in this day of auto everything cameras...

No fixation here. I'll use whatever works, but I rarely use auto everything. The closest I get to auto everything is with the X100 - F8, auto ISO, point and shoot covers 90% of shots - but I know when it won't and can intervene. Most of the time is AV and AE if the camera has it. However, I do enjoy using manual cameras.
 
Timmyjoe said:
For me, it's because I LOVE to take pictures, and the process of making images.

I learned photography in the 1970's with B&W and a totally manual Canon TX. I love all of it, which includes deciding on the film speed, deciding on what aperture will give me the depth of field or subject isolation I want, deciding on the shutter speed to capture movement or not, deciding exactly where I want the lens to focus. This also includes deciding on which developer, processing the film myself, printing the images (now more often scanning them). I love doing all these steps, and taking the time that each step requires.

Now I use a Nikon D4 for work, because my editor doesn't give a rat's behind about the process, she just wants the images, properly exposed, and in a matter of minutes.

But for my personal work, I love the process of making a photograph.

When I was young and first learning this artform, we used to talk about the difference between photographs (the things Ansel Adams made) and "pictorial representations of what was going on" which is what I saw from so many "auto everything" cameras.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

Tim, you are the only other RFFer who mentions the Canon TX, the first camera I had (OK, it was my Ma's but I used it most of the time). Nice point about "pictorial representations of what was going on" !

Joe, I have a Yashica Electro 35 and some old auto-everything Olympus digital that I never use. Both of these cameras tend to produce images that are very well-exposed - and very flat. Take a picture at night and the shutter stays open as long as needed, I guess to match overall the density of an imaginary gray card. The result is an image that lacks strong contrasts.

So, I guess that is one reason people might prefer manual mode. That said, I am sure modern digitals have a "film noir" setting to achieve high-contrast low-light images, probably I could find it in an hour or so...

Randy
 
Being another 'old fart', when using my digital compact, i can't be a**sed to learn and navigate through menus, iAuto is my friend ;) .

When taking a picture for pleasure, I like to check the light conditions, maybe using 'Sunny 11' (suits me in the UK), set the aperture and shutter speed, wind the film watching the pretty numbers in the red window (I'll have deployed the bellows already if a folder), set the focus if applicable, arm the shutter, and take the picture.

I can't justify spending the money on the sort of automatic/digital camera that would give me anything approaching a decent simulation of those levels of control.
 
Sunny 16 and zone focusing isn't too far off from auto modes... the reasons for using both are similar.
 
back alley said:
...that me, an old fart, ...
is it my laziness ....
Click to expand...

back alley said:
so i'm not a photographer?
Click to expand...

LOL, Back Alley, as you said yourself : you're a lazy old fart ;).
But that's totally ok with me and whatever you prefer to use to take pictures is ok, too. You take pictures, you're a photographer.

It's all a matter of personal preference and priorities. If eyesight gets weak, auto focus is the way to go if nothing else helps.
I hope that this will still be years away for me but also closing in on half a century...
 
i shoot manual, but i do use light meters. so there has to be a trade off somewhere. to each his own if he or she decides to use specific settings on their cameras. if they have the capabilities, why not?
 
I mostly use auto for walkabout photography but I do use exposure compensation where necessary. For other types of shooting I will use manual settings when I need to control the shot more.

I always leave my cameras on auto in case I need a quick response for opportunistic shots. I don't want to miss a shot by wasting time fiddling with manual settings.
 
jsrockit said:
Sunny 16 and zone focusing isn't too far off from auto modes... the reasons for using both are similar.
Click to expand...
In a sense, although with me the 'Sunny whatever' is a starting point for adjustment according to the scope of the intended subject, in landscape work that would usually default to 'just take it' ;). I'm not into bothering with e.g. incident light measurement, only because what I do doesn't need it. Judgement still resides in the human brain, even if 'on autopilot'.
If and when I use zone focussing, it's because the camera design imposes it. In the limiting case, the zone might be from 6 feet to infinity.
So the reason that I use my Brownie 127 is for the benefits of automation :D.
 
back alley said:
so i'm not a photographer?
Click to expand...
That each of us have to decide for ourselves. I have taken some amazing shots on auto everything, but for me, my percentage of keepers goes up when I take over the "reins" and make all of the decisions. But I am only speaking for me. Each to his own.
 
Control. The desire that any mistakes should be down to ME, not to a programmer in Solms or Osaka. The belief that I'm likelier to get it right than they are. If you don't believe any of that, why not use as point-and-shoot, and stick with snapshots?

Cheers,

R.
 
citizen99 said:
In a sense, although with me the 'Sunny whatever' is a starting point for adjustment according to the scope of the intended subject.
Click to expand...

Right just as auto is a starting point which can be supplimented with exposure compensation.

I wonder how many here, who think that they cannot trust auto anything, have used modern cameras.
 
jsrockit said:
Right just as auto is a starting point which can be supplimented with exposure compensation.

I wonder how many here, who think that they cannot trust auto anything, have used modern cameras.
Click to expand...
Fair point :).
citizen99 said:
Being another 'old fart', when using my digital compact, i can't be a**sed to learn and navigate through menus, iAuto is my friend ;) .
Click to expand...
Speaking just for myself, I when I use the LX3 I have a touching confidence in it.
 
I'm a big fan of autofocus because of some vision issues. That said, there are times when it just won't do the job. I choose my aperture and my ISO but I am happy to have the camera select the shutter speed, it's quicker that way, still I try to be aware of the setting. There's those moments when you just don't have the time to fiddle with settings.
 
For me, choosing a focus plane and depth of field is the most important part of making a photograph. It's even more important than framing or exposure -- I can crop and adjust exposure later (within limits), but I can't fix bad/incorrect focus.

Therefore, I need good tools and techniques for choosing and evaluating that "box" of focus. The traditional rotating ring on the lens is ergonomically just about perfect for selecting the focal plane: it's simple, quick, transparent, and reasonably intuitive (assuming a good design).

To evaluate the focus plane I've chosen, I've found that a focusing screen with a rangefinder works best for me; second up is a split-image screen and/or a micro-prism ring (like on SLRs); last is a good ground glass.

Depth of field is less intuitive, and I mostly use my experiential memory of taking and looking at thousands of my pictures to know pretty well what aperture I want for a given shot. Perhaps 10% of the time I'll use the depth-of-field table that's built into most lenses to set the correct aperture.

Shutter speed is not specifically important to me. If I'm working slowly, it's easy enough to hand-meter and set a speed on a camera. My Bronica RF645 has such a good meter that I just use it in aperture-priority, and it acts the same as using the hand-held meter and transferring the settings. I glance at the calculated shutter speed, and only consider adjusting (by pushing or pulling 1 or 2 stops) if the speed is outside the hand-holdable range of 1/60-1/500, or if I know the scene is backlit, etc.

When I use auto-focusing & auto-exposure cameras, all those tools & techniques that are part of my process end up being almost impossible to utilize. Everything seems more difficult, even though it's promoted to be simpler. The automatic cameras seem to work in a completely different model that really doesn't work well in my head. It's not intuitive, to me, and I feel like I'm always futzing around trying to convince the camera to do what I want. That's 99% of why I don't shoot digital -- not because I'm anti-digital, but because I can't stand the interfaces of the digital cameras.

I've had discussions with people who loved their automatic cameras, and couldn't understand why I would choose to fool with setting anything. I sometimes think that we are really using very different tools. They are all tools that make pictures, but my toolbox contains the ones that involve choice and process and work, that fit well in the hand and require occasional oiling & sharpening, while other toolboxes contain wonderful labor- and time-saving devices with their own intelligence. Both valid, I suppose, but I find that latter toolbox, frankly, useable.
 
raphaelaaron said:
i shoot manual, but i do use light meters.
Click to expand...

Why the "but"? Is a light meter not part of "manual" photography? Is an exposure card "automatic"?

A light meter gives you information for taking the picture, but it doesn't directly influence the outcome of the image. AE, AF, A-ISO, those directly influence the final image. To my eyes, those are automatic, but a light meter is simply showing you information.
 
its because if the shot is out of focus, its my fault, but if not, its my picture.

Never have anybody to blame.

If AF is faster, so what. I missed already 1 mio great shots since I take photos. The few ones I made are truely mine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom