# Stops



## SabrinaO (Jun 28, 2011)

I know what f/stops are... but what are people referring to when they say they are going to underexpose ambient light by a stop? Or when someone says they need a stop of more light?


----------



## Patrice (Jun 28, 2011)

1 stop more means twice as much light: either reduce shutter speed by half (ex. 1/250 to 1/125) or increase aperture by one f stop (ex from f/4 to f/2.8).

1 stop less is the reverse.

The same can be accomplished by either increasing ISO to twice it's current value or decreasing it to 1/2 it's current value.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 28, 2011)

A "stop" is simply the de facto unit for exposure.  It's nothing more than a doubling or halving of the value.  Aperture, shutter-speed and ISO are all commonly expressed in stops.  A change from 1/125 to 1/250 is a change in shutter-speed of 1 stop.  Needing one stop more light would be the opposite, say a change from 1/1000 to 1/500 of a second, or from f8 to f5.6, or even ISO 400 to ISO 200.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 28, 2011)

tirediron said:


> A "stop" is simply the de facto unit for exposure.  It's nothing more than a doubling or halving of the value.  Aperture, shutter-speed and ISO are all commonly expressed in stops.  A change from 1/125 to 1/250 is a change in shutter-speed of 1 stop.  Needing one stop more light would be the opposite, say a change from 1/1000 to 1/500 of a second, or from f8 to f5.6, or even ISO 400 to ISO 200.



Good to know.  I've always thought it's the aperture opening and didn't realize it's the exposure rating.


----------



## SabrinaO (Jun 28, 2011)

tirediron said:


> *A "stop" is simply the de facto unit for exposure*.  It's nothing more than a doubling or halving of the value.  Aperture, shutter-speed and ISO are all commonly expressed in stops.  A change from 1/125 to 1/250 is a change in shutter-speed of 1 stop.  Needing one stop more light would be the opposite, say a change from 1/1000 to 1/500 of a second, or from f8 to f5.6, or even ISO 400 to ISO 200.




Thank you! So when people say they are going to underexpose by a stop... they could mean they can do it by either aperture, ISO or shutterspeed... ?


----------



## ann (Jun 28, 2011)

correct.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 28, 2011)

This should be one of the first things a beginners learns after buying a camera, it's the first thing they teach at college


----------



## tirediron (Jun 28, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> ...when people say they are going to underexpose by a stop... they could mean they can do it by either aperture, ISO or shutterspeed... ?



it can also mean increasing or decreasing light through the use of strobes or other light sources as well.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > *A "stop" is simply the de facto unit for exposure*.  It's nothing more than a doubling or halving of the value.  Aperture, shutter-speed and ISO are all commonly expressed in stops.  A change from 1/125 to 1/250 is a change in shutter-speed of 1 stop.  Needing one stop more light would be the opposite, say a change from 1/1000 to 1/500 of a second, or from f8 to f5.6, or even ISO 400 to ISO 200.
> ...



If a person wanted to, or needed to, a one-stop underexposure could be accomplished by lowering the ISO 1/3 of a stop, by speeding the shutter up 1/3 of a value, and by closing the lens down 1/3 of an f/stop.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 28, 2011)

Derrel said:


> If a person wanted to, or needed to, a one-stop underexposure could be accomplished by lowering the ISO 1/3 of a stop, by speeding the shutter up 1/3 of a value, and by closing the lens down 1/3 of an f/stop.



That's tooooo complicated!


----------



## clanthar (Jun 28, 2011)

gsgary said:


> This should be one of the first things a beginners learns after buying a camera, it's the first thing they teach at college



Yep, first thing I teach.

And now to make this more fun:
How many stops in a photographic print?
How many stops in a landscape? Sunny day? Overcast day? Backlit?
How many stops can your camera capture? RAW? JPEG? FILM?
Can your camera capture all the stops in the scene? What if it can't?
How many stops on your display? LCD? CRT? Laptop?
Is the range of stops on your display the same as the range of stops in a print?
Is the range of stops your camera captures the same as the range of stops in a print?
Is the range of stops in a print more, less or the same as the range of stops in a scene?
What if the scene has more stops than the print can hold?
What if the scene has less stops than the print can hold?
What if all of the above are different?

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2011)

Sabrina,
   One of the nicer things about digital SLR photography is when using FLASH of all types is that with a d-slr camera, the user can easily and quickly adjust the camera's ISO settings downward or upward to in effect, add or subtract exposure, as a way to fine-tune the image exposure. If for example, you are using a manually adjusted flash system, either speedlights or monolights or box-and-cable, and you have the flash set to let's say its highest power output, and the exposures are too dark, the ISO in use can be raised by 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop. Normally, cameras must be re-set from factory default of 1/3 stop exposure adjustment to the option of 1/2 stop adjustment increments, so if a 1/2 stop adjustment is needed, that usually needs to be done by setting one of the camera's custom function setting to the 1/2 stop option.

  In doing outdoor fill-flash work using OFF-camera, NON-dedicated flash units, one way to get fill-in flash that is lower in power than the "daylight" exposure is to set the ISO on the flash units HIGHER than the ISO the camera is set to, beginning around a two-stop difference. So, for example, if the camera is set to an ISO 100 exposure, the off-camera flash (or on-camera but NON-dedicated or "dumb" flash) unit would be set to say, ISO 400, if it is at the same distance from the subject as the camera is. If the flash is a bit farther back, or zoomed to a wide-angle beam spread, the two-stop difference between camera at 100 ISO and flash at 400 ISO will result in an effectively LESSER flash output of from 2 and 3/4 to 3 or 3 and a half stops less flash than the daylight exposure, which will be about right for many types of very subtle outdoor fill-flash that will maximize dynamic range, and not look overly-flashed.


----------



## SabrinaO (Jun 28, 2011)

THIS is what I wanted to know. I read it some places and its just not clear on what exactly they are stopping down. So its all three components....


----------



## SabrinaO (Jun 28, 2011)

clanthar said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > This should be one of the first things a beginners learns after buying a camera, it's the first thing they teach at college
> ...



I never went to school. But I want to learn. 

Are you being sarcastic in all this lol?

ETA: Finished reading it all..lol. Why did i even ask?


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> THIS is what I wanted to know. I read it some places and its just not clear on what exactly they are stopping down. So its all three components....



Well, yes and no Sabrina. When a person says, "try stopping the lens down," or "you need to stop down more", or "try stopping down more next time", that is referring to the LENS aperture. "Stopping down" the lens means closing the lens diaphragm "down", from a wide aperture like f/2.8, to a narrower, smaller aperture, like f/5.6 or f/8, for example. "Stopping way down" would be closing the lens diaphragm down quite significantly, to say, f/16 or f/22 with a conventional lens; on a view camera lens, stopping "way down" is usually in the f/64 to f/256 range. The opposite is "opening up" the aperture, and shifting from a small, narrow aperture, to a wide, big, light-admitting aperture.

The shutter's adjustments are usually referred to as "slowing down" or "speeding up" the shutter. A full Exposure Value shift, such as from 1/60 to 1/125 second is often called a "one-stop" adjustment, and the term "Full Step adjustment is also pretty common."

ISO adjustment is usually referred to as "lowering the ISO" or "dropping the ISO" when going from say ISO 800 to 100,etc. When adjusting the ISO the other way, we say "raising the ISO" or "boosting the ISO".


----------



## clanthar (Jun 28, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> clanthar said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Not being sarcastic at all; those are some of the really critical questions. For example a photographic print has a range in "real" stops (darkest ink made on whitest possible paper) of less than 5 stops -- barely 4.5. The range of tone black to white in a sunny day landscape can be 10 stops. Can our cameras capture 10 stops? If they can, how do we stuff 10 stops of tone onto the print? Clearly we can't -- what happens?

In the transfer process from input (landscape, portrait, sports action, etc.) through camera, computer display, software, printer, to output print those stops are being passed through from one mismatched medium to another. Success results from an informed ability to manipulate that process. And making that process more manageable is the application of a consistent unit of measure which you brought up: the stop. You have your hand on the key and the key is in the door.

Sorry, I'm sounding like a teacher. There's a book to write to answer those questions. Many of the pitfalls you see folks encounter in photography have to do with the answers to those questions.

Joe


----------



## clanthar (Jun 28, 2011)

Maybe a little history to help with the term:

Way back in the mid 19th century lenses didn't have adjustable irises. They had a slot cut into the middle of the lens and variable apertures were achieved by sliding metal plates into the slot. Different plates had different size holes in them and those plates were called lens stops. They stopped a portion of the light. Those evolved into adjustable f/stops -- a mechanical iris in the lens. Then the term stop took on it's additional meaning; the factor of change x2.

Quickly (by early 20th century) photographers caught on to the advantage of having a uniform unit of measure and the term stop was applied across the board not only to the controls of the camera but to the lighting of a scene and work in the darkroom. When students used to bring me prints from the darkroom I'd always give guidance in stops; "make it 1/3 stop darker," They'd say, "I made it for 12 sec. how much more?" And I'd force them to do the math to come up with 4 sec. more, and I'd insist on always talking in stops.

The advantage of a single measurement unit can't be overstated. What good is it to you to walk into XMart and have the sales person tell you an LCD display has a contrast ratio of 500,000 to 1? How many stops is that?

Joe


----------



## SabrinaO (Jun 28, 2011)

clanthar said:


> Maybe a little history to help with the term:
> 
> Way back in the mid 19th century lenses didn't have adjustable irises. They had a slot cut into the middle of the lens and variable apertures were achieved by sliding metal plates into the slot. Different plates had different size holes in them and those plates were called lens stops. They stopped a portion of the light. Those evolved into adjustable f/stops -- a mechanical iris in the lens. Then the term stop took on it's additional meaning; the factor of change x2.
> 
> ...




- oh im sorry. You were still talking?....


----------



## clanthar (Jun 28, 2011)

Just had that second thought -- I'm finished.

Joe


----------



## SabrinaO (Jun 28, 2011)

Derrel said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Just so i'm 100% clear... when someone needs to underexpose a stop, are they doing just one of these examples or all??
 ex. Lower the ISO a stop + speed up the shutter a value a stop + close down the lens a stop = underexposing a stop.


----------



## SabrinaO (Jun 28, 2011)

clanthar said:


> Just had that second thought -- I'm finished.
> 
> Joe



im still trying to figure out if you are being serious...lol


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 28, 2011)

Just to try and help you understand more, when you are in your semi-auto modes ( like Av and Tv mode on Canon, and uhhh I think S and A?? modes on Nikon??? ) if you are in lets say Shutter Priority, if you adjust the exposure comp for an underexposure, the camera will stop down the lens because it knows you want the shutter speed to be what you chose. If in Aperture priority mode, it will speed up the shutter. Both would be done by "Underexposing" on the exposure comp wheel, but would be achieved by different settings.


----------



## SabrinaO (Jun 28, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Just to try and help you understand more, when you are in your semi-auto modes ( like Av and Tv mode on Canon, and uhhh I think S and A?? modes on Nikon??? ) if you are in lets say Shutter Priority, if you adjust the exposure comp for an underexposure, the camera will stop down the lens because it knows you want the shutter speed to be what you chose. If in Aperture priority mode, it will speed up the shutter. Both would be done by "Underexposing" on the exposure comp wheel, but would be achieved by different settings.



I shoot 100% manual. So to stop down an exposure, would I need to underexpose all three? (ISO, Shutter, Aperture)


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 28, 2011)

To underexpose you could use any specific one or a combination ( which is what Derrel was trying to illustrate ) If your ISO needed to be at 800 for proper exposure at 1/1000th and f/5.6 ( lets say you were shooting some fast action but wanted to get some background in the DOF but wanted it slightly blurred ) Therefore you wouldn't want to stop down the lens cause you might lose that slight Bokeh you liked, so you could either up the shutter speed ( since you are trying to freeze action anyway ) or lower the ISO from 800 to 400 ( which would get you less noise, although underexposed areas are prone to more noise, so it may not matter much )


----------



## clanthar (Jun 28, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> clanthar said:
> 
> 
> > Just had that second thought -- I'm finished.
> ...



I'm serious -- no sarcasm, no joke.


----------



## clanthar (Jun 28, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Just to try and help you understand more, when you are in your semi-auto modes ( like Av and Tv mode on Canon, and uhhh I think S and A?? modes on Nikon??? ) if you are in lets say Shutter Priority, if you adjust the exposure comp for an underexposure, the camera will stop down the lens because it knows you want the shutter speed to be what you chose. If in Aperture priority mode, it will speed up the shutter. Both would be done by "Underexposing" on the exposure comp wheel, but would be achieved by different settings.
> ...



If you're shooting in manual then you're probably adjusting either shutter speed, f/stop or ISO until the meter zeros. Your camera meter is likely marked off in 1/3 stop increments with zero in the middle. Each mark up or down from zero is 1/3 stop -- three marks and you're at 1 stop under or over. To underexpose 1 stop adjust any one or all three controls (shutter, f/stop, ISO) until the meter indicates -1. To overexpose 1 stop do the same until the meter indicates +1. 1 stop more is twice the amount of light and 1 stop less is 1/2 the amount of light from what your camera meter has determined is correct exposure.

Why would you do it? Under what circumstance would you override your camera's meter and take a photo that is -1 stop underexposed or +1 stop overexposed? If you have good reason to select an exposure that is -1 in conflict with the camera's meter then isn't that the correct exposure and wasn't the camera overexposing 1 stop and you corrected the camera's error?

Joe (I'm serious)

P.S. Are you using the camera's internal meter? If you're shooting in full manual mode then you're using external strobes? I believe Derrel noted earlier that strobes can also be adjusted to vary the exposure, but in that case how are you determining exposure? Are you using an external light meter?


----------



## TexasAggie07 (Jun 28, 2011)

Thanks for all the explanations and history! Great stuff!


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 28, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Well, yes and no Sabrina. When a person says, "try stopping the lens down," or "you need to stop down more", or "try stopping down more next time", that is referring to the LENS aperture. "Stopping down" the lens means closing the lens diaphragm "down", from a wide aperture like f/2.8, to a narrower, smaller aperture, like f/5.6 or f/8, for example. "Stopping way down" would be closing the lens diaphragm down quite significantly, to say, f/16 or f/22 with a conventional lens; on a view camera lens, stopping "way down" is usually in the f/64 to f/256 range. The opposite is "opening up" the aperture, and shifting from a small, narrow aperture, to a wide, big, light-admitting aperture.



This is my understanding of the term "stopping down" also.  Unless specifically mention ISO or shutter speed, "stopping down" means reducing the size of the aperture.


----------



## clanthar (Jun 28, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Well, yes and no Sabrina. When a person says, "try stopping the lens down," or "you need to stop down more", or "try stopping down more next time", that is referring to the LENS aperture. "Stopping down" the lens means closing the lens diaphragm "down", from a wide aperture like f/2.8, to a narrower, smaller aperture, like f/5.6 or f/8, for example. "Stopping way down" would be closing the lens diaphragm down quite significantly, to say, f/16 or f/22 with a conventional lens; on a view camera lens, stopping "way down" is usually in the f/64 to f/256 range. The opposite is "opening up" the aperture, and shifting from a small, narrow aperture, to a wide, big, light-admitting aperture.
> ...



Yes, but the original question was: "I know what f/stops are... but what are people referring to when they  say they are going to underexpose ambient light by a stop? Or when  someone says they need a stop of more light?"

In which case a stop is a unit of measure used by photographers -- factor 2. F/stops and a stop are related terms. Stopping down the lens from f/8 to f/11 reduces the amount of light by 1 stop. The light volume is halved. Decreasing the shutter speed from 1/60 sec. to 1/30 sec. increases the exposure by 1 stop. The light volume is doubled. Determining correct exposure (shutter and f/stop) for ISO 400 and then making that exposure with the ISO set to 200 overexposes by 1 stop.

F/stop and stop are related, but not the same. All measurement of light and exposure in photography should be done in stop increments. We have a standard unit of measurement that allows us to manage what we do. We measure light in stops.

Joe


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 28, 2011)

clanthar said:


> Yes, but the original question was: "I know what f/stops are... but what are people referring to when they  say they are going to underexpose ambient light by a stop? Or when  someone says they need a stop of more light?"



Well I wasn't disagreeing with the explanation of a stop unit.  I was just saying that Derrel's stopping down is exactly my understanding of that term.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 29, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Just to try and help you understand more, when you are in your semi-auto modes ( like Av and Tv mode on Canon, and uhhh I think S and A?? modes on Nikon??? ) if you are in lets say Shutter Priority, if you adjust the exposure comp for an underexposure, the camera will stop down the lens because it knows you want the shutter speed to be what you chose. If in Aperture priority mode, it will speed up the shutter. Both would be done by "Underexposing" on the exposure comp wheel, but would be achieved by different settings.
> ...



Since I think it was me who said to underexpose ambient by about a stop and let the flash pull the subject up to the proper exposure level, I figured I would chime in, even though you have already gotten some excellent answers.

Since I was talking about using flash, it kind of changes the answers, but not all that much.  If I have a powerful enough flash, I will pretty much always shoot at base ISO(the lowest native ISO the camera has available), so I will discard that one for now.  Now, we have aperture and shutter speed left.  Since aperture effects flash power and ambient, it's not the best thing to use as a control.  So, my preference for underexposing the background or ambient lighting would be to use shutter speed.  Now, if I can't increase my shutter speed because of flash sync(basically a limit where your shutter speed is so fast that one part of the shutter is closing before the other is fully open, therefore the flash exposure doesn't reach the entire sensor causing a black line across the frame) then I have to go back to ISO or aperture.  Since I am already at my lowest ISO, I will 'stop down' my aperture until 1/200th of a second(my sync speed) is underexposing the subject.  So, now, we'll say I'm at ISO 200, 1/200th of a second shutter speed, f/8 for my aperture, and my subject is underexposed by about a stop.  Now, I will add the flash to bring my subject up to the proper exposure level.

So, it's not a matter of 'underexposing all three'.  It's more a matter of coordinating all three settings, plus a flash, to achieve your desired results.  Since often changing one thing will impact another part of your shot, it's important to know how they interact and when to use what to achieve the results you want.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 29, 2011)

A "stop" in modern American English means ONE FULL "value" on the Exposure Value scales for lens aperture; for shutter speed; and for film ISO or for Digital Sensor Gain:

Examples of FULL lens aperture values or f/stops are: f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32, f/64, f/128, f/256.    (13 discrete FULL f/stops)

Examples of full shutter speed times: 1/4000, 1/2000, 1/1000, 1/500, 1/250, 1/125, 1/60, 1/30, 1/15, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1 second.   (13 discrete shutter speed values, each one FULL 'stop' different)

Examples of Full ISO values: 51,200; 25,600, 12,800; 6,400; 3,200; 1,600, 800, 400,200, 100, 50, 25, 12.                         (13 different ISO values or Digital Gain values, listed in Full-stop differences)


----------



## Helen B (Jun 29, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Examples of FULL lens aperture values or f/stops are: f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32, f/64, f/128, f/256.    (13 discrete FULL f/stops)



I'm sure it's just an oversight because I know that you know this, but you missed f/45, f/90 etc - you switched to two-stop changes after f/32.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Derrel (Jun 29, 2011)

Helen B said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Examples of FULL lens aperture values or f/stops are: f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32, f/64, f/128, f/256.    (13 discrete FULL f/stops)
> ...



Thanks Helen,
 NO, it's not an oversight...I'd simply been drinking wine much of the evening and I was, well, pretty well hammered...but thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt!!!!


----------



## gsgary (Jun 29, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > SabrinaO said:
> ...




If you did all 3 you would be 3 stops under, it's very simple


----------



## gsgary (Jun 29, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Just to try and help you understand more, when you are in your semi-auto modes ( like Av and Tv mode on Canon, and uhhh I think S and A?? modes on Nikon??? ) if you are in lets say Shutter Priority, if you adjust the exposure comp for an underexposure, the camera will stop down the lens because it knows you want the shutter speed to be what you chose. If in Aperture priority mode, it will speed up the shutter. Both would be done by "Underexposing" on the exposure comp wheel, but would be achieved by different settings.
> ...




You need to go on a photography coarse as soon as possible


----------



## gsgary (Jun 29, 2011)

I love it when Sabrina posts, we never get less than 4 pages


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 29, 2011)

tirediron said:


> A "stop" is simply the de facto unit for exposure.  It's nothing more than a doubling or halving of the value.  Aperture, shutter-speed and ISO are all commonly expressed in stops.  A change from 1/125 to 1/250 is a change in shutter-speed of 1 stop.  Needing one stop more light would be the opposite, say a change from 1/1000 to 1/500 of a second, or from f8 to f5.6, or even ISO 400 to ISO 200.




Not to split hairs or "call you out" so to speak, but rather to cement my understanding of ISO, above you suggest adjusting ISO from 400 to 200 to get "one stop more of light."  Wouldn't you change the ISO from 400 to *800*to get one more stop of light?

Please clarify.  Thanks.


----------



## Overread (Jun 29, 2011)

gsgary said:


> I love it when Sabrina posts, we never get less than 4 pages



I just get jealous - she always gets way more and way better replies than I ever did 

you guys just like her too darn much!


----------



## Derrel (Jun 29, 2011)

Could SabrinaO be our forum's next erose????


----------



## tirediron (Jun 29, 2011)

jwbryson1 said:


> Wouldn't you change the ISO from 400 to *800*to get one more stop of light?
> 
> Please clarify. Thanks.


Oops; my mistake.  Thanks for pointing that out.  Changing from 400 to 800 would indeed give you the equivalent of one stop more light.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 29, 2011)

I have a question, sort of off topic, but I think that it begs to be asked. Unless you are shooting with strobes, what is your purpose for shooting full manual? If you are using the cameras light meter and adjusting until it says you have a "proper exposure," it kind of defeats the purpose of running full manual. If you were shooting in semi auto modes, it would make it a little easier to decide which element you would adjust in order to underexpose. ( As explained in my earlier post )


----------



## Compaq (Jun 29, 2011)

If you want to stop down your exposure (I'll interpret that as underexposing, measured in stops), that does not imply stopping down on the entire exposure triangle. Let's say that you have

f/8
1/200th
ISO 200

One stop less light could be accomplished by

f/11
I/200th
ISO 200

f/8
1/400th
ISO 200

f/8
1/200th
ISO 100

Get it? When "counting stops", it's all about halving one thing and double the other. When in manual, you set your ISO and then, for example, your needed aperture (DOP). You then scroll until you get that dot in the middle of the thing you're metering off = "correct exposure". To underexposure the image, simply choose a shutter speed a bit faster than what your camera says to be "correct". Example:

your camera says 1/125th of a second, but you want to underexposure by two stops (perhaps you're taking a sunset shot), you scroll your dot thingy until you've got a shutter soeed of 1/30th of a second = two stops less light = four times less light than 1/125th.

Once you get that "AHHHHHHHH, I GET IT NOOOOW, OFC!!!", everything falls into place. Well, not everything, but quite much.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 29, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Unless you are shooting with strobes, what is your purpose for shooting full manual?



I'm also curious to why as well.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 29, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> I have a question, sort of off topic, but I think that it begs to be asked. Unless you are shooting with strobes, what is your purpose for shooting full manual? If you are using the cameras light meter and adjusting until it says you have a "proper exposure," it kind of defeats the purpose of running full manual. If you were shooting in semi auto modes, it would make it a little easier to decide which element you would adjust in order to underexpose. ( As explained in my earlier post )



Why would anybody use the camera meter and then adjust their shutter speed/aperture/iso to zero out the camera meter?  I agree that would defeat the purpose of shooting in manual, but then again, you would very rarely want your camera meter to be zeroed out when you are using flash.  

I guess if you want to readjust your exposure compensation every time you change the framing or a different subject with a different color shirt on is the frame, you could accomplish the same thing in one of the automated modes, but that would be a pain in the neck.  

Much easier to just shoot in manual.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 29, 2011)

Times for shooting in Manual exposure mode: doing panoramas or other multi-shot sequences when you want identical exposures across a sequence. Times when using spot metering or very narrow, highly center-weighted metering patterns, so that the subject can be metered and the PROPER exposure set, and then photography can be done, safe in the knowledge that oddball background or foreground objects will no improperly influence the meter readings. In situations where the camera will be following a moving subject that will pass in front of backgrounds of widely varying lighting, such as at racetracks and stadiums, where the BACKGROUND will often be very dark in the middle of the field/pitch/track due to a covered stadium, but where the background will be quite bright at the ends of the field/pitch/track. This is pretty common at track and field stadiums and American football stadiums at many high schools and smaller colleges, where a grandstand with a covered roof extends from the 20 to 20 yard line, but the end zone areas are open. Same thing at smaller horse tracks and rodeo grounds, country fair arenas,etc,etc. When photographing very light-colored subjects or very dark-colored subjects in front of predominantly opposite-toned backgrounds, using Manual exposure mode is actually quite easy. Using manual mode makes sense when you absolutely MUST HAVE a fairly narrow range of speed and aperture settings in order to stop motion and or to make the exposure: with a 300/2.8 late in the afternoon, as the light drops you might be at 1/640 second, which will be "marginal" for motion-stopping with such a long lens, on many action events. At those times, the only thing you can do is KEEP the shutter speed at 1/640 and start raising the ISO setting on the camera as the light gets worse and worse and worse. Minor league baseball and high school track and field in the months of March and April come to mind...lighting for both is often rather marginal, moving to sucky as the day wears on. There are many other scenarios where a manually-set exposure is preferable to one that the camera's light meter determines.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 29, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question, sort of off topic, but I think that it begs to be asked. Unless you are shooting with strobes, what is your purpose for shooting full manual? If you are using the cameras light meter and adjusting until it says you have a "proper exposure," it kind of defeats the purpose of running full manual. If you were shooting in semi auto modes, it would make it a little easier to decide which element you would adjust in order to underexpose. ( As explained in my earlier post )
> ...


 Thats why I said UNLESS YOU ARE SHOOTING WITH STROBES. Not sure if you are agreeing or arguing.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 29, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Times for shooting in Manual exposure mode: doing panoramas or other multi-shot sequences when you want identical exposures across a sequence. Times when using spot metering or very narrow, highly center-weighted metering patterns, so that the subject can be metered and the PROPER exposure set, and then photography can be done, safe in the knowledge that oddball background or foreground objects will no improperly influence the meter readings. In situations where the camera will be following a moving subject that will pass in front of backgrounds of widely varying lighting, such as at racetracks and stadiums, where the BACKGROUND will often be very dark in the middle of the field/pitch/track due to a covered stadium, but where the background will be quite bright at the ends of the field/pitch/track. This is pretty common at track and field stadiums and American football stadiums at many high schools and smaller colleges, where a grandstand with a covered roof extends from the 20 to 20 yard line, but the end zone areas are open. Same thing at smaller horse tracks and rodeo grounds, country fair arenas,etc,etc. When photographing very light-colored subjects or very dark-colored subjects in front of predominantly opposite-toned backgrounds, using Manual exposure mode is actually quite easy. Using manual mode makes sense when you absolutely MUST HAVE a fairly narrow range of speed and aperture settings in order to stop motion and or to make the exposure: with a 300/2.8 late in the afternoon, as the light drops you might be at 1/640 second, which will be "marginal" for motion-stopping with such a long lens, on many action events. At those times, the only thing you can do is KEEP the shutter speed at 1/640 and start raising the ISO setting on the camera as the light gets worse and worse and worse. Minor league baseball and high school track and field in the months of March and April come to mind...lighting for both is often rather marginal, moving to sucky as the day wears on. There are many other scenarios where a manually-set exposure is preferable to one that the camera's light meter determines.



Exactly, but I doubt that the OP shoots in those scenarios every time they are shooting. In most cases, unless you use flash often for portraits or weddings or whatnot, then you do not have a constant need to shoot 100% manual. I am not saying you will NEVER need or want to use manual. If in fact the OP often uses flash or finds themselves in the situations mentioned, then that answer would make sense. If its more of a an issue of feeling like you have to shoot in full manual to be a "Real Photographer" then its just holding yourself back for nothing. That's why I asked the question. It doesn't change them wanting to understand underexposing and the controls, just something I was curious about.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 29, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> ...



I have no reason to argue...I am pretty sure this thread was created because I was talking about underexposing the background a stop and pulling up the subject with flash.

In any case, if you want to leave flash completely out of it, skip the first paragraph and just read the second and third.  Shooting in manual is easier.  I don't have to worry about what my meter thinks it sees, and then tell my meter to ignore what it thinks and dial in exposure compensation.  It's much easier to just set my camera how I want it and not have to worry about a bright light or a dark shirt in the frame confusing my meter.  Plus, my camera doesn't know what parts of the frame I find interesting.  Why would I trust it to properly expose my subject when it doesn't even know what my subject is?

About the only time I will switch to an automated mode is when the light conditions are changing rapidly and I have a consistent subject...Then I can dial in whatever exposure comp is required and get back to shooting.


----------



## pgriz (Jun 29, 2011)

^^^  ditto.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 29, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...


 So you ignore the meter and magically pull exposures out of nowhere? How is that easier? That sounds like a bunch of missed shots as you are tinkering with your camera. The example you used with a shirt, is precisely when you would use the exposure comp in the semi-auto modes or bracket your exposures which pretty much every modern dSLR has the capability to do. If you like to shoot that way, thats perfectly ok, but to say its easier is a bit bewildering. While in some cases it may prove to give you more control, I don't think that it would be easier overall, just like manually focusing in most cases is NOT easier than using AF. There is a reason why even professional level cameras have these features. Real pros aren't pompous about shooting in full manual so they can get some sort of street cred. They are more interested with going home with the shots that they came for and not missing opportunities.

I agree with your last statement though, although bracketing can be a very useful tool here as well.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 29, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Plus, my camera doesn't know what parts of the frame I find interesting.  Why would I trust it to properly expose my subject when it doesn't even know what my subject is?.



I'm in no way trying to argue, I'm here to ask questions and to absorb as much information as possible because I'm because I'm new.  So with that out of the way, can you still do exposure lock in this situation while shooting 1/2 auto like A or S mode and still get the same result?


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 29, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> ...


No, I look at my subject, look at what the camera is guessing is the right exposure and adjust from there.





> How is that easier? That sounds like a bunch of missed shots as you are tinkering with your camera. The example you used with a shirt, is precisely when you would use the exposure comp in the semi-auto modes or bracket your exposures which pretty much every modern dSLR has the capability to do. If you like to shoot that way, thats perfectly ok, but to say its easier is a bit bewildering.


It's easier beacuse I don't have to adjust exposure comp between a guy wearing a white shirt vs a guy wearing a black shirt.  I also don't have to adjust if there is a specular highlight in the background that fools the meter.  Once I have my settings dialed in(which shouldn't take more than a few seconds) I don't have to worry about the camera changing things on me. 


> While in some cases it may prove to give you more control, I don't think that it would be easier overall, just like manually focusing in most cases is NOT easier than using AF. There is a reason why even professional level cameras have these features. Real pros aren't pompous about shooting in full manual so they can get some sort of street cred. They are more interested with going home with the shots that they came for and not missing opportunities.



I am rarely a fan of manual focus and wouldn't consider it comparable to adjusting the exposure as you see fit and not letting external factors influence the exposure of a shot.


> I agree with your last statement though, although bracketing can be a very useful tool here as well.


You agree that during lighting conditions that are constantly changing with a subject that is not that it might be a good idea to use an automated mode and just dial in exposure comp once and then finish the shoot...well, good for you.  I'm glad we agree on at least one part of the basics.



Vtec44 said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Plus, my camera doesn't know what parts of the frame I find interesting.  Why would I trust it to properly expose my subject when it doesn't even know what my subject is?.
> ...



Yes, you have several options.

You can put the focus point(or center, or whatever you happen to be using for metering) over what you want to be 18% grey and utilize the exposure lock feature.
You can also use exposure compensation and adjust from the 18% grey that the camera wants to record based on the individual tonality of each shot.
You could also shoot in manual, set your controls to something you are happy with, and continue shooting until the lighting changes.

It's completely up to you.  For me, manual is easier than using exposure lock for parts of the subject or adjusting exposure compensation every time the subject changes.  Obviously, some people disagree.  As always, YMMV...do whatever is easiest for you to get the shots that you want consistently.  For me, having the camera switch things up without me telling it to based on what color shirt my subject is wearing or the color of their skin is not the best path for consistency.  I would rather set it right the first time than have the camera try to guess what kind of lighitng I am using and what kind of results I am looking for.


----------



## pgriz (Jun 30, 2011)

In my own on-going evolution as a photographer, I used to use Av as my primary mode, with control over the aperture being more important (for my type of shooting- nature, landscapes, cityscapes) than control over the shutter speed.  Together with exposure compensation, which I used to adjust the exposure if the overall scene was biased to the hi-key or low-key, I got pretty good exposures, especially when the light was changing all the time.   In the past year or so, I&#8217;ve started using fill light more often, and found that shooting in manual gives a better result with flash fill as I often don&#8217;t agree with the programmed choices the camera makes with fill light.  In a controlled setting (such as studio work or macro), manual exposure gives me more precise control over the appearance of ambient together with my light sources.

Unlike some photographers I know, I don&#8217;t yet have the knowledge and experience that would allow me to say, for instance, that a certain scene in open shade should be exposed at 1/60 at f/8 at ISO 100.  So I rely on my Sekonic  L-358 to meter the ambient (direct light, shadow) to get a sense of the light values and the dynamic range available.  I usually then  allow the camera meter to set the exposure and take a shot.  Looking at the resulting histogram, and knowing the values I got by measuring the ambient, I can make a decision on the exposure that best represents my goal as a photographer.  At this point, I&#8217;ll set the exposure in manual and take another shot.  If the resulting histogram shows me that I have detail in all the important areas (both light and dark), then I&#8217;m good to go, and will shoot with that setting until either the light changes, or the scene changes.

If I was doing more action shots, then control over the shutter speed would become more important, and I&#8217;d probably rely on the camera&#8217;s ability in Tv mode.   However, in determining a &#8220;correct&#8221; exposure, there are so many different ways for us to come to something acceptable, that it appears somewhat arrogant to assert that there is only one way to get there.  What doesn&#8217;t change, in my opinion, is the necessity to understand the amount and nature of the light we are working with, and depending on the tonality of our scene or subject, to choose an exposure that retains the maximum amount of detail in the important areas.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 30, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...


Well if that works for you then great. It would make complete sense on a very controlled situation where you are swapping out subjects (studio portrait work) I just don't see any sense if you were mobile at all.(events, street shooting, wildlife) because you are just going to waste your time and miss shots. I would much rather risk an occassional picture having a slightly off exposure since RAW files can be extensively manipulated, than miss a shot all together. Anyway, getting back to the whole point of asking the question, it occurred to me that if the OP does not yet even understand how to underexpose, full manual is probably not the right mode to be using.( not meant to be a dig just an honest assessment.)

Pgriz, I never said there is only one way to shoot. Every setting has its place. It wasn't meant to be arrogance, it was meant to provoke some thought.


----------



## pgriz (Jun 30, 2011)

Goonies, my use of "arrogance" wasn't directed specifically at you.  Experienced photographers know which tool to use in which situation, and that applies to exposure control.  Some of the debate appears to be about nuance (this is better here, not so good there), and is colored by the type of shooting one does.  When someone says "I shoot 100% manual" or "I shoot exclusively in Av", then I am thinking that they don't know their tools very well, or are very restricted in the type of shots they are taking.  For someone like SabrinaO (the OP), there is a need to explore the various ways of getting to the end result without prejudging that THIS way is the way to do it.  From what I've seen of SabrinaO's posted work, she's climbing a steep learning curve, and she needs to get a better handle on the fundamentals.  The desire, energy, and effort is definitely there, but it takes time to acquire the skills and knowledge to harness that energy effectively.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 30, 2011)

So little real understanding of how Manual shooting differs from A or S mode shooting...seems like some younger people just do not understand how much time and effort it takes to override continuous automatic decision-making all fricking day long or all session long when it is soooooooo much easier to just set the camera to the RIGHT EXPOSURE ONE TIME, and shoot,shoot,shoot,shoot until it is time to determine another correct exposure.

And on the other hand, there are many Manual-only users who do not really understand that there are times when using Aperture priority auto makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Shutter speed priority...I use it when I do panning shots in weird lighting that will change, AND when photographing helicopters!!! (Seriously!)


----------



## kundalini (Jun 30, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you are shooting with strobes, what is your purpose for shooting full manual?
> ...


Some of us started out with a fully manual camera and are comfortable to continue in that manner, especially with Nikon's two wheel command dials for aperture and shutter speed at your fingertips.  Never having to pull the camera away from your eye in the viewfinder to make those adjustments is a wonderful thing and pretty damn fast to boot!


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 30, 2011)

kundalini said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> ...


 and that is a very reasonable answer to my question. However, if you dont understand what you are doing with those two wheels and how it effects your exposure, it would make it a futile endeavor, correct? Thats why the question was posed to the OP.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 30, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you are shooting with strobes, what is your purpose for shooting full manual?
> ...



You have full control of the camera and settings


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 30, 2011)

gsgary said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> ...


 Yes, that is what full manual means. However, you are taking my question out of context. I think everyone here knows that Manual gives full control (in many cases, at the cost of quickness ). However, why has the OP chose that setting (ie. WHY do they feel the need for full control all of the time if it has the potential to be detrimental to their shooting experience given their clear lack of understanding?)


----------



## kundalini (Jun 30, 2011)

Why are you so intent in *NOT *shooting in Manual and discouraging others?  Why do you suggest all newbies should use a semi-auto shooting mode?  Why do you feel it is a slower method that is detrimental to their shooting experience?  Don't you think there is a benefit in *learning *to shoot in Manual?  Don't you think that, given enough time, this may actually help clear up their misunderstanding?  Is anything that someone else does with their camera harm you in any way?  Why do you care?


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 30, 2011)

Because I am trying to help, not set people down a path of discouragement. You have to learn to crawl before you walk. Sure there is a benefit to learning manual. It seems that for the sake of argument that you have disregarded much of what I said. My original question with the strobe example shows that. Its one thing to take time practicing in manual and another to relegate yourself to ONLY shooting in manual. You also ignored my rhetorical question about manual with no understanding being pointless. I guess all newbies should just dive in and shoot full manual. Then they can come on here and we can try to explain why the shot of Jr.'s baptism came out as a nice solid black frame and they missed out on a once in a lifetime great shot, but hey, atleast they learned something from Kundalinis school of hard knocks.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 30, 2011)

gsgary said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> ...



That's the obvious.  I'm curious to see if there are other advantages.  I only use it when I'm shooting macro or with strobe lights.  The rest is often 1/2 auto.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 30, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



Much quicker for me, when i'm shooting sports it's easy to adjust settings as i track the action


----------



## gsgary (Jun 30, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...




For me it's quicker, but i'm not a beginner


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 30, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> I know what f/stops are... but what are people referring to when they say they are going to underexpose ambient light by a stop? Or when someone says they need a stop of more light?



Two different questions, the second one has been answered amply.  The answer to the first is that they are talking about a variation of "dragging the shutter".   You can read about it here.. http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/3-dragging-the-shutter/ 


HTH


----------



## Overread (Jun 30, 2011)

Speed and control over tools is always partly the inherent speed of the tool/control option in itself and that of the user. 

For some the control and speed of manual mode is all they need to shoot what they shoot in the style that they are accustomed to. They are able to change the settings fast because of experience of using the tool they use; experience newer users simply won't have until they've shot a lot more. 
Heck myself I can change manual mode settings on my one wheeled 400D faster than on my 2 wheeled 7D - in time I expect that to change, but for now experience and familiarity has the 400D to the advantage of several years. The same is true for many new to the hobby - just that those newest are also new to the exposure manipulation itself - thus things can run slower still in some cases.


As for the modes - again this depends a lot on shooting style and subject - several good examples have also been outlined as to specific common situations where select modes have the advantage over the others.


In the end my advice is two fold:
1) Its not the mode is the settings - what mode you use does not matter one bit, what matters is that when you come to press the shutter you've got the best settings possible in the shortest amount of time for your given subject and situation. 

2) Don't learn one mode - learn them all (within reason). Aperture and shutter priority along side manual mode. Learn to use and when to use all 3 for your own shooting. Once you know how to use the mode you are then able to make the informed choice between them - otherwise your choice of mode is dictated only by your inexperience of the other modes - the other choices. 



Myself I learnt most through aperture priority mode - letting the camera balance the shutter speed to my aperture and ISO whilst making full use of the meter and exposure compensation. Some follow that path - others learn all in manual mode and fewer learn in shutter priority. Don't make any difference which way you come at it since you've still got to learn the exposure triangle for either mode.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 30, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Because I am trying to help, not set people down a path of discouragement. You have to learn to crawl before you walk.


If that is the case, then IMO, it is disingenuous to suggest to a newbie that Manual mode is only to be used when their more advanced or experienced.  We're still only talking about three things here.... Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO.  Regardless of which shooting a person choose to begin their learning experience with, these three things must become learned to the point it becomes second nature as to why one setting over the other is used to capture the shot you envision.  You may still miss the exposure, but you'll understand what would've been the better choice.  Likewise, you can look at the exposure and do a Homer..... D'Oh and realize what you forgot to check before the shot.  I would hazard a guess that someone just starting out and shooting in Manual will have a greater understanding of the exposure triangle than another person with the same mental faculties starting off in Aperture mode.  Granted, person A would probably have more duff shots in the early days than person B, but that is what practice is all about.  

Do you practice when you've got to get that (I love this term) "Once in a lifetime shot"?  Hell no, if you're not confident enough, put the damn camera on auto-pilot and let it rock.  You practice when you're alone with your own thoughts and just like a music student, you run the scales up and down and up and down and up.... I think you may get my point.  If a newbie doesn't put in the time and energy, they will stay at an acceptable to above average level for their immediate circle, but mediocre to below average on one of these photo forums.  Even a blind pig will find an acorn.  You gotta pay yer dues brother.

Me, I couldn't give a rat's ass what shooting mode anyone chooses.  But I think it is a disservice to discourage.

I think this has gone further than I expected and apologies for the verbal diarrhea, but blame it on Agent Drex.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 30, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> I shoot 100% manual. So to stop down an exposure, would I need to underexpose all three? (ISO, Shutter, Aperture)


 


kundalini said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > Because I am trying to help, not set people down a path of discouragement. You have to learn to crawl before you walk.
> ...


 No apology needed. A debate is good as long as everyone can walk away from it with out some sort of hatred. I can agree to disagree and you are right, it doesn't matter to us what anyone else shoots. The final thing I will say on the topic, is that all of this was brought on by the quote from the OP above which did not sound to me like someone "practicing," but more like someone trying to put the cart before the horse. Prior to that quote I had used AV and Tv as illustrations, not so much to say they are the only things to shoot, but merely to make it more clear as to when you would adjust one and not the other. Av and Tv modes are perfect examples of that and in my opinion will help someone to understand better since they can focus on ONE variable changing and sort of formulating an association with those variables ( speed and dof assuming ISO is not set to auto. ) At the end of the day though it doesn't matter what mode you shoot in as long as you get the shot you want. I would just stress that there is no shame in taking baby steps. A building is only as strong as its foundation.


----------



## SabrinaO (Jun 30, 2011)

gsgary said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> ...


And you need a spelling COURSE as soon as possible! Hmmm maybe I should just ASSume you can't spell?


----------



## SabrinaO (Jun 30, 2011)

Compaq said:


> If you want to stop down your exposure (I'll interpret that as underexposing, measured in stops),* that does not imply stopping down on the entire exposure triangle. *Let's say that you have
> 
> f/8
> 1/200th
> ...




Thanks for this! Especially what is highlighted in bold! Listen... I know how to expose a picture... and I know all about the exposure triangle... I just didn't know what people meant when they say "I need stop down", or "I need to overexpose by a stop". So now i know its not the whole triangle, its just one element of!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 30, 2011)

Compaq said:


> If you want to stop down your exposure (I'll interpret that as underexposing, measured in stops), that does not imply stopping down on the entire exposure triangle. Let's say that you have
> 
> f/8
> 1/200th
> ...


Since this was quoted and liked by the OP, I guess I do need to mention one little thing.  Some of the shutter speed changes are actually going the wrong direction.  For instance, a shutter speed of 1/30th is definitely not less light than 1/125th.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Compaq (Jul 1, 2011)

Yea, I saw that but promptly corrected it  Sometimes these things clutter in my mind, but only the shutter speeds  It proves that whilst I may understand it, it's not second nature to me yet.


----------



## shmne (Jul 1, 2011)

I really don't even understand how there is a debate about manual versus semi-auto and auto firing modes. Let me sum it up for everyone all fast like. 

1. All beginners should learn on full manual- there is no advantage to learning in a semi-auto mode as pretending something doesn't exist does not help you learn about it better.

2.  Semi-auto modes do one important thing - they alleviate the stress of  worrying about one setting so that you can focus on the event at hand.

3. Full manual does one important thing - it gives you complete creative control fast and effectively.

Personally I very rarely ever need to shoot in semi-auto modes. About 80% of my images are creative and require me adjusting settings to a point that the camera could not know what I want. The other 20%? I still don't use semi-auto modes just because I don't like the restrictions it puts on you. Not being able to adjust something simply tweaks me out and bugs me. However if the situation is high stress and forces me to change settings often, I will use semi-auto so that I can just get the image right and not worry about it.

Sorry for not pertaining to the topic at all, however this debate irks me as there really is absolutely no debate on this matter. The fact is you can use any mode you want at any time, there is no correct answer or wrong answer. There is only the truth about what each mode does best.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 1, 2011)

shmne said:


> I really don't even understand how there is a debate about manual versus semi-auto and auto firing modes. Let me sum it up for everyone all fast like.
> 
> 1. All beginners should learn on full manual- there is no advantage to learning in a semi-auto mode as pretending something doesn't exist does not help you learn about it better.
> 
> ...



My argument pertains more to the learning aspect of things. I agree that modes do not matter. Getting a shot matters, how you arrive there doesn't. However, the key point everyone seems to miss when they say things like "you should learn in manual" is that you do not go from no experience to shooting in manual overnight. Unless you want to take 10 minutes and multiple tries at every shot that you make until you understand all of what you are doing, why you are doing it, as well as how to do it on your specific camera with its controls ( think of the cameras that DON'T have dedicated wheels for both Aperture and Shutter Speed ). Therefore, someone doesn't walk into Best Buy and buy an entry level dSLR, go home and start shooting manual. Sure they can take time to tinker and practice, but the fact of the matter is, there has to be a starting point to slowly build understanding of both photography, and the controls of the camera WHILE you are still able to take halfway decent pictures. Therefore it makes more sense to take a logical progression through the settings. Sure, if you can have full control of the camera and do it fast enough to serve your purpose, thats great. However, the average person does not crawl out of the womb with those capabilities. So "learning in manual" to me, is not the same as "shooting 100% in manual". In reality its more of an ongoing process of peppering it in where you can so that you can build that experience. Many people push the mentality that you are not a true photographer until you have mastered using only manual. So people act as if its a pride thing or a right of passage that they have achieved when they really have no clue what they are doing half of the time. So they end up with terrible shots. Just like the guy who runs out and buys a full frame slr cause people make him feel like thats the only way to be a true photog, and then they spend 10k to take a bunch of garbage shots with no foundation behind them. Thats why I said at times its putting the cart before the horse. This may or may not have been the case with the OP, but I think it was a valid question given the original question posed.

I do agree that the argument got off of the rails quite a bit though.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 1, 2011)

Why would it take 10 minutes to set up a shot in manual?  There is a meter in the bottom of the view finder.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to move the needle towards the middle.  Heck, just the practice of adjusting the shutter speed and aperture to get the camera meter zeroed out is worth the extra few seconds it would take a new photographer.  That way, they would at least learn lessons like shooting at a 3 second shutter speed and an aperture of f/32 doesn't work too well instead of just relying on the camera to prevent them from making mistakes.

IMO, people learn from their mistakes...the only thing I have seen most new photographers 'learn' by shooting in automated modes is that they are ready to start a business because all their friends and family think their pictures are great.

Heck, if while they are learning and not doing well, and an opportunity for a great shot comes up, it doesn't take but a fraction of a second to switch the camera over to Professional mode(the P).


----------



## Derrel (Jul 1, 2011)

I think we need to get this thread back onto a more-appropriate subject, like something of greater importance. Like maybe the pressing question: real mayonnaise, or Miracle Whip???


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 1, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I think we need to get this thread back onto a more-appropriate subject, like something of greater importance. Like maybe the pressing question: real mayonnaise, or Miracle Whip???


Miracle Whip is what real mayonnaise wishes it could be when it grows up.

Oh, and Chevy's over Fords, 1911's over glocks, and everybody knows that crunchy peanut butter is better than creamy peanut butter.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 1, 2011)

Ohhhh, are we picking at the scab again?  If you don't mind, I'm going to change your reply slightly and use a font and size that is more user friendly for those of us that are visually deficient.  The words will remain the same.




GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> My argument pertains more to the learning aspect of things. I agree that modes do not matter. Getting a shot matters, how you arrive there doesn't. However, the key point everyone seems to miss when they say things like "you should learn in manual" is that you do not go from no experience to shooting in manual overnight. Unless you want to take 10 minutes and multiple tries at every shot that you make until you understand all of what you are doing, why you are doing it, as well as how to do it on your specific camera with its controls *( think of the cameras that DON'T have dedicated wheels for both Aperture and Shutter Speed ). **Therefore, someone doesn't walk into Best Buy and buy an entry level dSLR, go home and start shooting manual.* *Sure they can take time to tinker and practice, but the fact of the matter is, there has to be a starting point to slowly build understanding of both photography, and the controls of the camera WHILE you are still able to take halfway decent pictures.* *Therefore it makes more sense to take a logical progression through the settings. Sure, if you can have full control of the camera and do it fast enough to serve your purpose, thats great. However, the average person does not crawl out of the womb with those capabilities. So "learning in manual" to me, is not the same as "shooting 100% in manual"*. In reality its more of an ongoing process of peppering it in where you can so that you can build that experience. Many people push the mentality that you are not a true photographer until you have mastered using only manual. *So people act as if its a pride thing or a right of passage that they have achieved when they really have no clue what they are doing half of the time. So they end up with terrible shots.* *Just like the guy who runs out and buys a full frame slr cause people make him feel like thats the only way to be a true photog, and then they spend 10k to take a bunch of garbage shots with no foundation behind them*. Thats why I said at times its putting the cart before the horse. This may or may not have been the case with the OP, but I think it was a valid question given the original question posed.
> 
> *I do agree that the argument got off of the rails quite a bit though.
> 
> *


Think of all of the millions of photographers that didn't have any buttons on their cameras.
Why not?
Not a prerequisite.
That happens to be your approach and mindset.
Learning curve, practice, $hit happens.
My money, my decisions, my mistakes.
Well then, leave the scab alone.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 1, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> and everybody knows that crunchy peanut butter is better than creamy peanut butter.


Only if you have the back teeth for it.  Hopefully soon, I will.  I miss my nuts.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 1, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Why would it take 10 minutes to set up a shot in manual?  There is a meter in the bottom of the view finder.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to move the needle towards the middle.  Heck, just the practice of adjusting the shutter speed and aperture to get the camera meter zeroed out is worth the extra few seconds it would take a new photographer.  That way, they would at least learn lessons like shooting at a 3 second shutter speed and an aperture of f/32 doesn't work too well instead of just relying on the camera to prevent them from making mistakes.
> 
> IMO, people learn from their mistakes...the only thing I have seen most new photographers 'learn' by shooting in automated modes is that they are ready to start a business because all their friends and family think their pictures are great.
> 
> Heck, if while they are learning and not doing well, and an opportunity for a great shot comes up, it doesn't take but a fraction of a second to switch the camera over to Professional mode(the P).


 It would take 10 minutes if you weren't familiar with what you were doing or how to control your camera. If you were just going to set the meter to zero, there isn't any point at all in shooting manual anyway, other than to inflate your ego. In addition, in anything less than perfect light, depending on which metering mode you are in, that meter will jump around even when you zero it out, so that in itself can be frustrating and time consuming as a newb. It would make MORE sense to shoot in the semi auto modes as a beginner, to learn how shutter speeds and aperture affect your DOF and exposure, and switch to full manual on the times when you were more interested in screwing around and practicing. Not the other way around. When you got your first camera, did you put the switch to full manual where it has stayed to this day?


----------



## mishele (Jul 1, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I think we need to get this thread back onto a more-appropriate subject, like something of greater importance. Like maybe the pressing question: real mayonnaise, or Miracle Whip???


Miracle Whip SUCKS!!!! I actually got angry when you presented this comparison!!! Don't **** w/ real mayo!!!


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 1, 2011)

kundalini said:


> Ohhhh, are we picking at the scab again?


 How could I pick at you from over the internet?:lmao: And Miracle whip sucks.


*refrains from any missing nuts comments*:lmao:


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 1, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Why would it take 10 minutes to set up a shot in manual?  There is a meter in the bottom of the view finder.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to move the needle towards the middle.  Heck, just the practice of adjusting the shutter speed and aperture to get the camera meter zeroed out is worth the extra few seconds it would take a new photographer.  That way, they would at least learn lessons like shooting at a 3 second shutter speed and an aperture of f/32 doesn't work too well instead of just relying on the camera to prevent them from making mistakes.
> ...



The only part of that I find interesting was when you were talking about the meter jumping around.  

I agree, that sure can be frustrating...You have to pick a setting and just let the meter bounce around.  

You know when it would be especially frustrating as a new photographer?  When you are in lighting conditions that are causing something like that and you happen to be in an automated mode...shots varying wildly from shot to shot.  Not knowing why some shots are too dark and some are too bright.  Not being able to predict when you'll get a good expsoure because that darn meter keeps bouncing around.  Now that is what I would call frustrating.


----------



## mishele (Jul 1, 2011)

Miracle whip sucks, Miracle whip sucks, Miracle whip sucks, Miracle whip sucks, Miracle whip sucks.....everyone now...........Miracle whip sucks, Miracle whip sucks, Miracle whip sucks!!!!


----------



## kundalini (Jul 1, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> You know when it would be especially frustrating as a new photographer? When you are in lighting conditions that are causing something like that and you happen to be in an automated mode...shots varying wildly from shot to shot. Not knowing why some shots are too dark and some are too bright. Not being able to predict when you'll get a good expsoure because that darn meter keeps bouncing around. Now that is what I would call frustrating.


Some people (raises hand) forget they had previously been bracketing shots.   


I'm from the South and I like Miracle Whip, but Dukes Mayo in potato salad is the best.


----------



## mishele (Jul 1, 2011)

kundalini said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > You know when it would be especially frustrating as a new photographer? When you are in lighting conditions that are causing something like that and you happen to be in an automated mode...shots varying wildly from shot to shot. Not knowing why some shots are too dark and some are too bright. Not being able to predict when you'll get a good expsoure because that darn meter keeps bouncing around. Now that is what I would call frustrating.
> ...



K.......I don't know if I can be friends w/ you anymore! ( tequila is flowing!!)


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 1, 2011)

kundalini said:


> I'm from the South and I like Miracle Whip, but Dukes Mayo in potato salad is the best.


 I can stand miracle whip, its quite good with left over turkey after thanksgiving to make turkey salad. Real mayo is better though. Regardless of which though, its gotta be spread thin on the bread. Everytime I go into subway and they use their "caulk gun" of Mayo on my sub, I want to choke them.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 1, 2011)

mishele said:


> K.......I don't know if I can be friends w/ you anymore! ( tequila is flowing!!)


On account of a little white, creamy, protien enriched substance?  

I'm devastated, but I can go both ways if that'll make you happy.   (No sword fights allowed)


----------



## mishele (Jul 1, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > I'm from the South and I like Miracle Whip, but Dukes Mayo in potato salad is the best.
> ...



I ask for extra mayo at SUbWay!! LOL


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 1, 2011)

kundalini said:


> I'm devastated, but I can go both ways if that'll make you happy.   (No sword fights allowed)


 :lmao: 


I used to work in a deli back east and always found it fun to study people and notice wierd little nuances......and you know the cliche about black people not liking mayo? ( if you ever saw Undercover Brother they make a joke about it ). Anyway, 99% of the time, it was true in the rural Northeast. We had a big tub of mayo in the top of the case next to the lettuce and maters and stuff, and a tiny little jar of Miracle Whip hidden underneath for the few times we needed it. 99% of the time White people got Mayo over Miracle Whip, and African Americans would get Miracle Whip over Mayo ( although the majority never got either which I guess sort of lends itself to the cliche as well ). The only reason I would even notice is because I always had to dig that little jar out to use.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 1, 2011)

mishele said:


> GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:
> 
> 
> > kundalini said:
> ...


 Gross. Its meant to be spread! I don't like when my turkey hoagie looks like a twinkie.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 1, 2011)

All of this talk about subs is making me want a cheesesteak sub............


----------



## mishele (Jul 1, 2011)

LOL I'm a BMT girl......pickles...black olives, lettuce, toms and extra mayo!!! Oh and you gotta have Am. cheese!!!


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 1, 2011)

Gross...the best is a Cheesesteak from a quality mom and pop joint in New Jersey. Steak, melted American Cheese with a little mayo and ketchup spread on the roll.....shredded lettuce, tomato, and onion on top salt pepper and oregano and just a touch of Olive Oil on the veggies..........


----------



## kundalini (Jul 1, 2011)

mishele said:


> LOL I'm a BMT girl......pickles...black olives, lettuce, toms and extra mayo!!! Oh and you gotta have Am. cheese!!!


Oh, we do have a problem then. Provolone please and where the hell are the banana peppers I might ask? Cucumbers wouldn't hurt either.  Oil & vineagar on the bread side anyone?


----------



## mishele (Jul 1, 2011)

Hold on a second......I'm not saying Subway is the best or anything......LOL Best sandwich shop around me is V&S.......amazing fries!!!Dang it, now I'm going to have to go there tomorrow!!


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 1, 2011)

Subway sucks....quiznos is better....although worse for you healthwise.


----------



## mishele (Jul 1, 2011)

kundalini said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > LOL I'm a BMT girl......pickles...black olives, lettuce, toms and extra mayo!!! Oh and you gotta have Am. cheese!!!
> ...



K....I actually switch back and forth w/ the cheese. Banana peppers...never but sometimes some sweet.
Oh and some oil and salt and oregano. YUM


----------



## kundalini (Jul 1, 2011)

mishele said:


> K....I actually switch back and forth w/ the cheese. Banana peppers...never but sometimes some sweet.


Yet, I see that you seem to skate around the issue of the white, creamy, protien enriched substance.  CAn we just agree that we have different taste buds.  I know it's not true, but in my fantasy..........

YouTube - &#x202a;ClassicTVBlog- Donny & Marie Sing Country & Rock n Roll&#x202c;&rlm;


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 1, 2011)

The only thing I eat American on is Cheesesteaks or burgers. I guess its gotta be melted for me to like it. Provolone is the best in terms of being good on pretty much anything. Chedder is decent too. Pepperjack is good too...if I feel like I want it a little caliente......


----------



## Derrel (Jul 1, 2011)

We need to steer this BACK to the original, third premise of the thread: real mayonnaise, or Miracle Whip! Damnit people, let's get back to the real issue!!! No more Subway vs Quiznos,etc.,etc.

Real mayonnaise or Miracle Whip?


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jul 1, 2011)

Derrel, I was watching the movie The Informant the other night and for some reason it made me think of you....maybe its the 'stache....not sure. I was like "Who does he remind me of" and then I got on here and it hit me


----------



## kundalini (Jul 1, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Real mayonnaise or Miracle Whip?


On weekends, my name is Mandy.  Hello Friday!


----------



## Derrel (Jul 2, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Derrel, I was watching the movie The Informant the other night and for some reason it made me think of you....maybe its the 'stache....not sure. I was like "Who does he remind me of" and then I got on here and it hit
> 
> me



Yeah, I looked a lot like Matt Damon, 25 years ago, in this picture of him from The Informant: Photos from The Informant!


----------



## bazooka (Jul 2, 2011)

I just read through 7 pages of good banter and had already formulated in my mind what I was going to say about the whole M vs... uhh... whatever those other modes are, but now this?!?  Miracle whip fo sho.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jul 7, 2011)

bazooka said:


> I just read through 7 pages of good banter and had already formulated in my mind what I was going to say about the whole M vs... uhh... whatever those other modes are, but now this?!?  Miracle whip fo sho.


I was doing the exact same thing, not even worth posting anymore lol.


----------

