after all... may as well let it work.

Incidentally... when I put the camera away, I TRY to remember to return it to "Program" mode even though I almost never use that mode.  The reason for this is that I have, from time to time, needed to grab the camera and shoot fast.  In "Program" mode there's a reasonably high chance that the camera will simply "do the right thing".  If I do have a second, I'll take it out of program mode and use it as I normally would.  Also if I leave it in program mode then my other half can use it.

I'm more of an advocate for the fact that photographers NEED to understand how exposure works.  Shooting in "manual" mode is an excellent way to force a person to learn how that works because it'll be pretty obvious to them everytime they get it wrong.  But once they do understand how exposure works, there's not much point in forcing people to continue to use manual.  Like I said... if I break out the light meter then I'll shoot in manual.  Usually this is true because I'm breaking out the light meter because (a) the shot is really important or (b) I can see by the scene that the in-camera meter is not likely to be accurate.

I generally refer to the Av & Tv modes as "semi automatic" and Program and Auto (Green box) modes as "full auto".  I only think of "Manual" mode as being the only true full manual mode (I've come to recognize that some photographers consider the Av & Tv (Nikon A & S) modes as "manual" modes.  I don't think this is the majority of folks, but I have encountered a few people who think that if you aren't use the green box or program mode then you're shooting in a manual mode.)

I would NOT presume that just because someone uses a program mode that it would only be because that person doesn't know how to shoot any other way.  

I DO think that learning the basics of exposure are the first step and that learning the basics of composition comes after that.  

And since we're nit-picking... what's with all the images that aren't actually "level".  I suppose we should teach people to hold the camera LEVEL before telling them about the "rule of thirds".  <sigh>


----------



## skieur

The_Traveler said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an exhaustive statement because there may be no distracting technical elements and the image may still not have impact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why that BOTH technique (the technical elements) AND composition the artistic elements are a necessary part of an excellent photo.
> 
> As you say in effect, if the technical elements are perfect and there is no centre of interest and no impact, then the photo is poor/weak etc.
> 
> BUT, the reverse is also true:  If the photo is compositionally excellent but the viewer is distracted by technical deficiencies such as severe overexposure, flare, poor colour etc., then the photo is equally poor/weak etc.
> 
> 
> Both the technical and the compositional aspect are excellent in an excellent photo and therefore BOTH are equally important.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a third alternative when the image is powerful and the technical defects aren't distracting enough to destroy the impact.
> 
> So, as I said originally, technical issues, including composition, are only important when they keep the viewer from appreciating the image.
Click to expand...



Even if the technical defects are sufficiently noticeable to reduce the impact, then they weaken the image, which is why these defects are often pointed out here.  As to the degree, it depends on the attention to detail and photographic background of the viewer.

skieur


----------



## amolitor

What if the technical defects are an integral part of the image? Maybe the impact of the image relies on the subject being out of focus and underexposed?

What IS a technical defect, anyways?

There is no such thing as a technical defect, artistically. There are only choices which support the image, choices which detract from it, and choices that do neither. There ARE technical defects when you're delivering specific product, as most professionals do.


----------



## skieur

amolitor said:


> What if the technical defects are an integral part of the image?             Then it is a weak/poor image.
> 
> Maybe the impact of the image relies on the subject being out of focus and underexposed?                  No such thing!   Post one!
> 
> What IS a technical defect, anyways?                                                                                                                                                                          A technical decision made by the photographer that detracts from the image and its impact.
> 
> 
> skieur


----------



## amolitor

That takes no time at all. "Behind the Gare St. Lazare"

The subject is not out of focus, but is underexposed and heavily motion blurred. Without both of those, the image would be nothing. It could probably come up with other similar examples at a rate of about 1 per minute for as long as I cared to carry on. It's not all bloody Group f/64 out there.


----------



## christop

Derrel said:


> Sorry.One film is a POSITVE process. The other is a NEGATIVE process.



The "negative" and "positive" have nothing to do with the exposure compensation or range or latitude of the film. They have everything to do with the image on the film, one being the negative image and the other the positive image.

I'm just trying to reconcile what you're saying about slide film because it contradicts everything I've read about it. Everything I've read agrees that slide film goes clear (aka "blown" or white) at about 2.5 stops above middle gray, while you are saying that slide film is blown at middle gray or a stop below it. If your slide film is clear at a middle gray exposure, it seems either you're shooting it about three ISO stops too low (eg, shooting ISO 400 film as ISO 50) or your meter is three stops slow. Am I just misunderstanding what you're trying to say?


----------



## dxqcanada

I think you (christop) and Derrel are having a failure in communication.

I think you are both saying the same thing ??


----------



## Steve5D

cgipson1 said:


> Why that should be totally obvious!!! Is a "pro" who can shoot only in P or AUTO mode, really a PRO? NOOOOOOOO! That is my objection!   It doesn't affect me except in a ethical, philosophical sense... OK?
> 
> I used to to be proud to be a "Professional Photographer"!! Now they are just a dime a dozen, and most are as useful as tits on a boar hog!!



Like I said, it can only affect you if you allow it to. Personally, it's simply not possible for me to care any less about what someone else calls themself. If they want to call themself a pro, the only ethics coming into question are theirs, not mine.I'd just simply prefer not to waste my time worrying about somoene else.

I used to play guitar professionally. I made far more money playing guitar than I did working my "day job". I don't think Eric Clapton or Jeff Beck ever lost too much sleep worrying about the fact that I referred to myself as a "professional" guitar player...


----------



## table1349

HughGuessWho said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that is more certain to set off a chicken fight than even hinting to a photographer that the way he/she learned to do things or the way they do things now may not be the absolute best way it can be done.
> 
> The mere expression of a contrary opinion - and maintaining it - just sets people off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not about how they learned or continue to do. Its their inability yo accept that some people are not stuck in the 70's and actually embrace the modern day.
Click to expand...


Yep, got to love the embracing of the modern day.  Just a small example.

[SIZE=+1]*Todays kids cant tie shoes, do laundry*[/SIZE]
*The Chronicle Herald (CA) ^ *  | October 2, 2010  | BETH J. HARPAZ 
 Posted on *Sun Oct  3 21:23:17 2010* by *Immerito*


NEW YORK  Second-graders who cant tie shoes or zip jackets.  Four-year-olds in Pull-Ups diapers. Five-year-olds in strollers. Teens  and preteens befuddled by can openers and ice-cube trays. College kids  who have never done laundry, taken a bus alone or addressed an envelope.  
Are we raising a generation of nincompoops? And do we have only  ourselves to blame? Or are some of these things simply the result of  kids growing up with push-button technology in an era when mechanical  devices are gradually being replaced by electronics? 
Susan  Maushart, a mother of three, says her teenage daughter "literally does  not know how to use a can opener. Most cans come with pull-tops these  days. I see her reaching for a can that requires a can opener, and her  shoulders slump and she goes for something else." 
Teenagers are  so accustomed to either throwing their clothes on the floor or hanging  them on hooks that Maushart says her "kids actually struggle with the  mechanics of a clothes hanger." 
Many kids never learn to do  ordinary household tasks. They have no chores. Take-out and  drive-through meals have replaced home cooking. And busy families who  can afford it often outsource house-cleaning and lawn care.


----------



## Derrel

And yet...these same children can program VCR's, DVD recorders, and set-up computers, electonic accounts, and so on--that befuddle college graduates in their 60's...

Different skill sets....these same kids can type text messages with their phones inside of their POCKETS (seriously...), typing "blind"...meanwhile, college-graduate parents in their 40's can barely figure out how to set up a YouTube account...while their "nincompoop" children already have channels with hundreds of subscribers, and in many cases, their own self-shot,self-edited music videos and comedy parodies...

These same nincompoop kids can buy concert tickets, and register for college classes on-line....while their parent struggle to fill out bare-bones DMV forms using simple web-based interfaces...

Your point was what???


----------



## amolitor

Hardly any kids can dress a fresh-killed gazelle, almost NONE of them can make decent leather, and when it comes to digging up tubers with a sharp stick, they're USELESS.


----------



## Dave Devoid

We used to have similar debates on Dj and Production forums i frequented/Administered/Moderated. It was always focused around Turntables and vinyl and learning to mix with vinyl and that you were not a REAL Dj unless you have mixed with vinyl..

Some of the younger kids have never even seen vinyl, let alone mixed with it...Some of the younger generation are making 10's of thousands of pounds per gig and have never even laid eyes on a vinyl record.

It pretty much comes down to using what you have to the best of your ability and as long as you can grasp the fundamentals you can go far....


----------



## table1349

> QUOTE=Derrel;2807920]And yet...these same children can program VCR's, DVD recorders, and set-up computers, electonic accounts, and so on--that befuddle college graduates in their 60's...


Heck, I don't own a VCR anymore but I can still program one, as I can a DVD, a Blueray as well as my DVR and I have been not only been setting up computers for years, I have been programing since the mid 70's.  P.M. me Darrell and I will send you instructions on how to get your VCR to quite flashing 12:00...12:00...12:00 



> Different skill sets....these same kids can type text messages with their phones inside of their POCKETS (seriously...), typing "blind"...meanwhile, college-graduate parents in their 40's can barely figure out how to set up a YouTube account...while their "nincompoop" children already have channels with hundreds of subscribers, and in many cases, their own self-shot,self-edited music videos and comedy parodies...


You mean people still type text messages.  I just speak into my blue tooth headset and text, surf the web, send e-mails etc.  But since we are speaking photography, I can also change settings on the fly with out ever pulling a body away from my face to see what that new ISO, shutter speed, aperture and many other non menu settings.  Not only can I change those settings, I have the skill set to know what setting(s) to change to achieve the desire results.  



> These same nincompoop kids can buy concert tickets, and register for college classes on-line....while their parent struggle to fill out bare-bones DMV forms using simple web-based interfaces...
> 
> Your point was what???



I don't even buy paper tickets any longer, nor do I get paper boarding passes, coupons or many of the other things that were done on paper in the old days.  They are all on my iPhone.    But I can still get them if need be with no problem and I know where to go to get them.  As for filling out web based forms.  I build em at work so filling em out is no problem.  

So YOUR point was that you haven't kept you own skill sets up or what???




amolitor said:


> Hardly any kids can dress a fresh-killed gazelle, almost NONE of them can make decent leather, and when it comes to digging up tubers with a sharp stick, they're USELESS.



Never killed a gazelle, but I have taken a number of deer and elk in my day.  Dressing a deer or dressing a gazelle, still the same thing.  I know how to go to the grocery store and buy that processed meat, but I also know how to process my own.  I also know how to brain tan the hides.  They are so much softer and supplier when brain tanned over chemical tanning.  It is a time consuming and smelly process though.  

As for digging up tubers with a sharp stick, well no reason to be all Appalachian about it.  Grandma always had a large garden out on the farm that included potatoes.  I always dug em up for her with a garden fork.  No better eats than eating your own beef, chicken, fruits and vegetables. ( I also know how to fix a fork or shovel handle if it breaks.  Useful skill when you garden.)



Dave Devoid said:


> We used to have similar debates on Dj and Production forums i frequented/Administered/Moderated. It was always focused around Turntables and vinyl and learning to mix with vinyl and that you were not a REAL Dj unless you have mixed with vinyl..
> 
> Some of the younger kids have never even seen vinyl, let alone mixed with it...Some of the younger generation are making 10's of thousands of pounds per gig and have never even laid eyes on a vinyl record.
> 
> *It pretty much comes down to using what you have to the best of your ability and as long as you can grasp the fundamentals you can go far....*



:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Yep, the tool(s) you use are pretty much inconsequential once you understand the fundamentals.


----------



## BrianV

To use "Program Mode" on your camera, select "P". Most have a Dial or Menu selection, and "P" stands for "Program" mode.

It means the camera will control shutter-speed and F-stop automatically. Some even focus the lens for you, and turn the flash on when required.

It does not mean that you have to write your own firmware to Program the camera. But it was nice to get paid for that.


----------



## skieur

amolitor said:


> That takes no time at all. "Behind the Gare St. Lazare"
> 
> The subject is not out of focus, but is underexposed and heavily motion blurred. Without both of those, the image would be nothing. It could probably come up with other similar examples at a rate of about 1 per minute for as long as I cared to carry on. It's not all bloody Group f/64 out there.



I am not impressed by the photo, irrespective of its iconic nature and history.  Even you had to point out that it was motion blurred.  The problem is that motion blur is not as obvious to the viewer as it should be in the photo.  The problem with the exposure and the use of black and white is that the subject merges with the background, which is a major weakness.

No motion blur, a sharp silhouette or even a sharp silhouette with motion blur in the legs would have been more interesting.  More visual separation from the background would also improve the photo.

skieur


----------



## The_Traveler

Robert Capra, "Falling Soldier'

Sometimes the worth of a picture obliterates normal standards


----------



## amolitor

Oh, ok, so YOU don't like photographs with technical flaws, whatever those are.

That's quite different from what you suggested.


----------



## Derrel

Thanks to gryphonslair99--my VCR is now a functioning clock!!!! Woo-hooo!!!!!! If I call myself a professional DVD programmer, will charlie get his undies all in a wad because I'm now a pro DVD programmer? Can Steve5D play us a guitar soundtrack piece for this unfolding drama? Will amolitor write a cogent essay/post/diatribe describing the societal issues underlying this silly photo-menagerie? Will The_Traveler document the goings-on in a street photo? WOuld The_Traveler actually use P mode to shoot some of the pics?


----------



## PixelRabbit

amolitor said:


> What if the technical defects are an integral part of the image? Maybe the impact of the image relies on the subject being out of focus and underexposed?
> 
> What IS a technical defect, anyways?
> 
> There is no such thing as a technical defect, artistically. There are only choices which support the image, choices which detract from it, and choices that do neither. There ARE technical defects when you're delivering specific product, as most professionals do.



I find this exchange between you and Skieur very interesting since many of my favourite shots rely on "technical defects".
This shot keeps coming to mind.


----------



## table1349

Derrel said:


> Thanks to gryphonslair99--my VCR is now a functioning clock!!!! Woo-hooo!!!!!!


----------



## skieur

The_Traveler said:


> Robert Capra, "Falling Soldier'
> 
> Sometimes the worth of a picture obliterates normal standards



Interesting that they now say that the above photo: "Falling Soldier" was faked/staged.  How Capa's camera does lie: The photographic proof that iconic 'Falling Soldier' image was staged | Mail Online

Logical since there is no visual indication of injury, or blood.

skieur


----------



## skieur

amolitor said:


> Oh, ok, so YOU don't like photographs with technical flaws, whatever those are.
> 
> That's quite different from what you suggested.



Don't play with my words.  I did not get into what I liked or disliked.


----------



## The_Traveler

skieur said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Capra, "Falling Soldier'
> 
> Sometimes the worth of a picture obliterates normal standards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that they now say that the above photo: "Falling Soldier" was faked/staged.  How Capa's camera does lie: The photographic proof that iconic 'Falling Soldier' image was staged | Mail Online
> 
> Logical since there is no visual indication of injury, or blood.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


Absolutely not my point, so please don't dance away.
My point is that technical issues can hurt an image but can't elevate it beyond technical perfection.
Great images aren't dependent on technical perfection.


----------



## Derrel

The_Traveler said:
			
		

> SNIP>>Great images aren't dependent on technical perfection.



The idea that great images do NOT depend upon technical perfection is pretty well-proven, I would say. I have seen many,many "great images" out of the billions and billions of photographs that have been made. And a good many of these great images have what could easily be considered technical faults, but because of the content of the images, or the rarity of the subject matter, or the sheer unusual nature of the photograph, the photo can still be considered a legitimately "great image". The falling solidier Capra photographed in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930's, or the Vietnamese general pointing his revolver to the temple of the crying, screaming suspected Viet Cong enemy that he was about to execute, photographed by Edie Adams, or the screaming, naked Vietnamese girl running down the middle of a roadway, fleeing her village that was being napalm-bombed...those images of war ALL have what might be considered "technical flaws", or photographic weaknesses...but the subject matter transcends the weaknesses of the technique, or the camera's EXACT settings.

Back to shooting in Program mode...hey...whatever...whatever floats yer boat. As far as technical weaknesses and great images: one of the things we are seeing these days are ever-increasing standards of technical excellence. HCB's blurred 1932 image of a man leaping from a ladder and trying to hop across a puddle...technically, pretty weak. Why? The era it was made in...what was the ASA rating of even a fast 35mm film back in 1932? Was it 25 or maybe as high as 50 ASA??? TODAY, if HCB were walking the streets, he could EASILY shoot that shot at ISO 2,000 with a good d-slr or a Leica M-9. As we move forward into this era of super-high ISO ratings and AMAZING dynamic range and post-capture exposure adjustment/recovery, Program will become more and more useful for those who use it.

Same thing goes for AUTO ISO. In my opinion, AUTO ISO used to be somewhat useless, much of the time. Not so these days. Not with the killer sensor technology that has appeared in the last couple of generations of d-slrs.


----------



## skieur

The_Traveler said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Capra, "Falling Soldier'
> 
> Sometimes the worth of a picture obliterates normal standards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that they now say that the above photo: "Falling Soldier" was faked/staged.  How Capa's camera does lie: The photographic proof that iconic 'Falling Soldier' image was staged | Mail Online
> 
> Logical since there is no visual indication of injury, or blood.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely not my point, so please don't dance away.
> My point is that technical issues can hurt an image but can't elevate it beyond technical perfection.
> Great images aren't dependent on technical perfection.
Click to expand...


No but great images aren't dependent on compositional/artistic perfection either.  As I said at the very beginning BOTH are EQUALLY necessary and it is valid to completely judge both in critique.

skieur


----------



## The_Traveler

You can believe what you want but neither believing it nor repeating it will make it so.

It's your opinion.

I don't agree.


----------



## tevo

Learning shutter, aperture and ISO/ASA is crucial because regardless of what mode you are shooting, these are the variables that make your photo. However, learning them first is not necessary. Composition is the first step to a photo, and it is done moments before capture. Every single camera ever requires the setting of shutter, aperture, and ISO/ASA in order to properly expose a photo. In my humble opinion, one should not pass themselves off as a photographer without this knowledge, but learning these things should not interfere with their initial creativity. This knowledge should not be a barrier, rather it is a tool to any photographer as it allows them to depart from the realm of 'Auto' and push the creative envelope even further.


----------



## skieur

The_Traveler said:


> You can believe what you want but neither believing it nor repeating it will make it so.
> 
> It's your opinion.
> 
> I don't agree.



Not my opinion, at all.  I picked it up from the Canadian Photographic Art Association, the American Professional Photographers Association and the rules of judging for several professional photography Competitions.

skieur


----------



## unpopular

just because your opinion is in line with the expert's consensus doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion - an opinion which I happen to agree with, but an opinion nonetheless.


----------



## The_Traveler

That's called an 'Argument from Authority' and, in certain circumstances that might bolster your argument.

Here, to me, nope, because I don't care what their opinion is.

It's not the length of a lightyear or gravity's acceleration or number of photons released every second from the sun, it's an opinion and you can subscribe to theirs and I don't agree.


----------



## amolitor

I can appeal to authority, too: Impressionism, Pictorialism, Surrealism, Cubism, etc etc.

To pick on one technical flaw, so that it may serve to illustrate the point:

If you're going to claim that No Image is improved by being out of focus, you're going to have to define what "improved" is. Since there is a broad consensus about certain images requiring their lack of focus, which images would indeed be worsened by being in focus, whatever definition you choose must defy that broad consensus. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. However, at this point you're pretty much entering the land of "in my opinion". Yes, it's your opinion and it is held by some others, but that doesn't make it equal to the broader consensus. You're in the minority, which isn't quite the same thing as wrong, but it's about as close to "wrong" as you can get in the world of judging art.

Not quite as wrong as the guys who flounce off after a while saying "You just don't GET my VISION" but you're in that direction.


----------



## The_Traveler

I've been thinking about the way that people responded to this post initially and some other ideas occurred to me.

If someone can produce a beautiful/great/important  image, why is it so important that it be done a certain way? That is, why must the person be controlling the camera by knowing all the technical issues that most responders have named as crucial. No one makes these kinds of procedural requirements on any other kind of art.

True, it may be better, more useful to know these things, just to be in control of the medium but why do people respond so vehemently, not as if I were just suggesting one method of getting to an endpoint but as if I was insulting the way they do things?

One of the endpoints of a skill based art, like photography, is a acceptable/good/great satisfying image. The other endpoint is the satisfaction one gets from performing a difficult task correctly, achieving a skill and exercising it.

Acceptable/good/great satisfying images are difficult to achieve because any skill must have some degree of talent mixed in - and that is not under an individual's control. So when I say that photography is OK, even beneficial, to start in a P or auto mode, then it seems that I am somehow discounting the skills that people work so hard to achieve and value. Skill is the one thing that anyone can be certain of getting out of photography with some effort; you can achieve some level of skill but you  can&#8217;t teach artistic talent.

So after a day of shooting and the shots are all just well focused and exposed and framed, but ordinary, the only satisfaction available may only be from the exercise of skill.  So when it was suggested that that development of skill isn't the most important thing, people got defensive.


----------



## Derrel

Maybe, just maybe, ALL of us who have cameras that can shoot in Program mode ought to go ahead and actually TRY making some photos using P mode? You know, just to see how it works? 

Naw...that's too likely to yield results that might, horror of horrors!!!:

1) confirm our biases about how $hi++y Program mode is, or--- 

2) blow narrow-minded, smugness right out of the water, and reveal that Program mode can actually work quite well. 

Either way, the risks of shooting in Program mode are high...*danger lurks where Program is set.*..right???


----------



## amolitor

Yep, P is PDragons! Scarrry stuff!


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> just because your opinion is in line with the expert's consensus doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion - an opinion which I happen to agree with, but an opinion nonetheless.



Where there is a general consensus from pros and artistic enthusiasts, then it is more than just opinion and those that disagree are out on a limb which will be cut off in any judgement of photographic/artistic quality at a professional level.

skieur


----------



## fjrabon

skieur said:


> Where there is a general consensus from pros and artistic enthusiasts, then it is more than just opinion and those that disagree are out on a limb which will be cut off in any judgement of photographic/artistic quality at a professional level.
> 
> skieur





			
				skieur said:
			
		

> I am not impressed by the photo, irrespective of its iconic nature and history.
> 
> skieur



Within just a couple of posts you've cited popular opinion as an authority, and also stated how you disagree with popular opinion on an iconic image that is almost universally loved. You've stated how you think the image would be better with fewer 'technical flaws' while almost every one of the people you later cite would agree that the technical 'flaws' in some way made that image.  You seem to be wanting to have your cake and eat it too.  Where consensus agrees with you it's near law, and where it doesn't it's mere opinion.


----------



## skieur

The_Traveler said:


> I&#8217;ve been thinking about the way that people responded to this post initially and some other ideas occurred to me.
> 
> If someone can produce a beautiful/great/important  image, why is it so important that it be done a certain way? That is, why must the person be controlling the camera by knowing all the technical issues that most responders have named as crucial. No one makes these kinds of procedural requirements on any other kind of art.
> 
> Well, first of all in order to produce a "beautiful/great/important" photographic image it is rather important that you use a camera.  Since the camera is your "artistic tool", skilled use of a camera is rather a basic requisite.  And yes there are requirements in other kinds of art.  Great piano pieces by an unskilled pianist.:lmao:  Great literature from illiterate authors.   Artistic masterpieces from an artist whose skill with a brush is very poor.   These forms of art are WITHIN THE PARAMETERS of the particular medium.  A basic structure, medium, format, procedure, is required.  Kicking a garbage can may be expressing itself, but anyone would be intellectually challenged to call it art.
> 
> True, it may be better, more useful to know these things, just to be in control of the medium but why do people respond so vehemently, not as if I were just suggesting one method of getting to an endpoint but as if I was insulting the way they do things?
> 
> Yes, knowing how to use a camera would definitely be "useful"....I would say a necessity to get to any endpoint of producing an artistic photo image.
> 
> 
> One of the endpoints of a skill based art, like photography, is a acceptable/good/great satisfying image. The other endpoint is the satisfaction one gets from performing a difficult task correctly, achieving a skill and exercising it.
> 
> By calling it a "skill based art" means that technical skill is an important element and just as important as composition.  "Achieving a skill and exercising it" is NOT achieved at all if you have made all kinds of technical errors.
> 
> Acceptable/good/great satisfying images are difficult to achieve because any skill must have some degree of talent mixed in - and that is not under an individual&#8217;s control. So when I say that photography is OK, even beneficial, to start in a P or auto mode, then it seems that I am somehow discounting the skills that people work so hard to achieve and value. Skill is the one thing that anyone can be certain of getting out of photography with some effort; you can achieve some level of skill but you  can&#8217;t teach artistic talent.
> 
> Having taught in an Arts School, I certainly agree that you can't teach artistic talent, but you certainly can teach the technical skills necessary to achieve success in better expression of their talent.
> 
> So after a day of shooting and the shots are all just well focused and exposed and framed, but ordinary, the only satisfaction available may only be from the exercise of skill.  So when it was suggested that that development of skill isn&#8217;t the most important thing, people got defensive.



You also don't seem to be reading well.  I am NOT indicating that artistic talent or expression is unimportant.  I am saying that:

TECHNIQUE(the technical end)  AND COMPOSITION (the artistic end)  ARE  EQUALLY IMPORTANT.  and for that matter so are the organizations representing photographers.

skieur


----------



## fjrabon

skieur said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I&#8217;ve been thinking about the way that people responded to this post initially and some other ideas occurred to me.
> 
> If someone can produce a beautiful/great/important  image, why is it so important that it be done a certain way? That is, why must the person be controlling the camera by knowing all the technical issues that most responders have named as crucial. No one makes these kinds of procedural requirements on any other kind of art.
> 
> Well, first of all in order to produce a "beautiful/great/important" photographic image it is rather important that you use a camera.  Since the camera is your "artistic tool", skilled use of a camera is rather a basic requisite.  And yes there are requirements in other kinds of art.  Great piano pieces by an unskilled pianist.:lmao:  Great literature from illiterate authors.   Artistic masterpieces from an artist whose skill with a brush is very poor.   These forms of art are WITHIN THE PARAMETERS of the particular medium.  A basic structure, medium, format, procedure, is required.  Kicking a garbage can may be expressing itself, but anyone would be intellectually challenged to call it art.
> 
> True, it may be better, more useful to know these things, just to be in control of the medium but why do people respond so vehemently, not as if I were just suggesting one method of getting to an endpoint but as if I was insulting the way they do things?
> 
> Yes, knowing how to use a camera would definitely be "useful"....I would say a necessity to get to any endpoint of producing an artistic photo image.
> 
> 
> One of the endpoints of a skill based art, like photography, is a acceptable/good/great satisfying image. The other endpoint is the satisfaction one gets from performing a difficult task correctly, achieving a skill and exercising it.
> 
> By calling it a "skill based art" means that technical skill is an important element and just as important as composition.  "Achieving a skill and exercising it" is NOT achieved at all if you have made all kinds of technical errors.
> 
> Acceptable/good/great satisfying images are difficult to achieve because any skill must have some degree of talent mixed in - and that is not under an individual&#8217;s control. So when I say that photography is OK, even beneficial, to start in a P or auto mode, then it seems that I am somehow discounting the skills that people work so hard to achieve and value. Skill is the one thing that anyone can be certain of getting out of photography with some effort; you can achieve some level of skill but you  can&#8217;t teach artistic talent.
> 
> Having taught in an Arts School, I certainly agree that you can't teach artistic talent, but you certainly can teach the technical skills necessary to achieve success in better expression of their talent.
> 
> So after a day of shooting and the shots are all just well focused and exposed and framed, but ordinary, the only satisfaction available may only be from the exercise of skill.  So when it was suggested that that development of skill isn&#8217;t the most important thing, people got defensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also don't seem to be reading well.  I am NOT indicating that artistic talent or expression is unimportant.  I am saying that:
> 
> TECHNIQUE(the technical end)  AND COMPOSITION (the artistic end)  ARE  EQUALLY IMPORTANT.  and for that matter so are the organizations representing photographers.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


I don't even know how you can say that the two are equally important.  You can't compare the two.  That's like saying that bicycle and grape are equally important.  what does that even mean?  You have two unquanitifable things, that aren't directly comparable, yet are attempting to say they're 'equally important'.  That's not wrong, it's incoherent.  Not even just incoherent, but doubly incoherent.


----------



## The_Traveler

skieur said:


> You also don't seem to be reading well. I am NOT indicating that artistic talent or expression is unimportant. I am saying that:
> 
> TECHNIQUE(the technical end) AND COMPOSITION (the artistic end) ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT. and for that matter so are the organizations representing photographers.
> 
> skieur



I read perfectly well and making snide _ad hominen_ remarks doesn't advance your argument.
Without going further in what seems to be a useless argument, let me just say that, no matter what  your authorities say, I don't care either about their opinion or yours.
You seem to be tied very strongly into that belief system and that's fine for you.

I don't need their agreement, or yours, to have faith in my own opinion.


----------



## dewey

EIngerson said:


> I thought the "P" stood for Pro mode. Oh well, back to the green box for me.



Damn... Diet Coke on the screen.


----------



## table1349

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> just because your opinion is in line with the expert's consensus doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion - an opinion which I happen to agree with, but an opinion nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where there is a general consensus from pros and artistic enthusiasts, then it is more than just opinion and those that disagree are out on a limb which will be cut off in any judgement of photographic/artistic quality at a professional level.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...



Han van Meegeren.  Eneough said.


----------



## PixelRabbit

Derrel said:
			
		

> Maybe, just maybe, ALL of us who have cameras that can shoot in Program mode ought to go ahead and actually TRY making some photos using P mode? You know, just to see how it works?
> 
> Naw...that's too likely to yield results that might, horror of horrors!!!:
> 
> 1) confirm our biases about how $hi++y Program mode is, or---
> 
> 2) blow narrow-minded, smugness right out of the water, and reveal that Program mode can actually work quite well.
> 
> Either way, the risks of shooting in Program mode are high...danger lurks where Program is set...right???



Maybe some of us did


----------



## unpopular

skieur said:


> You also don't seem to be reading well.  I am NOT indicating that artistic talent or expression is unimportant.  I am saying that:
> 
> TECHNIQUE(the technical end)  AND COMPOSITION (the artistic end)  ARE  EQUALLY IMPORTANT.  and for that matter so are the organizations representing photographers.
> 
> skieur



When *bold *doesn't work out, try making it slightly larger if that doesn't wash away your fallacy JUST USE ALL CAPS, TOO if still they don't pay attention *MAKE IT BLUE. * And be sure to sign your name after everything, that adds a nice touch.

If all else false, make your point in latin! Argumentum verbosium can be fun!


----------



## The_Traveler

"Sapientia est non sapientia ut is est traho ex authorities unus."

(Eng. Wisdom is not wisdom if it is derived from authorities alone.)


----------



## BrianV

I equate using "P" mode on a camera with using software that you did not even write yourself. I got over that when Photoshop 3.0 and Photostyler 1.1 were sold.

Damn. Just contradicted myself. My DSLR has "P" mode, but I had to write the software for it myself.


----------



## unpopular

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> just because your opinion is in line with the expert's consensus doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion - an opinion which I happen to agree with, but an opinion nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where there is a general consensus from pros and artistic enthusiasts, then it is more than just opinion and those that disagree are out on a limb which will be cut off in any judgement of photographic/artistic quality at a professional level.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


If it's not an opinion, then what is it? It sure as hell isn't a fact!

Oh and for the record, I misread your statements. I do disagree. Technical ability should extend only to that which is needed to convey the message. Everything else is just ****ery.


----------



## rexbobcat

Does P mode stand for professional or does it stand for pathetic? 

Someone please clarify.


----------



## unpopular

I wish we could say w@nk


----------



## CCericola

Ok, Lew really made me think about this. There are 2 things you need for a great photo. 1. Technical execution and 2. Good composition and artistic expression. Now. I came from an art background so I already had studied composition, light, color theory, angles, etc... They are the same principles no matter what the medium. So when I started photography what I needed to learn was the technical aspect of the medium. Starting from the beginning in manual makes sense in my case. But, lets just say someone has a background in photography, is great at understanding the technical, but sucks at say, composition. Then I think using a program mode works for them. For someone having trouble with both the program mode works if said person wants to work on composition first and technical later. And vice versa. So, I guess what I'm saying is it doesn't matter how you start as long as you eventually learn both parts. I think, unless you know both you will never be a great photographer. Good, but not great.


----------



## unpopular

Composition though is really more of a visual syntax. Proponents of classical composition like to believe that there is a sort of rule book that we can all turn to with clear concise answers about "good composition".

But what makes a good composition isn't golden ratios and third/fifth relationships. These harmonic compositions are great for conveying classical themes, but not necessarily appropriate for all images.

The one that really bothers me is the "never center" rule. It's absurd, and frankly, something that seems to fester exclusively on internet forums. Until I came here, I've never even really encountered this and it's often taken to a ridiculous level almost as if every image would could be improved if only you move the subject over a hair.

Centering provides for a bold, domineering composition which is especially useful with simpler subject matter with a strong sense of symmetry. Centering works well in square formats, especially in triangular compositions. In a square format, centering often provides a sense of balance and harmony, where off center is often more the opposite.

My point though is that it really depends on what you're trying to convey. There are no rules to composition, only effective and expressive compositions that work well with what the artist is trying to convey. It makes no sense for an image that is meant to be tense and uncomfortable to have a composition that is pleasing and flowing.


----------



## PixelRabbit

PixelRabbit said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, ALL of us who have cameras that can shoot in Program mode ought to go ahead and actually TRY making some photos using P mode? You know, just to see how it works?
> 
> Naw...that's too likely to yield results that might, horror of horrors!!!:
> 
> 1) confirm our biases about how $hi++y Program mode is, or---
> 
> 2) blow narrow-minded, smugness right out of the water, and reveal that Program mode can actually work quite well.
> 
> Either way, the risks of shooting in Program mode are high...danger lurks where Program is set...right???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe some of us did
Click to expand...


Ok that was cheap lol Here is the email I sent Lew, a couple examples of what I ended up with shooting in P mode.  I would have to say that some of the settings I would not have chosen but the results are either fine or a good jumping off point to learn more about how to achieve specific things like freezing a bird in motion.


Hey Lew,
So, I wasn't 100% convinced about starting in P mode but I had never  shot in it so I decided to give it a try on a couple of things.  I  figured that static objects were pretty much a no brainer so I tried it  out on birds at the feeder and lit some incense and shot some smoke.

With the smoke I could pretty much get what I wanted, I was able to  capture the smoke in various ways and got images I would be happy with.   It would have been immediate satisfaction starting out.

The birds, the day was heavy overcast and blah, probably not a day I  would choose to shoot birds now but when starting out I would have  definitely shot them (and did, and frustrated myself).  Roosting I got  good results, trying to capture motion not so much BUT it got me close  enough to first see artistic potential of capturing motion and a good  jumping off point to show the teacher and work off of.  Again I would  have gotten enough acceptable/good results to give me immediate  satisfaction but also some unacceptable results to work on.

Results, I'm more convinced and more inclined to move into P/Tv/Av at this point and I can see the value in starting in P mode.

And that is my pondering over coffee for today ;-) 
J 

The shots I processed.


----------



## Derrel

unpopular said:


> Composition though is really more of a visual syntax. Proponents of classical composition like to believe that there is a sort of rule book that we can all turn to with clear concise answers about "good composition".



Sorry, but that is utter nonsense. Seriously. A "rule book" of composition? Seriously? No. Internet noobies might say dumb things like that, but nobody who is truly learned in design or composition thinks there is a "rule book" with clear, concise answers. That idea is, as I stated, utter rubbish. Just nonsensical! It's a straw man...


----------



## unpopular

^^^uhm.

you do know that this is exactly what I'm saying, right?


----------



## The_Traveler

unpopular said:


> Composition though is really more of a visual syntax. Proponents of classical composition like to believe that there is a sort of rule book that we can all turn to with clear concise answers about "good composition".
> 
> But what makes a good composition isn't golden ratios and third/fifth relationships. These harmonic compositions are great for conveying classical themes, but not necessarily appropriate for all images.
> 
> The one that really bothers me is the "never center" rule. It's absurd, and frankly, something that seems to fester exclusively on internet forums. Until I came here, I've never even really encountered this and it's often taken to a ridiculous level almost as if every image would could be improved if only you move the subject over a hair.
> 
> *Centering provides for a bold, domineering composition which is especially useful with simpler subject matter with a strong sense of symmetry. Centering works well in square formats, especially in triangular compositions. In a square format, centering often provides a sense of balance and harmony, where off center is often more the opposite.
> *
> My point though is that it really depends on what you're trying to convey. There are no rules to composition, only effective and expressive compositions that work well with what the artist is trying to convey. It makes no sense for an image that is meant to be tense and uncomfortable to have a composition that is pleasing and flowing.



*My opinion*

The Rules of Composition are, IMO, an attempt at laying out in a simple form, for the photographers' use, how people see and interpret images presented to them.

People try to interpret what the picture is supposed to show them and get cues or clues from the position of the center of interest(s). Because people think symmetry and balance when an image is centered *and the image is symmetrical or balanced*, then the thought and the image are congruent  and look good and satisfactory.

In the reverse, if you put an unbalanced or asymmetric center of interest, dead center, then there is a mixed message. That can be used by the photographer but usually is uncomfortable viewing. For example, a live human profile or 3/4 view generally looks better if it is not centered because there is space 'behind' the profile and the viewer tries to reconcile several cues - human face with eye on the front, as much space behind as in front - why is that? - and thus it feels uncomfortable.

All of the Rules are really not about the photographer but how the viewer  unconsciously processes the clues and cues are being given in order to 'understand' the image.


----------



## unpopular

I've seen perfectly sound and strong images being tied up in contrived composition "critiques", as well as critiques that lacked any real depth because of "compositional flaws".

You could give a computer a set of rules, and have it go out and select images that meet these "good composition" rules. Composition in the way that most people think of it is nothing short of a technical exercise as well. In fact, this sort of mechanized approach to composition is something I fight with my own photography.


----------



## Steve5D

Rick58 said:


> I'm not sure how you can even begin to make an artistic photo without knowing the basics first



Why does that matter?

This all makes me wonder about something. For those who believe that one must know all of the nuts and bolts of photography, could those people identify one photo, out of ten, which was taken in "P" mode?

My gut tells me the answer would be "no". 

I don't really care what a photographer is trying to capture. What matters is what he _did _capture. _How _he did it is really of little concern to me...


----------



## unpopular

I've kind of said this before here, but I don't think it was really appreciated.

The problem with teaching first in AE mode is that it doesn't really accomplish anything. If you take any given meter mode and line up the indicator with EV±0, this is exactly the same as manual mode without any exposure compensation. The same is true if you line up the indicator with +1 or -2 or whatever. AE doesn't really protect a newbie from having to learn exposure control, all it does is kind of disassociates camera function from it's user.

So no. I can't tell if a photograph is AE or not, and that doesn't really worry me, because really the two aren't any different. But what does worry me is the number of newbies who simply cannot grasp the basic concept of reciprocity because the way that they've thought about exposure is "turn left to make it with less DOF, turn right to make it with more DOF" and have zero concept of EC beyond "+1 makes it brighter if it's under exposed" but have no clear idea of what "under/over" exposed means and why the image was under exposed in the first place.

Manual exposure forces a photographer to understand the camera and what it's doing. This isn't easily taught in AE mode when it's doing it for you. AE has purpose, by all means. But you're not escaping anything "technical" by using it. So I am not really seeing the issue.


----------



## BrianV

The same can be stated about using cameras with built in light meters rather than teaching the use of hand-held meters. Using a hand held meter allows the photographer to compare brightness of various portions of the image more carefully, and more carefully select the exposure.

I learned more about exposure compensation using a Yashica SU-60e Super-8 movie camera with Kodachrome II than anything else.


----------



## Derrel

REAL photographers shoot everything on *glass plates*. With wooden flatbed view cameras.


----------



## unpopular

BrianV said:


> The same can be stated about using cameras with built in light meters rather than teaching the use of hand-held meters. Using a hand held meter allows the photographer to compare brightness of various portions of the image more carefully, and more carefully select the exposure.



What I am arguing though isn't a matter of precision, but function. A handheld spot meter will function the same as an in-camera spot meter, you're not going to learn anything new in particular by using a hand held reflective meter.


----------



## pgriz

If we're shooting in good light, then choosing "P" or "M" is not that much of an issue.  If the conditions are marginal and/or the subject is moving, then knowing the mechanics of exposure becomes essential to be able to get any decent result.  It goes beyond the issue of camera settings.  Under "good" light, you don't need to think about light diffusers, reflectors, fill, separation lights, etc.  In poor conditions, you absolutely need to know how to manage the light(s) to extract a good image.

So the question to me is, under which conditions are we shooting?  If I was to give a workshop to beginning photographers, I'd try to arrange for a bright, semi-overcast day near some light-colored wall which can be used as reflectors.  Then we can leave the camera in 'P" mode, and concentrate on composition, framing, and the like.  If the DOF becomes needed either to be shallow (to minimize background, for instance), then we'd change to A mode and play with large, medium and small apertures.  If we want to explore motion blur, we'd switch to Tv or S mode and play with the different shutter speeds and see what works.   If the subject was predominantly dark or light, then we could explore the role of exposure compensation to "correct" the exposure for the subject matter. 

On the other hand, if we had challenging light conditions, scene dynamic range greatly in excess of the camera's ability to capture, and/or the need to compensate for fast motion, then there is no choice but to pick the best combination of metering mode, shooting mode, focal length, and accessories (tripods, lights, light modifiers) to allow us to achieve our objectives.


----------



## The_Traveler

No one should learn how to drive unless they can drive a stick shift
No one should learn how to drive unless they can drive a stick shift and do some basic maintenance 
No one should learn how to drive unless they can drive a stick shift and do some basic maintenance and can fix a car if it breaks down
No one should learn how to drive unless they can drive a stick shift and do some basic maintenance and can fix a car if it breaks down and can actually put an engine together
No one should learn how to drive unless they can drive a stick shift and do some basic maintenance and can fix a car if it breaks down and can actually put an engine together and build a kit car from scratch
No one should learn how to drive unless they can drive a stick shift and do some basic maintenance and can fix a car if it breaks down and can actually put an engine together and build a kit car from scratch and
              actually design a new concept in automotive engineering, get teh basic development work funded and actually start into production and have thousands of dealerships.

No one should do any post processing ........................


----------



## The_Traveler

Let go

Your way doesn't have to be the only right way

Just make pictures.


----------



## BrianV

unpopular said:


> BrianV said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be stated about using cameras with built in light meters rather than teaching the use of hand-held meters. Using a hand held meter allows the photographer to compare brightness of various portions of the image more carefully, and more carefully select the exposure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am arguing though isn't a matter of precision, but function. A handheld spot meter will function the same as an in-camera spot meter, you're not going to learn anything new in particular by using a hand held reflective meter.
Click to expand...



Learn to use an incident light meter. With a hand-held reflective meter, move close-in, meter on various objects before composing the shot. Figure the exposure used "in your head". You can go as deep as you want. Nikon F Photomic Bullseye: built-in Coupled Incident light meter. That was nice. The nice thing about Digital- you can take a picture, look at the image and histogram, and make adjustments. Next time you come across a similar situation, remember the scene and the adustment to use. There is nothing wrong with using "P"rogram mode when the situation allows. My first camera was a Minolta H-Matic 9 with a program mode, and metered manual mode. I learned when to take the camera off of "AA" and set manually after getting some pictures back of strongly backlit subjects. Now, 45 years later, dialing in EV corrections with the camera on auto is "Auto" for me.


----------



## unpopular

incident metering sucks.

You guys are making it out like i'm "anti auto" i'm not at all. i'm simply saying that teaching auto doesn't save anyone from learning the technical, and in the long run complicates matters.


----------



## Derrel

"incident metering sucks"????

 How about a more-logical statement, like any of these: "New York air sucks." "Australian surfing sites blow."  "Honda motorcycles are Japanese crap!" "Ford is soooo much better than Chevy!" "Biscuits are great: toast sucks!"


----------



## unpopular

oh. yeah. sorry.

in my opinion incident metering sucks. I also think you should be able to tell the difference between an opinion an fact without having to declare "in my opinion" after everything someone says, you know, in my opinion.


----------



## thunderkyss

BrianV said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrianV said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be stated about using cameras with built in light meters rather than teaching the use of hand-held meters. Using a hand held meter allows the photographer to compare brightness of various portions of the image more carefully, and more carefully select the exposure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am arguing though isn't a matter of precision, but function. A handheld spot meter will function the same as an in-camera spot meter, you're not going to learn anything new in particular by using a hand held reflective meter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to use an incident light meter. With a hand-held reflective meter, move close-in, meter on various objects before composing the shot. Figure the exposure used "in your head". You can go as deep as you want. Nikon F Photomic Bullseye: built-in Coupled Incident light meter. That was nice. The nice thing about Digital- you can take a picture, look at the image and histogram, and make adjustments. Next time you come across a similar situation, remember the scene and the adustment to use. There is nothing wrong with using "P"rogram mode when the situation allows. My first camera was a Minolta H-Matic 9 with a program mode, and metered manual mode. I learned when to take the camera off of "AA" and set manually after getting some pictures back of strongly backlit subjects. Now, 45 years later, dialing in EV corrections with the camera on auto is "Auto" for me.
Click to expand...


Is there a thread somewhere, or a tutorial that teaches us how to calculate exposure in our head? 

Also, I've been practicing using the built in exposure meter in the camera to determine my settings. While not 100% I think my first shots are closer (& getting closer) to ideal than if I just took a stab at it. Why don't more people suggest using the built in exposure meter?


----------



## keith foster

HughGuessWho said:


> I learned to drive a car with a manual transmission on the steering column. Using the logic given here by some, I would be less of a driver if I were to use an automatic transmission. Why would anyone seriously believe that utilizing advanced technology or features make you less of a photographer. Let's just all go back to kerosene lanterns, wood cooking stoves and out houses. After all modern day technology is only for the incompetent.



Here is why.  In Auto mode the camera takes its readings and using a very complicated algorithm it decides which ISO, Shutter speed and Fstop it should use to give you the picture it sees.  If you have 10 people with 10 cameras taking the same picture you will likely find that all 10 cameras used different settings to take the picture.  Why would you care?  Well the idea of learning photography is consistency, being able to reproduce good shots over and over.  You can't do that in Auto.  All you are doing is capturing the image as the camera sees it, not as you see it.
You may have to take 1000 pictures to reproduce an great shot that your camera took once in Auto model because the camera may use an Fstop that gives you a large DOF and then look nothing like the shallow DOF shot it gave you last time.  It may raise the ISO to a point the photo is not worth printing because of the noise.

I don't understand why people fight learning their camera as one of the first steps.  If you set your mind to it and practice a little you will have the basics of Aperture, shutter speed and ISO down in a week.  Sure you won't have mastered it but you will understand it why things come out as they do.  I know this is true from my years of teaching photography to high school students.  I have literally taught intro to photography to hundreds of students and only a handful of them didn't catch on after a week of doing a few basic assignments and explaining why one picture looks different from another in regards to ISO, Aperture and shutter speed.

Quit making excuses and acting like people are asking you to learn rocket science or do heart surgery.


----------



## unpopular

keith foster said:


> Here is why.  In Auto mode the camera takes its readings and using a very complicated algorithm it decides which ISO, Shutter speed and Fstop it should use to give you the picture it sees.



This is not true, except in full Auto mode. AE is simple reciprocity. That's all.

----

The car analogy is completely goofy. It's not the same AT ALL. AE would be more like a hybrid transmission found in some higher end cars. You still need to know what gear to shift into in order to use it. Full Auto is more like automatic transmission. It works OK in average situations, and you certainly don't need to know how to use manual exposure to use , but in some cases you're better off with more control.


----------



## amolitor

I can't even quite follow whose position is where at this point, but it feels like we're all pretty comfortable in our foxholes at this point.


----------



## BrianV

That's an opinion, you are entitled to it.

My opinion- Program mode was a great way to learn about photography without being encumbered by too many technical details all at once. Getting pictures back, learn from mistakes- get more involved wth setting up exposure. Getting the pictures back in real-time on the back of the camera, learn even faster.

You can get very deep into it. If you start rearranging the optics in your fixed-focal length lens to alter the Bokeh, abandon all hope.


----------



## The_Traveler

Steve5D said:


> For those who believe that one must know all of the nuts and bolts of photography, could those people identify one photo, out of ten, which was taken in "P" mode?
> I don't really care what a photographer is trying to capture. What matters is what he _did _capture. _How _he did it is really of little concern to me...





amolitor said:


> ......... but it feels like we're all pretty comfortable in our foxholes at this point.



These two quotes above pretty much sum represent my opinion.

Most people seem to be totally wedded to a belief about process even though the goal of photography is not process but image.

What technique one uses seems to be as deeply held as a religious belief. So much so that most individuals faced with a different opinion absolutely must challenge that opinion in order to validate their own. Like religion, they don't have to ever have tried the other alternatives to believe those other alternatives are wrong. 

Now, can someone explain to me just how people who have learned exposure, focus and the mechanics of taking pictures can show, on this site, so much just total crap as pictures? Clearly technical knowledge has helped them run the camera but has not contributed much in the way of progress towards a good image.

Note that Pixelrabbit went out to try P and produced the images in the responses a couple of messages above. They aren't distinguishable technically from the images produced after a great deal of technical angst and shown here by any non-advanced photographer yet they certainly have some artistic quality. 

This picture below was taken in an auto mode, using AF, not looking through the viewfinder, just a click from the table top.
Can you tell that from what you see?


----------



## BrianV

thunderkyss said:


> Is there a thread somewhere, or a tutorial that teaches us how to calculate exposure in our head?
> 
> Also, I've been practicing using the built in exposure meter in the camera to determine my settings. While not 100% I think my first shots are closer (& getting closer) to ideal than if I just took a stab at it. Why don't more people suggest using the built in exposure meter?



I learned with a camera that was center-weighted, most of the exposure from the center of the image. The light meter compared everything with "18% grey". If the subject was brighter or darker than "18% grey", you compensated by adjusting the exposure increase or decrease exposure. "18% grey" means that the object is reflecting 18% of the light that falls on it. Photographers used to carry cards that were 18% grey, and would meter off of them. If the main subject is back-lit, increase exposure. front-lit, decrease exposure. The important thing to know what how the built-in meter "saw things", and compare with one of the best metering systems made: your eyes. Matrix meters break the image up into segments, meter those segments, and attempt to make an evaluation of lighting. I never liked matrix meters as it was difficult to know exactly how the exposure was determined, and what compensation was required. Incident light meters measure the amount of light falling on the scene. 35 years ago I picked up a Nikon F Photomic that had averaging meter, spot meter, and incident meter built in and coupled to the Shutter-Speed/F-Stop. I used it for decades. Was great at airshows, could use the incident meter and figured the same light was falling on the aircraft. It worked. If used properly, it provides "true" exposure based on the reflectivity of the subject. 

A tutorial on doing this in your head- that would be nice, would have saved me a lot of bad exposures many years ago. If you are using a digital camera: easiest to practice. Set up some various objects, white, black, grey, all types of colors. Set the camera to "auto" and play with the compensation. View the histograms, and the image.


----------



## unpopular

The_Traveler said:


> Now, can someone explain to me just how people who have learned exposure, focus and the mechanics of taking pictures can show, on this site, so much just total crap as pictures? Clearly technical knowledge has helped them run the camera but has not contributed much in the way of progress towards a good image.



And there is the jump in logic. You've pointed out successfully that learning technical photography doesn't necessarily make good photographers, but you've failed to reason why foregoing the technical does.

Perhaps encouraging photographers to shoot in Program mode with auto ISO makes for spontaneous photographers, something you seem to dogmatically believe is "better", while all the while accuse others of their bigotry in their positions and values of what makes a good photographic method - but you, Lew, sit here and say ... in so many words "if it ain't spontaneous street photography with stale classical composition, then it ain't good photography!".

Spontaneity seems to work for you, and that's ok. But before you propose it's good for everyone, I'd suggest you check yourself before criticizing others for being "dogmatics". I personally believe that spontaneity without discipline makes for sloppy photographers, and this carries over in both the technical and the artistic. I just don't see this art/tech dichotemy

Clearly this whole discussion has become yet another "what's superior" kind of debate, and not what is better to teach photography. The fact that we have Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" tells me that people aren't 'getting it' like they should and perhaps as they once had. AE ends up in the long run complicating matters, not making it simpler.


----------



## The_Traveler

unpopular said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, can someone explain to me just how people who have learned exposure, focus and the mechanics of taking pictures can show, on this site, so much just total crap as pictures? Clearly technical knowledge has helped them run the camera but has not contributed much in the way of progress towards a good image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is the jump in logic. You've pointed out successfully that learning technical photography doesn't necessarily make good photographers, but you've failed to reason why foregoing the technical does.
> 
> Perhaps encouraging photographers to shoot in Program mode with auto ISO makes for spontaneous photographers, something you seem to dogmatically believe is "better", while all the while accuse others of their bigotry in their positions and values of what makes a good photographic method - but you, Lew, sit here and say ... in so many words "if it ain't spontaneous street photography with stale classical composition, then it ain't good photography!".
> 
> Spontaneity seems to work for you, and that's ok. But before you propose it's good for everyone, I'd suggest you check yourself before criticizing others for being "dogmatics". I personally believe that spontaneity without discipline makes for sloppy photographers, and this carries over in both the technical and the artistic. I just don't see this art/tech dichotemy
> 
> Clearly this whole discussion has become yet another "what's superior" kind of debate, and not what is better to teach photography. The fact that we have Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" tells me that people aren't 'getting it' like they should and perhaps as they once had. AE ends up in the long run complicating matters, not making it simpler.
Click to expand...




The_Traveler said:


> So, if anyone asks me what to do, and they are serious about* learning to create* then maybe I will tell them just to shoot on P for a while and then we'll talk about their images.* When they want to learn to control what their camera does in order to make the image better then its time to talk about the other issues. *



Encouraging *BEGINNING *photographers to shoot in Program mode with auto ISO makes for spontaneous photographers,

BEGINNING PHOTOGRAPHERS


----------



## PixelRabbit

Where did Lew say that learning the technical side of photography is unnecessary and that we should start *and stay* in P mode 100% of the time to infinity? I didn't see him say that learning the intricacies of photography was unnecessary.  I saw him say there is value in starting the learning process in P mode and nurturing the creative side at the same time tackling the two in tandem.


----------



## Derrel

PixelRabbit said:


> Where did Lew say that learning the technical side of photography is unnecessary and that we should start *and stay* in P mode 100% of the time to infinity? I didn't see him say that learning the intricacies of photography was unnecessary.  I saw him say there is value in starting the learning process in P mode and nurturing the creative side at the same time tackling the two in tandem.



But then, you actually read the original post, and are approaching this with an open mind that doesn't condemn the use of automation...so...


----------



## unpopular

The_Traveler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, can someone explain to me just how people who have learned exposure, focus and the mechanics of taking pictures can show, on this site, so much just total crap as pictures? Clearly technical knowledge has helped them run the camera but has not contributed much in the way of progress towards a good image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is the jump in logic. You've pointed out successfully that learning technical photography doesn't necessarily make good photographers, but you've failed to reason why foregoing the technical does.
> 
> Perhaps encouraging photographers to shoot in Program mode with auto ISO makes for spontaneous photographers, something you seem to dogmatically believe is "better", while all the while accuse others of their bigotry in their positions and values of what makes a good photographic method - but you, Lew, sit here and say ... in so many words "if it ain't spontaneous street photography with stale classical composition, then it ain't good photography!".
> 
> Spontaneity seems to work for you, and that's ok. But before you propose it's good for everyone, I'd suggest you check yourself before criticizing others for being "dogmatics". I personally believe that spontaneity without discipline makes for sloppy photographers, and this carries over in both the technical and the artistic. I just don't see this art/tech dichotemy
> 
> Clearly this whole discussion has become yet another "what's superior" kind of debate, and not what is better to teach photography. The fact that we have Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" tells me that people aren't 'getting it' like they should and perhaps as they once had. AE ends up in the long run complicating matters, not making it simpler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if anyone asks me what to do, and they are serious about* learning to create* then maybe I will tell them just to shoot on P for a while and then we'll talk about their images.* When they want to learn to control what their camera does in order to make the image better then its time to talk about the other issues. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Encouraging *BEGINNING *photographers to shoot in Program mode with auto ISO makes for spontaneous photographers,
> 
> BEGINNING PHOTOGRAPHERS
Click to expand...


Spontaneous or sloppy? You're the one who's going on like I'm saying AE is inferior or bad. I'm not. I personally never liked AE, but I never said it was 'bad'. For many photographers, it's a matter of hitting the subject or missing it. For me, my subjects aren't going anywhere and the "puffy little clouds" issue never has been one. 

