That's just it. I have only to look at two settings and the viewfinder/groundglass. Anything more is needless clutter to me.
Is using the camera in manual that difficult.
-
- Thread starter Chan Tran
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Yashica Lynx 14 and Lynx 14e.
- Started by Chan Tran
-
For Sale 4x5 film holders
- Started by Early Riser
-
Want to Buy Omega D5500 with Dichroic Head, Australia
- Started by andrewherrick
-
For Sale Two Graflex 6x9 film backs for Graflex RB 6x9 (2x3)
- Started by Alex Varas
Forum statistics
That's just it. I have only to look at two settings and the viewfinder/groundglass. Anything more is needless clutter to me.
OP
OP
Thanks everyone!
I really have no problem with automation because I know at times we simply don't have the few seconds to make the settings manually. Automation is there for us to use.
I don't have any problem either if one would rely on automation all the time and have no desire to make the settings manually ever.
What I was saying is that for a beginner and if this person at some point in his/her future would wish to use manual controls then it's much easier to start with manual. I have seen many posts in the internet forum (may be I spent way to much time reading them) that someone is asking on how to start using manual controls on their cameras. I have never seen anyone saying that they started out using manual and now they need advice on how to make use of the automation available on their cameras. For a beginner I don't think composition and any artistic aspect is important to them because before they even buy the camera they already know what kind of pictures they want to take and that's the reason why they bought the camera to begin with. It's the people who have practiced photography for a while would need to start concentrate on the artistic aspect. Like I said spending about 1/2 hour to learn how to focus the camera and set the exposure is all it takes. At this point they won't be able to get results any better than if they put the camera on auto but the can get the same result, spending a little time, but what they gain is the understanding of how the camera works.
I really have no problem with automation because I know at times we simply don't have the few seconds to make the settings manually. Automation is there for us to use.
I don't have any problem either if one would rely on automation all the time and have no desire to make the settings manually ever.
What I was saying is that for a beginner and if this person at some point in his/her future would wish to use manual controls then it's much easier to start with manual. I have seen many posts in the internet forum (may be I spent way to much time reading them) that someone is asking on how to start using manual controls on their cameras. I have never seen anyone saying that they started out using manual and now they need advice on how to make use of the automation available on their cameras. For a beginner I don't think composition and any artistic aspect is important to them because before they even buy the camera they already know what kind of pictures they want to take and that's the reason why they bought the camera to begin with. It's the people who have practiced photography for a while would need to start concentrate on the artistic aspect. Like I said spending about 1/2 hour to learn how to focus the camera and set the exposure is all it takes. At this point they won't be able to get results any better than if they put the camera on auto but the can get the same result, spending a little time, but what they gain is the understanding of how the camera works.
The big thing is learning to see like the camera. We all have an image in our head when we release the shutter. If we know how the camera sees it, and how to adjust for that, we will come away much happier.
When I first started, I was always disappointed because my images looked nothing like what I saw. The best advice I ever got was, "It does not matter what you see, it matters what your camera sees. Learn to see how your camera sees."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
When I first started, I was always disappointed because my images looked nothing like what I saw. The best advice I ever got was, "It does not matter what you see, it matters what your camera sees. Learn to see how your camera sees."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
I started doing photography about 9 years ago, and have always used old cameras no newer than 1953. So to use a camera that A) requires a battery and B) has some sort of auto setting/menu I have no idea how to use it.
Its weird to think of a photographier who doesn't understand how to use a simple manual camera.
p.s. I am 35 so I should know how to use a digital camera!
Its weird to think of a photographier who doesn't understand how to use a simple manual camera.
p.s. I am 35 so I should know how to use a digital camera!
David A. Goldfarb
Moderator
I've had cameras with automatic features, but leave everything in manual most of the time. Aside from having more direct control over the factors that make the image (DOF, chosing to stop motion or register motion, etc.), in manual, I can think about exposure in pretty much the same way with any camera (adding in bellows factor for large format), which I see as easier.
When I have to get a shot it's on program with exposure comp preset for whatever film I'm using. Manual otherwise. I started with a manual 35MM that has (yep,still got it) match needle metering and went from there. I even use manual focus glass on my digital cameras. And they get used just like the film cameras. You oughta see the looks I get with a digital camera in one hand and my Weston Master II in the other.
Good on you, man. Here's for using the brain!
Depends on the manual camera can't get much easier than a Box camera or a Toycamera (Holga, Diana, etc...). I believe that some automation is ok just not auto everything. In fact a camera with AE and might be good tool to teach the basics. You change the aperture and then you see a change in the exposure time. So the camera basically shows the user the relation of aperture and exposure time. Something that I believe is necessary is a stop down preview lever to see the relation of aperture and depth of field. Auto everything cameras can be used to teach people how to concentrate on composition and on the image, this should be done at a later stage though.
Also I've never heard that fully auto cameras were good for beginners.
Also I've never heard that fully auto cameras were good for beginners.
At the beginning of using an all manual camera it might be a bit difficult. As one makes progress in photography and becomes more and more demanding in terms of control over the camera, this is when all manual becomes a real comfort. After a while and before you know it, it becomes a second nature.
I agree with this but there are a number of ways to exercise manual control. These can range all the way from all manual requiring the setting of all settings to using Program and then adjusting via exposure compensation or exposing in one area of the scene and locking exposure. I frequently use my PZ1p in Program and use the Hyper Program setting to adjust based on whether depth of field is important or shutter speed. These all require you to understand photography and understand what you are trying to achieve with your photograph. Just arbitrarily using manual settings is fine, but not the be-all, end-all of photography.
As is often true in photography, there are not any easy, pat answers, just different techniques.
As for the original question, it can be quite easy to use a camera in manual, even if you are not that interested in picking your own shutter speed and aperture manually. Modern cameras provide many options to achieve your vision and it only takes a little time on your part to become relatively competent with the options you wish to use. Be aware though, it can take a lifetime to really FEEL competent with those choices.
+1. Case in point: The ME Super. It has two exposure modes - aperture priority and manual. When I knew I wanted a certain shutter speed, I'd let the camera meter the scene and pick the shutter based on the light and the aperture the lens was set at. If it wasn't the shutter speed I wanted, I'd simply adjust the aperture until I saw the shutter speed I wanted in the viewfinder. If I wanted a given aperture, then I'd set it and just let the camera pick the shutter speed.
Like Pioneer said, you don't always have to go completely manual in order to have sufficient control to get the result you want. Now if I'm shooting B&W infrared with an IR filter, yeah, I go completely manual. Even manual focus. But otherwise, 90% of the time, the camera's in some sort of AE mode that will give me enough manual control to get either the shutter speed or aperture I want, and those are two of the most important controls in photography.
Like Pioneer said, you don't always have to go completely manual in order to have sufficient control to get the result you want. Now if I'm shooting B&W infrared with an IR filter, yeah, I go completely manual. Even manual focus. But otherwise, 90% of the time, the camera's in some sort of AE mode that will give me enough manual control to get either the shutter speed or aperture I want, and those are two of the most important controls in photography.
If you understand how a camera works, every form of automation will get in the way and/or slow you down. If you don't know how a camera works, innovations like Program mode are a God-send.
The trouble is automatic-worship has reached insane levels. I recently spoke to someone who believed focusing a digital camera by eye was no longer possible because people had lost the skills, and they found chasing a focus point cursor round a screen quicker than turning a ring on the lens. After a moment's cognitive dissonance, I suspect he is probably correct.
My experience of a few digital cameras is they operate more like slide film (meter for the highlights) than print film. Full auto tends to provide mediocre results on film and digital.
The trouble is automatic-worship has reached insane levels. I recently spoke to someone who believed focusing a digital camera by eye was no longer possible because people had lost the skills, and they found chasing a focus point cursor round a screen quicker than turning a ring on the lens. After a moment's cognitive dissonance, I suspect he is probably correct.
My experience of a few digital cameras is they operate more like slide film (meter for the highlights) than print film. Full auto tends to provide mediocre results on film and digital.
Sorry blockend but that statement is pure BS.
I'd pit the speed & accuracy of me & my F5 or F100 against any manual system.
I'm sorry you've chosen to frame your reply as an insult, but I stand by my original statement. There are certainly situations where automated metering can help, shooting fast moving sports under changing light for example, but most of the time correctly metering for the subject and having the experience to know how a particular film and developer will render it, will knock your matrix metered all-seeing-eye into cocked hat. I have twenty+ years experience of various zone metering algorithmic systems, so I know their advantages and their limitations.
How does your system know I want to crush all the shadows to black and leave the lady's white hat as the sole highlight? And when will it anticipate that I want the backlit man as a light grey with the rest of the scene bleached out? No meter is that smart. If average is your thing, automatic metering is fine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Blockend, many automated features are less than full auto, let the camera do all the thinking, modes.
For example the F5 and F100 can be programmed to use a button on the back of the camera to autofocus. When this is set it will only autofocus while the button is being pushed. I can get the accuracy and speed of AF and the predictability of manual.
Similarly a half push of the shutter button can be programmed to lock exposure and that can be done with matrix, center weighted or spot metering. It can be done with aperture or speed priority.
For you it may be quite true that automation gets in the way. I'm not asking you to change.
What I'm suggesting is that those of us who have taken the time to learn, understand, and pick the automated tools we want to use know darn well that automation doesn't get in our way.
For example the F5 and F100 can be programmed to use a button on the back of the camera to autofocus. When this is set it will only autofocus while the button is being pushed. I can get the accuracy and speed of AF and the predictability of manual.
Similarly a half push of the shutter button can be programmed to lock exposure and that can be done with matrix, center weighted or spot metering. It can be done with aperture or speed priority.
For you it may be quite true that automation gets in the way. I'm not asking you to change.
What I'm suggesting is that those of us who have taken the time to learn, understand, and pick the automated tools we want to use know darn well that automation doesn't get in our way.
I don't shoot negative film much, but some of that can be handled at the printing stage. If you're shooting slide film, which I am more familiar with, it's easy. In the first scenario, underexpose 2-3 stops. In the second, overexpose by a similar amount. This is what exposure compensation is for, and it's remarkably easy to apply, provided you remember to do it. Use of your brain is required whether you're shooting fully automatic, semi-automatic, or completely manual.
I was talking specifically about metering exposure, not AF, though that too has its pluses and minuses. I'm totally familiar with a variety of manual and multi-mode automated cameras, and appreciate what they offer. Some devices are more useful than others, spot metering for example, and in some situations more than others, sports or studio flash for instance. However, none are a substitute for pre-visualising the image, and the majority are set up for a particular film, often slides.
There's also the question of how easy it is, relatively speaking to control say, exposure compensation via a needle in the viewfinder or a dial and an LCD? In my experience every additional gimmick a camera offers takes extra buttons, dials, LEDs, LCDs and complicates what is essentially a simple operation, simple once you know how you want the image to look that is. Most people use a small fraction of the automation offered (let's say aperture priority, matrix/zone metered) but are encumbered with menus for and viewfinder information corresponding to a heap of stuff they probably never used since they first tested the camera.
On the subject of AF I have never found a remotely foolproof automated system - even less so in film era autofocus - that is shoot and forget. Compared to setting hyperfocal distances, focus speed is in the dark ages for film cameras. Automation is largely a case of one step forward, two steps backwards. ME Super, if you really think the scenario I suggested can be reproduced as a fine print by tweaking at the printing stage, you haven't spent much time in the darkroom or we have different ideas of what constitutes a fine print. If you're a jobbing pro shooting college football games to newspaper reproduction standard, automation is your friend - but you'd have gone digital long before. If you're a street shooter or some other kind of photographer who has to think on his feet, automation is just more stuff to get in your way. One way automation can work is by bracketing exposure, but do that on a 36 exposure roll and you'll spend more time reloading that shooting. Film just wasn't suited to the level of automation and disposability digital enjoys. It's a finite medium that requires planning and thinking.
There's also the question of how easy it is, relatively speaking to control say, exposure compensation via a needle in the viewfinder or a dial and an LCD? In my experience every additional gimmick a camera offers takes extra buttons, dials, LEDs, LCDs and complicates what is essentially a simple operation, simple once you know how you want the image to look that is. Most people use a small fraction of the automation offered (let's say aperture priority, matrix/zone metered) but are encumbered with menus for and viewfinder information corresponding to a heap of stuff they probably never used since they first tested the camera.
On the subject of AF I have never found a remotely foolproof automated system - even less so in film era autofocus - that is shoot and forget. Compared to setting hyperfocal distances, focus speed is in the dark ages for film cameras. Automation is largely a case of one step forward, two steps backwards. ME Super, if you really think the scenario I suggested can be reproduced as a fine print by tweaking at the printing stage, you haven't spent much time in the darkroom or we have different ideas of what constitutes a fine print. If you're a jobbing pro shooting college football games to newspaper reproduction standard, automation is your friend - but you'd have gone digital long before. If you're a street shooter or some other kind of photographer who has to think on his feet, automation is just more stuff to get in your way. One way automation can work is by bracketing exposure, but do that on a 36 exposure roll and you'll spend more time reloading that shooting. Film just wasn't suited to the level of automation and disposability digital enjoys. It's a finite medium that requires planning and thinking.
Last edited by a moderator:
blockend,
I do agree that there are less than stellar cameras out there but most film based cameras don't have deep menus like digital cameras do and I have no idea why someone would choose to use a less than stellar camera these days. Really, nice cameras are selling at give away prices. There's an F5 in APUG's classified ads today for $180 (there was a url link here which no longer exists) , I bought mine for under $300. An F100 can be had just over a hundred and an N90s, which only lacks the back button focus vs the F100 in terms of features, can be had for $20-30.
I also agree that most people use only a very limited number of the options available, with good reason. I've probably been in the custom setup menu for the F5 and F100 maybe twice each. There are maybe 20-30 possible options total. They are generally things like the assignment of buttons as I described above and as on the F5 if I want it to rewind the film after frame 35 or 36. These menus aren't for things that normally get messed with daily. The N90s doesn't even have menus unless you buy the digital back for it.
As to focus speed I'm going to assume that you haven't played with an F5 and a really nice modern AF lens. The big thing on AF speed is generally the lens, not the body. These cameras are no slouch with the old screwdriver drive but throw a modern lens with silent wave focussing on that F5, F100, or even the N90s and you get a really fast snap into focus.
I also agree that visualization of a shot is important, that is true for landscapes, journalism, weddings, and portraits. If one knows how to control their camera, it is completely irrelevant whether those controls are knobs or buttons, automatic or manual.
I do agree that there are less than stellar cameras out there but most film based cameras don't have deep menus like digital cameras do and I have no idea why someone would choose to use a less than stellar camera these days. Really, nice cameras are selling at give away prices. There's an F5 in APUG's classified ads today for $180 (there was a url link here which no longer exists) , I bought mine for under $300. An F100 can be had just over a hundred and an N90s, which only lacks the back button focus vs the F100 in terms of features, can be had for $20-30.
I also agree that most people use only a very limited number of the options available, with good reason. I've probably been in the custom setup menu for the F5 and F100 maybe twice each. There are maybe 20-30 possible options total. They are generally things like the assignment of buttons as I described above and as on the F5 if I want it to rewind the film after frame 35 or 36. These menus aren't for things that normally get messed with daily. The N90s doesn't even have menus unless you buy the digital back for it.
As to focus speed I'm going to assume that you haven't played with an F5 and a really nice modern AF lens. The big thing on AF speed is generally the lens, not the body. These cameras are no slouch with the old screwdriver drive but throw a modern lens with silent wave focussing on that F5, F100, or even the N90s and you get a really fast snap into focus.
I also agree that visualization of a shot is important, that is true for landscapes, journalism, weddings, and portraits. If one knows how to control their camera, it is completely irrelevant whether those controls are knobs or buttons, automatic or manual.
I never said the whole thing could be handled in the printing stage. I'm a get it right in the camera kind of guy because I shoot slides. There's no post processing if you shoot slides for projection, you either get it right in-camera or you don't get it right at all. If you read what I said, you still have to use your brain, even if you're shooting negative film. Exposure compensation can do a lot, if you know how much compensation a particular scene needs to give you the look you want. It's about knowing your equipment and your film.
If I'm shooting B&W infrared, it's 100% manual, all the way. The TTL meter gives me guidance but I set shutter speed, aperture, and focus all manually. Then I screw on the filter and take the shot. This means I have to use a tripod, because I can't see through both the viewfinder with the filter on the lens.
As for AF vs MF, I agree. Just last week I had to turn the AF off and focus manually to get a photo of my son. It wasn't that he was moving too quickly for the camera, there just wasn't enough contrast in the light he was in for the AF system to get the focus locked in. Flipped one switch (no menu!) and presto, I had full manual control of the focus. I like automation, but I also know how to turn it all off and get what I want.
If I'm shooting B&W infrared, it's 100% manual, all the way. The TTL meter gives me guidance but I set shutter speed, aperture, and focus all manually. Then I screw on the filter and take the shot. This means I have to use a tripod, because I can't see through both the viewfinder with the filter on the lens.
As for AF vs MF, I agree. Just last week I had to turn the AF off and focus manually to get a photo of my son. It wasn't that he was moving too quickly for the camera, there just wasn't enough contrast in the light he was in for the AF system to get the focus locked in. Flipped one switch (no menu!) and presto, I had full manual control of the focus. I like automation, but I also know how to turn it all off and get what I want.
This is a great point. Every tool has its limits, we each find different ways to deal with these challenges. While you're turning off AF I might be installing my speed light.
Both options are perfectly valid.
LOL! Really, sir.
Blockend actually made a salient statement or two which does hold true among traditional practitioners in photography. Automation and a relentless "refinement" of technology in cameras has led to a derangement in the effective fundamental skills required for photography. As a teacher I see people being hobbled by these very cameras, even those with seemingly advanced skills, and opportunities lost and foregone because of the camera. Shit is everywhere on Flickr produced by digital "photographers" who have lost completely the route to control and composition, instead handing everything to the camera. We really need to get back to basics, full manual with no intrusion of technology whatsoever that is is needed and "invaluable" is a furphy. Whether the camera is a F5 of F100 I couldn't give two shakes of a lamb's tail these are over-flossed and hyped and not the right tools for considered photography. For sports action, photojournalism et al, probably so (I used a Nikon F3, F90X and FA in my student days before I migrated to landscape).
Yes really Poisson Du Jour,
You are looking at the problem from a perspective which only holds true among traditional practitioners in photography.
With regard to Blockend's comments, I picked on a very specific point:
That statement is simply false.
The real issue is that many, if not most people, have not taken the time nor made a real effort to really get to know the tool in their hands, in the case of many cheap digital cameras I don't blame them for being frustrated with the tool. Not so cheap digitals though aren't hard to learn and much of the stuff in the menus doesn't need to be messed with. If they are willing to learn their camera I'm willing to help. If they can't be bothered with learning their tool (or replacing it) I don't feel much pity for them.
As to your assertion that a nice relatively modern Nikon (or by inference similar Canon or whatever) isn't an appropriate tool for considered photography is silly at best. They do manual just fine, and can do landscapes just as well as any full manual 35mm camera.
I don't believe there's any evidence for that, and if there is it leads to point two...
...If manual works, why put electronic hurdles in your way? People work in one or two ways, for the most part. Offering cameras with fifty combinations does not reflect how the tool is used. When I used an unmetered Nikon F in the 80s my exposures were no worse (and were often better) than when I adopted Nikon's automated system in the 90s.
If a student has a camera that can be set to manual, and they can (or have figured out how to) set aperture and speed, how is that a hurdle?
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |