ste © wrote:
> Anyway, as this has been rushed, it might not be written the best, so don't be offended if I've
> replied in a blunt style in places, it's not meant to be an argument or get nasty.
I wouldn't take it that way. BTW, I know that Bill suggested we take this to email, but I feel
there's been a misunderstanding here so I want to reply in public, just in case anyone else is still
reading this thead.
>>> But what's 'properly?'
>>
>> Exactly what I said - "to choose the shutter speed and aperture that will give you exactly the
>> effect you want"
>
> No, that's not 'properly,' unless you're talking about the 'traditional way.' What you're
> describing above is just *a* way, by using full Manual mode.
No, it is the proper way to do "photography", by making important choices which affect the look of
the photograph. If you don't make those choices then you aren't in control of how the final result
will look.
> In AV or TV mode (which is what I mostly use), I choose the aperture or shutter speed that I want,
So you are making a choice.
> and the camera will tell me the correct corresponding shutter speed or aperture.
So by choosing the first one, you are choosing the second one. If you don't like the second one, you
can alter the first one to alter it. So you are making the important choices. That's photography.
> It's usually correct.
Whether it's correct or not is just a matter of exposure, which is a different thing (although
linked obviously).
> If not, I can go to Manual and do the combination that I want. I don't see what's not
> 'proper' about this. But I could understand it if you said that my way isn't an an old or
> traditional method.
There's nothing not proper about it. You are "in effect" taking photographs manually if you are
choosing the shutter speeds or apertures and observing and agreeing with the apertures and shutter
speeds that the camera selects to correspond with them. You're just doing it in a "partially"
automatic way.
> Your snipping is making it difficult to realise what you're talking about, without me going back
> to my original post, which I can't be bothered doing.
Actually, you were reading the originally post. I didn't cut anything out of that bit, I just split
up your sentences to reply to each of them individually, as I'm doing now. The only things I cut out
are things that I previously wrote which are no longer relevant or things that you wrote which I
feel don't require an answer.
> ...You're a nice guy Paul and you've given me lots of advice and help, together with interesting
> reading - more so than anyone else in the group during my short time posting here - so I don't
> want to have a sad newgroup falling out or anything, so please don't be offended by anything I say
> here, and likewise, I've tried not to be offended by anything you've said! ;o)
No risk of that, unless *you* take offence. I'm not taking offence. There's nothing wrong with
disagreeing about things, just so long as it doesn't degenerate into personal insults.
>>> Also, I don't see what's wrong with using the camera to judge these things for you.
>>
>> Because the camera doesn't know what effect *you* want.
>
> But people want a correct exposure,
The exposure is simply the brightness of the photograph. The shutter speed and aperture are not the
exposure, but between them they create the exposure. Different shutter speed and aperture
combinations can create the same exposure, but they themselves aren't the exposure.
> Try AV or TV modes. You enter one variable, ie, f5.6, and the camera gives you the corresponding
> shutter speed for a correct exposure.
For what the camera thinks is the correct exposure, which it may well not be.
> There's probably only a few shutter speeds that will balance this correctly at a particular
> moment, so there's not a lot of judgment required in choosing a different combination to what the
> camera comes up with.
No, but if you don't like the shutter speed that the camera selects you can alter it by choosing a
different aperture, therefore you are exercising control over how the photo is taken, and hence how
it will look.
> If the camera says that the shutter speed is
> 1/200 second and the shot is too bright, then you just go to manual and change the shutter speed
> to 1/250 second or whatever.
Yes, that's just a matter of fine-tuning the exposure. It's the choice of aperture/shutter speed
combination that affects the look of the photograph.
> Another example is if you're talking about getting a waterfall shot with that milky/misty effect,
> then I can go into Shutter Priority TV mode and choose a shutter speed of 1 second or 2 seconds.
So you are exercising creative control.
> By half pressing the shutter down, the camera will work out the correct aperture to use.
Roughly correct perhaps.
> If the scene is too bright, even with the ND filter, then I'd have to reduce the shutter speed.
Or you could alter the aperture. Either way you are exercising creative control.
> So how could doing the same thing in Manual mode be any better?
I find the process more convenient personally, but it isn't any better.
> Or be described as taking a 'proper' photo?
From what you've described you are taking a proper photo.
> Or, all things being equal, be classed as a better photograph?
That has very little to do with it. Good photographs are all about subject matter, composition and
light - the artistic eye of the photographer. Selecting appropriate shutter speeds and apertures are
important for rendering the scene in a particular way, but are a relatively minor technicality.
>>> The camera meter gets it right most of the time,
>>
>> Ah, now you're just thinking of exposure. I'm not talking about exposure, I'm talking about the
>> effects of shutter speeds and apertures
> No, I'm not *just* thinking of exposure. I'm just using this term loosely at times to decribe a
> photo being taken.
This may be one of the reasons for the misunderstanding then. The exposure is just the brightness
level. It's not the shutter speed and aperture, since the same exposure can be achieved with many
different combinations (and the film speed is another factor that can alter these, but that's not
the exposure either).
> When I say the camera gets it right most of the time, I mean that the meter within the camera gets
> it right to choose an aperture and shutter speed that balance eachother for that particular scene
> at that particular moment.
Ah, now I think you're misunderstanding what the meter actually does. The meter does not choose
shutter speeds and apertures, all it does is measure the light level. That's what an exposure meter
does, it tells you how much light is coming in through the lens, nothing more. It's the automatic
mode that you have selected which chooses the shutter speed and aperture, and that's down to
programming in the camera.
> In AV and TV modes, which I mostly use, then the camera will usually get the shutter speed or
> aperture right for that shot.
Yes, but in that case the camera is not choosing the shutter speed or aperture, you are! By choosing
one element of the exposure, *you* are determining the other element. The meter simply tells the
camera which element corresponds to the one you've chosen, based on the light reading.
>> 1 sec at f22
>> 1/2s at f16
>> 1/4s at f11
>> 1/8s at f8
>> 1/15s at f5.6
>> 1/30s at f4
>> 1/60s at f2.8
>> 1/125 at f2
>
> I know that these are all balancing eachother, which is why I can't see what's wrong with AV and
> TV modes. The camera will usually get the second variable right if you select the first variable
> that you
want -
The camera will always get the second variable "right", based on the meter reading. But that doesn't
necessarily mean that the meter reading is "right".
> and thus controlling the photograph how the photographer wants it.
Yes.
> I do all of the above with AV and TV modes.
Yes, you do.
> My argument isn't for the fully Automatic mode,
That's the cause of the misunderstaning then, because that's what I'm criticising, along with
program and other *completely* automatic modes.
> My argument is for these modes, as you said they are all automatic modes anyway, and that someone
> taking a photo in Manual mode will always take a better photo than someone using one of these
> Automatic modes.
Did I say that? I'd say that someone using manual *should* always take a better photo than someone
using an automatic mode, but it's quite possible that someone may take a great shot by pure chance
while someone taking a photograph manually can still mess it up. All other things being equal,
exercising manual *control* over your photograph should result in a better image than taking a photo
on auto and leaving it to the gods to decide.
> I'm not using full Auto mode.
Right, so that's settled then.
> I'm mainly using AV or TV mode. Somewhere else, you said that all these modes are Auto modes
> anyway, so when you say Auto mode, I assume you mean all these modes, and that's what this post is
> about. If not, then stop now!
)
We'd better stop then, because that's not what I meant. As I think I've pointed out before, AV and
TV are "semi-automatic" modes. By definition therefore, they are also "semi-manual" modes. To what
extent these modes are manual or automatic depends on the user. In TV mode, if you choose the
shutter speed with the effect in mind, and are aware of the effect of the aperture that the camera
chooses and are happy with that aperture, or you change the shutter speed in order to change the
aperture to one more appropriate for the shot, then you are exercising *manual* control, especially
if the exposure is incorrect and you apply some correction to compensate. You are in charge of what
the camera is doing. In effect the end result is no different to using manual, it's just the method
that's different.
On the other hand, if you use the semi-automatic modes without thinking about the effects of
apertures and shutter speeds, then you're not in control. For example, if you use TV mode and leave
it set on 1/125 second all the time because that's a decent speed for hand held shots then you
aren't thinking about the effect of the shutter shutter speed and if you don't even look at the
aperture it selects you won't know what the effect of that will be either. So in such a case you
aren't really in control, you may as well be using full automatic.
So AV and TV can in effect be "manual" or "automatic" depending on how you use them.
> Again, I think you might be talking about full Auto mode, so fine. I never use this. I use the AV
> and TV modes, but I understand you're saying that Manual mode produces the best photos.
If you are using the AV and TV modes intelligently then you are exercising manual control, so it's
effectively the same thing. I used to use a great little compact camera, the Olympus XA, which I've
always described as a "manual compact" (most film compacts have no manual control whatsoever). In
actuality it was a semi-automatic camera with one mode - AV. The shutter speeds were shown inside
the viewfinder so by changing the aperture I could change the shutter speed. If I needed to
compensate for the exposure I'd change the film speed, so in effect, I had complete manual control.
So for example, if I knew the exposure to be 1/125 at f11, I'd first set the aperture to f11, then
I'd alter the film speed until the shutter speed read 1/125.
> Here's my typical landscape photo (for a snapper who isn't serious about their photography!): put
> the camera on a tripod and compose the shot. Put it in Aperture Priority mode and select an
> aperture of
> f8.. Make sure it's on ISO 50, and that the 2 second self timer is activated. Focus - either
> manually (using infinity), or focus on something particular in the frame, then take the shot.
That's called taking a photograph! That's manual control. The only problem with that is that the
exposure may be incorrect.
> I can't see how using manual would make the above any better?
By getting the exposure correct if the above exposure were wrong. As I've said, my experience is
that the automatic exposure meter tends to expose for the ground and thus overexpose the sky.
> Also, I can't see why a great photographers like we see in magazines and books would take an
> inferior shot to you if they used one of these modes?
They wouldn't, provided they made any necessary adjustment to ensure an optimum exposure.
> How does your procedure differ to my typical one above?
Well it varies according to circumstances, but if I'm taking a "serious" photo, then I do roughly
as follows.
As I approach a scene I look at the various elements in the vicinity, things like piles of stones,
fallen trees and so on. From these I'll select possible foregrounds. Then I'll walk to what looks
like the best foreground and look at the scene. If it looks okay then I'll walk back and fore, left
and right and even lift my head up and down, in order to determine the best composition. Once I'm
happy with the composition I take off the rucksack and set up the tripod in that position, with it's
height adjusted to match what I saw with my eyes.
Then I take out the camera (digital), place it on the tripod and compose the picture. Then I'll
take a quick snap and check the histogram. The shutter speed and aperture will already be set to
the most likely combination, saved as a custom setting after taking a previous shot. If the light
hasn't changed it will usually be correct so no adjustments are required. If the light has
changed, or the subject matter is particularly different I may need to alter it. A few tweaks to
the shutter speed and/or aperture will quickly give me what I consider to the optimum exposure for
the scene (my chosen exposure, often different to the meter's recomendation). After one or two
test shots and histogram checks to confirm the exposure, I fine tune the composition and focusing,
then take the shot.
I may then take a series of digital shots of the same scene, zooming in and out for different
compositions, taking portrait as well as landscape formats, and possibly taking multiple shots for
a panorama.
Then I put the digital camera away and get out my film camera, place it on the tripod and take one
or two shots, often using the same exposure as the digital camera (which I know I can trust - rather
like taking a polaroid before an important shot, which many pros with large format cameras do).
Then I may get out my panoramic camera to take a proper pano, if the scene is suitable, and possibly
even a medium format shot if I've brought that along too (which I rarely do these days).
I can easily spend half an hour doing all that, and perhaps the same again with a different
foreground. It's not unusual for me to spend a whole hour photographing one waterfall.
> I'll also add that in my opinion, the art of photography is finding a suitable scene and composing
> it nicely within the frame.
Exactly, that's the main thing. Oh yes, don't forget the suitable light!
>As far as I'm concerned, selecting the shutter speed or aperture is just the subjective part -
>remember your recent discussion with someone on this group about waterfalls?
That's the interpretative part. The choice of scene, lighting and composition are the most important
part, but the shutter speed and aperture determine how that image will be rendered on film, so it's
an interpretative statement. You can make a waterfall look serene, dreamlike, ghostly or wild or
frozen. It's an important part of the creative act. Not the most important, but still important.
> So in my opinion, the important part of photography isn't if the camera is in Manual mode, AV
> mode, Automatic, or whatever, but if the shot is composed well and looks good.
Of course, that's the most important part. But the other settings do have their effect on the image,
it just depends whether you are in control of them or not.
> It doesn't matter what mode the photo was taken in,
It does if you don't get the effect you want. If you want a smooth dreamlike image of a waterfall
and the camera chooses a fast shutter speed you won't get that effect. So it does matter in that
sense, and that is the main point that I've been trying to make.
> if it looks good, then that's it.
Of course, and when using automatic you may use the best settings purely by accident, but then again
you may not. Whether they realise it or not, that's what snapper's mean when they say "I hope that
photograph comes out good", because they really don't know. They aren't in control of their "snaps".
But of course, that's not the kind of auto that you are talking about.
> Saying that though, it's usually taken for granted that a good photo will also happen to be
> technically sound - afterall, not many people would say that a washed out sky looks good!
Of course not. Same applies to the foreground being out of focus due to using a wide aperture.
The reverse can also be true, a photograph can be technically perfect but artistically ****. I once
reached that point in my photography where I'd mastered the technical side but was still taking some
**** photos. I remember looking at some brilliantly sharp slides with great depth of field, with
rich, saturated colours, yet there was something wrong that I couldn't put my finger on. Eventually
I realised that the photos (and they were "technically" photos) were simply ****! The subject matter
wasn't interesting and the compositions were uninspired. Technical quality is important, but it
doesn't make a good photo on it's own.
>> If all you want is a snap, fine. But if you want to *make* a photograph rather than merely *take*
>> one, you have to make creative choices.
> I think you're being overly articulate when talking about making and taking a photograph.
I'm being articulate in order to try to explain myself clearly.
> Whether your using the term 'snap' or 'serious about photography' or whatever, it either looks
> good or it doesn't.
Of course, this is all academic. But as a general rule, most serious photographs tend to look better
than most snaps. This is not due to elitism, it's due to the simple fact that the more effort you
put into taking a photograph the better it's likely to turn out. Good photographs *sometimes* happen
by accident, but not very often. A snapper may produce the occasional masterpiece by pure chance,
but a good photographer can churn out masterpieces on a regular basis. It's all about being in
control of your equipment, making it do what you want it to do.
> A slightly flawed photo can still be great,
I'm afraid I have to disagree with that. This was taught to me by another professional who critiqued
some of my early work. He pointed out that a slight flaw can make the difference between a very good
photo and a great one. One photo I showed him had the branch of a tree touching a rock. He said it
was a very good photo, but if the branch didn't touch the rock it would have been a great photo.
It's those tiny little details that make the difference. That's why I get obsessive about little
details like cutting a rock in half on the edge of a photo.
It has been said that amateur photographers worry about the main subject, but professionals worry
about the background.
> I could quickly take a 'snap' and it could be better than a photo that someone who 'is serious
> about photography 'made.'
This is true, you "could" take a better snap, but all other things being equal, the odds are that
you wouldn't. Of course, all other things are not equal. You might be a great photographer while the
guy with the Manfrotto and the Hassleblad may be a complete idiot, so most of your snaps would
indeed come out better. Or you may simply be lucky with the light and he may not. Often taking the
time to set up a tripod will result in missing a shot, so I've often taken shots quickly hand held
in order not to miss the light.
> Also, I can make creative choices using AV ot TV modes.
Indeed, so you're not really taking snaps.
> I am talking loosely about the term 'exposure.' I am usually talking about how all the variables
> combine together to take a photograph, as explained about a metre higher in this post!
In that case you'd better stop calling it exposure then, because that's not what it means. The
shutter speed and aperture settings "create" the exposure, but they themselves are not the exposure.
The exposure is the amount of light that enters the lens and strikes the film or the sensor. The
effects of the shutter speed (blur) and aperture (depth of field) are not the exposure.
Exposure The quantity of light allowed to act on a photographic material; the lens aperture controls
intensity or amount of light, and the shutter speed (or the enlarger timer in printing) controls the
time. (See Aperture, Shutter speed & Over exposed )
Exposure latitude The amount by which you can over or under expose a light-sensitive material with
standard processing, and still achieve an acceptable result.
Exposure meter An instrument for measuring the amount of light (available or flash) falling on or
being reflected by a subject, and converting this measurement into usable information: shutter speed
and f stop. (see Existing light , f-stop & Shutter speed )
http://www.peterashbyhayter.co.uk/glossary.html
>> Actually, I've read Michael Reichmann talk about Canon digital cameras giving good automatic
>> exposures,
> Perhaps, or perhaps he is talking just about metering in this case?
Yeah, that's what metering does, it works out the exposure.
> Or perhaps he is talking about TV or AV modes? I doubt he's talking about Auto mode, but you
> never know.
No, he's not talking about modes. You're confusing exposure with modes.
> Also, if you go into AV mode and decide you want an exposure at f8, then are you saying that the
> shutter speed the camera uses is always wrong for you?
Usually. Almost always in fact.
> It can't be that far out surely?
Typically 1 to 1.5 stops too bright. As a general rule the land should be 1 stop darker than the
sky on a sunny day. Composing the picture so that the ground fills most of the picture means that
the meter exposes mainly for the land, thus overexposing the sky. Perhaps most meters are designed
for people who compose exactly 2/3 land and 1/3 sky with the sun behind them. In which case that
would explain why the sky typically overexposes when I compose 3/4 or 4/5 land shooting partially
toward the sun.
> Yes, I think I used this example in my own recent post, when I said that the camera often
> overexposes the skies. But you do too don't you? And that's why you use the histogram to check it,
> then correct it?
This is where you miss the point of using manual. With manual, the exposure meter in the camera has
no effect on my settings. It just warns me if it thinks it's over or under exposed (which I take no
notice of anyway). So since the camera does not control my exposure, I don't have to correct it.
> I can correct it in TV and AV modes in just the same way as you do with Manual.
But I don't have to correct anything with manual. Once I've determined the optimum exposure for the
current light levels, my exposure settings are correct every time I turn the camera on.
I always set my custom manual mode to 1/250 at f8. This is the correct exposure for a bright
sunny day. The first time I take the camera out I check it, sometimes it may need to be reduced
one stop if it's not that bright, so I reduce it and save it, so it's correct from then on, until
the light changes.
While taking photos I make adjustments when necessary, if I include brighter sky in the shot I'll up
the speed to 1/500, if I take a shot toward the sun I'll up it to 1/1000, *before* taking the shot.
I just base this on experience and it's usually correct. If not I'll adjust and take it again. More
importantly, if I take a shot of just land, even if it includes a lot of shadow, I'll still use the
same exposure, whereas the meter would drop the shutter speed by one or two stops. The thing is, the
land should be the same brightness whether or not the sky is in the photo, but the meter doesn't
know there isn't any sky in the photo, so with all it's *intelligence*, it over exposes.
Sometimes you want to expose for the shadows, such as when most of the scene is in shadow (like a
waterfall in a deep valley) but that's not what I'm talking about.
When you say that you correct it, I presume you mean with exposure compensation? I never use that.
>>> Using an external light meter is the same as using the cameras built-in light meter, as I do.
>>
>> Not exactly, it gives me EV readings, which I can then use to help me choose the exposure that I
>> want to use, I can then choose from many shutter speed and aperture combinations. Your camera
>> simply gives you a shutter speed/aperture combination directly, not an EV reading as such.
>
> It's the shutter speed/aperture combination that matter, the EV reading is irrelevent if my camera
> has the internal meter to suggest one of the combinations
The EV reading is not irrelevant, it's what the exposure is based on. The problem with these new
fangled cameras that work everything out for you is that you don't necessarily understand each of
the steps in the process. The camera just gives you the final result (this shutter speed
+ this aperture) but it doesn't explain how it came to that result.
> that your table (in your head, or on a piece of paper) will give from an EV reading.
The table is on the exposure meter. The problem here is that you're thinking of exposure as a
single value, as if the entire scene has just one brightness value, but it doesn't, every
different element within a scene has a different brightness value, and these need to be taken into
account. The problem with the camera's metering is that it averages all the light in the scene
into a single value, then converts that into an exposure, as if that's the correct exposure for
the scene. The meter reading tells you the correct exposure to render the scene at 18% grey, the
assumption being that all the light values in a scene will average out at 18% grey, but of course
that's often not the case.
Imagine you have a scene which for the sake of argument is 18% grey, but that there's a very small
but bright object in the scene that's four stops brighter. The camera meter's averaging will fail
to understand this and the photo will be correctly exposed but the bright object will be
overexposed. Using a spot meter I can measure the brightest point and make sure that it doesn't
overexpose, even if that means underexposing everything else. As a general rule white is two stops
brighter than 18% grey, so I would measure the EV value of the bright object, then set the exposure
to be 2 stops darker.
The camera's meter just measures the brightness of the whole scene and sets the exposure to that. It
doesn't do any compensation, because it has no idea whether it's looking at a snowman in the snow or
a black cat in a coal cellar, it just wants to make everything look grey, and it doesn't care if
some small part of the picture overexposes. The camera can't think like a human because it doesn't
know what it's looking at, in spite of the hype to the contrary.
> Is there an advantage in having a spot meter covering an even smaller area?
Absolutely! All meters average the light values within the area that they look at. If you point a
spot meter at a small dark area the light will be averaged with the brighter area around it giving a
reading which is too high. With a very small spot you can measure just the dark bit, and the same
for the lightest bits, so much more accurate readings are possible. I gave up using the spot meter
in my camera after a while (even though that was its most expensive feature), my hand held spot
meter was far more accurate.
> I just thought you'd use your experience and eyes to judge the exposure, and I thought you'd pride
> yourself on doing it this way too.
I can guess if I have to, but that's not as accurate as using a meter. Easy enough on a bright sunny
day, but not in fast changing light or around sunrise and sunset.
>> Rubbish! There's nothing automatic about it. The light meter gives me information, it doesn't
>> tell me what exposure to use. I choose the exposure, based on the information the light meter
>> gives me.
>
> Yes, so you'll have a table in your head of what the combinations of aperture and shutter speed
> will be for different readings.
No, the table is not in my head, it's on the meter.
> Whilst not automatic, there can't be that many options to choose from, so is virtually automatic
> from here, without being overly knit-picky.
You're missing the point. The hard part is not converting the EV value into a shutter speed and
aperture combination, the hard part is deciding which EV value to use. A normal meter just averages
the whole scene into a single value. I like to measure different brightness values in a scene (but
not for every photo).
> Out of interest, you could do a test to see what the differences are:
>
> 1. 'blindly' guess an exposure yourself
Easy enough in bright daylight, I'd probably get it right within one stop. If I had to guess the
light value in my room at the moment I'd probably be way off.
> 2. use your light meter and Manual mode to work out the exposure
Perfection, but manual mode has nothing to do with it, just the light meter.
> 3. use AV or TV mode to work out the exposure
> 4. use Auto mode to work out the exposure
Modes don't work out exposures. The camera's built in meter works out the exposure. AV and TV allow
you to choose one element of the exposure "settings", while auto chooses both of them, but the
exposure would be the same in 3 and 4.
>> So here's a typical example, I want to photograph a waterfall, so I get out my spotmeter and note
>> the EVs of various elements within the scene. These are the sort of numbers I might get;
>>
>> Sky - 14 Bright water - 11 Normal water - 10 Sunlit leaves - 12 Leaves in shadow - 9 Mid grey
>> rocks - 9 Darker rocks - 8 Very dark rocks - 6 Darkest rocks in shadow - 4
>>
>> So what's the "correct" exposure? Or rather, what exposure would you choose? The light meter sure
>> doesn't tell you, it just tells you the numbers. You have to choose the exposure yourself.
>
> Just one question: what's the point in taking all these readings, if you can only choose one
> aperture and shutter speed combination for one photograph?
To help me decide which aperture and shutter speed combination to use. Knowing that trees are
usually 2 stops below the correct exposure, I know that if I take an exposure reading off the trees
and base my settings on that, the photo will be two stops over exposed, i.e. the trees will be two
stops too bright. Everything in a photo has a particular brightness value. Measuring the brightness
values of different parts of a scene enables me to determine how bright those things will appear in
the photograph at any given exposure. A correct exposure for the sky could well result in the land
appearing too dark for example.
The problem is that you're thinking of the brightness of a scene as a single value. It's easy to do
this because the exposure is a single value, but there are many different brightness values within a
scene. Take a look at Ansel Adams Zone System sometime.
> Why not just take readings from the darkest, lightest and mid-toned items in a scene?
That's what I just did in my example above. But how do you actually know which are the darkest,
lightest and mid-toned items in scene until you take readings off them? The brightest and darkest
are usually pretty obvious, but how do you know which one is mid-toned? Or to be more precise, how
do you know which one is 18% grey? What if nothing in the scene is mid toned? You might need to
photograph black rocks covered in snow!
But even if you do, how do you decide which exposure to use? Exactly half way between the lightest
and darkest objects? That's generally a good idea, but what if the lightest object over-exposes?
This is where the judgement comes in, deciding on which EV to base the exposure on. It all depends
on how bright you want each of the elements in the photo to be. In the example above, if I decided
not to over-expose the very bright sky, that would make most of the picture very dark, but if I
decided to let the sky over-expose I could make everything else quite bright, but still making sure
not to over-expose the brightest water.
>> The reason I say that auto modes do it wrong is because most times I've used it the sky has
>> overexposed. There are some types of photo where overexposed skies are acceptable, but this is
>> rarely the case with landscapes (there are certain specific exceptions, such as including the sun
>> in the photo).
>
> They've also done this for me, as explained elsewhere in this post and previous posts. But if I
> meter from the sky and take the shot in AV mode, then it will be fine.
So you are exercising manual control. However, it does mean that the exposure calculated by the
camera for the area you want to photograph is wrong. You have to point the camera in a different
direction to get the "correct" exposure. It really wouldn't be difficult to design a digital
exposure meter to do this automatically, I'm still amazed that no camera manufacturer yet seems to
have thought of this. Just measure the brightest value in a scene and set the exposure not to over-
expose it. There could be a simple option to switch on and off for this, similar to setting auto
levels in Photoshop.
> I've had lots of photos like this from the past that I've since rescued thanks to your contrast
> masking technique (due to dark land), so thanks again for that one. Is this your technique, or
> did you see it somewhere?
I read about it in Luminous Landscape. However, I've modified it. When I read about it they
recommended gaussian blur values of 10-25, occasionally as high as 50. Experimentation indicated to
me that values of 150-250 worked far better in most cases.
> Okay I agree, although there's no need to add in 'serious' to 'landscape photographer.' When have
> you ever seen an 'unserious landscape photographer?'
Fair point! Any frivolous landscape photographers around here?
>> Technically they are called semi-automatic modes,
Ah! I thought I'd mentioned this!
> I agree with the above, so why are we even having this conversation?
> :-(
Beats me.
> ...I remember that when talking about automatic modes a while ago, I told you that I used AV, TV,
> Landscape and Portrait modes, and jokingly asked if they met your approval. You replied that that
> they were all automatic modes.
Didn't I jokingly reply that to your joking question?
> So when you've been talking about Automatic modes, I've been thinking about all these modes (Auto,
> P, AV, TV, Landcape, Portrait), and assuming that you're arguing just for Manual mode. ...Though
> your last sentence makes me think otherwise, or that you might be changing your mind, or that
> we're both just having a communication problem?! hmmm...
Yep, communication problem.
> I always lock the exposure on some part of the scene, to get the effect I want. And I will, 90% of
> the time, use AV or TV modes. I haven't taken a photo on Auto mode (on purpose) since the first
> day I bought the camera,
Ah, so you're not a complete idiot! ;-)
>> But my view is that if you are choosing apertures in semi-auto and locking exposures and/or
>> compensating for exposures, then it's actually easier to do that in manual mode!
>
> It's actually half the effort to do this in AV or TV mode! ;o)
When the shutter speed and aperture are already set from the previous shot, it takes precisely
*zero* effort to calculate and set the exposure for the next shot.
I've always had a habit of leaving my camera set to the correct exposure settings for the current
lighting. That way, if a sudden photo opportunity presented itself I could whip out the camera,
point, zoom, compose, focus, wind the film on and *click*. I wouldn't even think about the exposure
unless the lighting was different in some way.
> I still think you do use the word 'snaps' and 'serious about your their photography' in a
> derogatory way.
No I'm not, but if you want to take it that way, that's your choice. Surely you can see the
difference between Uncle Fred's holiday snaps and Galen Rowell's works of art? Those differences
don't happen by accident, they happen for a reason. One takes his work seriously and the other just
points and clicks, but that doesn't make Uncle Fred's snaps any less valuable or less important to
Uncle Fred.
> If I had more money, I'd buy a EOS 1Ds for £5k+! I'd use it for snap shots or proper shots or
> whatever. The equipment, modes, professional/amateur status, or whatever, doesn't affect whether a
> photograph is **** or not. I'm sure there's a correlation somewhere, but my point is that a photo
> isn't good or bad, just because of one of these factors.
No, I agree. However, it's an unavoidable fact that serious photographers (professionals or
otherwise) with expensive equipment, who take their photography seriously, tend to take the best
photographs. Frivolous snappers may occasionally take the odd lucky masterpiece but that's the
exception rather than the rule. If you asked a pro and a snapper to go to the same location at the
same time and try to take the best photograph they could of the place, you'd be a fool to bet on the
snapper getting the best shot. But if they went there at different times the pro might be rained out
and the snapper might get a fantastic sunset.
>> "Making" a photograph... blah de blah de blah...
> This is fine, though I think you're being overly-articulate about describing all this.
But that's the best way to describe things, isn't it?
> I think you're making a big deal out of describing things that will be done in seconds or
> fractions of a second, automatically within the brain.
Some of what I've described takes a lot more than mere seconds. I've spent a lot of time taking
meter readings and agonising over exposures and depth of field and so on in the past. I tend to work
it out much quicker now, but that's down to experience, and the automatic stuff is only automatic
because I've done these things so many times it's become second nature.
> The only parts of this that I give a lot of credit to is choosing the time of day, and the angle
> and direction of the sun/moon in the sky (if that's what you meant by angle?).
Angle from the viewpoint to the main subject (often a mountain peak or coastal headland in my case).
> Possibly the weather too,
Definitely the weather!!! The single most important factor in landscape photography in my opinion,
in conjunction with the position of the sun of course.
> but some people will go out and take photos whatever the weather,
True, but you can't photograph sunsets in the rain. Understanding and anticipating weather is
vitally important.
> as they may not have the luxury of having lots of free time - got to grab the chance when they
> can, so hope for the best.
Well if you're really serious you have to make the time. You're not going to become a great sunrise
photographer if you can't be bothered to get up early. It doesn't matter how good your excuses are,
excuses don't make great photographs. It's no good taking a photo of Worms Head in the rain then
telling people "that would be a great photo if the sun was setting behind it".
> Why wait around forever for an opportunity that will be rare?
To take an amazing photograph and sell it for lots of money? There are lots of serious photographers
who are highly skilled at waiting around. Personally I don't have the patience, so I try to
anticipate good weather instead, and time my arrival to coincide with it. Having said that, I've
often camped up the mountains for days on end and got some excellent results to show for it.
>> "Taking" a photograph (or a snap) on the other hand, implies a passive approach to photography.
>> It is typified by walking along on a nice day, spotting a nice scene, thinking "Ooh, that looks
>> nice", then whipping out your camera set to auto, pointing it in the right general direction,
>> then pressing the shutter. You've just "taken" a snap. No great thought required, no personal
>> vision used to render the scene in accordance with your artistic ideals, just a quick snap to
>> remind you of the moment.
>
> Well, even though you deny this, I think that your still describing a snap as a lesser
> quality photo.
They usually are! I'm not denying that snaps are *usually* poorer in quality, just saying that they
are still important to the person who took them. Not putting any great thought into a photo rarely
results in a masterpiece, although sometimes you can get lucky.
> I could go through your photos and call the **** ones 'snaps,' and the good ones 'you took a lot
> of time over this Paul.' How many do you think I'd get right?
I don't know. I do know that I have some great snaps and some **** photos.
> Do you have a mixture of snaps and 'made' photos on your site?
Almost certainly, although many are a mixture of both. As I've said, when I see an unexpected
opportunity I don't just point the camera thoughtlessly at it, I always try to get the best
composition possible, even if I do so in a matter of seconds. You don't have to spend half an hour
composing a photograph with the camera on a tripod to get a good landscape shot.
> Can you tell the difference yourself?
Yep, I can remember the circumstances of virtually every significant photo I've ever taken. Photos
have a way of bringing back memories, particularly the good ones. If I can't remember the details
then it's probably a **** photo, or a **** snap. ;-)
> Sure, there's a difference in the pyschology here,
Yes, and I think the psychology is important, it's part of what makes the photo in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to impose any pretentious ideas of artiness onto the act of
making a photo, but as with most things in life, the more time and care you take over something, the
better the result tends to be.
> but when did you last take a photo and talk to people about everything that was going through your
> mind to make a photo?
Talk to people? When? During? After? To be honest I've never really talked to many people about
photography, particularly not in the early years. It was a personal thing, I just didn't know many
other photographers. I've always been a bit of a loner.
> None of this matters, and the photo either looked good or it didn't.
It matters if it affected whether it looked good or not. If spending a lot of time over it made it a
great photo or if taking it quickly caused it to come out ****, then the psychology and the
technique involved will certainly have mattered.
You seem to be implying that people can waltz around randomly pointing their cameras at this and
that and produce a lot of masterpieces in the process, whilst serious photographers with tripods and
exposure meters will spend a lot of time and care producing ****. I'm sorry, but that isn't
statistically very likely.
> All this stuff about thinking, choosing, changing this, that, deciding on this and that, etc, it's
> all done automatically by the person taking the photo.
Is it? It may be done automatically by someone who's done it so many times that it becomes second
nature, and it may not be done at all by a careless person who just presses the shutter and hopes
for the best. An amateur may spend a lot of time thinking about these things, possible even going
through a checklist.
After many years of photography I've found myself falling into the trap of taking photos
automatically and not really thinking about them, instead just applying a series of rules and
techniques that I've developed over the years. A few years ago though, two books woke me up and
showed me that I wasn't really thinking about my photography anymore, and that kick started me into
taking a fresh approach, forcing myself to look at familiar areas with a new eye, with no
preconceptions, and purposely seek new ways to interpret the landscape. I don't always do this, it's
easy to fall back into old habits, but when I do make the effort to really think about what I'm
doing and try to be original and creative, I sometimes surprise myself. These surprises help to keep
me interested, instead of going over all the old ground time and time again. That's why digital is
helping to inspire my interest so much at this time, exploring the possibilities of the new
technology.
> I regard snaps as careless photos more than just quick shots.
I agree. It's quite possible to take good shots quickly. In fact it's essential in some fields of
photography. Experience helps of course, and I don't see why quick landscapes should necessarily be
excluded. If a skilled action photographer can take a great action shot quickly, why not a skilled
landscape photographer?
> I'm just not an arty farty type of person
Neither am I, but I am attracted to taking those types of shots though.
> and I just like to do things rather than describe them and be all articulate about it.
But pretentious ******** helps to sell photos in the art world... ;-)
>> Once again, I stress that a snap is not a derogatory term. There's nothing wrong with taking
>> snaps per se, they fulfill their function for most people who take them, i.e. to record a memory.
>> But the quality of a snap rarely matches the quality of a well "made" photograph, except when
>> chance smiles upon you, which it does from time to time.
>
> What's the difference between 'derogatory' and 'rarely matches the quality?'
As I said, they fulfill a function. They are important to the person who takes them. Everyone's
snaps are a record of memories of their life, so no matter how blurred or badly exposed they may be,
the reminiscences that they bring back are priceless. They may be of no value to anyone else, but
they are extremely valuable to those who take them. I don't understimate that. My snaps may be of
better technical quality than most, but the personal value is the same. The whole issue of quality
is really one of "can you sell them or not?", but that's not the main purpose of most snaps.
> How have your photos improved since you were a beginner Paul?
No, I was taking perfect photographs from my very first roll of film. And I still have the photos to
prove it! ;-)
Actually, one of the nice things about photography is that it's possible to go back and evaluate
just how good or bad my first photographs actually were, without seeing them through the rose tinted
glasses that I was undoubtedly wearing at the time. And it was so long ago that I can critique them
almost as if they were taken by someone else, although there's still the presence of nostalgia to
instill a bit of bias into my judgements.
My very first roll wasn't bad at all. I went to an area I knew well, in good light, and visited
each of a number of well known locations, so there was some knowledge and planning involved. Many
of the photos exhibited good composition, thus demonstrating a "good eye for a photo". This was
before I learnt anything about the rules of composition, so I conclude that I always had "a good
eye" as they say.
Technically the photos weren't that bad. The exposures were virtually all correct, determined with a
hand held exposure meter, so I had no trouble grasping the whole manual thing from the very
beginning. The colours are okay but not brilliant, I wasn't using the best film, but it wasn't the
worst either (I used worse later). It may have been Kodak, not sure offhand. The worst thing is the
sharpness. It looks okay in the 6x4 prints, but when scanned it's clearly not that sharp. Probably
the result of hand holding. This may vary from shot to shot, I haven't studied them all closely. I'd
class at least four of the shots as good in terms of composition. Technical quality wasn't bad (it
could have been a lot worse) but it wasn't brilliant either.
Many of the shots I took after that, during my first experimental period, were pretty naff, and
confirmed my lack of interest in "general" photography. Fast forward six years...
1st January 1985 - the dawn of my career as a serious landscape photographer. I celebrated New
Year's Day, along with quite a few other people, at Caswell Bay, to photograph the sunset. In
complete foolishness made use of a blue filter, thinking that would enhance the sky colour! I was
also stupid enough to use 400ASA film. Clearly I was a complete moron when I started my career.
My first year's worth of photographs were pretty dire on the whole. Nothing really bad but nothing
really good either, well maybe a small handful of lucky shots. 1985 verdict: pure beginner, hampered
by a camera with a fixed 50mm lens that allowed no artistic freedom. I learnt the basics though.
Probably most important, I learnt quite a bit about the importance and unpredictability of weather.
1986 - I invested in some proper camera gear, an SLR with a couple of zoom lenses, and I switched to
using slide film. I made some progress this year. The first half was still pretty dire, with whole
rolls over-exposed occasionally. By the second half of the year there was some real improvement. A
few good shots starting to appear. Verdict: still a beginner but starting to show some promise.
1987 - Breakthrough year. This is the year that I finally cracked it. I was still making plenty of
errors, but taking a decent percentage of good shots. I experimented with and mastered the use of
various filters, decided on Fujichrome 50 as my film of choice and started getting all my film
professionally processed. Verdict: by the end of 87 I'd become - a photographer!
So I reckon it took me three years to master the basics. After which I wondered what else I could
possibly learn. But not to worry, 16 years have passed since then and I'm still learning. If I
didn't I'd give it up. Challenge is important. It's crucial to continually chase new goals.
Otherwise I'd lose interest.
> Well, I've never been so careless as to slip my dial onto B instead of 1 second...
And I'm an
> inexperienced beginner Paul, so you should be ashamed.
Yep, well ashamed. A stupid mistake. Probably that dog's fault!
> If your shots are better than someone elses, then it's not because you used Manual and they never,
> it's because you took a better photograph. You composed the shot better, exposed it correctly, had
> the right combination of shutter/aperture, the correct white balance, etc, and generally made it
> 'look' good.
Yep!
> It's likely that you could have just as easily put it in TV or AV modes and got the same photo.
Absolutely.
> Someone could have just walked up with their disposable camera and took an identical photo, it
> doesn't matter.
No, they couldn't have. Can someone with a disposable camera put it on a tripod and do a two second
exposure? I think not. Do they have the lens quality? No chance! Have they loaded it with
professional quality slide film? Highly unlikely.
I once bought a cheap compact (who knows what possessed me), which I loaded with professional slide
film, then went out to take some serious photographs. The results were dire. The exposures were
correct, the compositions were fine, but the vignetting, distortion and edge sharpness were
atrocious. The entire roll was ruined, so please don't try to extoll the virtues of disposable
cameras. I ditched it soon after.
It's often said that it's the photographer that's important, not the camera, but let's be realistic,
the camera must be capable of a certain minimum level of quality, and the photographer must have at
least some basic ability.
> My point is that it's not just Manual mode that makes a photo good, as this is just a 'method'
> that you are using to take photos. A photo looks good because it looks good, not because it was
> taken with Manual mode!
True, but part of the reason that it looks good is due to the effects of the shutter speed and
aperture. If these are chosen by the photographer the result is more likely to be good than if they
are chosen randomly by the camera.
> By other factors, I was thinking more along the lines of: the ability of the photographer, the
> mood they are in, if they are with someone and are spending more time talking than composing, if
> the light is ****, if it is windy and the tripod is swaying, etc...
Yes, those too. I would like to stress that I typically do my best photography when I'm alone.
Social walks are pleasant enough, but I can't concentrate on my photography fully.
> I'm sure it won't happen any time soon,
Who knows what may happen?
> but one day Paul Saunders, just you wait!
I'll look forward to it.
> Just going off track, but there was a good letter in one of my photography magazines where a lady
> wrote in and said that with digital photography and Photoshop, people are letting their standards
> slip because they know they can fix things later on, so they aren't taking as much time and effort
> at the photo-taking stage.
Maybe some are, but in general I disagree. Digital photography and digital post-processing is
opening up huge possibilities. Some will abuse those possibilites for sure, but others will use them
to take photography to new levels. The luddites will no doubt create the usual fuss, but this is a
time of rejoicing for photographers. No-one could argue that I'm not a traditional film
photographer, yet I'm choosing to embrace the digital revolution wholeheartedly. I can see nothing
but advantages for the art form as a whole. Those without talent who choose to abuse the potential
to compensate for their inabilites are an inevitable consequence of the new technology. These dregs
will undoubtedly be swept aside by the true talent that will emerge. These are exciting times.
> I agree that in full Auto, it's at the mercy of the Gods. I think we're having a mis-communication
> about what we're aruging for to be honest, as I've never campaigned for full auto.
Yep, misunderstanding.
> I thought I was arguing against you saying that anyone who knows what they're doing who uses
> Manual will always take better photos than some who uses any other mode.
No, if you know what you're doing using TV or AV then that's effectively the same thing.
>> I'll say it again, when I talk about photography I'm talking about landscape photography. That
>> should go without saying because that's the only kind of photography I do.
> Nothing wrong with being a one-trick pony of course! ;o) But weren't you talking to Mark in this
> group recently about taking 'people' shots?
Yes. Haven't started doing it yet though.
> There sounded like there was money to be made in broadening your horizons, so it pays to be
> interested in these other kinds of photography - they will probably pay your bills and fund your
> landscape photography! ;o)
Well at this moment, making money is a priority, so I guess I could make a few exceptions.
> but I've yet to be annoyed by waiting 5 seconds for an image to convert from RAW to JPEG when I
> wanted to view it (your PC is a lot faster than mine!)
Five seconds is way too long if I want to compare small details in a photo. I need to be able to
flip back and fore instantly.
>> It must convert them, a RAW file isn't an image until you convert it. It just converts it to a
>> file in your Windows folder.
>
> Well it must convert them in the background then, because they appear straight away in the same
> way that a JPEG will appear. I don't have to extract them using any other software.
However it does it, it is converting them. I have a program called ZipMagic which treats zip files
as folders and automatically decompresses them as if I were simply opening a folder.
Paul
--
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
