"Experts" advising using auto
Keith Richardson
use auto cameras. It may not be politically correct to agree with
this topic but I do! I decided to post this message after reading
one of the many photo mags and seeing each picture captioned with
exposure settings: 1/125 at f/8. Lets face it - unless you are
the photographer, that is almost useless information. Being told
the time of day would carry just as much info for someone wanting
to know how the picture was taken. What I would really like to
know is how the photographer chose the settings - e.g. "metered
on the building on the left and opened up one stop". That is how
photos get taken and it can be done just was well with an auto
camera (provided it has AE lock). Someone who thinks they are
learning because they have a manual camera may just be filling
their memory with the same numbers printed in the magazines
without understanding them. You can be just as mindless with
manual as auto. It is not the type of camera that matters - it is
whether you understand how to take the picture!
Keith Richardson
--
Richard S.
<10305...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>You can be just as mindless with
>manual as auto. It is not the type of camera that matters - it is
>whether you understand how to take the picture!
>
> Keith Richardson
Absolutely correct.
In my own case, for many years I used manual cameras without really
understanding the relationship between aperture and focus (DOF) or why
the highlights would blow out even when I was "careful" with the
exposure setting.
After learning a bit more about these things, I'm able to get a *much*
higher percentage of acceptable shots whether I'm using automatic or
manual because in either case I understand what the camera is doing
and can correct for unusual lighting or switch to aperture priority to
control DOF, etc. Anymore, I can't imagine how I got along at all
without understanding the basics.
I suspect many people are similarly limping along with their manual or
automatic cameras. Rarely, people can get quite good at photography
without understanding such things as hyperfocal distance and it's
relation to DOF, etc. I know at least one pro who is like that. He
uses both manual (Leica M) and automatic (Nikon F5) cameras and knows
instinctively how to set the controls to get the effect he's after.
But he's a "natural," and I think that's rare. Most people will become
decent photographers much faster if they understand the technical
aspects of the art, but a manual camera will not necessarily help at
all.
I do, however, think that a beginner would be better off starting out
with a very basic camera, whether automatic (with manual overrides) or
fully manual, because there's less to learn about a simple camera. A
feature-loaded camera would certainly overwhelm me, and I suspect it
would also overwhelm a beginner.
Richard S.
SpooRL
>>You can be just as mindless with
>>manual as auto. It is not the type of camera that matters - it is
>>whether you understand how to take the picture!
I agree also. The upshot of the debate seems to be that different camera
systems require different approaches in order to master a good technique. The
majority opinion as stated is for a manual approach (learn the basics first)
vs. automatic (concentrate on composition first). But ultimately it's a
coinflip, provided that the student is determined to reach his or her full
potential as a photographer.
Rick Spoo
Anthony
news:7qrruj$jcc$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> There has been an ongoing topic about whether new users should
> use auto cameras. It may not be politically correct to agree with
> this topic but I do!
I think whether or not you run in "full auto" depends on your priorities as
a photographer. If you want to concentrate on composing the picture, auto
is the way to go. If you want to fool around with settings yourself, for
whatever reaason, then obviously you need to avoid the automatic stuff (or
turn it off, if you can).
I usually do everything on full auto, since I care only about composing the
picture, not picking a specific shutter speed or aperture. I do "suggest"
things to the camera, though, by shifting the program mode to favor a small
aperture (for better depth of field) or a large one (for tight DOF), or by
using exposure compensation to overexpose or underexpose if I have any
reason to believe that the meter won't expose the way I want (although
that's rare, nowadays). I use AF just about all the time, since it is fast
and reliable; only if it seems to be confused or if it can't make up its
mind will I override it.
> I decided to post this message after reading one of the
> many photo mags and seeing each picture captioned with
> exposure settings: 1/125 at f/8.
There are still magazines doing that? What do they do for pictures taken
with everything set to auto? Do they indicate development times for film
and prints, too (since both have just as much influence as shutter speed and
aperture on the result)?
> Lets face it - unless you are the photographer, that is almost
> useless information.
Even if you are the photographer, it's generally useless.
> What I would really like to know is how the photographer
> chose the settings - e.g. "metered on the building on the
> left and opened up one stop".
I agree, but I don't think I've ever seen captions like that at all.
-- Anthony
SpooRL
in the form of captions. The photographic subject is "nature" but the available
light techniques apply to any such work.
Spoo
Godfrey DiGiorgi
photography with manual-exposure/manual focus cameras than with anything
automatic. It's the way I learned and why shouldn't everyone learn the
way I did? ]'-)
In terms of taking my own pictures, I use AF/AE cameras, AE/manual focus
cameras, manual exposure/manual focus cameras freely. Even fixed focus,
fixed exposure cameras... I understand what all of them are doing and
can use whatever is in my hands to get the results I want because I
understand the technology intimately. I still dislike AF on SLRs, don't
mind it on viewfinder cameras (it makes me queasy watching the focus
hunt around through an SLR without me turning a focus ring...). A Nikon
F3 with aperture priority AE and manual focus is my ideal SLR, and I
vacillate between Leica Ms and Contax Gs as being the ultimate
viewfinder camera, depending upon my mood. (In 35mm, of course; a
Rolleiflex TLR is still my ultimate medium format camera.)
One of the sad things I see with many students of photography, taught to
see but not taught photographic technology, is brilliant inspired
imagery but no concept of how to reproduce it other than by trial and
error. That's bad. It happened a lot at the college I attended in the
early '80s, so I started my own club where some of the art students
studying photography in the then-prevalent "seeing" classes would get
together and discuss photographic technologies/techniques. It was wildly
successful and adopted by the Art/Photo department as an official part
of the curriculum.
"Use whatever tools are at hand."
Godfrey
Keith Richardson
priorities as a photographer. If you want to concentrate on
composing the picture, auto is the way to go. If you want to
fool around with settings yourself, for whatever reaason, then
obviously you need to avoid the automatic stuff (or turn it off,
if you can).
exposure? I decide what I want to have in medium tone, light
tone, etc. and meter accordingly. It seems far more natural to
point the spot meter at something, select a +1 stop adjustment
and lock the auto setting than thinking in terms of shutter speed
and aperture. I usually select aperture for the depth of field
and let the camera automatically set the shutter speed. Telling a
beginner that they will learn more about what is going on by
turning auto off does not seem to make sense. It ends up making
them further removed from the mechanics of selecting an exposure.
(Remember when people used to say that you must learn binary
before you can understand computers!)
Keith Richardson
--
philf...@my-deja.com
camera is less important than a good teacher, be it a person, a
newsgroup, or books. I favor a combination of the three for any kind of
camera or any type of photography. I concentrate on the eye. This is
the tool I feel I need to develop, in myself as well as my students.
The mechanics are important, it would be stupid to skip them, but the
eye makes the photographer.
--
When in danger
Or in doubt
Run in circles
Scream and shout
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Artur Swietanowski
> > What I would really like to know is how the photographer
> > chose the settings - e.g. "metered on the building on the
> > left and opened up one stop".
>
Bryan Peterson ("Understanding Exposure", "Learning to See
Creatively", etc.).
Regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Artur Swietanowski mailto:swieta...@bigfoot.com
Institut für Statistik, Operations Research und Computerverfahren,
Universität Wien, Universitätsstr. 5, A-1010 Wien, Austria
tel. +43 (1) 427 738 620 fax +43 (1) 427 738 629
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony
> What goes through your mind when you select an
> exposure?
Mainly, "I hope I get this comes out."
> I decide what I want to have in medium tone, light
> tone, etc. and meter accordingly.
I've never done that. If I don't run on full auto, I meter for whatever
part of the image I want to have resolved most clearly. I cannot
individually adjust tones in different parts of the image; I can only adjust
overall exposure. So I try to expose for the important part, and the rest
just comes out the way it comes out. In practice, this may mean switching
to spot meter, pointing to the part I want properly exposed, locking
exposure and recomposing, then shooting. I usually only resort to this in
images with unusual, high-contrast lighting conditions where I'm not sure
that the exposure will be automatically correct (although my camera has
proven just about flawless thus far on full auto).
> It seems far more natural to point the spot meter at
> something, select a +1 stop adjustment and lock the
> auto setting than thinking in terms of shutter speed
> and aperture.
I agree. The ideal for me is to be able to say "properly expose this spot,"
and then "add (or subtract) x stops from the proper exposure." But in
practice, full auto is so reliable now that I never really have to do
anything myself, except as above in weird situations. (Even then, when
shooting multiple exposures with and without full auto, I've found that my
"adjustments" often look no better than what the full auto selected.)
> I usually select aperture for the depth of field
> and let the camera automatically set the shutter speed.
Few of my subjects are close enough that DOF is apparent. However, if I
need to play with that, I shift the program mode of the camera so that it
favors small apertures, and in a few cases I'll even preview the DOF. This
seems to work better than AP mode for most shots, because it doesn't nail
down a specific aperture (thereby possibly getting a really weird shutter
speed)--it just tries to favor an unusually large or small aperture, insofar
as conditions permit. You still get a usable image even under extreme
conditions.
> Telling a beginner that they will learn more about what is
> going on by turning auto off does not seem to make sense.
It depends on what he wants to learn. If he wants to take pictures, full
auto is fine. If he wants to know how cameras work, switching off the auto
stuff is a good idea. I tend to think that a beginner would want to take
some usable pictures first, and _then_ learn how to obtain them manually,
and not the other way around (which can lead to rapid frustration).
-- Anthony
Only me...
Godfrey DiGiorgi <rama...@bayarea.net> wrote in message
news:37D1E1C0...@bayarea.net...
> One of the sad things I see with many students of photography, taught to
> see but not taught photographic technology, is brilliant inspired
> imagery but no concept of how to reproduce it other than by trial and
> error. That's bad.
Well said.
Only me...
<philf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7qshm6$36l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
I concentrate on the eye. This is
> the tool I feel I need to develop, in myself as well as my students.
> The mechanics are important, it would be stupid to skip them, but the
> eye makes the photographer.
Indeed. No one denies that. Without the "eye" as you put it, all the
knowledge in the world will not help. However, I fail to see why people
think it's so wrong to start at the beginning. There's time fro developing
your "eye"... in fact, you've got the rest of your life to do that, but by
learning the basic photo techniques from the start, will better enable one
to
develop the ideas that their "eye" provides them with. It's al very well
having a head crammed full of creative ideas, but what good are they if the
student has not the faintest idea how to develop them into an image, by
using a camera. Vision is something a photographer will have, no matter how
you teach him, and although essential to develop, and nurture those talents,
it's still prudent to make sure he can use a camera manually. He/she is a
photographer after all ;-)
I agree with you essentially though, but I feel a bit more emphasis upon
the mechanics are more important than most realise. Being the total master
of your camera, is the only way you can get it to perform all the tricks
your vision requires of it.
David.
Only me...
Keith Richardson <10305...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
news:7qsd4a$q34$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>I usually select aperture for the depth of field
> and let the camera automatically set the shutter speed. Telling a
> beginner that they will learn more about what is going on by
> turning auto off does not seem to make sense
No, no.... No one's saying that. However, if a beginner selects an
aperture for DOF, and lets the camera decide a shutter speed, but the camera
is using some sort of matrix metering, how will the student know why the
camera chose the speed it did? The use of simple CW metering (preferable
with manual control, but aperture priority will do as well) will enable to
student to see what part of eh frame is influencing the exposure, and before
long, he'll understand the whole concept of exposure compensation far easier
than anyone using matrix metering, or a program mode. How many posts have
you seen on here, asking, "What's exposure compensation?" Not only does
this indicate that they've not read the manual, but also that the way their
working has not, nor ever will promote finding out. Why? Because if a
camera is either in a program mode, or using matrix metering, the
photographer has practically no idea what part of eth viewfinder is being
most influential to the exposure. By moving that centre "spot" around the
screen, you can see the values moving up and down, and it a;; becomes clear.
Use matrix metering, especially a program mode, where shutter speed and
aperture are being manipulated together, and the readings make no apparent
sense.
David.
Only me...
Richard S. <rlsa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:33PRN8hy+HUOuCdDR=SMG35...@4ax.com...
> After learning a bit more about these things, I'm able to get a *much*
> higher percentage of acceptable shots whether I'm using automatic or
> manual because in either case I understand what the camera is doing
> and can correct for unusual lighting or switch to aperture priority to
> control DOF, etc. Anymore, I can't imagine how I got along at all
> without understanding the basics.
Well, there you are then. If he used a program mode, with some sort of
matrix metering, he would have never been able to determine what the camera
was doing. If you put a SLR in program, then use matrix metering, you've
just
got a point and shoot. IF you MUST use auto exposure, at least use aperture
priority, and CW metering, so at least you can understand what the camera is
doing. If you don't understand that, then you can't learn anything.
>. Most people will become
> decent photographers much faster if they understand the technical
> aspects of the art, but a manual camera will not necessarily help at
> all.
Bit how will a camera in auto exposure mode, using matrix metering help?
The photographer has no idea how the camera is arriving at the decisions it
is, and you have no idea how you could modify them. You NEED either a
manual camera, or one that uses CW metering. The problem is, I know of no
one who buys a Nikon SLR for example, and uses anything but matrix metering.
They think that because they're using manual, they're learning. However, if
you have no idea of how the camera is metering the scene (and you don't with
matrix). you may as well be using a point and shoot.
>
> I do, however, think that a beginner would be better off starting out
> with a very basic camera, whether automatic (with manual overrides) or
> fully manual, because there's less to learn about a simple camera. A
> feature-loaded camera would certainly overwhelm me, and I suspect it
> would also overwhelm a beginner.
Just the point I've been making all along. Auto modes, and feature
laden SLRs do NOT make things easier. I've seen beginners give up because
of
them. They think, "If I can't take a good shot with THIS, then I've no
chance". When all they needed to do , was just use a simpler camera, or
switch ALL that auto crap off, and get back to basics.
David.
Only me...
Keith Richardson <10305...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
That is how
> photos get taken and it can be done just was well with an auto
> camera (provided it has AE lock). Someone who thinks they are
> learning because they have a manual camera may just be filling
> their memory with the same numbers printed in the magazines
> without understanding them.
That's a good point, but what about the guy who uses a program mode,
with matrix metering. He can look at the camera, and see what number are
being used to, but he'll be no wider, as he has no idea what the camera is
metering off, or why. I've said all along that aperture priority with CW
metering is perhaps not a problem, as you can still determine what is
influencing the exposure, and take steps to correct. This is essentially
the same as actually using the camera on manual. As soon as you start to
use matrix metering, and program modes, you start to lose that understanding
of what the camera is doing, and you're just blindly accepting the camera's
decision. In this respect, auto cameras actually teach nothing. They allow
those who do not wish to learn, or have no knowledge to take to take good
photos. That's fine, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking they're
teaching anyone anything.
David.
Anthony
news:7qtmgp$kg3$3...@gxsn.com...
> That's a good point, but what about the guy who uses a
> program mode, with matrix metering. He can look at the
> camera, and see what number are being used to, but he'll
> be no wider, as he has no idea what the camera is
> metering off, or why.
But as long as he continues to use that camera, it won't matter, will it?
Most photographs don't require any manual tweaking of exposure.
> As soon as you start to use matrix metering, and program
> modes, you start to lose that understanding of what the
> camera is doing, and you're just blindly accepting the camera's
> decision.
Not really. Matrix metering is just as deterministic as CW metering. It
takes longer to figure out what the camera will do in a given situation, but
then again, the metering is so much more accurate that you don't have to
care nearly as often about why it is doing what it is doing. You have to be
aware of CW metering because it is so frequently off the mark. Good matrix
metering is correct 99% of the time, so you don't have to care what it is
doing nearly as much.
> In this respect, auto cameras actually teach nothing. They
> allow those who do not wish to learn, or have no knowledge to
> take to take good photos.
If the goal is taking good photos, where's the problem?
> That's fine, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking they're
> teaching anyone anything.
It seems to me that it is teaching them to take good photos.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> If he used a program mode, with some sort of matrix
> metering, he would have never been able to determine
> what the camera was doing.
But then again, every shot would have been acceptable, so it would not have
mattered. Matrix metering is way more accurate than ordinary CW metering.
> IF you MUST use auto exposure, at least use aperture
> priority, and CW metering, so at least you can understand
> what the camera is doing. If you don't understand that,
> then you can't learn anything.
It seems to me that, if you've learned to take good pictures, you've learned
quite a bit.
> Bit how will a camera in auto exposure mode, using matrix
> metering help?
It lets you concentrate on trivial details, like composition and subject.
> The problem is, I know of no one who buys a Nikon SLR for
> example, and uses anything but matrix metering.
Nikon's matrix metering is incredibly accurate. I have yet to see it mess
anything up. Since it is trustworthy, why use anything else? I've
occasionally used spot metering, but it didn't really produce better
results, and it screwed up subsequent shots when I forgot to switch back to
matrix metering.
> They think that because they're using manual, they're learning.
Or they just want to take pictures, and don't care about the technical
stuff.
> However, if you have no idea of how the camera is metering
> the scene (and you don't with matrix). you may as well be
> using a point and shoot.
So? I don't see anything wrong with using a point-and-shoot. An F5 can be
used as an extraordinary rugged and accurate point-and-shoot. If the
objective is getting the picture, and not fiddling with settings, where's
the problem?
> Just the point I've been making all along. Auto modes, and
> feature laden SLRs do NOT make things easier.
That depends on how they are designed. Cheap automatic stuff is often way
off the mark, and worse yet, you can't turn it off.
-- Anthony
Al Denelsbeck
Only me... wrote in message <7qtmgp$kg3$3...@gxsn.com>...
> That's a good point, but what about the guy who uses a program mode,
>with matrix metering. He can look at the camera, and see what number are
>being used to, but he'll be no wider, as he has no idea what the camera is
>metering off, or why. I've said all along that aperture priority with CW
>metering is perhaps not a problem, as you can still determine what is
>influencing the exposure, and take steps to correct. This is essentially
>the same as actually using the camera on manual. As soon as you start to
>use matrix metering, and program modes, you start to lose that
understanding
>of what the camera is doing, and you're just blindly accepting the camera's
>decision. In this respect, auto cameras actually teach nothing. They
allow
>those who do not wish to learn, or have no knowledge to take to take good
>photos. That's fine, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking they're
>teaching anyone anything.
>
>David.
>
This begs the question: Is the intended end result a vast store of
knowledge, or is it a good photo?
The people that care about how they arrive at a particular photo, or
wish to improve on the photos they now take, are the ones who will learn. By
whatever method they choose. So let them choose.
As for me, I don't know exactly how matrix metering works any more than
I know exactly how a carburetor works. But I know what affect it will have,
and when not to use it. I arrived at this not by taking a course on
electronics and the workings of CCDs, but by using the camera. I didn't
blame the camera for the bad photos, but thought about the settings I used,
and experimented.
I also haven't the faintest idea of the chemistry differences between
Velvia and Provia. But I know what end effect each produces, and can use
them to get good photos. So if I were to ask if I was a bad photographer or
a good one, the response of most people would be, "I don't know. Let's see
your photos."
And when viewing my photos, nobody has ever, ever asked, "Was this
matrix metered or center-weighted?"
For what it's worth. - Al
SpooRL
>> example, and uses anything but matrix metering.
>Nikon's matrix metering is incredibly accurate. I have yet to see it >mess
>anything up. Since it is trustworthy, why use anything else?
Which matrix metering? 5seg, 8seg, 3d matrix color--each elaboration developed
over time claims to outdo the previous configuration. I have seen 5-segment
matix mess things up, because I was there, and because I calculated a better
exposure, and shot both, and compared the results. If the subject, that is,
what fills the frame, is premoninantly low tone or high tone, 5-segment will
mess it up, wash out blacks or underexpose whites, at the extremes. The newer
versions of matrix claim to be better and better, and to trust them in oddball
lighting, they will have to better than 5-segment. I hope that they are
improved
I use spotmentering maybe 1% of the time. Glad it's there.
Rick Spoo
Artur Swietanowski
>
> But then again, every shot would have been acceptable, so it would
> not have mattered.
If acceptable is good enough, fine.
> Matrix metering is way more accurate than ordinary CW metering.
Accurate, maybe. But certainly extremely narrow-minded.
Transferring an image to a film usually requires you to make some
choices, because the media can't record everything as the eye
sees. Occasionally, you actually have your own idea of whether
the shadows should have detail, or do you specifically want them
black. Or maybe you want the main subject in the perifery of the
image, exposed as a silhouette. Or maybe a silhouette occupying
well over 70% of the picture. And on it goes. It's a large part
of what is called creativity in photography.
As soon as mind reading is added to matrix metering, I'll trust
it with all the pictures. But not a single day before that.
You might want to say that you can always compensate the matrix
reading. But this will require intimate knowledge of how your
matrix reading will differ from your desired result. It's much
more to learn, and as much trouble to use as CW and/or spot.
And the next generation matrix may make this part of your learning
obsolete.
> > Bit how will a camera in auto exposure mode, using matrix
> > metering help?
>
> It lets you concentrate on trivial details, like composition and
> subject.
The impact of your composition sometimes depends on trivial
technical issues like recording just the right amount of light
and shadow. *You* know what the right amount is, but your matrix
meter doesn't.
> I've occasionally used spot metering, but it didn't really produce
> better results, and it screwed up subsequent shots when I forgot
> to switch back to matrix metering.
I hate to point this out, but it's not the spot meter, but the
person who forgot to switch it off, is to blame. The lack of mind
reading in your Nikon is the real problem.
Gary Frost
Anthony wrote:
>
> Only me... <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7qtmgp$kg3$3...@gxsn.com...
>
> > That's a good point, but what about the guy who uses a
> > program mode, with matrix metering. He can look at the
> > camera, and see what number are being used to, but he'll
> > be no wider, as he has no idea what the camera is
> > metering off, or why.
>
> But as long as he continues to use that camera, it won't matter, will it?
>
> Most photographs don't require any manual tweaking of exposure.
>
> > As soon as you start to use matrix metering, and program
> > modes, you start to lose that understanding of what the
> > camera is doing, and you're just blindly accepting the camera's
> > decision.
>
> Not really. Matrix metering is just as deterministic as CW metering. It
> takes longer to figure out what the camera will do in a given situation, but
> then again, the metering is so much more accurate that you don't have to
> care nearly as often about why it is doing what it is doing. You have to be
> aware of CW metering because it is so frequently off the mark. Good matrix
> metering is correct 99% of the time, so you don't have to care what it is
> doing nearly as much.
>
> > In this respect, auto cameras actually teach nothing. They
> > allow those who do not wish to learn, or have no knowledge to
> > take to take good photos.
>
> If the goal is taking good photos, where's the problem?
>
> > That's fine, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking they're
> > teaching anyone anything.
>
> It seems to me that it is teaching them to take good photos.
>
> -- Anthony
Most print film has enough latitude to forgive whatever metering
techniques you use. Try working with some Velvia using your mindless
metering technique. There is no one correct exposure.
Gary Frost
fros...@my-deja.com
cameras taught me was that photogaphy was very complicated and I really
had to pay attention to get a good photograph and, even then, I
frequently blew it.
Now shoot Nikon N90S & F5 with D lenses and SB-26's. I didn't buy them
to "teach" me anything. I bought them for auto-focus, matrix-metering,
and flash control so that photography would be easier and more fun,
which it certainly is. I leave the camera in "program" mode only
changing when I'm doing something special. I cannot tell any
difference between previous and current "good" photographs with either
system. I can see that I get MANY more "good" photos with the auto
features and I can tell you I enjoy it more and am frustrated and
disappointed less.
When I get seriously anal about some particular shot, I simply switch
to manual and do what I want. I think I've gained a great deal and
given up nothing. In any event, I'll never go back.
In article <7qrruj$jcc$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
Keith Richardson <10305...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> There has been an ongoing topic about whether new users should
> use auto cameras. It may not be politically correct to agree with
> this topic but I do! I decided to post this message after reading
> one of the many photo mags and seeing each picture captioned with
> exposure settings: 1/125 at f/8. Lets face it - unless you are
> the photographer, that is almost useless information. Being told
> the time of day would carry just as much info for someone wanting
> to know how the picture was taken. What I would really like to
> know is how the photographer chose the settings - e.g. "metered
> on the building on the left and opened up one stop". That is how
> photos get taken and it can be done just was well with an auto
> camera (provided it has AE lock). Someone who thinks they are
> learning because they have a manual camera may just be filling
> their memory with the same numbers printed in the magazines
> without understanding them. You can be just as mindless with
> manual as auto. It is not the type of camera that matters - it is
> whether you understand how to take the picture!
>
> Keith Richardson
>
> --
Anthony
news:19990905123959...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> Which matrix metering?
The 3D matrix metering on the F5. For what it is worth, though, the matrix
metering on my Nikon Coolpix 950 digital camera is also extremely accurate.
> The newer versions of matrix claim to be better and better,
> and to trust them in oddball lighting, they will have to better
> than 5-segment.
The F5 matrix contains 1005 segments, and has some 30,000 lighting
situations memorized.
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:37D2AD5E...@bigfoot.com...
> If acceptable is good enough, fine.
That's what "acceptable" means.
> Accurate, maybe. But certainly extremely narrow-minded.
What does "narrow-minded" mean?
> Transferring an image to a film usually requires you to make
> some choices, because the media can't record everything as
> the eye sees. Occasionally, you actually have your own idea
> of whether the shadows should have detail, or do you specifically
> want them black. Or maybe you want the main subject in the
> perifery of the image, exposed as a silhouette.
It is pretty rare that I worry about things like that. I don't have that
much time to spend on each photo.
> And on it goes. It's a large part of what is called
> creativity in photography.
I don't use that kind of creativity in my photography, but I suppose some
people do. It is a question of individual style.
> As soon as mind reading is added to matrix metering, I'll trust
> it with all the pictures. But not a single day before that.
That's fine. I use matrix metering for everything unless I have reason to
believe that matrix will mess up, and I have less and less reason to believe
that.
> You might want to say that you can always compensate the matrix
> reading.
Yes, I can--but I generally don't, as it doesn't really improve anything.
> But this will require intimate knowledge of how your
> matrix reading will differ from your desired result.
Not intimate, just a good guesstimate.
> It's much more to learn, and as much trouble to use as CW
> and/or spot.
True. That's why I typically don't bother, and just take my chances with
matrix. It has worked fine thus far.
> And the next generation matrix may make this part of
> your learning obsolete.
As long as I still have my current camera, that doesn't matter, does it?
> The impact of your composition sometimes depends on trivial
> technical issues like recording just the right amount of light
> and shadow.
At least in my photos, these details are almost never important.
> *You* know what the right amount is, but your matrix
> meter doesn't.
Actually, no, I don't. There might be a hundred different possibilities,
and I normally don't feel like shooting three rolls to cover them all, so I
just let the matrix metering decide.
> I hate to point this out, but it's not the spot meter, but the
> person who forgot to switch it off, is to blame.
True. So I leave it off, that way I don't have to remember to turn it off.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> Now shoot Nikon N90S & F5 with D lenses and SB-26's. I
> didn't buy them to "teach" me anything. I bought them
> for auto-focus, matrix-metering, and flash control so
> that photography would be easier and more fun, which it
> certainly is.
Have your photographs deteriorated since you started trusting exposure to
the machine?
> I cannot tell any difference between previous and current
> "good" photographs with either system.
That answers my question, then. Can anyone else tell the difference? From
what some people say here, I'd expect glaring differences to be obvious.
> I can see that I get MANY more "good" photos with the auto
> features and I can tell you I enjoy it more and am frustrated and
> disappointed less.
Same here. It seems counterproductive to me to spend 80% of my time just
trying to see that the exposure is set right.
> When I get seriously anal about some particular shot, I simply
> switch to manual and do what I want.
Same here--if I have time. Sometimes the shot is gone by the time you set
everything manually.
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:37D2B1FD...@home.com...
> Most print film has enough latitude to forgive whatever metering
> techniques you use. Try working with some Velvia using your mindless
> metering technique.
Velvia is what I have used in the past; I was amazed at how well the camera
managed to expose each picture on full auto. I use Provia now, and the
results are still great.
> There is no one correct exposure.
Exactly. So why fret over exposure?
-- Anthony
Gary Frost
You're right anthony, matrix meter is made for people like you.
Only me...
> >Nikon's matrix metering is incredibly accurate. I have yet to see it
>mess
> >anything up. Since it is trustworthy, why use anything else?
Why? Were you not listening? ;-) Because it's practically impossible
to tell what's going on. In a backlit situation, do you trust that the
camera has already sorted things out for you, or do you make adjustments?
If
you adjust when the camera was right, you'll ruin the shot, but if the
camera was wrong and you did nothing, you've ruined the shot. Not an
enviable situation to be in, and I'm the most ardent Nikon user you'll find.
I switch it off, and use CW. Although not as good at getting it right, it
gets it wrong predictably, and you ALWAYS know when to make compensations.
>
> Which matrix metering? 5seg, 8seg, 3d matrix color--each elaboration
developed
> over time claims to outdo the previous configuration.
They're all good, it doesn't matter. The fact is, the better it is, the
more my argument stands really.
>. The newer
> versions of matrix claim to be better and better, and to trust them in
oddball
> lighting, they will have to better than 5-segment. I hope that they are
> improved
Before I got rid of the silly F5, I had RGB matrix with over a thousand
metering points, and it STILL got it wrong. It can't be relied upon. The
fact is though, although CW will not be able to handle such situations as
backlighting, it fails in a predictable manner, and you ALWAYS know what to
do about it.
> I use spotmentering maybe 1% of the time. Glad it's there.
Spot has it's uses, but only really if you're using the zone system,
metering a small area of one tone surrounded by a predominantly opposite
tone, or if you're using a grey card. In those situations, spot will beat
matrix easily.
If it's accuracy you want, you should buy a good incident meter.
However, you can't always use one of those, so the next best thing is CW
with experience.
Having said all that, once you get used to how your particular matrix
meter works, then you can second guess it. That is really quite difficult
though, and take far more time than it does to get used to a CW meter. Most
of my colleagues will not use matrix, because of the fact that you're never
quite sure of whether to make corrections or not. It is very good. That's
the problem. You're just about to open up a stop fro that backlighting,
then think, "Hmmm..... maybe it's already done that for me". You're never
sure. In those situations, and fro a beginner, CW is a good, reliable,
predictable way of metering. I would also strongly argue the case fro using
a grey card as often as possible too. And you're bag isn't complete until
you've put an incident meter in there too. They're SO useful.
David.
Only me...
Al Denelsbeck <denel...@ipass.net> wrote in message
news:hIwA3.1414$tp2....@news.ipass.net...
> This begs the question: Is the intended end result a vast store of
> knowledge, or is it a good photo?
I was waiting fro this one:
Yes, you can take good pictures with the camera in program mode, and
with matrix metering, but YOU haven't really taken it. You've composed it,
and arranged it, and are responsible for it in that sense, but if asked to
repeat the process, a beginner would not be able to, as he/she would have no
idea what the camera did at the time. They WOULD be able to produce
acceptable results, as you say, but without the knowledge, they would be
totally dependant upon the camera, and ALL cameras make mistakes.
>
> The people that care about how they arrive at a particular photo, or
> wish to improve on the photos they now take, are the ones who will learn.
By
> whatever method they choose. So let them choose.
I can't stop anyone from doing anything. However, I can pass on advice.
Whether that advice is heeded, or ignored is beyond me control. It will all
come down to this though: Eventually, all serious photographers will HAVE
to learn about exposure methods, and the manual operation, and manipulation
of a camera. That's inescapable. So you can either do it at the beginning,
or you can do it later. I personally think it's better to do it at the
beginning.
>
> As for me, I don't know exactly how matrix metering works any more
than
> I know exactly how a carburetor works. But I know what affect it will
have,
> and when not to use it.
No you don't. You never do with Matrix. If you are taking a backlit
scene, are you always sure that the camera's meter has already compensated
fro it? No, you are not. With CW metering, you can be confident that it
has not, and therefore apply compensation, and practically guarantee a good
exposure. Using matrix almost forces you to accept it's decision, because
of the uncertainty of whether any correction is needed or not. IF you try
to correct a shot that's already right, you'll ruin it... but if you do
nothing, and the camera DOESN'T get it right, you'll also ruin it. Are you
telling me that you are always CERTAIN of whether the camera will adequately
deal with the situation? The beauty of CW is the fact that it's NOT
perfect.
However, it's predictably imperfect. And always being able to know what
your camera will do in any given situation will enable you to get shots
others will miss.
If on the other hand, you accept this, and switch matrix off in a
situation where you can't guarantee it's outcome, then you've just agreed
with me really, haven't you?
I'm not saying that you should ditch your gear and buy a FM2 or
anything, just that program modes and matrix metering are useless at
teaching photography. People who already know how to use a camera are
telling me that they use program modes, as if that proves anything. I'm
concerned about those that DO NOT know how to use a camera coming to rely
upon program modes and matrix metering. Such people will never learn, and
they will always be dependant upon such things. Hand them a simple manual
camera, with CW metering, and they're shots will be poor. Why? Because
they've never had to learn they're meter's inadequacies, and correct for
them. They've just blindly accepted what they're camera has told them, and
when they get a bad shot, just shrug as if to say, "You can't win them all".
The fact is though, you CAN win them all if you know what you're doing.
> And when viewing my photos, nobody has ever, ever asked, "Was this
> matrix metered or center-weighted?"
Why should they? Is that an excuse for being ignorant? I'm not saying
that YOU'RE ignorant, but someone who's never used their camera out of a
program mode is, and if no one ever asked what mode was used to take their
photos, would that justify their ignorance? Every now and then, these
people WILL take really good shots, but it's mainly chance. To reliably
take good photographs, in all situations, you need manual control. That can
not be argued. So there are those who learn to use manual modes, and
predictable metering methods, like CW, and there are those that just ignore
such "old fashioned" features of their cameras. One of them is infinitely
better equipped to deal with whatever is put in front of them, and the other
will just trust that their camera can cope.
It seems that I will not convince some of you that manual is the way to
learn. I don;t know why that is, because most of you learned using manual
;-) However. This is one of those threads that will never reach a
conclusion.
It would seem that a man behind a camera is similar to a man behind the
wheel of a car. Always in perfect control; needing no instruction or
guidance, and under the impression that the results of his actions are
without reproach and thoroughly professional in every way, and he
absolutely KNOWS that the established way of doing things is wrong. He
hasn't crashed yet, so there you go. ;-)
I think that I need to say no more on eth subject. This thread is just
going around in circles anyway. Some of you agree, some do not. The fact
is though, ALL of you have realised that at some point, you've had to turn
your auto exposure modes off to get complete control. If you'd just done
that right at the very, very start, you'd have saved a lot of time.
David.
SpooRL
>everything manually.
No doubt. I see no reason, though I shoot 90% manually, not to leave the
exposure set on automatic between things, in case something fleeting pops up.
That's what it's there for. And for me, as with exposure, so for autofucus,
too, depending on lens.
Spoo
Eleven Shadows
Only me... wrote:
> Al Denelsbeck <denel...@ipass.net> wrote in message
> news:hIwA3.1414$tp2....@news.ipass.net...
>
> > This begs the question: Is the intended end result a vast store of
> > knowledge, or is it a good photo?
>
> I was waiting fro this one:
>
> Yes, you can take good pictures with the camera in program mode, and
> with matrix metering, but YOU haven't really taken it. You've composed it,
> and arranged it, and are responsible for it in that sense, but if asked to
> repeat the process, a beginner would not be able to, as he/she would have no
> idea what the camera did at the time. They WOULD be able to produce
> acceptable results, as you say, but without the knowledge, they would be
> totally dependant upon the camera, and ALL cameras make mistakes.
Hello David. I've been reading part of this thread, and I agree with a lot of
your points. I use the automatic mode with my camera quite a lot. I don't
consider myself a photographer, which I think may be part of the point that you
are making. However, at the same time, I have what I believe are really great
looking pictures. Sure, my N70 may have done a lot of the "decisions" for me,
but I still chose the shot, had a strong idea how it would come out, created the
composition, etc. Now, again, I don't claim to be any sort of photographer.
Your assertion that the camera is not teaching me anything is essentially
correct, especially if I am not paying attention to the f-stops/shutter speed.
However, I am still doing something, even if I am by at least my definition not
a photographer.
I see several sides of this discussion. I think that this method of using the
automatic features of my camera still make me some sort of an artist of some
kind. I get what I believe are really gorgeous looking photographs
consistently.
My shots with the N70 with a 70m-300mm Nikon ED lens are in the Morocco/Spain
section of my web site, in case you or anyone else are interested in taking a
peek. It was a really lovely, fantastic trip, and I owe a huge debt of
gratitude to the people on this newsgroup for giving me a great deal of advice
on the lens, film (I ended up purchasing Fuji Superia Realia 100 ASA print
film), and even a tripod, which ended up working really well.
Again, I do not conisder myself a photographer, but I'd like to think that a
really strong idea of compositional sense and how the picture is actually going
to look when it is developed counts for something! <g>
Thank you!
--
Ken/Eleven Shadows/d i t h er
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Irian Jaya" and "Sangsara" CDs now available! * Real Audio!
Morocco*Spain*Peru*Himalayas*Kashmir*Ladakh*India Photos!
http://www.theeleventhhour.com/elevenshadows
d i t h er CD!! http://www.mp3.com/d__i__t__h__er.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bas v.d. Wiel
I'm pretty much a beginner and got me a Nikon N90s/F90x that has a lot of
automatic whiz-bang stuff on it. I study journalism in college, and many
times passing or failing a photography course depends on whether or not I
got the picture right. Chief editors don't care how I got the picture, all
they want to know is that I actually GOT the picture.
I also started doing some semi-commercial stuff with my camera and took
shots of lots of industrial subjects. All worked out perfectly well and
sharp using a simple 28-105 3.5-4.5D lens with full auto and matrix metering
on a tripod. EXCEPT for the case when I took pictures of large red copper
tanks used for brewing beer. EVERY picture I took of them was grossly
underexposed. Does this have anything to do with the way metal reflects
light differently than other materials? I've learned from my mistake and
went back, compensated a stop or sometimes even more and the pictures came
out perfect..
My scanner can save the day most of the time too.. As I scan the negative
using 36 bit color depth, it catches enough of the spectrum to be able to
correct the colors digitally before the shot gets processed for offset
printing...
Bas
Keith Richardson
though, the matrix metering on my Nikon Coolpix 950 digital
camera is also extremely accurate.
programmed into it. Suppose you are looking at a back-lit
subject. The matrix metering has no idea whether you are trying
to create a silhouette against a deep colored sky, or if you want
the foreground well exposed with a white sky. No programmed
matrix metering will predict how YOU want the picture to look.
I started this thread because I believe that AE auto mode with an
exposure lock and over/under exposure adjustments is easier to
control and learn from than fully manual. However matrix metering
is another story. You still need the ability to override or guide
the automation.
Keith Richardson
--
Anthony
> Yes, you can take good pictures with the camera in program mode, and
> with matrix metering, but YOU haven't really taken it. You've composed
it,
> and arranged it, and are responsible for it in that sense ...
You know, the only things that separate me from Pulitzer Prize-winning
photojournalists are those "minor" details of composition and arrangement.
I don't recall anyone ever receiving an award or other recognition just
because he got the exposure right.
> ... but if asked to repeat the process, a beginner would not
> be able to, as he/she would have no idea what the camera did
> at the time.
But if the conditions are the same, the camera will do whatever it did the
previous time, with the same results.
> With CW metering, you can be confident that it
> has not ...
How do you know that? Do you do the calculations in your head to see if the
center weighting correctly compensated for the backlight? I don't find CW
to be any more predictable than matrix, but at least matrix usually gets it
right, so with matrix it doesn't matter.
> Why should they? Is that an excuse for being ignorant?
It demonstrates the irrelevance of the knowledge in question.
> Every now and then, these people WILL take really good shots,
> but it's mainly chance.
There isn't any correlation between using program mode and taking really
good photographs. Using program mode guarantees more consistency of
exposure, but it has no effect on whether a photo is good or bad in an
aesthetic sense.
> To reliably take good photographs, in all situations, you need
> manual control.
Plus a great deal of practice.
To reliably take good (properly exposed) photographs in 99% of all
situations, all you need is good automatic exposure metering, and no
practice is required at all.
> That cannot be argued.
I just argued it above.
> So there are those who learn to use manual modes, and
> predictable metering methods, like CW, and there are those
> that just ignore such "old fashioned" features of their cameras.
And the strange thing is that you can't tell the difference between them
just from looking at their photographs (unless you count the number of
rejects, perhaps).
> ... the other will just trust that their camera can cope.
Since most cameras cope pretty well, this is not a problem.
> It seems that I will not convince some of you that manual
> is the way to learn.
All I'm convinced of is that you seem very opposed to any kind of automatic
anything.
> I don;t know why that is, because most of you learned using manual
There wasn't anything else at the time. And it depends on how you define
manual. I've never taken pictures without some sort of exposure meter, for
example.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> Because it's practically impossible to tell what's going on.
If the results are satisfactory, it doesn't matter what's going on.
> In a backlit situation, do you trust that the camera has
> already sorted things out for you, or do you make adjustments?
It has successfully done so thus far. I've tried to bracket in iffy
situations, just in case, but I find out after the fact that the automatic
metering was the most correct, so I am doing that less and less.
> If you adjust when the camera was right, you'll ruin the
> shot, but if the camera was wrong and you did nothing, you've
> ruined the shot.
My experience thus far is that the camera has always been right, and my
adjustments have been wrong.
> I switch it off, and use CW. Although not as good at getting
> it right, it gets it wrong predictably, and you ALWAYS know
> when to make compensations.
Are you sure it isn't just a matter of having grown up with CW, and not
wanting to change?
> They're all good, it doesn't matter. The fact is, the better
> it is, the more my argument stands really.
If one follows that logic to its ultimate conclusion, the best camera is a
box with a pinhole in it.
> Before I got rid of the silly F5, I had RGB matrix with over
> a thousand metering points, and it STILL got it wrong.
It has gotten it right on every occasion for me. What were you doing
differently?
-- Anthony
Anthony
> No doubt. I see no reason, though I shoot 90% manually ...
Are you shooting manually 90% of the time because the automatic stuff ruins
the shot nine times out of ten, or are you doing it just because you like to
set things manually?
-- Anthony
fros...@my-deja.com
manual Leica shots and auto Nikon shots) From what some people say
here, I'd expect glaring differences to be obvious.
Answer: This covers a time span of more than 30 years. Thankfully,
those who have been interested have commented that my most recent work
is usually my best. I hope that means I'm getting better at it, but it
doesn't answer the question. All I can say truthfully is that I cannot
tell the difference. I doubt very much anyone could look over all I
have done and say "...this is obviously Leica." or "...I can tell this
is Nikon."
I am aware of the "glaring differences" frequently described by some
people when comparing Leica-taken photos with other-taken photos.
Perhaps in controlled circumstances this would be the case. As far as
the work of others, I have seen too much marvelous photography from too
many different kinds of equipment to come down very strongly on side of
one's optics over another's.
Back to the automatic features: I reiterate my opinion that the
automatic features of the newer cameras are just wonderful. Valuable
for professional and for amateur.
I leave my cameras in "default" mode of "P" for "program" whenever I
turn them off. That way, if something is happening, all I have to do
is pick it up and switch it on and -- Bam -- whatever it was, I've GOT
it without even thinking. If there's more time, I may do other things
-- take more control for myself. It seems to me I have gained much
with the automatic features and given up nothing.
SpooRL
>I see no reason, though I shoot 90% manually, not to leave the
>exposure set on automatic between things, in case something fleeting >pops up.
>That's what it's there for. And for me, as with exposure, so for >autofucus,
>too, depending on lens.
>Are you shooting manually 90% of the time because the automatic stuff >ruins
>the shot nine times out of ten, or are you doing it just because you like >to
>set things manually?
I use manual mode mostly because I shoot ISO 25 transparancy film and am in no
hurry. The more knowledge and experience that I can apply to determining an
exposure for a film with basically no exposure latitude, the better my
likelihood of success, and I cannot do this without manual control of the
settings. I use manual mode because with it, given my choice of film and
subject matter, I have an established formula for success.
Spoo
Artur Swietanowski
> > With CW metering, you can be confident that it
>
> How do you know that? Do you do the calculations in your head to
> see if the center weighting correctly compensated for the
> backlight?
You appear not to know what you're talking about. CW by design
does not do any compensation. That's the whole point.
> > To reliably take good photographs, in all situations, you need
> > manual control.
^^^
> To reliably take good (properly exposed) photographs in 99%
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
Notice the difference between 99% and all? And, quite expectedly,
the most challenging lighting situations (the missing 1%) may also
give you the most rewarding images.
Also, there usually is no such thing as one correct exposure.
Anthony
> I am aware of the "glaring differences" frequently described by some
> people when comparing Leica-taken photos with other-taken photos.
We've all _heard_ of these differences; but I for one have never actually
seen them.
> It seems to me I have gained much with the automatic features
> and given up nothing.
That is my feeling also. I have the best of both worlds. I can always turn
the automatic stuff off, if I want to.
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:37D335D3...@santa-monica-ca.com...
> However, I am still doing something, even if I am by
> at least my definition not a photographer.
What is your definition of a Photographer?
-- Anthony
Anthony
> You appear not to know what you're talking about.
You apparently do not agree with me, but for some reason, you seem unwilling
to say so explicitly. Instead, you try to discredit what I say by asserting
that I don't know what I'm talking about. Why not simply say that you
disagree?
> CW by design does not do any compensation. That's the whole
> point.
This is incorrect. CW does compensate. CW stands for center-weighted,
which means that the central portion of the image is given more weight in
exposure calculations than is the peripheral portion of the image. This is
nothing more than a form of exposure compensation. When you shoot a dark
subset in the center of the image surrounded by backlight, the center
weighting of the meter makes it more likely that the exposure will be
correct.
> Notice the difference between 99% and all?
Yes. The difference is one percent. Since I reject about 90% of my photos
just because I don't like the composition, slight deviations from ideal
exposure in 1% of my images are not worth worrying about.
> And, quite expectedly, the most challenging lighting situations
> (the missing 1%) may also give you the most rewarding images.
Not necessarily. If your objective in photography is something other than
shooting bizarre lighting situations, the chances of that 1% being the one
photo you really need are only... 1%.
> Also, there usually is no such thing as one correct exposure.
There is never any such thing as one correct exposure. For a majority of
photos, there exists a wide range of exposures that are acceptable.
-- Anthony
Artur Swietanowski
> You apparently do not agree with me, but for some reason, you seem
> unwilling to say so explicitly.
OK, if you want it: I disagree with you. The statements I made still
stand.
> > CW by design does not do any compensation. That's the whole
> > point.
>
> This is incorrect. CW does compensate. CW stands for
> center-weighted, which means that the central portion of the image
> is given more weight in exposure calculations than is the
> peripheral portion of the image. This is nothing more than a
> form of exposure compensation.
If that's how you understand compensation, so be it. However, to
me compensation is *only* what I do to override the meter.
The weights and areas in question are well known and equal across
all cameras that employ CW (of course, subject to correct light
meter calibration and operation). Any two CW meters should give the
same exact reading for any scene. And regardless of the camera, it
is easy to say exactly what caused this or that reading.
Not so with the matrix modes. They will differ from camera to
camera, from manufacturer to manufacturer, maybe even from one
production batch to another (see the case of first EOS 50's).
> > Notice the difference between 99% and all?
>
> Yes. The difference is one percent. Since I reject about 90% of my
> photos just because I don't like the composition, (...)
You could see the composition in the viefinder, so you could save
yourself quite a lot of film. Not all, but a lot, (depending on
your subjects, of course). As for the exposure, it only shows up
after processing. My throw away ratio is much lower now, and getting
down with every 10 roll pack of slide.
> > And, quite expectedly, the most challenging lighting situations
> > (the missing 1%) may also give you the most rewarding images.
>
> (...) If your objective in photography is something other than
> shooting bizarre lighting situations (...)
You turn my statement upside down and then argue it. Try arguing
with the original version, if you can.
The photo records composition + lighting. You may want to throw
away the use of lighting as a creative tool, I don't.
> There is never any such thing as one correct exposure. For a
> majority of photos, there exists a wide range of exposures that
> are acceptable.
Many reasons to disagree:
1) maybe acceptable to you, but no to me,
2) maybe it's the wide latitude of your materials, but not mine,
3) for a majority of photos, I have a very clear idea of what I
want (in terms of color intensity, saturation, detail in the
shades and/or highlights etc.), and it'll only work in a range
of +/- 1/2 stop, or even less.
Keith Richardson
> -- Anthony
what the automatic stuff is doing for you? Unless you have a set
of situation where you know that auto gets it wrong, this ends up
sounding like the person who says they can always stop smoking
anytime they want but have never tried.
Keith Richardson
--
Only me...
<fros...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7qufp2$b3b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Now shoot Nikon N90S & F5 with D lenses and SB-26's. I didn't buy them
> to "teach" me anything.
Well, that's OK then. My whole point is just that: That they WON'T
teach you anything either. However, that's not why you bought them. Have
fun.
David.
Only me...
I don't know why he bothers replying to my threads: I've kill filed
him. :-) Anthony that is, not Gary.
David.
Only me...
> You appear not to know what you're talking about.
He hears those word a lot I imagine.
Only me...
<fros...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7qv7di$qe0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I am aware of the "glaring differences" frequently described by some
> people when comparing Leica-taken photos with other-taken photos.
This is nonsense, there are NO "glaring" differences between Leica shots
and others. If there were, only leicas would be used by anyone at least
remotely concerned about quality. There is practically no difference
between one or the other., and I've proved it many times. I've taken the
same with a Nikkor lens, and then with a Leitz lens, and no one could
confidently say which was which, and even some ardent Leica fans chose the
Nikkor shot over the Leica one. It's pretentious nonsense. There ARE
differences, but they're far from "glaring", and not always in favour of the
Leitz optics either.
David.
Only me...
Keith Richardson <10305...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
news:7qv111$df1$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> I started this thread because I believe that AE auto mode with an
> exposure lock and over/under exposure adjustments is easier to
> control and learn from than fully manual.
What's the difference between metering off an area and locking it with
AE, and just metering off an object in manual? Manual's easier, and less
complex, that's what.
At least you're not advocating "P" modes like some though, and realise
that matrix metering makes it impossible to take any control.
David.
Only me...
>
> No doubt. I see no reason, though I shoot 90% manually, not to leave the
> exposure set on automatic between things, in case something fleeting pops
up.
> That's what it's there for. And for me, as with exposure, so for
autofucus,
> too, depending on lens.
Exactly. So do I. It's on Aperture priority and AF whilst being
carried, just in case someone decides to leap off a building or something
;-)
David.
Only me...
> I hate to point this out, but it's not the spot meter, but the
> person who forgot to switch it off, is to blame. The lack of mind
> reading in your Nikon is the real problem.
LOL..... ;-)
Only me...
Eleven Shadows <eleven...@santa-monica-ca.com> wrote in message
news:37D335D3...@santa-monica-ca.com...
> Hello David. I've been reading part of this thread, and I agree with a
lot of
> your points. I use the automatic mode with my camera quite a lot. I
don't
> consider myself a photographer, which I think may be part of the point
that you
> are making. However, at the same time, I have what I believe are really
great
> looking pictures. Sure, my N70 may have done a lot of the "decisions" for
me,
> but I still chose the shot, had a strong idea how it would come out,
created the
> composition, etc. Now, again, I don't claim to be any sort of
photographer.
> Your assertion that the camera is not teaching me anything is essentially
> correct, especially if I am not paying attention to the f-stops/shutter
speed.
> However, I am still doing something, even if I am by at least my
definition not
> a photographer.
Absolutely. You composed the shot, and it IS your shot, and if it's
good, you can be proud of it. However, you had no idea what the camera was
doing at the time, and the only way to repeat that performance, so to speak,
id to be in the same place, at the same time, because the camera decided
upon the exposure. As you said, you have no aspirations to be a
photographer, and as such, what you're doing is perfectly ok. If you DID
have aspirations to be a photographer though, wouldn't it be a good idea if
you could create any effect you wanted, at any time you wanted? Full manual
control, or a good understanding of it is essential to do this - not only in
manual, but to be able to manipulate your camera whilst in auto modes too.
>
> I see several sides of this discussion. I think that this method of using
the
> automatic features of my camera still make me some sort of an artist of
some
> kind. I get what I believe are really gorgeous looking photographs
> consistently.
Consistently? Regularly maybe, but not consistently. If it were
consistent, you could take any photo to order, and you can't do that,
because you depend too much upon your camera making the decisions. No
offence intended, but it's true.
>It was a really lovely, fantastic trip, and I owe a huge debt of
> gratitude to the people on this newsgroup for giving me a great deal of
advice
> on the lens, film (I ended up purchasing Fuji Superia Realia 100 ASA print
> film), and even a tripod, which ended up working really well.
Glad it worked out.
>
> Again, I do not conisder myself a photographer, but I'd like to think that
a
> really strong idea of compositional sense and how the picture is actually
going
> to look when it is developed counts for something! <g>
It does, it counts for a lot, but a photographer needs to be able to
take the camera by the scruff of the neck, and make it do what he/she wants.
You can not do that if you're N70 is on "P" all the time. You compose the
shot, sure, but how it turns out is dependant upon the N70, not you. That's
fine, but to learn photography, at college level, is that really adequate?
I'll let you decide.
I'll take a peak at your web site later as well :-)
David.
Anthony
> OK, if you want it: I disagree with you. The statements
> I made still stand.
You're entitled to your opinion.
> The weights and areas in question are well known and equal across
> all cameras that employ CW (of course, subject to correct light
> meter calibration and operation).
Perhaps, but my camera allows several different types of CW, so it seems
unlikely that there is just one standard for the whole world.
If the only purpose of meters were to give you a basis upon which to further
change the exposure yourself, why would CW meters be invented to begin with?
> Not so with the matrix modes. They will differ from camera to
> camera, from manufacturer to manufacturer, maybe even from one
> production batch to another (see the case of first EOS 50's).
Well, they do the job for me. I rarely use either of the other modes,
particularly CW, although it's nice to know that they are there.
> You could see the composition in the viefinder, so you could save
> yourself quite a lot of film.
Sometimes you don't see things until later.
> My throw away ratio is much lower now, and getting
> down with every 10 roll pack of slide.
All of my photos are correctly exposed, thanks to the matrix metering, so on
an exposure basis, my yield is 100%.
> You turn my statement upside down and then argue it. Try arguing
> with the original version, if you can.
I can, easily. You said that the most challenging photographic situations
were often those with the most difficult lighting. I disagreed. What is
and isn't a challenge depends on what you are trying to photograph, and for
some types of photography (many, in fact), unusual lighting conditions are
not correlated with challenge in a broader sense.
> The photo records composition + lighting. You may want to
> throw away the use of lighting as a creative tool, I don't.
My photos generally depict the real world. As a result, I have to take the
lighting that is there. It isn't a creative tool in itself.
> 1) maybe acceptable to you, but no to me,
That's straightforward enough.
> 2) maybe it's the wide latitude of your materials, but not mine,
Provia slide film, mainly.
> 3) for a majority of photos, I have a very clear idea of what I
> want (in terms of color intensity, saturation, detail in the
> shades and/or highlights etc.), and it'll only work in a range
> of +/- 1/2 stop, or even less.
You must spend a lot of time working on each photo.
I usually walk around, look at things, and occasionally look through the
viewfinder. If I see something I like, I shoot it. I don't have much
control over the technical details, except that I can choose the final image
that I want to record. If the light is bad, though, I will usually skip the
shot.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> How will you know when to do that if you do not fully understand
> what the automatic stuff is doing for you?
You won't. I was just speaking for people like myself.
Even if you don't know enough about manual settings to ever turn anything
off, with a good high-end camera today, you can just point and shoot and get
superb results. If the composition and subject are well chosen, nobody will
care whether you did it on full auto or not. I can easily imagine someone
shooting successfully for years without ever going off auto, although, in
practice, I think most photographers would eventually become curious about
how they might use manual settings to increase their flexibility.
> Unless you have a set of situation where you know that auto
> gets it wrong, this ends up sounding like the person who
> says they can always stop smoking anytime they want but
> have never tried.
I agree.
A person who knows nothing about manual settings is handicapped in
situations that cannot be covered by the automatic stuff. However, the
automatic stuff covers 99% of all shooting situations, so not knowing the
manual settings will only reduce the yield of good photos (globally good,
not just well focused or exposed) by one percent. That's a pretty small
price to pay for the freedom of being able to shoot pictures without first
taking a course in the technical details of photography.
I can give you an easy example: For decades, my father has been an avid
photographer, and he knows all about the technical side of photography.
During all that time, my mother has shown little interest in it. However, a
year or two ago, my parents got a digital camera that does everything
automatically. Now both of them have taken more pictures in one year than
they had previously taken in several decades. My father likes the low cost
and convenience, and my mother--who never wanted to try taking pictures
before--finds the digital camera so easy to use that she is eager to go out
and shoot with it. Better still, it turns out that she is really good at
taking pictures. That would never have happened if she had had to learn all
the manual stuff first.
-- Anthony
Roger Hohmann
"Anthony" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You know, the only things that separate me from Pulitzer Prize-winning
> photojournalists are those "minor" details of composition and
arrangement.
> I don't recall anyone ever receiving an award or other recognition
just
> because he got the exposure right.
>
>
>
> But if the conditions are the same, the camera will do whatever it
did the
> previous time, with the same results.
>
know what will come wrong, I can choose what to do.
>
> How do you know that? Do you do the calculations in your head to see
if the
find CW
> to be any more predictable than matrix, but at least matrix usually
gets it
> right, so with matrix it doesn't matter.
>
usual n-Field matrixes, what do they do? Linear, logarithm, variable
relations? If I *know* the light meter will go wrong, what should I do?
Bet?
>
> There isn't any correlation between using program mode and taking
really
> good photographs. Using program mode guarantees more consistency of
> exposure, but it has no effect on whether a photo is good or bad in an
> aesthetic sense.
>
speed and aperture. If I want a faster speed, I have to change to
manual (or to shift, what means nearly the same). Same for aperture.
Did you ever heard the word "Depht of Field"? How will You use this
with program mode only? Or to freeze a sportsman or a waterfal in
action with a wide open aperture??
>
> Plus a great deal of practice.
>
>
> And the strange thing is that you can't tell the difference between
them
> just from looking at their photographs (unless you count the number of
> rejects, perhaps).
>
wrong if anything was wrong.
>
> > ... the other will just trust that their camera can cope.
>
> Since most cameras cope pretty well, this is not a problem.
>
picture from a point at one edge of the house, one wall on the right
hand of the pic, one on the left. One wall is much lighter, 'cause the
sun shines on it. The other is shadow.
If you take the photo directly, you will definitively get a errorneous
picture. One side is too dark, the other is too light. How should your
matrix mode know which side has to have the correct light?
With a little brain you can measure one side and fix this for the
photo. Or, you can use spot metering. Or, or, ...
But first you have to accept that, in some situations, your automatic-i-
know-everything mode will fail.
Or you can leave the camera in the bag and save the money for the film.
Roger
Godfrey DiGiorgi
patterns are not all the same. The classic Nikon CW meter pattern is 60%
of the sensitivity in the 12mm central circle, 40% on the remainder of
the imaging field but even Nikon has deviated from this on various
models. The EM, for instance, is 40/60 (the inverse of the classic
pattern), the F3 is 85/15 (more highly center sensitive). So it's not
particular correct to say that all centerweighted meters will give the
same results, rather that all CW users will understand instantly why a
particular reading with a given camera was produced, given that they
understand the CW weighting for that particular camera.
I agree 100% with the notion that this is not a form of "compensation":
the meter pattern and sensitivity is fixed and does not vary based upon
scene qualities the way a matrix does. The whole point of a matrix
metering system is that it adds evaluative processing on top of the
basic meter readings to arrive at a "correct" exposure, which is not
merely what a meter reads in all cases. A meter only tells you how much
light it sees.
I wonder about all this complication in modern metering systems
sometimes. I just spent a couple of weeks with my F3 set locked on
automatic exposure with it's CW metering system, exposed 10 rolls of
film in all kinds of lighting circumstances while shooting some road
racing pictures. Moving targets, widely varying orientation to sun and
road, continuous motor follow sequences, etc. Every single negative is
perfectly exposed, whether backlit or whatever. It makes me doubt the
need for a lot of the multiple option metering systems out there.
Godfrey
Artur Swietanowski wrote:
>
> The weights and areas in question are well known and equal across
> all cameras that employ CW (of course, subject to correct light
Gary Frost
Anthony wrote:
>
> Artur Swietanowski <swieta...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:37D3812B...@bigfoot.com...
>
> > You appear not to know what you're talking about.
>
> You apparently do not agree with me, but for some reason, you seem unwilling
> to say so explicitly. Instead, you try to discredit what I say by asserting
> that I don't know what I'm talking about. Why not simply say that you
> disagree?
>
> > CW by design does not do any compensation. That's the whole
> > point.
>
> This is incorrect. CW does compensate. CW stands for center-weighted,
> which means that the central portion of the image is given more weight in
> exposure calculations than is the peripheral portion of the image. This is
> nothing more than a form of exposure compensation. When you shoot a dark
> subset in the center of the image surrounded by backlight, the center
> weighting of the meter makes it more likely that the exposure will be
> correct.
>
> > Notice the difference between 99% and all?
>
> Yes. The difference is one percent. Since I reject about 90% of my photos
> just because I don't like the composition, slight deviations from ideal
> exposure in 1% of my images are not worth worrying about.
>
> > And, quite expectedly, the most challenging lighting situations
> > (the missing 1%) may also give you the most rewarding images.
>
> Not necessarily. If your objective in photography is something other than
> shooting bizarre lighting situations, the chances of that 1% being the one
> photo you really need are only... 1%.
>
> > Also, there usually is no such thing as one correct exposure.
>
> There is never any such thing as one correct exposure. For a majority of
> photos, there exists a wide range of exposures that are acceptable.
>
> -- Anthony
It is not at all uncommon in daylight situation to have contrast exceed
5 stops. What does your matrix do then? Does it prompt you with the
question: what do you prefer, burnt highlights or blocked shadows?
Does it beep and tell you not to bother taking the picture? Can you
recognise situations where contrast exceeds 5 stops? If you shoot in
full sun with shadows, it will occur more frequently then 1% of the time.
Gary Frost
Dag
>Only me... <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>
>> Before I got rid of the silly F5, I had RGB matrix with over
>> a thousand metering points, and it STILL got it wrong.
>
>It has gotten it right on every occasion for me. What were you doing
>differently?
OK I've never used the F5, but here is a list of a couple of situations
where I either know or imagine that a matrix metering will get things
wrong.
-Shooting a backlit person. How does the camera know if I want a silluette
or not.
-Shooting very bright snow-covered landscapes, matrix meters normally seem
to be off here.
-Any shot where one half of the picture is much brighter than the other
half and you want a lot of detail in the dark half. Matrix meters
normally avg. out the bright and dark whereas I wanted the dark
bit correctly exposed and I'll sort the light bit out when I get into
the darkroom.
-small bright objects on a large dark background tend to require a spot
meter if you want the bright object correctly exposed.
And there are a lot of others.
Basically a spot or CW meter will give me exactly what I want, while a
matrix meter will give me what it thinks I want. Matrix meters work fine
for normal shots in normal conditions if you want normal results.
As soon as I move into complicated lighting conditions or want
`abnormal' results, I want as much control as I can get so I know exactly
what my meter is doing, why it is doing it and what result that will
give. A matrix meter can't give any of this.
Dag
Dag
>
>
> And when viewing my photos, nobody has ever, ever asked, "Was this
>matrix metered or center-weighted?"
>
Well I don't know about you, but if I see a shot that really impresses
me and I have a chance to talk to the photographer, I'll ask
how he took it. This includes asking what expsure he used and why.
Dag
fros...@my-deja.com
Believe you wrote that my automated cameras ".....won't teach me
anything either."
Actually that's not entirely true. I think I've learned quite a lot in
the more than six years I've used my automatic cameras in their various
modes. And I had already been shooting for decades.
For beginner or for experienced photog the cameras I'm using display
what they're doing in the viewfinder on every shot -- the electronic
equivalent of watching someone else shoot and having them tell you what
they're doing while they're doing it. Even in the much-maligned
"Program" mode, that is useful information one can,indeed, learn from
if they choose to pay attention. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't.
Depending on my topic, the automatic features may allow more time to
track, follow, analyse, concentrate on a changing scene or subject
without troubling about adjustments when things change. That's
learning, too, don't you think?
I've elsewhere posted my reasons for preferring the new features. For
a new less-experienced person, perhaps a friend or relative, I would be
MUCH more interested in them going out and getting good photographs
right away than insisting upon their taking some particular path
because you or I think its the best way for them to learn. The very
first thing I would like to "teach" them is how much fun photography
is. These new cameras are wonderful this way. Even a newbie can go
out and have good experiences right away. If they want to go further,
they can. If they don't, so what? I see no need to force some point
of view on them or tell them they don't know anything and won't learn
anything unless they do things your way.
I think there is much to be learned along pathways different from those
you seem to insist are best. The latest fully-automated cameras
certainly do have a place in that curriculum for many, many people.
In article <7r0hq3$db9$9...@gxsn.com>,
"Only me..." <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <fros...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7qufp2
$b3b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> >
> > Now shoot Nikon N90S & F5 with D lenses and SB-26's. I didn't buy
them
> > to "teach" me anything.
>
> Well, that's OK then. My whole point is just that: That they
WON'T
> teach you anything either. However, that's not why you bought them.
Have
> fun.
>
> David.
>
>
fros...@my-deja.com
spot metering if you want. Pretty sure most competitors do, too. I
use the option often.
In article <slrn7t7sn5....@fili.dd.chalmers.se>,
Dag
>Keith Richardson <10305...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
>news:7r0g18$9op$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>
>automatic stuff covers 99% of all shooting situations,
Bullshit. Automatic covers 99% of your shooting situations. It covers
maybe 50-60% at most of my shooting situations. And even most of those
I shoot manual so that I won't lose a picture due to the camera screwing
up obscurely.
>manual settings will only reduce the yield of good photos (globally good,
>not just well focused or exposed) by one percent. That's a pretty small
>price to pay for the freedom of being able to shoot pictures without first
>taking a course in the technical details of photography.
I've never taken a photo course in my life, I've just shot lots of
film. Then I look at the pictures and remember what I did to get the
good pictures. I got an old Pentax from my dad when I was 12 or so,
he spent a couple of hours showing me how to use it and after that it's
been all trial and error and reading books.
I can honestly say that If I had been given an auto everything camera
as my first camera I'd be a far worse photographer than I am today.
Looking at the pictures I have hanging on my wall, most of them are
what they are because I used techniques I learned from shooting nothing
but fully manual.
Dag
Artur Swietanowski
>
> On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:13:00 -0400, Al Denelsbeck <denel...@ipass.net> wrote:
>>And when viewing my photos, nobody has ever, ever asked, "Was this
>>matrix metered or center-weighted?"
>
> me and I have a chance to talk to the photographer, I'll ask
> how he took it. This includes asking what expsure he used and why.
Maybe his shots never impressed anyone sufficiently. Just
a possibility.
Norcimmus
automatic works as well (for him) as manual for 99% of his shots.
Others are able to improve far more than 1% of their shots by opting to use
manual rather than automatic. This wouldn't be due to superior photographic
skill, would it? Hmmm? ;-)
Manual Norc
Anthony
news:slrn7t7uff....@fili.dd.chalmers.se...
> And even most of those I shoot manual so that I won't lose
> a picture due to the camera screwing up obscurely.
What kind of camera do you have that messes things up with such frequency?
> I've never taken a photo course in my life, I've just shot
> lots of film.
So you just twisted and turned dials and knobs for each picture and found
out what they did by trial and error? If so, then yes, you must have shot
_a lot_ of film!
> Looking at the pictures I have hanging on my wall, most of
> them are what they are because I used techniques I learned
> from shooting nothing but fully manual.
Do you have examples here on the Web?
-- Anthony
Anthony
> I don't know why he bothers replying to my threads ...
So that other people can read my responses.
> ... I've kill filed him.
That's your loss, not mine.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> Well I don't know about you, but if I see a shot that really impresses
> me and I have a chance to talk to the photographer, I'll ask
> how he took it. This includes asking what expsure he used and why.
Nobody has ever asked me this. My answer would be pretty simple, anyway:
"full auto."
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:7r0mu5$qhc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Maybe there are thousands that got this wrong...
Some of them win prizes anyway.
> And? Will that help anyone?
Sure. One more picture correctly exposed.
> If I have a complex light situation, and I know
> what will come wrong, I can choose what to do.
Why not just use a meter that gets complex lighting situations right?
> Using program mode guarantees just a camera-made balance of shutter
> speed and aperture. If I want a faster speed, I have to change to
> manual (or to shift, what means nearly the same). Same for aperture.
In many photographs, shutter speed and aperture are irrelevant.
> Did you ever heard the word "Depht of Field"?
Yes, but without an extremely fast lens and/or a subject at very close range
and/or a huge focal length, DOF is usually so great that it doesn't matter.
> How will You use this with program mode only?
I can shift the program to modify depth of field.
> Or to freeze a sportsman or a waterfal in action
> with a wide open aperture??
See above.
> For compensate Light meter: yes. For program shifting (see
> upwards): no.
That's why program shifting is so handy.
> You can't see any of this on a correct picture. You only see
> what was wrong if anything was wrong.
My experience thus far has been that, with matrix metering, nothing is ever
wrong.
> Think about following situation: Photo of a house: You want to take the
> picture from a point at one edge of the house, one wall on the right
> hand of the pic, one on the left. One wall is much lighter, 'cause the
> sun shines on it. The other is shadow.
Okay.
> If you take the photo directly, you will definitively get
> a errorneous picture. One side is too dark, the other is
> too light. How should your matrix mode know which side
> has to have the correct light?
I don't know. In fact, I don't know myself, since I can't have it both
ways, and you haven't indicated which side of the house needs to be properly
exposed (they cannot both be properly exposed).
> With a little brain you can measure one side and fix this for the
> photo. Or, you can use spot metering. Or, or, ...
Yes, if I am willing to sacrifice one for the other. But what if I want
both sides properly exposed?
-- Anthony
Anthony
> OK I've never used the F5 ...
Ah. What about the F100, which is said to have similar accuracy in
metering?
All I can say is that the F5 is doing very, very well.
> -Shooting a backlit person. How does the camera know if I want
> a silluette or not.
My experience is that it assumes you want what is in the center of the
picture, and not the backlight.
> -Shooting very bright snow-covered landscapes, matrix meters
> normally seem to be off here.
No snow handy around here, but I've heard that the F5 actually manages to do
this.
> -Any shot where one half of the picture is much brighter
> than the other half and you want a lot of detail in the
> dark half. Matrix meters normally avg. out the bright
> and dark whereas I wanted the dark bit correctly exposed
> and I'll sort the light bit out when I get into the darkroom.
Usually I want the best compromise, and that's what matrix gives me. If I
absolutely must have one portion of the image properly exposed at the
expense of the rest, I'll spot meter. My experience thus far, however, has
been that matrix does such a good job in most cases that I need not have
resorted to spot metering.
> -small bright objects on a large dark background tend to require a spot
> meter if you want the bright object correctly exposed.
I haven't had occasion to photograph things like this.
> And there are a lot of others.
The F5 has 30,000 such situations memorized.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> It is not at all uncommon in daylight situation to have
> contrast exceed 5 stops. What does your matrix do then?
It does the best it can. The results thus far have been excellent.
> Can you recognise situations where contrast exceeds
> 5 stops?
Anything with sunlight is a pretty good guess.
> If you shoot in full sun with shadows, it will occur more
> frequently then 1% of the time.
Yup--but there is no "correct" exposure for such situations, anyway.
-- Anthony
Gary Frost
There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity.
With your mind set, you will always be a snap-shooter.
I will cease to be a contributer to your waste of bandwidth.
Gary Frost
Gary Frost
Anthony wrote:
>
>
> Yes, but without an extremely fast lens and/or a subject at very close range
> and/or a huge focal length, DOF is usually so great that it doesn't matter.
>
> -- Anthony
Like so many of your posts Anthony, this makes no sense.
You would do better to spend more time listening and reading
than endless posting about your "philosophy" of photography.
Gary Frost
SpooRL
automatic works as well (for him) as manual for 99% of his shots.
I think that you articulated a thought that's been going through the backs of
everyone's minds here. Very well put. Funny, funny sentence. I'm keeping this
private because I don't want to give the parasite something else to latch onto.
<A HREF="http://www.atkielski.com/">Anthony's Home Page</A>
You can see at a cursory glance that he hasn't got the best exposure with a
good number of his shots. Focus is too hard to judge on a low-res internet
post. And he must have the benefit of Photoshop or the like to work with. So I
wonder what he started with....the B&W shot (Rue Privas) in the "Art Photos"
section look flat as hell in the main subject area to me. I don't know if it
scan is off the negative, but I could make a print at home and scan from a
flatbed and blow that thing away, and I have only the working knowledge of B&W
that I gained from shooting for high school publications 25 years ago. I don't
think Anthony has a wit's worth of working knowledge of how to get the best
result from his materials. His responses are boilerplate and he doesn't seem to
grasp that "manual dexterity" with a camera actually affects things like choice
of subject matter, film, and composition. You see things that the camera and
film can do that otherwise all but invisible to an inexperienced eye; and, you
learn where not to bother to shoot at all.
Thanks, Richard
Artur Swietanowski
> I think Anthony is exhibiting a great deal of humility in
> admitting that automatic works as well (for him) as manual for
> 99% of his shots.
This could only be called humility, if and only if he saw this
result as a humble achievement. Judging by his posts (in reply to
almost any message in the thread that was written by anyone else)
he is much more likely to insist that this is, for some obscure
reason, a great result.
For all his claims about the superior quality of his exlusively
matrix metered shots, I'd be happy to actually see some samples.
If the web page http://www.atkielski.com/ is actually a showcase
of his achievements (or rather his camera's achievements), as
suggested some days ago, then he has much more to be extremely
humble about.
Eleven Shadows
> > at least my definition not a photographer.
>
Anthony, I don't actually think I have one yet! <g> In part, it would
be someone who knows the basics of camera equipment, can replicate
photos that have been taken before, and is flexible in different
situations. But honestly, that is a half-baked definition at best, and
certainly not complete. I don't know. I am not being facetious, but if
you had a definition yourself, I'd be happy to hear it. But I do know
that whatever a photographer is, I'm not! <g> Even on the basic posts
here, I am learning quite a lot. That said, I think that I take some
really good photos, but I think that this is more because I have a very
good eye (I hope!) and often develop a good rapport with people while
traveling. Are these part of being a photographer? Possibly....I
dunno!
I am a musician, but record myself and other bands. We often have the
same discussions about the definition of a recording engineer (again, I
don't consider myself a recording engineer, since to me this is a
technical title; however, I get really good results on tape, and am
relatively knowledgeable about recording equipment and fundamental
microphone and mixing techniques). But darn it, I cannot align my tape
machine, I cannot calculate the node frequencies of a room, have no idea
how to use a soldering iron, and have only a passing knowledge of MIDI.
--
Ken/Eleven Shadows/d i t h er
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Irian Jaya" and "Sangsara" CDs now available! * Real Audio!
Morocco*Spain*Peru*Himalayas*Kashmir*Ladakh*India Photos!
http://www.theeleventhhour.com/elevenshadows
d i t h er CD!! http://www.mp3.com/d__i__t__h__er.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eleven Shadows
Yes, I think your clarification is correct. I meant that frequently my photos
turn out quite well, but I do not know if I could replicate them. Maybe, maybe
not, but in either case, I don't have enough of a working knowledge of a camera
or fundamentals of photography to be consistent in replicating photos. For a
lot of the shots, I am using the AF as well, especially when they are
spontaneous. I am, of course, using manual as well. I traveled wtih a
photographer last year, and was amazed at how fast she could operate her camera,
all completely manual. Blinding speed, stunning results.
> If it were
> consistent, you could take any photo to order, and you can't do that,
> because you depend too much upon your camera making the decisions. No
> offence intended, but it's true.
No offense taken (oh, look, we spell "offence" differently -- how fun! <g>).
You're actually preachin' to the choir. I am in complete agreement with you. I
aim to change that someday, but first, I want to take guitar lessons and learn
Spanish, so photography will have to wait for a few more months! <g>
> I'll take a peak at your web site later as well :-)
Thanks! Lemme know what you think! I've got a long way to go before I am a
photographer, but I finally have some decent equipment, so I think that this is
a darn good start. And I think I have a really good compositional sense, and
hopefully this will grow stronger with time as well as with my knowledge of
photography. The N70 seems like a good camera to grow into for me.
Anthony
> My Nikon N90S's and F5 have switches that instantly take you to CW or
> spot metering if you want.
Instantly? Which ones? On the F5, you have to move a little switch on the
finder to get to spot mode--unless there is some shortcut that I've
forgotten (the manual is pretty thick, and there are a lot of unusual
functions that I don't use often enough to remember).
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:19990906144013...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> Others are able to improve far more than 1% of their
> shots by opting to use manual rather than automatic. This
> wouldn't be due to superior photographic skill, would it?
No, it would be due to better familiarity with manual settings. I don't
think it has anything to do with taking photographs.
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:7r136p$38nu0$1...@reader2.wxs.nl...
> I also started doing some semi-commercial stuff with my camera and took
> shots of lots of industrial subjects. All worked out perfectly well and
> sharp using a simple 28-105 3.5-4.5D lens with full auto and matrix
metering
> on a tripod. EXCEPT for the case when I took pictures of large red copper
> tanks used for brewing beer. EVERY picture I took of them was grossly
> underexposed. Does this have anything to do with the way metal reflects
> light differently than other materials?
I'd guess that specular reflections from the tanks (bright spots of
reflected light bouncing back at you) fooled the metering system. Some
high-end cameras with matrix metering are programmed to recognize and ignore
specular reflections. Are there any such bright reflections on the tanks?
Were you using flash?
Another possibility (kind of slim) would be that the tanks are reflecting
infrared or ultraviolet and this is being incorrect detected as visible
light by the meter. Or, conversely, the meter is not seeing this light, but
the film is.
> My scanner can save the day most of the time too.. As I scan the negative
> using 36 bit color depth, it catches enough of the spectrum to be able to
> correct the colors digitally before the shot gets processed for offset
> printing...
What kind of scanner is it?
-- Anthony
Anthony
> Like so many of your posts Anthony, this makes no sense.
Sure it does.
I shoot lots of scenes that are 10-50 meters away, at focal lengths that are
often below 50 mm. At these settings, even at f/1.4, depth of field is
enormous. Since none of my zooms go below f/2.8, the DOF is larger still.
Often there is no point in playing with DOF in these situations because it's
going to be very large no matter what you do.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity.
> With your mind set, you will always be a snap-shooter.
> I will cease to be a contributer to your waste of bandwidth.
If this post, which contains only personal attacks and no refutations of my
statements or other interesting discussion, is typical of all your posts, I
think it is safe to say that your abstinence from further contributions
should not put much of a damper on the conversation.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> This could only be called humility, if and only if he saw this
> result as a humble achievement. Judging by his posts (in reply to
> almost any message in the thread that was written by anyone else)
> he is much more likely to insist that this is, for some obscure
> reason, a great result.
It is a great result for the amount of effort expended. Very
cost-effective.
> For all his claims about the superior quality of his exlusively
> matrix metered shots, I'd be happy to actually see some samples.
There are plenty of examples on my Web site. They are chosen for their
documentary value rather than their technical excellence, but in most of
them, the camera did very well.
> If the web page http://www.atkielski.com/ is actually a showcase
> of his achievements (or rather his camera's achievements), as
> suggested some days ago, then he has much more to be extremely
> humble about.
It is a showcase of a city's attractions. It is not a compendium of
technical photographic excellence.
Do you have a Web site with some examples of your work?
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:37D41C71...@santa-monica-ca.com...
> Anthony, I don't actually think I have one yet!
Good. Keep it that way, and you'll continue to take better and better
pictures.
> In part, it would be someone who knows the basics of camera
> equipment, can replicate photos that have been taken before,
> and is flexible in different situations.
Does taking good pictures enter into the definition anywhere?
> I am not being facetious, but if you had a definition yourself,
> I'd be happy to hear it.
A photographer is someone who take pictures. A photographer is good when I
spend several minutes looking at one of his pictures, and when I find myself
going back to look at his pictures again and again.
> But I do know that whatever a photographer is, I'm not!
How do you know that?
> That said, I think that I take some really good photos,
> but I think that this is more because I have a very good
> eye (I hope!) and often develop a good rapport with people
> while traveling. Are these part of being a photographer?
According to some of the world's best photographers, these are _essential_
to being a good photographer. If you have these, the rest is optional.
> But darn it, I cannot align my tape machine, I cannot
> calculate the node frequencies of a room, have no idea
> how to use a soldering iron, and have only a passing
> knowledge of MIDI.
You must get pretty badly beat up in the rec.audio groups, eh? USENET is
full of technical geeks who consider themselves experts on everything.
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:19990906153405...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
> You can see at a cursory glance that he hasn't got the
> best exposure with a good number of his shots.
Any specific examples?
The shots are not chosen based on how accurate the exposure was.
> Focus is too hard to judge on a low-res internet
> post.
Focus is uniformly excellent on almost every photograph. It's hard for it
to be otherwise when the subject is effectively at infinity and the aperture
is f/5.6 or so.
> And he must have the benefit of Photoshop or the like to work
> with.
All of the images have to be prepared with Photoshop, if for no other reason
than that the originals are too large to fit on a monitor.
> So I wonder what he started with....the B&W shot (Rue Privas)
> in the "Art Photos" section look flat as hell in the main subject
> area to me.
It is a digital photograph (Nikon CP950), downsampled and desaturated
(converted to grayscale), aggressively cropped, with random monochromatic
noise added to simulate film. It has generated a great deal of positive
feedback.
> I don't know if it scan is off the negative ...
There was no negative.
> ... but I could make a print at home and scan from a flatbed
> and blow that thing away ...
Please do so, and upload it to your Web site so that I can admire it. That
will give me a goal to which I can aspire in the future.
> ... and I have only the working knowledge of B&W that I gained
> from shooting for high school publications 25 years ago.
I never shoot black and white. If I need black and white, I desaturate a
color image. It provides a lot more control over the final result.
> I don't think Anthony has a wit's worth of working knowledge
> of how to get the best result from his materials.
Well, I keep hoping that some of the seasoned experts here will point me to
some of their work, so that I can contrast their lofty achievements with my
own miserable failures, but nobody has been able to direct me to anything.
> His responses are boilerplate and he doesn't seem to grasp
> that "manual dexterity" with a camera actually affects things
> like choice of subject matter, film, and composition.
Maybe you can show me some of your work and explain how you achieved your
superlative results, and I can learn from that. What do you say?
> You see things that the camera and film can do that otherwise
> all but invisible to an inexperienced eye; and, you learn where
> not to bother to shoot at all.
More than 300,000 people have seen those photographs, and I have archives of
thousands of extremely positive comments on all of them. As long as
99.9999% of my visitors are satisfied, it's reasonable for me to conclude
that I'm doing things right.
What's the URL of your gallery?
-- Anthony
Only me...
> I'm pretty much a beginner and got me a Nikon N90s/F90x that has a lot of
> automatic whiz-bang stuff on it. I study journalism in college, and many
> times passing or failing a photography course depends on whether or not I
> got the picture right. Chief editors don't care how I got the picture, all
> they want to know is that I actually GOT the picture.
That's unusual. Most newspapers and magazines employ photographers, and
practically no one employs the journalist/photographer any longer. All
press photographers I know, and I know quite a few, have absolutely no
journalistic talent. They're there to take photos.
If you ARE one of the dying breed of journalist/photographers though,
then yes, using "P" will serve you well most of the time. However, wouldn't
you be just about ready to kill yourself if the shots to accompany the BIG
story slipped through your finger because your F90X's program mode, and
matrix metering messed up? It's FAR from infallible. If you don't have
time to learn though, sure, it';s made fro the job. I WAS referring to
photography students though.
>
> I also started doing some semi-commercial stuff with my camera and took
> shots of lots of industrial subjects. All worked out perfectly well and
> sharp using a simple 28-105 3.5-4.5D lens with full auto and matrix
metering
> on a tripod. EXCEPT for the case when I took pictures of large red copper
> tanks used for brewing beer. EVERY picture I took of them was grossly
> underexposed.
Well, there you go then. Hardly a resounding success then. Try to use
manual, and these things can be avoided by learning some very rudimentary
skills.
>Does this have anything to do with the way metal reflects
> light differently than other materials?
No. The bright secular reflections on the copper surface has influenced
the meter, and convinced it that the scene is brighter than it actually was.
In a scene like that, where there are many, and varied light sources,
coupled with reflections, most in-camera reflectance meters will struggle.
Personally, I would have done one of three things, depending upon how much
time I had. If I had the least time, I would have bracketed, taking three
or maybe four shots, some under, some over. If I had more time, I would
have got someone to hold a grey card in the scene, and used the N90's spot
meter to take a reading off the card. I may have also used my hand held
incident meter. I would have never trusted the camera in a situation like
that, and I doubt you will again either ;-)
This is an ideal case in point to the people who argue for the use of
program modes. The fact is that relying upon the camera WILL let you down
when you need it most. Keep it simple, keep it CW, and keep it manual.
That way, you're in control. Couple that with reading a few books on
exposure techniques, and you're ready for anything.
>I've learned from my mistake and
> went back, compensated a stop or sometimes even more and the pictures came
> out perfect..
> My scanner can save the day most of the time too.. As I scan the negative
> using 36 bit color depth, it catches enough of the spectrum to be able to
> correct the colors digitally before the shot gets processed for offset
> printing...
It's better to get a good negative though, because even print film will
loose shadow detail after 2 stops, and it's easy to fool a camera into
getting it wrong by 2 stops.
"All things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the correct
one". You've all heard that, right? Well it's true. Manual, CW
metering, and short while spent in a library will do more for your
photography than any amount of technology. These modes are NOT there to
teach beginners, they're there as a last resort for working pros who realise
what they're doing.
Good Luck with the journalism thing.
David.
Only me...
<fros...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7r10k6$19j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> For beginner or for experienced photog the cameras I'm using display
> what they're doing in the viewfinder on every shot -- the electronic
> equivalent of watching someone else shoot and having them tell you what
> they're doing while they're doing it. Even in the much-maligned
> "Program" mode, that is useful information one can,indeed, learn from
> if they choose to pay attention.
You can learn what they're doing, but to truly learn, you the camera
would have to be correct all the time. Unfortunately, that's not the case,
so whilst you think you're learning, you are in fact being taught by an
idiot savant, that knows nothing. Never trust your camera.
>Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't.
> Depending on my topic, the automatic features may allow more time to
> track, follow, analyse, concentrate on a changing scene or subject
> without troubling about adjustments when things change. That's
> learning, too, don't you think?
Yes and no. You should be able to do these things anyway. Manual
exposure control is not difficult. I'm always amazed by people who seem to
want to avoid using manual. It really is easier than using auto exposure if
you took the time to become proficient with it. Part of being a
photographer is being able to make creative decisions about what's in the
viewfinder, sure, but what makes a photographer is the ability to do
that.... whilst taking photographs ;-)
Plus, program modes won't give you vision, imagination, or talent.
These you either have, or have not. Using a program mode will not "reveal"
anything to you. If you can take good shots with program modes, then you
can do it just as easily, but more reliably with manual.
Why would anyone want to give control to a machine that may get it
wrong?
> I've elsewhere posted my reasons for preferring the new features. For
> a new less-experienced person, perhaps a friend or relative, I would be
> MUCH more interested in them going out and getting good photographs
> right away than insisting upon their taking some particular path
> because you or I think its the best way for them to learn.
It depends if they want to be photographers, or just want good photos.
If they want good photos, then sure, program it is, but remember, I'm
talking about students here, and I taught at degree level, yet people are
STILL arguing with me that DEGREE students should be using program modes!!
These are people who plan their life's work and career from talking photos,
and probably not even with 35mm equipment, not some night class for people
with too much time on their hands. AT that level, and for anyone who's
SERIOUS about there work, manual control is the only way to go. Program
modes are just a short route to a quick fix, followed by disaster.
>The very
> first thing I would like to "teach" them is how much fun photography
> is.
Why is manual not fun? Is it not photography? If people need
incentives to take photos, then they're not photographers. Those that don't
want to learn, fine, use program modes. I have no problem with that, but
don't try to tell me that it's teaching you anything, because it's not.
As I said earlier, sometimes you don't want a correct exposure to get
the effect you want, so what good is you accurate (not) matrix metered
program mode then? Ahhh... but you have "custom" program modes don't you.
Program hi, program lo, program sport, program this, program that..... is
all this REALLY easier than reading a book? It's not even accurate or
reliable. It's a GIMMICK!! You're falling for it. If you don't agree at
this point, then you never, never will.
>These new cameras are wonderful this way. Even a newbie can go
> out and have good experiences right away.
As opposed to a decade ago, when we all hated using our manual cameras,
and had to be whipped repeatedly before having the enthusiasm to lift the
obsolete piece of junk to our eyes ;-) If you're interested in photography,
as opposed to taking pictures, then manual operation will not put you off at
all. There's nothing wrong with just wanting to take pictures without
knowing anything more advanced than where to point it, but let's not fool
ourselves: You're not really learning a thing by doing so.
>If they don't, so what? I see no need to force some point
> of view on them or tell them they don't know anything and won't learn
> anything unless they do things your way.
It's not MY way. If they use program modes, and pretend that that
will substitute reading books, or studying, then they are wrong. You can
not "learn" photography that way. This is not a personal thing. I don't
care if you think "I'm" right or wrong. I don't know you, nor will I ever
meet you, so why should I care if you think I'm right or wrong? Facts are
facts though. You will not learn from program modes.
So you shoot for a few months with program mode on. What have you
learned? Do you know about reciprocity law? Unlikely, as you've never had
control over ONE of the variables, let alone both of them. Will you know
about depth of field? Maybe, at a very basic level, but you'll not
understand it fully, and not know about things like hyperfocal settings of
lenses (maybe you feel AF negates the need to know?). Will you know about
film latitude as a result? No. Will you know about compositional
elements? NO. That last one is the biggest defence people have for program
modes. "well, it frees the mind, so you're more able to concentrate upon
composition". This is horse shit. If you don't know what the composition
is BEFORE you even put the camera to your eye, you're doing it wrong.
The fact is, program modes TEACH nothing. Only YOU can teach yourself
photography. Even if you go to college, it's still down to you.
I'm curious: If you did attend college, would you argue with the
teacher, and if so, what id it about photography that makes people think
they have the right? You wouldn't argue with a music professor, or a
Doctor, but rank amateurs seem to think they can argue the toss with college
professors! What's all that about?
David.
Only me...
Godfrey DiGiorgi <rama...@bayarea.net> wrote in message
news:37D3D611...@bayarea.net...
> A minor point but it is of some relevance. Center weighted metering
> patterns are not all the same. The classic Nikon CW meter pattern is 60%
> of the sensitivity in the 12mm central circle, 40% on the remainder of
> the imaging field but even Nikon has deviated from this on various
> models. The EM, for instance, is 40/60 (the inverse of the classic
> pattern), the F3 is 85/15 (more highly center sensitive). So it's not
> particular correct to say that all centerweighted meters will give the
> same results, rather that all CW users will understand instantly why a
> particular reading with a given camera was produced, given that they
> understand the CW weighting for that particular camera.
Only as issue if you use lots of different systems. No matter what the
qualities of your system are, it's YOUR system, and you'll get used to how
it
works in no time at all.
> I wonder about all this complication in modern metering systems
> sometimes. I just spent a couple of weeks with my F3 set locked on
> automatic exposure with it's CW metering system, exposed 10 rolls of
> film in all kinds of lighting circumstances while shooting some road
> racing pictures. Moving targets, widely varying orientation to sun and
> road, continuous motor follow sequences, etc. Every single negative is
> perfectly exposed, whether backlit or whatever. It makes me doubt the
> need for a lot of the multiple option metering systems out there.
There IS no need most of the time. Most of these features are there
just because they can be done, and they sell cameras. The only really
worthwhile advance in the past decade, is good AF systems. These have
performed miracles fro sports and wildlife photographers. Matrix metering
is questionable in it's value, and program modes aren't even remotely "new".
They've been around for over a decade.
David.
Only me...
> OK I've never used the F5, but here is a list of a couple of situations
> where I either know or imagine that a matrix metering will get things
> wrong.
>
> -Shooting a backlit person. How does the camera know if I want a
silluette
> or not.
If you shoot in portrait format, the F5 will assume you want the person
to be exposed correctly, unless you tell it otherwise, and vice versa for
landscape. Most of the time, having it decide such things for you is a
pain in the arse. So I turned it off.
>
> -Shooting very bright snow-covered landscapes, matrix meters normally seem
> to be off here.
No the F5 will cope admirably with that, especially if you shoot in
landscape format.
> -Any shot where one half of the picture is much brighter than the other
> half and you want a lot of detail in the dark half. Matrix meters
> normally avg. out the bright and dark whereas I wanted the dark
> bit correctly exposed and I'll sort the light bit out when I get into
> the darkroom.
Most Nikons will go for the area that has the selected AF area, which is
useless if you've locked FA and reframed. One way around this is to set a
custom program that allows both AF and AE lock simultaneously with one
control. This is clumsy though, and far from accurate. All that fuss and
technology, when the damned thing already has a spot meter :-) In that
situation, spot metering off a mid tone, or a grey card itself will get it
right every time, The camera will not.
>
> -small bright objects on a large dark background tend to require a spot
> meter if you want the bright object correctly exposed.
The F5 has several thousand scenes already stored in a database, with
which to compare the scene before it. All very well, until you decide to
take a shot that doesn't match on in it's memory. In which case it will
fail, like any other matrix metered camera. Incident metering will be the
only 100% reliable method in that scenario, because if the object is not mid
grey, the spot will still rely upon you to compensate, and if you get it
wrong, then the exposure will be wrong.
>
> And there are a lot of others.
> Basically a spot or CW meter will give me exactly what I want, while a
> matrix meter will give me what it thinks I want. Matrix meters work fine
> for normal shots in normal conditions if you want normal results.
> As soon as I move into complicated lighting conditions or want
> `abnormal' results, I want as much control as I can get so I know exactly
> what my meter is doing, why it is doing it and what result that will
> give. A matrix meter can't give any of this.
>
This is so. All you matrix pundits out there forget that a photographer
doesn't always WANT the correct exposure!
David.
Only me...
Jose Marques <no...@nohow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.10.990906...@nohow.demon.co.uk...
> On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> > The classic Nikon CW meter pattern is 60% of the sensitivity in the
> > 12mm central circle, 40% on the remainder of the imaging field
>
> the centre circle is further biased to the bottom of the frame. Does
> anybody know if this is true for the FM2's metering?
Not fro the FM2 it's not, no. That's a camera I know inside out, and
upside down, and I;ve never noticed a bottom bias at all, and after
thousands upon thousands of rolls, I'm sure I would have noticed.
David.
Fred Whitlock
The photographer's brain is needed every time to interpret
and use what the computer recommends. The computers get
better every year but they still haven't caught up with the
human mind.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2zXA3.14324$Jl.3...@news6.giganews.com...
> Only me... <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote in
message
> news:7r1dj3$cu5$5...@gxsn.com...
>
> > Why would anyone want to give control to a machine that
> > may get it wrong?
>
> Because machines don't get it wrong that often. They are
more reliable than
> people, in normal situations.
>
> > It depends if they want to be photographers, or just
want
> > good photos.
>
> So taking good photos isn't being a photographer?
>
> > Why is manual not fun?
>
> It's more work than necessary.
>
> > Is it not photography?
>
> Some people might say so.
>
> > If people need incentives to take photos, then they're
> > not photographers.
>
> If they can't take photos without fussing over manual
settings, they are not
> photographers.
>
> > As opposed to a decade ago, when we all hated using our
> > manual cameras ...
>
> Many people who didn't like manual cameras enjoy taking
pictures with
> automatic cameras. Some of them are very good at taking
photographs.
>
> > If you're interested in photography, as opposed to
taking
> > pictures, then manual operation will not put you off at
> > all.
>
> I'd turn that around: If you're interested in photography,
doing things
> manually will be irrelevant to you, but if all you want to
do is take
> pictures, manual settings are likely to seem very
important to you.
>
> > There's nothing wrong with just wanting to take pictures
without
> > knowing anything more advanced than where to point it,
but let's not fool
> > ourselves: You're not really learning a thing by doing
so.
>
> You're learning how to photograph.
>
> > This is not a personal thing. I don't care if you think
> > "I'm" right or wrong.
>
> You certainly dwell upon it, for someone who doesn't see
it as a personal
> thing.
>
> > I'm curious: If you did attend college, would you argue
> > with the teacher, and if so, what id it about
photography
> > that makes people think they have the right?
>
> I'll argue with any teacher who cannot base his assertions
upon mutually
> acceptable premises and valid reasoning.
>
> > You wouldn't argue with a music professor, or a Doctor
...
>
> Oh yes I would!
>
> > ... but rank amateurs seem to think they can argue the
toss
> > with college professors! What's all that about?
>
> A lot of college professors are airheads. "Those who
cannot do, teach."
>
> -- Anthony
>
>
Anthony
news:7r1dj3$cu5$5...@gxsn.com...
> Why would anyone want to give control to a machine that
> may get it wrong?
Because machines don't get it wrong that often. They are more reliable than
people, in normal situations.
> It depends if they want to be photographers, or just want
> good photos.
So taking good photos isn't being a photographer?
> Why is manual not fun?
It's more work than necessary.
> Is it not photography?
Some people might say so.
> If people need incentives to take photos, then they're
> not photographers.
If they can't take photos without fussing over manual settings, they are not
photographers.
> As opposed to a decade ago, when we all hated using our
> manual cameras ...
Many people who didn't like manual cameras enjoy taking pictures with
automatic cameras. Some of them are very good at taking photographs.
> If you're interested in photography, as opposed to taking
> pictures, then manual operation will not put you off at
> all.
I'd turn that around: If you're interested in photography, doing things
manually will be irrelevant to you, but if all you want to do is take
pictures, manual settings are likely to seem very important to you.
> There's nothing wrong with just wanting to take pictures without
> knowing anything more advanced than where to point it, but let's not fool
> ourselves: You're not really learning a thing by doing so.
You're learning how to photograph.
> This is not a personal thing. I don't care if you think
> "I'm" right or wrong.
You certainly dwell upon it, for someone who doesn't see it as a personal
thing.
> I'm curious: If you did attend college, would you argue
> with the teacher, and if so, what id it about photography
> that makes people think they have the right?
I'll argue with any teacher who cannot base his assertions upon mutually
acceptable premises and valid reasoning.
> You wouldn't argue with a music professor, or a Doctor ...
Oh yes I would!
> ... but rank amateurs seem to think they can argue the toss
> with college professors! What's all that about?
A lot of college professors are airheads. "Those who cannot do, teach."
-- Anthony
Anthony
> Only as issue if you use lots of different systems. No matter
> what the qualities of your system are, it's YOUR system, and
> you'll get used to how it works in no time at all.
So why can't this apply to matrix metering?
-- Anthony
Keith Richardson
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Keith Richardson <10305...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
>>news:7r0g18$9op$1...@ssauraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
>>
>>situations that cannot be covered by the automatic stuff.
however, the
>>automatic stuff covers 99% of all shooting situations,
>Bullshit. Automatic covers 99% of your shooting situations. It
covers maybe 50-60% at most of my shooting situations. And even
most of those I shoot manual so that I won't lose a picture due
to the camera screwing up obscurely.
For the record, I was not the one who said "automatic stuff
covers 99% of all shooting situations". That sounds more like a
name that has occured too often in this thread. I would have
said "automatic can be used well in 99% of all shooting
situations - assuming the photographer uses spot metering,
exposure lock and exposure compensation."
Keith Richardson
--
Keith Richardson
>> shots by opting to use manual rather than automatic. This
>> wouldn't be due to superior photographic skill, would it?
> No, it would be due to better familiarity with manual settings.
> I don't think it has anything to do with taking photographs.
> -- Anthony
nothing to do with taking photographs. Wow! This is such a
ridiculous comment that no response is needed!
Keith Richardson
--
Anthony
> Well, there you go then. Hardly a resounding success then.
On the contrary, he made it very clear that "all worked out perfectly well
and sharp," EXCEPT for the tanks. In other words, it was quite a success,
with only a minor glitch.
> Try to use manual ...
And risk having the other 99% of photographs incorrectly exposed?
> I would have never trusted the camera in a situation
> like that, and I doubt you will again either ;-)
The F5 takes it into account.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> You are stating here that knowing how to use the camera has
> nothing to do with taking photographs. Wow! This is such a
> ridiculous comment that no response is needed!
Then why did you respond? Or was it just for the personal attack?
Can I see some of your photos on the Web? I'm curious because this
newsgroup is filled to the brim with top-notch, world-class professional
photographers, and I'd really like to see some of their award-winning work,
rather than just read their class lectures. I'm sure I could learn a great
deal. Hardly anyone seems to have examples, though.
-- Anthony
Artur Swietanowski
> The F5 has several thousand scenes already stored in a database,
Are sou sure those pictures are in a database and not just used as
learning patterns for some pseudo-neural network? I *don't* know
F5 and it's metering system, but knowing the technologies involved,
I find it highly unlikely that a database is actually stored in
your camera.
> All very well, until you decide to
> take a shot that doesn't match on in it's memory.
> In which case it will fail,
If it's a database, your argument will hold water. If it's a neural
net, it will leak some. The whole point of using neural nets in
such contexts, is the net's ability to extrapolate what it has been
taught.
Now, it sounds good, but has many caveats:
(a) nobody knows what has been learned and what the extrapolations
will be,
(b) there are *no* exact matches, ever,
(c) consequently, the only *guaranteed* way to know what *any* shot
will look like, is to take it, (see note * below)
(d) the network may be over-taught (when it puts so much effort in
image recognition, that it's dead on on near-exact matches,
and fails bizzarely on other pictures), so you can't even say
what number of sample pictures should be fed to it,
(e) the network may be made schisofrenic, by presenting to it
similar photo situations with widely different exposures (like
silhouette vs. background burnout) -- then it may nearly
randomly offer one possibility or the other, mix them freely,
or simply go bonkers and propose something out of this world,
(f) no matter how much work is put in design of any neuro net,
the above shortfalls may be only made less noticeable, appear
less frequently, etc. They are, however, an inescapable
consequence of the state of neuro net technology today.
In short, the design of neural nets are mostly guesswork,
heuristics, rules of thumb, and such. No mission critical system
will have a neural network in any place, where it may affect the
critical aspects of operation.
Now, if your photo is critical, a neural net is simply not safe
*by* *design*. (I'm sure anyone but Anthony agrees that light
metering is critical and may make or break almost any picture).
(*) To the best of my knowledge, there is no *guarantee* that
even a perfectly easy shot, very similar to some of those
used in training, won't be screwed up beyond recognition.
This dark scenario is not observed with the current matrix
meters, but this still does not make a 100% guarantee.
Dag
<davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Dag <f98...@dd.chalmers.se> wrote in message
>news:slrn7t7sn5....@fili.dd.chalmers.se...
>
>
>silluette
>> or not.
>
> If you shoot in portrait format, the F5 will assume you want the person
>to be exposed correctly, unless you tell it otherwise, and vice versa for
>landscape. Most of the time, having it decide such things for you is a
>pain in the arse. So I turned it off.
Sounds very confusing. Way to many variables to remember for my liking.
Aperture Priority, spotmetering and then a bit of compensation sounds a
lot quicker and easier.
>>
>> -Shooting very bright snow-covered landscapes, matrix meters normally seem
>> to be off here.
>
> No the F5 will cope admirably with that, especially if you shoot in
>landscape format.
Fair enough, I've only used cheaper cameras, and they tend to miss.
>
>
>
>> -Any shot where one half of the picture is much brighter than the other
>> half and you want a lot of detail in the dark half. Matrix meters
>> normally avg. out the bright and dark whereas I wanted the dark
>> bit correctly exposed and I'll sort the light bit out when I get into
>> the darkroom.
>
> Most Nikons will go for the area that has the selected AF area, which is
>useless if you've locked FA and reframed. One way around this is to set a
>custom program that allows both AF and AE lock simultaneously with one
>control. This is clumsy though, and far from accurate. All that fuss and
>technology, when the damned thing already has a spot meter :-) In that
>situation, spot metering off a mid tone, or a grey card itself will get it
>right every time, The camera will not.
Totally agreed sounds well confusing and far from quick. Why use matrix when
you can get the same result with a spot meter and half the time.
>> matrix meter will give me what it thinks I want. Matrix meters work fine
>> for normal shots in normal conditions if you want normal results.
>> As soon as I move into complicated lighting conditions or want
>> `abnormal' results, I want as much control as I can get so I know exactly
>> what my meter is doing, why it is doing it and what result that will
>> give. A matrix meter can't give any of this.
>>
>
> This is so. All you matrix pundits out there forget that a photographer
>doesn't always WANT the correct exposure!
Indeed. I want the exposure that will give me the best possible picture.
Some people seem to find this a strange concept to grasp.
On that note a read in interesting test in a photo magazine. I think it
was Practical Photography, but I can check.
Anyway they had tested the matrix meters on a bunch of different cameras.
The basic conclusion was that all brands behaved completely different and
that there was quite a bit of deviation between models within the same
brand. Also just about all the meters where off by a significant amount
in at least on type of shooting condition.
Dag
Dag
>Dag <f98...@dd.chalmers.se> wrote in message
>news:slrn7t7sn5....@fili.dd.chalmers.se...
>
Usually I want the best picture, and that's what thinking things through
for myself gives me.
Dag
Artur Swietanowski
>
> Artur Swietanowski <swieta...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:37D43846...@bigfoot.com...
>
> (...) They are chosen for their documentary value rather than
> their technical excellence, (...)
They are just bad photos. Mostly on the composition side.
The technique is usually adequate, for the snapshots that they
are.
You may feel different about it, but for me a 3-way tripod head +
meticulous manual light measurement used every time, were the
necessary steps from snaphsots to photos I'm proud of. For a time
I made myself use a tripod for practically anything, regardless
of light, just so that I was forced to compose precisely.
It felt like walking on the crutches, but after a time I realized
I don't need the crutches any more.
> (...) in most of them, the camera did very well [on the technical
> excellence side].
Maybe by your standards. Not by mine. I'd keep no more than 20% of
them. I'd show even less.
> > If the web page http://www.atkielski.com/ is actually a showcase
> > of his achievements (...) then he has much more to be extremely
> > humble about.
>
> It is a showcase of a city's attractions.
Rather unattractive to me. Do you say you hid the good pictures
away?
> It is not a compendium of technical photographic excellence.
That you may bet. It also isn't a compendium of any sort of
photographic excellence, or even competence. Although it's
an attractive and competently built web page.
> Do you have a Web site with some examples of your work?
I'm 1500$ short of a good slide scanner. Once I get over this
little barrier, I'll let you know.
I put some of my old pictures (my last shots on print film) on my
web page
http://www.bigfoot.com/~swietano/photo_index.html
As evident from the page, I didn't touch it for over a year now.
I didn't even look at the page for the same time. They look better
than I thought. In my book, the're postcard to tourist guide
quality. Not yet album quality, though.
To the point comments from everyone are welcome (probably on my
personal e-mail, as this would be way off topic).