I leave the camera on "auto" when I'm just walking around - just in case something comes up and I don't really have time to adjust anything. But most of my shots are actually done as Aperture priority. In practice, my better shots are usually the ones over which I have more control - except for my wife's stupid little Canon sureshot, that always does better pictures on auto, than when I control the settings --- that's Canon for ya.
Do You Take Better Pictures When You have More or Less Control?
(45 posts) (18 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
warprints said:
I leave the camera on "auto" when I'm just walking around - just in case something comes up and I don't really have time to adjust anything. But most of my shots are actually done as Aperture priority. In practice, my better shots are usually the ones over which I have more control - except for my wife's stupid little Canon sureshot, that always does better pictures on auto, than when I control the settings --- that's Canon for ya.P isn't the same as auto, isn't it? It makes me wonder, what happens if I hand my camera off to someone who doesn't know anything about cameras? They're going to be overwhelmed for sure. Which is kinda why I want an auto setting on D300s and above cameras.
The D90 I know has an auto feature.
Posted 3 years ago # -
P is essentially an adjustable auto that won't pop the flash up like green auto mode will on the lower level cameras.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yes, P is the Programmed Auto - it uses algorithms in the camera to come up with "best" combo of settings. Won't shoot flash unless you pop flash up. I don't think P will change ISO automatically (if you have not selected auto ISO).
Posted 3 years ago # -
P is basically like A, S, and M except that it automatically chooses the best compromise between aperture and shutterspeed.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Depends on how you define "best". I think P is more limited than you think. Remind me as Thom Hogan's book is on my desktop computer back home, but there is a quite limited range of values from which P chooses from. I'll post an excerpt from his table.
Posted 3 years ago # -
This is what the user's manual says:
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ie. P is just shiftable (in the past 10-15 years or whatever) automatic mode. I don't like that it takes full control of the camera, thus I rarely use it. manual and aperture priority are where it's at for me seeing as those are the only two modes I consider to be on my cameras.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thanks a lot for explaining guys.
I get your point now. Shutter Priority could be of more use for me I guess if I'm shooting sports. But I don't, so I'm really on Aperture Priority almost 98% of the time.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Willis said:
Women have known this for ages, its us men that like to spend time on camera forums and read manuals all day that are only now figuring it out.indeed willis, but it's also true that when women don't know what to do they simply saying: Honey, can You do it?, or Do it now!
I don't care about control - sure it's great to have the possibility to control every aspect of Your camera on one hand, but once there's too much aspects to control you get very confused on the other. I usually don't read manuals, as don't have time for that and I prefer doing instead of contemplating.
Posted 3 years ago # -
adamz said:
sure it's great to have the possibility to control every aspect of Your camera on one hand, but once there's too much aspects to control you get very confused on the other.Exactly my point! I tend to get confused, and mess something up. In the studio I perform better with one light instead of three. Why? Because I get confused and mess up with all the lights!
Posted 3 years ago # -
I guess the issue becomes; what is it you hope to accomplish from your photography. If you really want to try to master it, you need to start with the basics. Light, Shadow, Shutter Speed, Lens Aperture. It's only through a understanding of these elements that you begin to MAKE photographs rather than TAKE photographs.
The camera is nothing more than a light tight box, with a light meter. It's either you or the camera thats going to decide how much light gets inside. If you allow the camera to make the decisions, your learning curve is a long one. If on the other hand, you make the decisions, things begin to come into focus more quickly.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Liking the lenses I have ...I had to just swallow the pill. I have no nothing, only autoWB. I didn't know what I was doing with AF lenses and all options on and got a heck of a surprise when they were all turned off and MF. Im going OK, biggest advantage so far is shooting in the harsh lighting I usually find myself and losing myself in the process.
I figure, once I lose my pulitzer prize photo to bad exposure or focus choices ...then I wont do it again and will pick it up pretty quick.I have weak moments and think of upgrading to a D300 but I will lose the 1000 lessons along the way.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
I believe adamz is right, but he is on one end of the spectrum, and his beliefs are also totally foreign when looked at from the other end of the spectrum.
I believe when one steps back a photograph can be looked at as the combination of two distinct elements:
1 - Technical execution.
2 - Artistic composition.
(Before I continue let me clearly state that there is also a role for art in element #1 in the choice of execution style, and also a role for technique in #2 in the nerdy arrangement of the composition to imbue maximum impact - BUT those are secondary points and let us run with the simplistic breakdown for now.)I, personally, interpret a line such as:
adamz said: I usually don't read manuals, as don't have time for that and I prefer doing instead of contemplating.
to be indicative of one who is focusing on #2.
I can imagine someone (perhaps not adamz) who follows the #2 path until they are very comfortable with their composure on nearly every shot - and then starts to focus on technical execution in order to take their work to the next level.I, on the other hand, take it from the other direction. I travel extensively for work, and have very little time not "on the clock" when in exotic locales. I therefore feel that at extensive understanding of all technical elements is important as I have little opportunity to repeat. I either get the shot I want in the narrow time window I have, or I don't get it at all.
If you've followed me so far I think you can imagine how someone who has taken this path could continue until they are comfortable with their mastery of technique on nearly every shot - and then starts to focus their attention more on composition issues in order to that their work to the next level.See? Same target, two major paths, many nuanced middle roads.
Posted 3 years ago # -
You know Soap, I think you are right. There are at least these 2 different aspects to photography. The master is the one that brings it all together.
I dont want to change the course of this thread, so i'll try to bring is back to the original question. Better pictures with more or less control.
From my perspective, it requires more control. This has been my approach in the classes I have taught, and is generally the approach talked about by many of the "masters" of photography.
I fully understand the approach taken by many to focus on the composition and let the camera do the exposure. In fact that's exactly what Nikons and other camera manufacturers objective is. Create a tool that allows the shooter the ability to capture that special image without having to worry about the technical execution side of things.
If you ask any sports photographer, they will say they cant afford do do anything other than let the camera do the heavy lifting or they'll miss the shot.
My only point is that when the camera returns results that you are not happy with, it's the technical understanding that will allow you to correct the problem. Even better, it's that understanding that allows you to make the proper settings before shooting, so you don't end up with unintended results.
Posted 3 years ago # -
soap - sure I agree with You, that there are different approaches - but, my point was that there's no necessity to know all the technical stuff to make a good photo - same with all other aspects i.e. education, here in Poland kids at school learn a lot of stuff - a lot of basics, in US kids learn how to use stuff - what is more useful in real life? or should I give another example, do You need to know what's in Your computer, in order to use it? will the fact that You know what's sitting inside, and how to assembly all the parts make You a better operator, engineer, photoshop master? IMHO, no. Sure it will help (sometimes) but it's not a necessity.
I've started taking/making photos back in the analog times. I've read dozens of books/pages/manuals and was using many of the things only in my head, as I couldn't afford to try all the things. Right now, when someone asks me about the difference between f2.8 and f11, I take my camera, take a snap at f2.8, take another one at f11 and let the person to see the difference - and they know that if they want the main subject to stand out they need to use f2.8, if they want to have more things in focus they use f11. Either we like it or not, photography became part of our lives. 100 years ago only few could count, now it's not a problem at all, as is the same with taking/making snaps.
BTW:
I'm not a big fan of using the word "make" regarding photography - it sounds too PSPosted 3 years ago # -
By being all auto ...dont you feel like you had a bag of chips for dinner instead of steak? I wasn't learning anything on auto-all, my interface was completely different. A lot changes when you turn it all off.
You need to be a bit more focused on what you are doing and the effort to get a picture might be greater but so too is the involvement in the process. It becomes a challenge rather than an opportunity to get the shots, so you go home tired (but happy).
There are a few things to be gained ...
The tolerances in your photos broaden, as example
..
These by measure of using auto-all would be 'duds' and likely the result of forgetting to turn something off like exposure compensation and are way beyond the tolerance of the snapshot. There is so much emphasis on 'correct exposure' but even a snapshot can be correctly exposed but give the viewer nothing to look at. Consider too the concept of 'dud'. The couple was a shot that I will not care to take again, I am interested in relationships so this one stuck out like a beacon. If it was on anything but M, then it would have been perfectly exposed but this was not an image for 'snapping'. You can clearly see what is happening, do you think the exposure is so important here.
I cannot blame the camera and so the exposure of a pic, right or wrong ..is neither, but is instead, just a part of the picture and my experience when I took it.
So instead of reviewing you photos at the end of a day, you are not kicking yourself for leaving wb on the wrong setting or looking at photos all in the same range of exposure settings.I am also on a burnt highlights bender, I know its wrong but I find the highlights a useful part of the composition.
So you explore what you can do, rather than what the camera does for you ...its a very different experience and every time I go out to shoot, I am adding to my own experience.
Posted 3 years ago # -
like I say we all have different approaches, as long as we take/make pictures all of them are great
Posted 3 years ago # -
Couldn't have said it better myself :^)
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
