Gary E
Well-known
Shoot you MP like if it was Tv mode or shutter priority. Set it to a speed greater than it's reciprocal and adjust the aperture accordingly during the shot. I usually use a hand held meter to get an incident reading and adjust from there.
Turtle
Veteran
The good news, as already expressed, is that you will get more accurate and consustent exposures in manual.
I shoot M6s/MPs only, with EOS for when I need an SLR. In B&W I consistently get better exposures with the Ms.
I walk around and set exposure based on shadows and don't give a damn about highlights. They don't generally matter much unless you are in extreme scenarios. Only when I see a change in shadow values and where I want them do I change exposure. So for example: I am walking about in the shade of a building and have the exposure set. As I round the corner of the building I see a person I want to photograph. They are still in a block of shade at the base of the building but in the distance the sun is striking the earth and the tops of other buildings. I do not change exposure as my shadow needs are the same. I deal with the increased density elsewhere with contrast, flashing etc in the darkroom or by printing the image down and dodging the person in the shade.
In the above scenario, AE would have violently reacted to the sun striking the tops of buildings, the bright sky, sunlit ground etc, set a much faster exposure and my subject would have been grossly under exposued. This is because most meters work for highlights to ensure good exposure with trannie film.
With practice, you get really, really good at this. It works miles better for snap shooting than AE (because you have pre-set a good exposure and anticipated, rather than let the meter set the exposure in the split second you fire.... and they are often fooled). When you have the time for a given scene you can make small tweaks before shooting and get things perfect.
After a few years shooting manual Ms I was amazed to look back over my Eos negs and see how poor they were in exposure consistency and just how many snap shots I lost due to underexposed shadows with the meter fooled by bright light elsewhere in the frame.
I am now shooting my EOS again for portraits and I am having to apply my M methodology to bring the exposures up to the same standard. In AE, no matter what mode I use, I am just not as accurate if I leave it to do all the work. Now I use centre weighted or spot metering with AE lock when required, with the EOS. Still prefer my Ms tho. it just seems to do less interpreting and more straigh metering so when I check the exposure I know what it is based on. The M has no brain and so allows me to apply mine without having to second guess anything!
I shoot M6s/MPs only, with EOS for when I need an SLR. In B&W I consistently get better exposures with the Ms.
I walk around and set exposure based on shadows and don't give a damn about highlights. They don't generally matter much unless you are in extreme scenarios. Only when I see a change in shadow values and where I want them do I change exposure. So for example: I am walking about in the shade of a building and have the exposure set. As I round the corner of the building I see a person I want to photograph. They are still in a block of shade at the base of the building but in the distance the sun is striking the earth and the tops of other buildings. I do not change exposure as my shadow needs are the same. I deal with the increased density elsewhere with contrast, flashing etc in the darkroom or by printing the image down and dodging the person in the shade.
In the above scenario, AE would have violently reacted to the sun striking the tops of buildings, the bright sky, sunlit ground etc, set a much faster exposure and my subject would have been grossly under exposued. This is because most meters work for highlights to ensure good exposure with trannie film.
With practice, you get really, really good at this. It works miles better for snap shooting than AE (because you have pre-set a good exposure and anticipated, rather than let the meter set the exposure in the split second you fire.... and they are often fooled). When you have the time for a given scene you can make small tweaks before shooting and get things perfect.
After a few years shooting manual Ms I was amazed to look back over my Eos negs and see how poor they were in exposure consistency and just how many snap shots I lost due to underexposed shadows with the meter fooled by bright light elsewhere in the frame.
I am now shooting my EOS again for portraits and I am having to apply my M methodology to bring the exposures up to the same standard. In AE, no matter what mode I use, I am just not as accurate if I leave it to do all the work. Now I use centre weighted or spot metering with AE lock when required, with the EOS. Still prefer my Ms tho. it just seems to do less interpreting and more straigh metering so when I check the exposure I know what it is based on. The M has no brain and so allows me to apply mine without having to second guess anything!
Last edited:
pvdhaar
Peter
I've also heard it called 'riding the exposure'..
Oh, and for extra speed, avoid 'riding the focus' as well..
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
It depends on what/how I'm shooting as to whether I adjust aperture or shutter speed. When I'm shooting wides I'm usually using hyperfocal focusing so adjusting the aperture is a pain as I have to refocus as well... so I adjust shutter speed instead. If I'm shooting 50mm+ in good light then usually adjust aperture instead.
Then of course there's shooting at night... I usually just throw the lens wide open, shoot at the slowest shutter speed I can hand hold and use stand development to control highlights and push as needed.
silent1
Well-known
Thanks guys! I was considering getting a new AE body in addition to my M6TTL in the hope to be faster in my pictures taking experience, but you made me realize that instead of relying on a AE mechanism, I'd better try to improve my light reading abilities and stop checking the meter for every photo I take.
I find this interesting as well!
Can you elaborate on the "riding the focus" subject?
I often find myself chasing the perfect focus but I realize that I could be much faster by relying on depth of field "compensation".
How does a non-perfect aligment of the RF patch "translate" in terms of DOF for a - say - medium aperture, such as f4 or f5.6 and close subjects like 2-3 meters away?
I find this interesting as well!
Can you elaborate on the "riding the focus" subject?
I often find myself chasing the perfect focus but I realize that I could be much faster by relying on depth of field "compensation".
How does a non-perfect aligment of the RF patch "translate" in terms of DOF for a - say - medium aperture, such as f4 or f5.6 and close subjects like 2-3 meters away?
pvdhaar
Peter
That's exactly what's meant.. it's often called scale focusing. Focus by setting a fixed distance on the lens scale, go nearer/further from the subject until you're in the ballpark range and let DOF cover any focusing errors.
You'll find it speeds up working a lot, and you'll have all of your concentration available for composition and timing..
Although it is possible to learn this by pre-focusing and seeing what the RF patch does when you go closer to or further away from a subject, it detracts again from composing and timing.. You'll just have to build the confidence that your distance guess is good enough..