I know enough about exposure to realize that AE doesn't really "do" anything special except automation - and this automation is exactly why I don't like the idea of teaching AE right out of the gate.

Can someone PLEASE show me where I've condemned AE in general? It seems that people assuem that because I shoot manual I must be some kind of elitist about it.


----------



## BrianV

If you do not teach automation out of the gate, then you are teaching Manual operation "out of the gate". 
That seems to be the problem- "out of the gate" means beginner to most people. When I first picked up a 35mm camera, I set it to program mode and was happy to focus and frame the image. If I had to do it all, meter, set shutter-speed/f-Stop,focus, and frame- would have been too much. "Program Mode" was also a good way to make sure the lens cap was off the camera, it would not fire if the light was too low. 

"Try to fill the frame, don't put the subject's face dead-center in the image" tended to be what I told people starting with SLR's or RF's. Long time since I worked at a camera store, could spend a couple of hours with one person. I still tell that to me daughter.


----------



## PixelRabbit

Derrel said:
			
		

> But then, you actually read the original post, and are approaching this with an open mind that doesn't condemn the use of automation...so...



Oops! My bad.


----------



## unpopular

BrianV said:


> If you do not teach automation out of the gate, then you are teaching Manual operation "out of the gate".
> That seems to be the problem- "out of the gate" means beginner to most people. When I first picked up a 35mm camera, I set it to program mode and was happy to focus and frame the image. If I had to do it all, meter, set shutter-speed/f-Stop,focus, and frame- would have been too much. "Program Mode" was also a good way to make sure the lens cap was off the camera, it would not fire if the light was too low.



See. And this I just don't understand.

For over 100 years people were learning photography, average every day people (in junior high schools) without "program mode". They even had to learn basic film processing and printing, and they did OK - at least as good as the point and clickers in the beginner thread using full auto.

Are we talking about _photography _or rocket science??

Digital has certainly simplified the process and allowed people without darkrooms to make their own prints, democratizing the field, but are you really saying that most beginners are incapable of understanding reciprocity - something countless fourteen year olds in junior highschool classes could at least grasp 35 years ago - even if they never go on to be photographers?

I kind of doubt that. I kind of doubt that beginners can't figure out how set the meter to null and press "expose".

This isn't rocket science, but AE sure makes it out that way. You don't have the opportunity to "feel" exposure and intimately understand how aperture, shutter and sensitivity are rational - and so we end up with sesame street books like "Understanding Exposure".


----------



## Derrel

The_Traveler said:


> As I think more about *the ways to  get comfortable first with one's ability to see images* and *second* with the technical ability to achieve them, I begin to think that this overwhelming disdain for shooting in 'P' actually hurts the development of good photographers more than it helps. By 'good' I mean people who are creative and even, perish the thought, artistic.
> 
> When we encourage children to dance and jump around to be expressive, we as parents and teachers, don't tell them it would be much better if they used the traditional balletic movements and positions because we know intuitively that huge obstacle would stifle not only their creativity but take away much of the spontaneous joy that is achieved from that expression.
> 
> The prime 'purpose' of (my kind of) photography is the *visualization and the rendition of something meaningful*, sometimes even beautiful.  The ability to do that depends primarily on* the ability to see* that meaningfulness and then secondarily to learn to capture it. I don't need to be a great technician, I need only to be good enough to do what I want.
> 
> The emphasis that we read so often here is on the mechanical.  This is what to do, this is the best way to do it and if it isn't what you like, run get a flash.
> That's mechanics, that's not photography. And so we get an enormous volume of stuff, pictures that look essentially the same, and boring. Everyone cares about the f stop, the lens, the lighting - and they see that as the key. And so they turn from making images to running a camera and accessories.
> 
> Read any forum here and the questions and concerns, even those involving actual images, are primarily about equipment and technique and f stops and lighting. This all to photographers who haven't even begun to be able to see even the technical inadequacies in their own images and correct them let alone the artistic ones.
> 
> So, if anyone asks me what to do, and they are serious about *learning to create* then maybe I will tell them just to *shoot on P for a while* and *then we'll talk about their images.* When they want to learn to control what their camera does in order to make the image better then its time to talk about the other issues.
> 
> *Let's not make everyone learn to build and fix a car before they can go for a ride in the country.*



Maybe a re-read of the OP is in order.


----------



## unpopular

I read that, I am not sure what the issue is aside from that I don't agree and perhaps you do.

AE encourages new photographers to snap first, and think later.
AE does not prevent the need to learn exposure control, and when a new photographer must learn it, it seems more complicated than it actually is
AE reinforces the idea that exposure is something "mechanical", as Lew suggests, rather than something flexible as Adams illustrates.

Can a photographer become great learning AE first? ABSOLUTELY. But I do not think it's a good way to go about it.


----------



## The_Traveler

unpopular said:


> See. And this I just don't understand.
> 
> For over 100 years people were learning photography, average every day people (in junior high schools) without "program mode". They even had to learn basic film processing and printing, and they did OK - at least as good as the point and clickers in the beginner thread using full auto.
> 
> Are we talking about _photography _or rocket science??
> 
> Digital has certainly simplified the process and allowed people without darkrooms to make their own prints, democratizing the field, but are you really saying that most beginners are incapable of understanding reciprocity - something countless fourteen year olds in junior highschool classes could at least grasp 35 years ago - even if they never go on to be photographers?
> 
> I kind of doubt that. I kind of doubt that beginners can't figure out how set the meter to null and press "expose".
> 
> This isn't rocket science, but AE sure makes it out that way. You don't have the opportunity to "feel" exposure and intimately understand how aperture, shutter and sensitivity are rational - and so we end up with sesame street books like "Understanding Exposure".



When the only alternative was was point and click film cameras or cameras with much more elaborate settings, then the proportion of people who moved from the basic no-adjustment camera to the more elaborate one was small.  Some part of that drop-off must be attributed to the technology hurdle.

Why put even a small hurdle, one that does require some camera manipulation and choice, in front of people until they get to understand the joys of creating images?
When they know what can been done, then there is an incentive to actually learn.


----------



## unpopular

I'll admit - i've _never_ had a problem understanding reciprocity, so it's really hard for me to imagine how anyone would. 

Still, I think that to some extent AE promotes confusion. I think if you're really serious about photography, you should learn manual early on.


----------



## pixmedic

OR..and I will suggest a somewhat reasonable alternative here....we stop giving a crap about what/how/why people shoot, UNLESS they are asking for instruction. I dont think it is entirely relevant to know exactly how the photo was taken in order to critique, it is only needed if the person posting is interested in changing how they shoot. if they arent....its an effort in futility and we should move on to the next.  it doesn't matter if they shot in manual or auto...if the photo is underexposed, it is underexposed. period. it only matters how they shot it if they need to make changes in how they shot to correct the picture, and are WILLING to make those changes.


----------



## Derrel

unpopular said:


> I read that, I am not sure what the issue is aside from that I don't agree and perhaps you do.
> 
> AE encourages new photographers to snap first, and think later.
> AE does not prevent the need to learn exposure control, and when a new photographer must learn it, it seems more complicated than it actually is
> AE reinforces the idea that exposure is something "mechanical", as Lew suggests, rather than something flexible as Adams illustrates.
> 
> Can a photographer become great learning AE first? ABSOLUTELY. But *I do not think it's a good way to go about it.*



Yeah...we get that. You've made several posts in the past (not in this thread) detailing the almost currently unheard of fastidiousness with which you approach the metering of scenes, and the mechanical adjusting of your camera. You have a very,very,very,very cultish manner of working. Would you care to enlighten others who might not be so familiar with your eccentric light metering, unusual camera adjusting, and old-fashioned manual focusing. I'm serious about this unpopular, because honestly, I am not sure that there are more than a handful of people who are familiar with the "oddball manner" in which you approach the **mechanics** of setting your camera. I'm not trying to dig at you, but seriously dude...you have some most-unusual attitudes toward photography...especially considering that we are in the 21st century now. Your working methods are "quite far out there", and are decidedly in the minority, and have been since, well, decades ago.

If you're really "Serious about photography", you'll stop giving a chit about HOW the camera's exposure was arrived at, and start looking at the quality of the fu**ing results.


----------



## unpopular

I don't care in others photography! And I really don't know why you think this about me!

Have I *EVER* criticized a _photo_ for being shot in any one mode over another - like EVER? Have I ever even asked?

I have defended my position and technique with Greybeard because that WAS the topic. And I have offered advice with hilight referencing when the subject was ETTR - because my method DOES WORK, and does work in manual or AE (you should know that) - and frankly, once people stop masturbating over evaluative metering and start realizing that digital isn't all THAT different after all, metering the hilights will be the norm because it simply makes SOUND TECHNICAL sense for the exact same technical reasons that metering the hilights worked for slide film! In fact, fully implemented and calibrated my technique is FAR more accurate than any other because it's gamma independent. So neener neener.

As for the more philosophic points, I hardly ever go into it.

But would I suggest a beginner reference hilights and pull shadows, or even use a spot meter before understanding exposure control - *NEVER.

*The subject here is what's the best way to teach photography, not the best way to shoot photographs, and in my opinion for various reasons already states I believe it's manual. Someone proficient with manual can use AE because they already know how it works. The reverse is not always true. But I'm not some kind of "shoot manual always" elitist.

And what about you, Derrel. You certainly seem to be the first to criticize me as some sort of elitist luddite whenever I even mention in conversation that I prefer manual.


----------



## StoneNYC

I have to disagree entirely, I think P mode gets in the way of creativity, the amateur gets one image that's really great, but by accident, and then cannot repeat that image and get frustrated asking "why, I did it the same as last time" except they were inside instead of outside, so in bright light the auto mode decided it needed to stop down and the Bokah they saw inside is not as strong outside and they can't figure out why..

When I learned photography there was no auto, so you just learned the mechanics before you started, I was 12 and it only took me a few minutes to learn about aperture and shutter speeds.  It's not really all that complicated that you can't explain it in 5 minutes before the user can go out and play...


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1  /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## unpopular

Stone - remember, full-green Auto mode is not the same as Program mode. In program mode, you go through the whole range of shutter/aperture values for a given EV. So there is control there, it's not just "point and click". My problem is more that you're not really thinking about aperture or time when using Program - which I suppose is exactly what the debate is, whether one should be encouraged to think about these things or not early on.

But there's nothing "bad" about program mode. I use it all the time - Sony/Minolta and Pentax cameras go into program mode when you press AEL in manual. It's pretty useful actually.


----------



## PixelRabbit

unpopular said:


> See. And this I just don't understand.
> 
> *For over 100 years people were learning photography, average every day people (in junior high schools) without "program mode". They even had to learn basic film processing and printing, and they did OK - at least as good as the point and clickers in the beginner thread using full auto.
> 
> Are we talking about photography or rocket science??
> *
> Digital has certainly simplified the process and allowed people without darkrooms to make their own prints, democratizing the field, but are you really saying that most beginners are incapable of understanding reciprocity - something countless fourteen year olds in junior highschool classes could at least grasp 35 years ago - even if they never go on to be photographers?
> 
> I kind of doubt that. I kind of doubt that beginners can't figure out how set the meter to null and press "expose".
> 
> This isn't rocket science, but AE sure makes it out that way. You don't have the opportunity to "feel" exposure and intimately understand how aperture, shutter and sensitivity are rational - and so we end up with sesame street books like "Understanding Exposure".



There is more than one way to skin a cat.  We are talking about learning two sides of a whole that uses different parts of the brain. 

What Lew initially presented to us was for us to use the capability of the current technology and approaching this dominantly from the right side of the brain, the creative side, when we start out with camera in hand.  Through the creative process the technical side will be taught when the photograph is offered up for C&C, then you are sitting in a learning setting and can focus just with the left side of your brain. The next time the student picks up the camera they carry forward their technical learning regardless of when in the process they learned it. Seems pretty logical to me.


Most everyone debating in this thread are learned photographers, you all have many years under your belts and each of you got to where you are today in a different way.  You all took responsibility in your learning and it worked for you, with what was available to you at the beginning of your learning. 

None of you seem to be looking at it from a new photographer's perspective and what is available to us today. I'm not saying that traditional learning isn't a valid way to learn, on the contrary, I have tons of respect for it,  I'm certain that many people will read this thread and individual posters will ring true to certain readers, but I go back to my first line, there is more than one way to skin a cat.   It seems to me that everyone is so intent on being "right" that they can't see another means to the same end. 

I think ultimately you all agree that all aspects of photography need to be learned, technical and artistic, giving you a full deck of cards when all is said and done.  Lew shuffled the deck of cards and it would appear ruffled some feathers in the process


----------



## BrianV

I used to be a rocket scientist. In the 1980s. That was after working on digital cameras.

Lots of people learned with Instamatics, Brownies, and Kodak "You push the button, we do the rest" cameras.

I started with a Brownie, went to Instamatic, then 35mm with "Program Mode" in 1969. Now I like to make lenses into Leica mount.




Udvar Hazy, Dec 2012 by putahexanonyou, on Flickr

The satellite that I worked on never got launched, due to the Challenger tragedy. The one my wife worked on got launched, and is in the Air and Space Museum now. They retrieved it. Kind of neat to go downtown and show our daughter "Mommy's satellite". She worked Gamma Rays, I worked Infrared.


----------



## keith foster

PixelRabbit said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> See. And this I just don't understand.
> 
> *For over 100 years people were learning photography, average every day people (in junior high schools) without "program mode". They even had to learn basic film processing and printing, and they did OK - at least as good as the point and clickers in the beginner thread using full auto.
> 
> Are we talking about photography or rocket science??
> *
> Digital has certainly simplified the process and allowed people without darkrooms to make their own prints, democratizing the field, but are you really saying that most beginners are incapable of understanding reciprocity - something countless fourteen year olds in junior highschool classes could at least grasp 35 years ago - even if they never go on to be photographers?
> 
> I kind of doubt that. I kind of doubt that beginners can't figure out how set the meter to null and press "expose".
> 
> This isn't rocket science, but AE sure makes it out that way. You don't have the opportunity to "feel" exposure and intimately understand how aperture, shutter and sensitivity are rational - and so we end up with sesame street books like "Understanding Exposure".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more than one way to skin a cat.  We are talking about learning two sides of a whole that uses different parts of the brain.
> 
> What Lew initially presented to us was for us to use the capability of the current technology and approaching this dominantly from the right side of the brain, the creative side, when we start out with camera in hand.  Through the creative process the technical side will be taught when the photograph is offered up for C&C, then you are sitting in a learning setting and can focus just with the left side of your brain. The next time the student picks up the camera they carry forward their technical learning regardless of when in the process they learned it. Seems pretty logical to me.
> 
> 
> Most everyone debating in this thread are learned photographers, you all have many years under your belts and each of you got to where you are today in a different way.  You all took responsibility in your learning and it worked for you, with what was available to you at the beginning of your learning.
> 
> None of you seem to be looking at it from a new photographer's perspective and what is available to us today. I'm not saying that traditional learning isn't a valid way to learn, on the contrary, I have tons of respect for it,  I'm certain that many people will read this thread and individual posters will ring true to certain readers, but I go back to my first line, there is more than one way to skin a cat.   It seems to me that everyone is so intent on being "right" that they can't see another means to the same end.
> 
> I think ultimately you all agree that all aspects of photography need to be learned, technical and artistic, giving you a full deck of cards when all is said and done.  Lew shuffled the deck of cards and it would appear ruffled some feathers in the process
Click to expand...




Well said.
I think you summed it up very well.  I have to agree I don't really care how someone learns photography as long as they keep learning and don't decide they are ready to shoot weddings before they learn it all.


----------



## BevD

Hi.  I have been hanging around this forum for several months and enjoying reading many old and new posts.  This thread is interesting to me.  Eons ago, in the very early '70s I bought my first camera, a Canon fTB (might not have the caps right on that).  I learned manual and I was getting pretty good with it.  Darn there was no FaceBook then or I might have gone Pro.  But, life brought other interests and responsibilities, my camera had an injury, and it was all put aside for several years.  Later I learned to point and shoot with cheap cameras and forgot most of what I had learned about photography.

I am back, with a Canon T4i now.  What a time I had trying to remember the basics.  Thank goodness for Auto, which I mostly used until I was able to take a photo workshop which refreshed my memory.  I am going to have so much fun with this camera now that Manual has meaning to me again.  Av and Tv are most useful to me right now.  And I love all the bells and whistles.  Wow, white balance and ISO choices for every shot!!  

I am very glad that I learned the basics a long time ago, it's not quite like riding a bike, I did forget, but it does come back.  Well I haven't ridden a bike for 30 years either and I might not be able to do  that right away either.  But lots of people (like a couple of friends of mine who own Canon DSLRs) just shoot Auto and probably will never change.  I am having too much fun to care about how they use their cameras.  Well, maybe it bugs me a bit that they are pro's and have facebook pages, but I just want a hobby anyway.
.


----------



## unpopular

BevD said:


> Wow, *white balance* and ISO choices for every shot!!



kind of. the camera cheats.


----------



## StoneNYC

I guess for me it comes down to, are you choosing to do this or is it all accidental.

You aren't really creating the image you are simply letting the camera tell you the best thing that will make the "best picture" based on whatever it's programmed with.

You don't learn anything by having your values chosen for you.  You can't adjust for mistakes if when you try to correct them the auto function just re-adjusts itself for your change, it is constantly counter balancing you.

If you wanted a point and shoot then just buy that and don't wast your money and just take shots that are framed well.  But if you actually want to learn anything about real photography and understand what the heck you are really doing, then you need to adjust everything manually, with digital it's SO easy to learn because you get instant feedback.

So turn off auto, turn on manual, and learn and read and you'll be much more capable.

I shoot weddings on full manual (both flash and camera settings are all manual. So I'm not just all talk. (I also do more than weddings just giving an example).

Anyway there are many ways todo things, and I agree with that, but there are many ways to skin a cat and putting it under your car tire and spinning the wheel fast is one way to skin a cat, but not really a very efficient way... Just like shooting on P, Av, Tv etc isn't a very efficient way of learning to be a REAL photographer.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic   |   Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## The_Traveler

PixelRabbit said:


> Most everyone debating in this thread are .....photographers, you all have many years under your belts and each of you got to where you are today in a different way. You all took responsibility in your learning and it worked for you, with what was available to you at the beginning of your learning.
> 
> We are talking about learning two sides of a whole that uses different parts of the brain.
> 
> What Lew initially presented to us was for us to use the capability of the current technology and approaching this dominantly from the right side of the brain, the creative side, when we start out with camera in hand.
> 
> Through the creative process the technical side will be taught when the photograph is offered up for C&C, then you are sitting in a learning setting and can focus just with the left side of your brain.
> 
> The next time the student picks up the camera they carry forward their technical learning regardless of when in the process they learned it. Seems pretty logical to me.
> 
> It seems to me that everyone is so intent on being "right" that they can't see another means to the same end.



PixelRabbit said it better than I have.

Teach photography the same way we teach children drawing, allow people to exercise their creativity and then engage their desire to be better. Just as children eventually want to color within the lines, the new photographer will want to make their photographs better.

There seems to be an almost embarrassing tendency for individuals to try and make this about themselves or their technique. I certainly couldn't care less about 'your' technique.
It is this solipsistic desire to reproduce one's own final method that I think is destructive to the creative process and an impediment to new photographers.


----------



## Mike_E

I've known sculptors that wouldn't use a steel hammer, painters that wouldn't use any brush that they didn't make themselves.  A camera is just a tool and newer ones have more gadgets than a Swiss Army knife but they are still just tools.

What hits the floor doesn't matter nor does it matter how what hangs up in the light got there.  The child will stand on it's own, for better or worse, and all that will matter is who or what that child is.

All of the control that existed up to that point is gone and no longer matters so why stress over it?  Do your best with whatever tools you have and then let it go to live it's own life.


----------



## Mully

It is all about seeing and how to get what you see made as an image.  If you let the camera do all your thinking your understanding of what you are doing is not clear.  This raises questions like "why are my photos out of focus" If the mountain is a mile away and you put the lens on infinity it will not be out of focus ( under most conditions) Auto looks at normal ....maybe the image you want is not in the normal range, for a beginner it would be better to choose what they are doing..eg shoot at 4.5 at 1000/sec and change to 60/sec at f16 and see what the relationship is, choosing how the image will look and how you see it, instead of what the camera decides to give you.  Otherwise everything is point and shoot where some cameras you can change lenses.


----------



## pixmedic

I heard "P" was for "Professional"


----------



## unpopular

She's so convincing! LOLz


----------



## Mully

pixmedic said:


> I heard "P" was for "Professional"



Pix this was so great ...I bet even her kids hate her ....Just what the world needs a Photo Yenta  ....I did make it 80% through it


----------



## unpopular

LOL Mully - you didn't actually think she was serious?

"I drop them off at Cosco, and pick them up! Plus, you're supporting a local business, and that's really important"

"I will give you a little tip though ... i had a little incident, with six pounds of leaky ground beef and two portrait orders"


----------



## unpopular

"We're professional photographers, if that means take a mouth full of snail, we do it!"


----------



## Mully

Ya I did   After being on this site I believed her...Great laugh though ...If you ever lived in NYC there are yentas just like her and that is how they talk to there kids.


----------



## unpopular

I wasn't sure, but she seemed like she was acting when she couldn't remember "shutter speed" ... not that I wouldn't expect someone to forget "shutter speed" but it just wasn't as convincing.

Episode 11 is just great though. I was literally LOLing.

If you watch enough, it's pretty clear though she actually knows very much what she's doing, especially when she's criticizing the "old school".


----------



## The_Traveler

Mully said:


> It is all about seeing and how to get what you see made as an image.  If you let the camera do all your thinking your understanding of what you are doing is not clear.  This raises questions like "why are my photos out of focus" If the mountain is a mile away and you put the lens on infinity it will not be out of focus ( under most conditions) Auto looks at normal ....maybe the image you want is not in the normal range, for a beginner it would be better to choose what they are doing..eg shoot at 4.5 at 1000/sec and change to 60/sec at f16 and see what the relationship is, choosing how the image will look and how you see it, instead of what the camera decides to give you.  Otherwise everything is point and shoot where some cameras you can change lenses.


*
My original suggestion was to use the shoot in P or Auto for those new to photography so that they can get hooked into the creative mode and use that excitement of creation to encourage the learning of technical things.*

I'm just not certain why people don't/wan't get that distinction and answer as if I suggested everyone shoot in P or A all the time.
Perhaps I should have this translated into other languages?


----------



## unpopular

Lew. Go do something else.


----------



## thetrue

Lew, I only see that in what I assume is Turkish, I apologize for the inconvenience but could you translate it to Japanese?








Yes, I'm kidding, and believe it or not, I did exactly that. Started in P, went to priority modes, and now to manual when I really want creative control.


----------



## runnah

Yes, unless you don't want to, then no.

Can we move along now?


----------



## skyy38

The_Traveler said:


> There is nothing that is more certain to set off a chicken fight than even hinting to a photographer that the way he/she learned to do things or the way they do things now may not be the absolute best way it can be done.
> 
> The mere expression of a contrary opinion - and maintaining it - just sets people off.



Don't I know it!


----------



## skyy38

The_Traveler said:


> Let go
> 
> Your way doesn't have to be the only right way
> 
> Just make pictures.



Fortunately for me, my way is the best way for me, but my ways were also shaped by learning from others.

In the end, everyone is their own person.

As a member of The Who once said "I'm The Best Keith Moon -Type Drummer That I Know!"


----------



## StoneNYC

I agree everyone learns different, Nita's you said about the creative process, for me it was BECAUSE of manual mode that got me hooked... I was so amazed that I could tell the camera to "see through" the chain link fence and only "see" the lion at the zoo, that never would have happened with a zoom lens and auto settings, it never would have picked f/1.8 at 1/1000 in bright sun, it would have picked f/5.6 at 1/200 or whatever.

Learning manual functions is ESSENTIAL to the creative process... It's like saying learn to paint without brushes and only a white canvas and a stencil pattern. Sure you can pour the paint on and lift the stencil, and there is an image, but you didn't learn anything about painting, the stencil patten was made for you and so was the paint... You learned nothing...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic   |   Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Helen B

I'll go with the 'it depends on the individual' thing. Some of us find that understanding physical things is easy, some find it incredibly difficult, and if they tried to understand too much stuff it would get in their way. That doesn't make them less of a photographer. The growth of one's visual sense / gaze / sense of wonder seems to me to be the most important thing. Technical issues should not hinder that, but neither should they overtake that, although a bit of experimentation with technique is no bad thing along the way. (As unpopular mentioned early on, technical and artistic issues are probably better considered as parts of the whole, not as separate departments - that concept of separation seems to have a negative effect.)

Although I consider complete technical mastery and continuous learning as being an important aim to me as a professional photographer and cinematographer (I should never be hindered by lack of understanding, nor burdened by overweight technicalities, if possible) it doesn't seem necessary - I know a couple of very well-considered and very highly paid, in demand, photographers who rely on their assistants and digital techs for all the technical stuff, and one who can't even focus for himself. It's all front. Well, not all.

Re-reading all that makes me feel awfully pompous. Horrible. Hate that, but it's the best I can do with these damned things called words in a reasonable time. Let down by technical inability, I guess.


----------



## ann

Started reading this thread early on and considered making some remarks (can't remember why I didn't). Have come back as I saw Helen has chimed in and I always read her remarks.

Anyway, I haven't gone back and read 14 pages so please forgive me if i am going to repeat someone else.

I grew up and spent 64 years using manual mode. In the past few years, with the equipment getting better, I have decided, do what ever is going to get the job done.

I still manual meter over 90% of the time, but if Program , or even that green box is going to give me a better chance , I am going to flip that switch in a heart beat.


----------



## unpopular

The_Traveler said:


> Let go
> 
> Your way doesn't have to be the only right way
> 
> Just make pictures.



Am I the only one that sees the irony in this? Why is it that whenever the AE proponents meet resistance by the MF crowed, we're the one who's being snobby? Isn't Lew here the one saying people should learn AE first - how is that any more "your way doesn't have to be the right way" position than people saying the same thing but with manual mode first?

There's this snobbery perception about people who advocate manual mode, but honestly, I get more snobbery from the AE crowed, insinuating we're a bunch of luddite elitists who resists technology to seem superior to everyone else - by virtue of nothing more than a preference to manual mode or a belief that people ought to learn it, over AE, first.

For me anyway, this couldn't be further from the truth, and anyone who actually understands either manual or auto, those who actually understand EXPOSURE and not just dials alone (in either mode), knows how absolutely ridiculous such "mode elitism" actually is, since AE isn't really _doing_ anything substantial and doesn't protect a photographer - regardless of skill level - from understanding exposure, a concept I don't think most people either understand, or care to go into.

In fact, Auto and Manual exposure aren't different at all. I repeat NOT AT ALL. They're doing the same thing, the difference is in automation and automation alone. I get the feeling that this is the same argument both for learning with AE as well as that I am making against.

But please, don't propose one thing and then accuse anyone who disagrees of feeling superior with this "your way doesn't have to be the only way" line. Because when you do, it only makes you look like a black kettle.


----------



## Derrel

I'm actually in the market for an attractive luddite elitist with her own camera gear and lenses...


----------



## unpopular

is this a sexual thing?


----------



## Demers18

unpopular said:
			
		

> is this a sexual thing?



I think it's along the lines of S&M


----------



## unpopular

so would that make Derrel submissive? Or does he want to whip the manual exposure out of her?


----------



## Derrel

unpopular said:


> so would that make Derrel submissive? Or does he want to whip the manual exposure out of her?



Hmmmm...."Now, remember, the safe word phrase is '*Shiftable Program Override*'!"


----------



## unpopular

And what if she shoots Canon??? Or are you not into mixed platform relationships?


----------



## Derrel

unpopular said:


> And what if she shoots Canon??? Or are you not into mixed platform relationships?



Dude...I have a Canon system...and a Nikon system...and a Bronica system...and some M42 lenses too!!! And 17 F-mount to Canon adapters...

Now, interestingly, I normally shoot the adapted lenses on the Canon in Av automatic mode...that works well for me when using either F-mount, Olympus, or m42 thread mount lenses on my Canon 5D...

This week, I went to the seashore and made 674 pictures. ALL of them,every single one, was shot in Aperture Priority automatic with a Nikon, using a 70-200/2.8 zoom, and Matrix metering, with ISO values of 100,200,250,400, a handful at 800, a handful at ISO 1,600 after the sun had set. I used +.7 exposure compensation in some extreme backlighting against the sunset and ocean surf.

And...you know what??? Using Aperture Priority auto, my Nikon pounded out 674 good exposures. Easy-peasy Lightroom processing. Only minimal effort needed. Damned near perfect exposures. I was free to aim, compose, and shoot. I barely chimp at all these days because my close-up vision SUCKS with my shooting glasses on my face, and the viewfinder image's apparent distance is around six feet (trust me, it's not a close-up distance..it's about six feet!), so *I can't see chit* on the back of the camera any more unless I take my glasses off, so...I don't chimp much at all...I mean, it does me no good...

I WAS going to try some Program shooting, but just shot every single frame for eight hours in Aperture Priority. And damnit...the exposures the Nikon Matrix cranked out were very consistent, and the results were, in my opinion, basically excellent...from 10 AM until about 45 minutes after the sun had set.


----------



## Buckster

Derrel said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what if she shoots Canon??? Or are you not into mixed platform relationships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...I have a Canon system...and a Nikon system...and a Bronica system...and some M42 lenses too!!! And 17 F-mount to Canon adapters...
> 
> Now, interestingly, I normally shoot the adapted lenses on the Canon in Av automatic mode...that works well for me when using either F-mount, Olympus, or m42 thread mount lenses on my Canon 5D...
Click to expand...


----------



## unpopular

Derrel said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what if she shoots Canon??? Or are you not into mixed platform relationships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...I have a Canon system...and a Nikon system...and a Bronica system...and some M42 lenses too!!! And 17 F-mount to Canon adapters...
> 
> Now, interestingly, I normally shoot the adapted lenses on the Canon in Av automatic mode...that works well for me when using either F-mount, Olympus, or m42 thread mount lenses on my Canon 5D...
> 
> This week, I went to the seashore and made 674 pictures. ALL of them,every single one, was shot in Aperture Priority automatic with a Nikon, using a 70-200/2.8 zoom, and Matrix metering, with ISO values of 100,200,250,400, a handful at 800, a handful at ISO 1,600 after the sun had set. I used +.7 exposure compensation in some extreme backlighting against the sunset and ocean surf.
> 
> And...you know what??? Using Aperture Priority auto, my Nikon pounded out 674 good exposures. Easy-peasy Lightroom processing. Only minimal effort needed. Damned near perfect exposures. I was free to aim, compose, and shoot. I barely chimp at all these days because my close-up vision SUCKS with my shooting glasses on my face, and the viewfinder image's apparent distance is around six feet (trust me, it's not a close-up distance..it's about six feet!), so *I can't see chit* on the back of the camera any more unless I take my glasses off, so...I don't chimp much at all...I mean, it does me no good...
Click to expand...


drrrp.

well except Bronica. which deserves a really big *DERRRRRRP *:mrgreen:



> I WAS going to try some Program shooting, but just shot every single frame for eight hours in Aperture Priority. And damnit...the exposures the Nikon Matrix cranked out were very consistent, and the results were, in my opinion, basically excellent...from 10 AM until about 45 minutes after the sun had set.



Program mode is pretty cool actually, once I figured out what it was and that I use it all the time. Like I said, on a Minolta/Sony and [newer?] Pentax camera, if you press the AEL button it locks the EV value and translates the exposure equivalently. I think program mode definitely gets a bad wrap, and Pentax even has some snazzy sounding name for this feature that doesn't inclue the word "program" in is, despite that this is exactly what it's doing.

"Program Mode" makes it sound like it's more "artificially intelligent" than it is.


----------



## StoneNYC

Darlene might have proved my point, they might have all been exposed correctly, but how many will you ever use? How many are composed and exposed so well that that they are salable? Learning about and not using P mode is more than just about the exposure, it's about slowing down and getting a usable shot... 600 photos! Geeze, heck at a wedding I only shoot double that many, at a wedding! And even that I'm trying to cut down.. Too much clutter to get to the good stuff 


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic   |   Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TeeVex

The_Traveler said:


> As I think more about the ways to  get comfortable first with one's ability to see images and second with the technical ability to achieve them, I begin to think that this overwhelming disdain for shooting in 'P' actually hurts the development of good photographers more than it helps. By 'good' I mean people who are creative and even, perish the thought, artistic.
> 
> When we encourage children to dance and jump around to be expressive, we as parents and teachers, don't tell them it would be much better if they used the traditional balletic movements and positions because we know intuitively that huge obstacle would stifle not only their creativity but take away much of the spontaneous joy that is achieved from that expression.
> 
> The prime 'purpose' of (my kind of) photography is the visualization and the rendition of something meaningful, sometimes even beautiful.  The ability to do that depends primarily on the ability to see that meaningfulness and then secondarily to learn to capture it. I don't need to be a great technician, I need only to be good enough to do what I want.
> 
> The emphasis that we read so often here is on the mechanical.  This is what to do, this is the best way to do it and if it isn't what you like, run get a flash.
> That's mechanics, that's not photography. And so we get an enormous volume of stuff, pictures that look essentially the same, and boring. Everyone cares about the f stop, the lens, the lighting - and they see that as the key. And so they turn from making images to running a camera and accessories.
> 
> Read any forum here and the questions and concerns, even those involving actual images, are primarily about equipment and technique and f stops and lighting. This all to photographers who haven't even begun to be able to see even the technical inadequacies in their own images and correct them let alone the artistic ones.
> 
> So, if anyone asks me what to do, and they are serious about learning to create then maybe I will tell them just to shoot on P for a while and then we'll talk about their images. When they want to learn to control what their camera does in order to make the image better then its time to talk about the other issues.
> 
> Let's not make everyone learn to build and fix a car before they can go for a ride in the country.


Sooooooo helpful and very wise, thank you for this.


----------



## Bebulamar

I don't use the P mode just because it's more difficult to use than M mode. Certainly I always pick the easiest way to achieve what I want.


----------

