Is using the camera in manual that difficult.

[Nikanon]

It is never the camera, or the meter, or the fancy computer in them, that screws up.

As long as our cameras/meters are in good repair and have full batteries where needed, we only have ourselves to blame.

I am saying that in a sense, but I am going further in saying that adding an automatic feature to bother with adds another point of error. If our primary mode of error is in forgetfulness, absentmindedness, sluggishness, etc, then if you add something else which has its own issues on top of those, you have a greater chance of error. If you mess up 1/100 of the time, and the automatic features are inaccurate (mis-focus, incorrect exposure automatically given, etc) 1/100 of the time, then instead of just messing up once out of a 100 times, you will have increased your chances of messing up to 1 out of 50 times. Not that these things can be measured consistently, but that is my point.

 

[markbarendt]

Automatic features don't not necessarily add more points of error. In many cases they actually take away points of error, like my old eyes. They do though require a bit of understanding and practice on our part.

Autofocus has always been better than me at it's job. A lot better.
When I have a focus failure, it is because I did not execute my part well. That is true for manual or auto, no difference, no extra point of error.

Metering is no different.
Every form of metering and setting exposure takes practice to master, we need to figure out what the exceptions and limitations are and how to deal with them. The tools/features built into our cameras are very reliable and very predictable. Again there is no extra point of error, we either understand the tool we are using or we don't.

I'm not a big golf fan but I have been intrigued by the trajectory of Tiger Woods "game". Specifically what has caught my attention has been when he has opted to change his swing. These changes have each taken his game down a notch or two before they began paying off with better results.

Photography is no different, when we choose to learn a new technique or tool we are more prone to errors. It's not the tools messing up, it's us.

 

[ntenny]

It is never the camera, or the meter, or the fancy computer in them, that screws up.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "screws up". An averaging meter will correctly average a backlit exposure, a working autoexposure system will set the aperture and shutter speed to match that averaged result, and in the end the subject will be less exposed than the photographer intended.[1] It didn't screw up, in the sense that all the parts worked as they were supposed to work, but the automatic system failed to get the desired result.

That's fine if you know what happened and why; you look at the settings and compensate for the backlighting. But the knowledge to do that isn't something you're born with; it's easy to grasp IF you understand how exposure works in the first place...and I think LyleB is right, above, that most people who take casual snapshots never actually learn that fundamental aspect. They don't have to know about gear ratios to drive a car with an automatic transmission[2], they don't have to know about Turing machines to use an iPad, why would they expect to have to know about exposure to use a camera?

-NT


[1] Yeah, yeah, I know there are exceptions where the averaged reading and the dark profiled subject against a normally exposed background would be exactly what you want. I'm talking about the normal case that bites casual photographers, and sometimes forgetful serious photographers, when they shoot someone standing with their back to the sun.

[2] Double clutching---who remembers double clutching? I'm pretty sure most people under---I don't know, somewhere in middle age---don't know what it is or that it was once necessary.

 

[blansky]

[2] Double clutching---who remembers double clutching? I'm pretty sure most people under---I don't know, somewhere in middle age---don't know what it is or that it was once necessary.

I DO, I DO.....I remember it well.

It's when you sneak up on a girl from behind, reach around her with both hands, locate her soft inviting perky targets .........and whammo, you double clutch.

And it was seriously necessary. And still is, I might add.

 

[ntenny]

I DO, I DO.....I remember it well.

It's when you sneak up on a girl from behind, reach around her with both hands, locate her soft inviting perky targets .........and whammo, you double clutch.

Yeah, and *then* what happens?? I don't know, maybe you've been hanging around with girls more tolerant, or at least slower to strike back, than those of my youth.

Actually, it sounds safer than trying to shift a vintage Maserati.

-NT

 

[pdeeh]

double de-clutching surely?
or perhaps it was called differently in the US

 

[markbarendt]

What I'm saying Nathan is that these automated tools can be used very reliably. It doesn't matter if it's an averaging meter, a spot meter, a matrix meter, or matrix with balanced iTTL fill flash.

We are the wild cards in the system, not the automation built into the camera.

 

[ntenny]

What I'm saying Nathan is that these automated tools can be used very reliably. It doesn't matter if it's an averaging meter, a spot meter, a matrix meter, or matrix with balanced iTTL fill flash.

We are the wild cards in the system, not the automation built into the camera.

Sure, but I think that perspective assumes a *knowledgeable* user behind the camera. With a manual camera, you pretty much have to have that or nothing works at all; in the automated world, there's an understandable tendency for people to skip the "knowledgeable" part and go straight to the "user" part.

And for those of us who grew up in manual-camera-land, "knowledgeable" goes without saying, and then we wonder why elementary language like "stop down" makes people's eyes glaze over. Well, they've never had to learn what that means, as long as they were willing to take the failure modes of automatic operation as a kind of cost of doing business; and the better the automation gets, the less important that cost looks, and the less motivated a casual user is to learn anything at all about how the magic box works.

From an engineering perspective, that's a roaring success; from a curmudgeonly one, it's another "kids these days" moment.

-NT

 

[markbarendt]

Sure, but I think that perspective assumes a *knowledgeable* user behind the camera. With a manual camera, you pretty much have to have that or nothing works at all; in the automated world, there's an understandable tendency for people to skip the "knowledgeable" part and go straight to the "user" part.

And for those of us who grew up in manual-camera-land, "knowledgeable" goes without saying, and then we wonder why elementary language like "stop down" makes people's eyes glaze over. Well, they've never had to learn what that means, as long as they were willing to take the failure modes of automatic operation as a kind of cost of doing business; and the better the automation gets, the less important that cost looks, and the less motivated a casual user is to learn anything at all about how the magic box works.

From an engineering perspective, that's a roaring success; from a curmudgeonly one, it's another "kids these days" moment.

-NT

Or it brings us back to Ralph, a guy that wrote extensively to support and train curmudgeons.

I,for one, are very happy with auto-ecerythingand my camera is set to it.now, I can finally concentrate in the image-making process and forget about the image-taking process.

It brings us back to my presbyopia. For myself and others it is medically becoming harder and harder to use manual cameras.

There is no shame in wanting sharp, well exposed photos of our grand kids and friends and the places we go. That is just as true for new parents.

 

[ntenny]

It brings us back to my presbyopia. For myself and others it is medically becoming harder and harder to use manual cameras.

I've got a bit of that although it hasn't become a huge difficulty in practice yet. Someday I'll need to get further than arm's reach from the ground glass, I suppose, and I'm not sure what happens next; they don't make a lot of autofocus 8x10s. But anyway.

There is no shame in wanting sharp, well exposed photos of our grand kids and friends and the places we go. That is just as true for new parents.

Oh, of course, and I hope I don't sound like I'm arguing against automation full stop. I think *learning* photography in a fully automated context presents a difficulty, in that it can produce people who haven't had to learn the things they need to use an automated tool to best advantage.

-NT

 

[Nikanon]

Metering is no different.
Every form of metering and setting exposure takes practice to master, we need to figure out what the exceptions and limitations are and how to deal with them. The tools/features built into our cameras are very reliable and very predictable. Again there is no extra point of error, we either understand the tool we are using or we don't.

When a Canon DSLR fails to focus on the point assigned by the photographer to be focused on because there is an electronic or mechanical failure of the contrast information as relayed to the focus drive, then this is computer error. It happens quite a bit in any kind of autofocus system.

 

[markbarendt]

Nikanon, that failure is just a characteristic, a limitation of auto focus systems not an electronic or mechanical failure.

When we know where and why this happens we can work around it, same thing happens with Nikons and ... It is really tough for humans to focus on low contrast/low texture/very dark/very bright surfaces too. Try focussing a 4x5 camera on the side of a sand dune on an overcast day.

I believe that situations such as these are one reason why many small format lenses have focus distance marks.

 

[ME Super]

Just last night I had to override the autofocus on my SLR to get a picture of my son on his bicycle that he got for his birthday. Fortunately I've used manual focus before, so I knew what to expect and how to do it. Also fortunately, there was enough light that I could see what I was doing. I really only have trouble focusing when I don't have enough light, which happens often enough that I find autofocus to be a blessing in my picture taking. I like having a camera that let's me focus on getting the picture I want, yet can step aside when I want full control. Full auto, aperture priority, shutter priority, and manual modes give me that ability.

 

[lxdude]

Actually, I don't see any difference between setting everything manually and using an AE camera that gives you speed and aperture readings in the viewfinder, and an exposure lock feature. It gives all the information that you would get by manually doing things, and does it it a lot faster.

I consider it to be just a different method of manual control.

 

[lxdude]

There is nothing difficult about using a camera in manual, not unless the lens is difficult to turn or the camera is difficult to lift, it's not difficult. The brain power is not substituting the computer, it's the reverse...

If anything it is much more complex to get a desired result when haggling with an unintelligent machine.

You may be young, but you really get it.

 

[ntenny]

Nikanon, that failure is just a characteristic, a limitation of auto focus systems not an electronic or mechanical failure.

No, there really have been *bugs* of that nature in Canon's AF firmware on one or two occasions. I remember experiencing the problem where the 70-200/4L would focus behind where it said it was focussed on some of the early d*g*t*l bodies. If I remember correctly, it affected the confirmation LED in manual focus too.

I guess it's possible to quibble about whether that's a "failure" or just a "limitation", but for practical purposes, when the system doesn't do what it says on the tin and what the feedback loop to the user says it's doing, I'd consider that a failure. But I don't think it has much to do with automatic vs. manual; it's the same kind of failure as "the rangefinder is off" or "the ground glass plane isn't perfect".

-NT

 

[lxdude]

As others have said above, use good equipment and you will get good pictures. If you want to expand beyond that, you better know what you're doing because your brain has to substitute for all that electronic brain power. Do you know more than a computer? Good luck, buddy.

"All that electronic brain power" is not necessary, unless you want the machine to do all the work. Yes, I do know more than a computer, because I know what I want and I know how to get it. For all the sophistication of modern camera meters, they still choose just one shutter speed and one aperture value. Photographers had been doing that long before any kind of evaluative metering or any automation at all. Not all of them would choose the same exposure in the same situation, especially with B&W. A simple meter, together with some knowledge and experience and solid technique, is all it takes to get consistently good exposures. You will begin to find that you can determine a lot of your exposures without any meter at all. With experience, you should be able to look at a scene and say what f-stop and shutter speed you will use. With careful metering, you might refine that estimate some, but you will have gotten very close.

To answer your question; yes, using a camera in manual mode is that difficult. But it is very rewarding. It's how I work almost all the time, but I screw up a lot.

Understand what you're doing and why, and get a solid repeatable technique down, and your screwups will greatly diminish. I suggest you carry a gray card and use it to determine your manual settings. Or meter off your palm and increase a stop from that reading. That will get you spot-on or damn close. When I started metering that way my keeper rate as to exposure, with transparency film, became very high. With more experience it increased even more, to the point where I could go a little more or less to get just what I was after. With negative film, especially these days, that degree of accuracy isn't as critical. But not so long ago, I always exposed 100 ISO color negative differently from 100 ISO color positive film, to get the results I preferred and play to the film's strengths.

 

[lxdude]

It is never the camera, or the meter, or the fancy computer in them, that screws up.

As long as our cameras/meters are in good repair and have full batteries where needed, we only have ourselves to blame.

I strongly disagree. My neighbor has a Canon DSLR, and she can tell you exactly when it will screw up. Most of the time the evaluative metering does a good job. But if her subject is in deep shade but with something fairly bright in the background, it will expose way dark. A plain old center-weighted meter would give a much better result. And while it normally focuses accurately, I took a picture of her little boy looking over a wall, and though the illuminated focus indicator was square on the kid's forehead, the wall surface below his head and 12 inches or so closer was what the camera decided to put in sharp focus.

 

[lxdude]

I DO, I DO.....I remember it well.

It's when you sneak up on a girl from behind, reach around her with both hands, locate her soft inviting perky targets .........and whammo, you double clutch.

And then I woke up. Literally. On the ground with a swollen nose and a throbbing eye socket. I guess I just don't have your charm.

 

[lxdude]

double de-clutching surely?
or perhaps it was called differently in the US

In the US it's called double clutching.

Though Blansky has called it Double-D clutching, I'm sure.

 

[lxdude]

what's an exposure triangle?

It's one side of an exposure pyramid. You assemble the exposure pyramid out of exposure triangles and put it on your head, and through the magic of pyramid power, you instantly know the correct exposure!

 

[markbarendt]

My neighbor has a Canon digital, and she can tell you exactly when it will screw up.

This is a good example of the point I'm trying to make.

I'd hazard a guess that your neighbors camera might even be working "exactly as Canon programmed it".

It is likely that the real problem is that Canon's engineers just didn't get things as "right" as they could have, so there is a flaw in the design. Luckily for us (and I'm using that term very loosely), machines don't normally screw up, for better or worse machines normally do exactly what they are designed to do and they do it exactly the same way every time. Machines in good repair are predictable.

Conversely, when something breaks, or when I screw up, something random happens; the result isn't predictable.

This is nothing new, one thing or another has always frustrated us about every camera or meter or lens or film or flash or whatever. Learning the quirks/characteristics of the tools in our hands has always be part of photography, it has always been the photographer's job to make it work; automation hasn't changed that role.

 

[lxdude]

when something breaks, or when I screw up, something random happens; the result isn't predictable.

The difference, as I see it, is between faults and characteristics. Any spot, limited area, center-weighted, or full averaging meter will behave characteristically of its type, regardless of what camera it is in. No AF system can know for sure which of multiple AF points is on the area of desired sharpest focus, so it must be told if that deviates from what would be most likely. That is a characteristic of all multi-point AF systems, though they may vary one to the next in what they choose, which the user must learn.

But when a lens does not focus where it is told, or when the meter blows exposure so badly in certain situations that the photographer can only learn about it the hard way, i.e., it is not characteristic of all systems of that type, that's a fault.

 

[markbarendt]

lxdude I do agree that there are badly designed tools available to us, that is nothing new.

Once the defect is found though we are back to the photographer being the place the buck stops.

Your neighbor, if it was bought new through most any retailer, has/or had the choice of 1) returning the camera for money or repair when the problem was found, or 2) putting up with the problem.

If they chose #2 ... :confused:

 

[ambaker]

Lxdude,

Actually, the Canon eye control cameras could tell which AF Point you wanted. Worked better if you did not wear glasses, and re-calibrated from time to time.

I like having all the bells and whistles available, as long as I can turn them off when not needed or wanted.

The one really good use I can think of for a digic@m, is to learn to estimate light. Put it in manual. And you have instant feedback. If it takes you a hundred shots to get your estimates on target, no problem. Then go back to the film camera armed with a few skills. Or... Just shoot the film, and help keep the market going. ;-). Think of it like tuition...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD