Manual vs. Aperture/Shutter Priority Modes

[Chainsaw_Willie]

Yeah, I could be completely honest with you if you really want.

Personally, I'd prefer an honest explanation to smug condescension any day. I don't have all the answers and don't pretend to. What I do works for me, if you have a better way and can explain why it's better without making out like I'm a clueless idiot then I'm all ears.

[outabounds]

When using any automatic mode, you can take two photos of the same thing and get two different exposures. That doesn't work for me. I'd rather be in control.

Changing the EV to dial in an exposure will just fuck you over later when you grab the camera for a quick opportunity and over/under-expose your shot because you're still compensationg for a lighting situation that no longer exists. By the time you set it back to zero the shot's gone. That's why I do my own thinking in manual for any shot that matters and then set it back to aperture priority when I'm done.

Auto exposure modes are just a good way to get to a starting point before switching to manual and doing it right

[Chainsaw_Willie]

You're not understanding what happens when you're shooting manual. When I set the camera to manual it calculates NOTHING. Every exposure is the same AND it happens instantly. It doesn't matter that you're method calculates exposure in a fraction of a second because it has to do it for EVERY frame and this is waaaaay slower in effective shooting. Shooting manual also greatly simplifies/speeds batch post processing.

You're saying that you can't trust your camera's exposure calculations but you recommend using an exposure calculation modifier rather than a technique that removes the untrustworthy exposure calculation from the equation. Statements like this are why Truth said "if you have to ask it doesn't matter."

I've made lengthy posts on here probably 10 times over the last 8 years extolling the virtues of shooting manual. Every time people raise the same reasons for using auto exposure + EV being better and generally say "I'm dumb for shooting manual", "Manual is only good for a very limited type of photography" or "I'm elitist for shooting manual."

If you're looking to shoot relative slow frame rates of the same scene in changing light (eg: sunset landscape) then I could see it being EASIER to use aperture priority but I don't think the exposures would necessarily be better.

Hopefully you guys can understand... I started shooting manual because I got tired of the camera NOT making the correct exposure. I keep shooting manual because the camera continues to NOT make the correct exposure.

You've said a lot of stuff here that I'd like to go further into. I really wish we were sitting in a bar somewhere with our cameras because I'd like to pick your brain and learn your perspective over a couple or three beers for an hour or two. Unfortunately I'm sitting at a keyboard and just not in the mood to type out every goddamned thing I'd like to ask you.

The biggest thing that I'm pondering here is how do you choose the correct aperture and shutter speed for a particular scene? This is really the crux of this whole discussion. All the different modes (M, A, S, P) are just different ways of getting those two variables set. Are you saying that you don't even need the light meter in the camera, that you can just eyeball a scene and know what combination of aperture and shutter speed to use?

[Chainsaw_Willie]

When using any automatic mode, you can take two photos of the same thing and get two different exposures. That doesn't work for me. I'd rather be in control....

Auto exposure modes are just a good way to get to a starting point before switching to manual and doing it right

Oh, so you're a control freak. I get it now.

No argument on the EV thing, I've done that and it is a pitfall.

However, I still don't understand where you're coming from. Forgive me if I'm being obtuse, it's not intentional.

You say to use an auto mode (A for example) to get in the ballpark and then switch to manual, and that taking the picture twice in A can produce different results.

First, if I compose an image and choose f5.6 in A and the camera says 1/125 is the right shutter speed, then how do I end up with two different exposures if I shoot that image twice? If the settings don't change, how does the exposure change, or are you talking about the camera changing the shutter speed on you? Are you saying that I'd get different results by switching to M but leaving the aperture and shutter where they are? How is that possible?

Using A to get in the ballpark and then changing the settings in M to achieve the effect you want makes perfect sense.

Sorry if I'm hogging this thread. I just want to learn to be a better photog. Off to drink a few beers and play some cards now.

[outabounds]

If you set your exposure for some moving water in manual, you can change your composition and not have your exposure jacked by the changing background light. Same idea with a moving person passing a changing background. Your exposure may change even though the amount of light on your subject stays the same.

[truth]

Determining shutter speeds and apertures for any given image is a balancing act. You're playing with two different gas and brake pedals that determine how much light hits the sensor during any given exposure. Shutter speed is a time function while aperture changes the diameter of the opening thus controlling the volume of light. Seems simple, but changing either function has other consequences. With shutter speed, as you increase the duration that the shutter is open with slower speeds you lose the ability to freeze moving objects. The speed of the object determines how fast a shutter speed is needed to stop it. At some point you will also lose the ability to prevent the motion of your own body from creating blur in the image if you're shooting handheld. For me this tends to be at about 1/3 of second with image stabilization on a good day. YMMV With aperture, you're physically altering the size that the iris in your lens opens during each exposure, thus it controls the physical volume of light that can pass through the lens to the sensor. Changes in aperture have the wonderful side effect of altering the depth of field that is in focus. As you decrease the aperture (smaller opening but larger numbers, stupid but that's just the way it is, learn your f-stops) the depth of field grows larger and vice versa.

To understand what aperture and shutter speed you want to use for any given image you need to fully understand what effect a change to either or both will have on the image you're trying to create. The best way to do this is to grab your camera and sit down at you kitchen table with a beer. Put that beer in the middle of the table and start shooting. Start with the smallest aperture your lens will allow, for arguments sake let's say it's a 50mm f/2.8 lens, that way there's no variable aperture and no change in focal length. At f2.8 take a couple of test shot and set the shutter speed so that you're getting a good exposure. Now leave the shutter speed alone and take a test shot at each full stop through f/22. Then go back to f/2.8 and take take the shutter speed all the way to the longest setting it will allow, probably 30 seconds. Take another shot a 5 seconds, 1/3, 1/10. 1/100, 1/500, 1/1000, 1/2000 and so on depending upon how much ambient light it takes to get a black frame. DL the images into whatever software you use to view images and look a the subtle changes between each adjustment. Sounds like a shit ton of work but in reality you can knock it out in 10 minutes or less as we're not winning any awards with the PBR can on your table.

Hopefully this will illustrate why it matters to be in control of each variable as even subtle changes that the camera might make in milliseconds will effect the image you end up with. The result being an image that was based upon some averaging algorithm and not on the desire to create a certain image. With practice this becomes second nature and you will be able to make subtle and rapid changes without ever taking your eye from the viewfinder. More over, you'll be shooting the images you want and eventually understand how to push the limits of each to create more dramatic and better imagery. Just because your image is in focus and exposed properly doesn't make it a good image. The camera is just a tool, learn to use the tool and you'll be amazed at how much better your photography will get.

[Tippster]

...At f2.8 take a couple of test shot and set the shutter speed so that you're getting a good exposure. Now leave the shutter speed alone and take a test shot at each full stop through f/22.

At a set shutter speed and a good exposure at f/2.8 you will be getting progressively darker pix as you close the aperture. f/22 will be 6 stops under-exposed... likely black. Not quite sure what this test accomplishes other than showing that for every stop you go down you decrease the amount of light by 1/2. If you're trying to show how DoF is affected you'd really want a good exposure at every f-stop setting, so would need to double the shutter speed for every stop you go down (2.8>4>5.6>8>11 etc.)

I know you know what you're doing, Truth, just wondering what you're trying to convey. Maybe I'm just having a blonde moment this morning.

[Lonnie]

Pick your poison...

[truth]

At a set shutter speed and a good exposure at f/2.8 you will be getting progressively darker pix as you close the aperture. f/22 will be 6 stops under-exposed... likely black. Not quite sure what this test accomplishes other than showing that for every stop you go down you decrease the amount of light by 1/2. If you're trying to show how DoF is affected you'd really want a good exposure at every f-stop setting, so would need to double the shutter speed for every stop you go down (2.8>4>5.6>8>11 etc.)

I know you know what you're doing, Truth, just wondering what you're trying to convey. Maybe I'm just having a blonde moment this morning.

To you nothing. To someone that can't sort out what aperture or speed to use it shows them exactly what making every change will do and why allowing the camera to make those changes for you randomly is a compromise. The only way to gin that understanding is to sort through all the various permutations and the effects they have on the image captured. To do it quickly and systematically is something that anyone shooting a dSLR can do at no cost. Once you see how changing one setting effects the image you can begin to experiment with changing multiple settings but without the basic knowledge of what each adjustment does visually, not technically, it's tough to really "get it". This type of testing is critical to any self taught dSLR shooter. If you're learning to shoot with off camera lighting the same testing should be done for changing the distance of the light to the subject and so on and so forth. It's one thing to understand theory and physics, its another to know in your mind how any change will effect an image visually. I don't pretend to an expert on theory or physics but I've got pretty good grasp on how to use the tools available to manipulate my final image.

I know you know what you're doing, Truth, just wondering what you're trying to convey. Maybe I'm just having a blonde moment this morning.[/QUOTE]

[Edgnar]

I'm definitely learning from this discussion and I would like to see it keep going. I'm learning to use manual and the various settings, but I'm not pro by any means. I have a hard time working out how to use manual for shooting action, especially in changing lighting. For example, I was shooting some people hitting a park jump earlier this year and suddenly (as an athlete was in the air) a cloud blocked the light. Totally fucked up my exposure. From what I've gathered here, if I had been shooting manual, it may have been easier to go back in PP and fix the exposure? Am I right here or wrong?

I'm a JONG.

[4-TEEF'S Ghost]

You've said a lot of stuff here that I'd like to go further into. I really wish we were sitting in a bar somewhere with our cameras because I'd like to pick your brain and learn your perspective over a couple or three beers for an hour or two. Unfortunately I'm sitting at a keyboard and just not in the mood to type out every goddamned thing I'd like to ask you.

Look me up if you're ever at Snowbird.

The biggest thing that I'm pondering here is how do you choose the correct aperture and shutter speed for a particular scene? This is really the crux of this whole discussion. All the different modes (M, A, S, P) are just different ways of getting those two variables set. Are you saying that you don't even need the light meter in the camera, that you can just eyeball a scene and know what combination of aperture and shutter speed to use?

I do use the internal meter although I can eyeball ok but that is really just a memory trick.

I usually expose for white. In execution that means using the smallest spot metering mode, metering the brightest point in the scene and setting the camera to expose that highlight point at two stops over. From there I will vary shutter speed and aperture (in parallel) to achieve different looks, chimping here and there, re-checking my exposures by re-metering the highlight often, I may bracket a little via shutter speed if there is a big contrast range in the scene.

Sometimes though I expose for 20% grey so I just meter off my hand and set exposure dead on.

The key for me is that I start by making sure ONE part of the image exposed absolutely correctly. Once I have white locked I KNOW that adding exposure will blow out my highlights and I can make educated composition and exposure decisions that BALANCE that reality.

[Lonnie]

From what I've gathered here, if I had been shooting manual, it may have been easier to go back in PP and fix the exposure? Am I right here or wrong?

What mode you are in has nothing to do being able to repair a jacked exposure. That depends on how far off your exposure is from "correct". You can usually bring an image back from about 1 to 1.5 stops of over/underexposure if you are shooting raw. This process, however, usually introduces some noise or other artifacts into the final image (esp in the case of under exposure). Had you been shooting manual and had adjusted your exposure for the cloud before it came over, then you'd be ok.

In this case, where things broke down is how your camera calculated the exposure. Without knowing the details of your settings or the exposure, in it's silicone mind your camera did exactly what you told it to. It made a "perfect" exposure based on the settings you picked. Your camera's meter (or an external one) calculates the proper exposure for the scene. However, you can tell it to spot meter on a specific location, meter a local area, or meter the entire scene. You can tell it you want to over or under expose all of those options a well and choose how much over or underexposure you want there to be.

Shooting in Manual, or Aperture, or Shutter Priority modes are all ways to get to the final end point. Personally, I look at A and S as "fail safe" modes in case I forget to change something, or if the conditions change. Manual give you the chance to tell your camera "Do exactly what I say no matter what, even if you think I'm wrong." (so to speak). I can and do, shoot in all 3 modes, but most of my time is spent in A (adjusting exp comp to get the exposure dialed in to where I want to end up). Lately, I've been thinking about why I do this what I've come up with is my first Olympus was basically set up to operate that way. I also think my ADD figures into is as I've often got so many thoughts rushing thru my head that I forget to make all of the adjustments I need to get everything dialed in. But that's me, as others have said on here, they use other methods and they are not wrong. If a method works for you, it works for you. So long as you know the 3 legs of the exposure triangle above and how you can manipulate them and know what you want to control for and what tradeoffs you have to make to get there, then it's all the same...

[Chainsaw_Willie]

4-TEEF's - I'll definitely ping you if I make it out that way. It may not happen this winter though. I was hoping to attend another Str8line camp but the job situation isn't accomodating that.

Thanks for the info on spot metering and how you get started with a scene, that's what I was looking for and leads me to something else, addressed below.

Truth - thanks for your comments. I think there's something you're misunderstanding about what I'm asking though. 4-TEEF's got it. I'm asking how you choose the starting point, how you make the initial decision about where to start with aperture and shutter speed, not how aperture and shutter speed interrelate or affect a picture. You can't just choose f2.8 @ 1/10 for a bright, sunny scene with no strong shadows, you've got to have some input or knowledge to know that if you want the narrow DOF of f2.8 that your shutter speed is going to be pretty high in that scenario. I've been shooting for many years and fully understand the relationship between aperture and shutter speed and how they affect the "look" my image has. I'm no stranger to the exposure triangle Lonnie posted. I'm also familiar with some other things that aperture affects like vignetting, ghosting/flaring, sharpness and diffraction.

Why am I asking about how you choose the aperture and shutter speed? Because someone said they shoot manual because they don't want the camera doing any calculations for them. To me, that's misleading because if you're using the camera's meter to create a starting point to work from for a scene, then you are absolutely letting the camera do some calcuations for you. While you may wish to modify the settings the camera is telling are best for a particular shot, you are still starting with what the camera is telling you. I say "you" in the general sense. For all I know you, "Truth," have a different way of picking your initial settings, and if so, I'm curious to hear what they are. 4-TEEF's did a good job of explaining how he starts out and why, makes a lot of sense. Do you have a different way of doing it?

I shoot in A most of the time because the most important thing to me most of the time is the aperture setting. Choose the aperture to create the look/DOF you want, choose the shutter speed to get the exposure where you want it. I chose the aperture for this shot specifically to ensure the entire bird was in focus but the foreground and background would be soft while still maintaining the fastest possible shutter speed at the lowest possible iso.
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n...C_0449copy.jpg

Usually my camera does a very good job of choosing a shutter speed that works fine when I specify an aperture AND meter the appropriate part of the scene. I've come to learn that it doesn't always, and to learn when it is that it won't. In those situations I go to manual or dial in some exposure compensation. That's just what I've gotten used to doing and it works most of the time. Especially when I'm hiking or skiing and want to minimize the time spent setting up a shot. Rotate a dial to get the aperture I want, let the shutter speed fall where it may, click a couple pics, move on. Galen Rowell is one of the photogs I admire most and he said "f8 and be there." Seems to be good advice most of the time when shooting scenics, which is mostly what I shoot.

However, after reading everything in this thread and what others have to say and reading how they do things, I'll definitely try modifying my own practices. Never hurts to learn a different way of doing things, I might even find that I like it. I also want to branch out into different styles and I'm sure shooting in M works better for a lot of things.

[truth]

My starting point and end point are determined by similar things. In my mind there's always an ideal aperture and shutter speed for any image, the image I shoot is almost always a compromise between what I want and what is possible given the light available. Even when using uber fancy strobes there are still limits and trade offs. Shooting manual allows me to make those compromises so as to best approximate my ideal. If you've been shooting for such a long time and have no idea where to begin I'm at a loss. I mean your shutter speed would ideally be the slowest possible to still freeze your subject and remove any possible camera blur with the aperture that gives you the DOF you want for the image at the lowest possible ISO setting. It's pretty freaking simple. If you think the camera can do a better job than you can in determining what type of image you want to shoot then by all means, don't ever bother to think about it. Otherwise, start anywhere and chimp away until you get what you're looking for. Why there's so much resistance to this just boggles my mind. You all bought dSLR's, but why? You should have just bought really nice point and shoots and moved on with your lives.

[Max Archer]

If you shoot manual enough, you get to know your settings. That's especially true if you shoot similar subjects in similar lighting conditions a lot. Back when I was shooting 4x5 and other manual film cameras I got to be pretty good at guessing exposure. Digital is less forgiving than print film was, but chimping helps somewhat. However, I really try to avoid chimping as much as possible, because the LCD on your camera isn't the same as the one on your computer, and especially isn't the same as the publication your stuff might be running in, and can really bite you in the ass if you expose to look good on it.

I still find that there's a time and a place for everything. I shoot daylight portraiture in aperture priority with TTL remote flash and get perfect results almost all the time. On the other hand, make it anything but daylight, or manual flash, and it's time to go to manual exposure in order to gain separate control over the ambient and flash exposures, and obviously the camera doesn't know anything about a manual remote flash, so it can't expose for it on its own.

The same goes when I'm shooting sports. I know when I need manual and when I don't. I will say that the more I do motorsports, the more manual I use. One thing I've been doing a lot lately is presetting my priority modes to useful settings, for example I'll leave my aperture priority at max aperture, so if I'm shooting panning at 1/60 and suddenly somebody crashes and I need to switch to freezing action, I can just click into A and be at the max SS possible, rather than having to dial a manual exposure all the way back up. I also find that priority modes are invaluable when I'm in "photojournalist mode", shooting the pits, or around the paddock, as the lighting conditions are different every direction I point the camera and there's usually not any time to dial in an exposure for interesting shots. One thing I won't touch is auto ISO, by the way, that's way too critical to image quality to let the camera have any say in. (And even after 10 years of digital I still feel weird being able to change it as easily as SS and A.)

If I were shooting skiing I wouldn't think of using anything but manual, ever. Skiing is a weird blend of landscape, action, and commercial, and one of its distinguishing features is that it involves both a lot of direction and a very short window in which to get the shot right, along with a very strong emphasis on image quality. I actually don't think I've ever seen a field where the photography itself gets as much attention as skiing.

[splitter]

This thread definitely feels like deja-vu.

For me, manual gives me the most control over how I want a photo to look.

I have a good idea of what I want my DOF to be like and whether I want to freeze motion or not (streams/panning)

One (of many) thing(s) I'm not as good at knowing is what ISO is needed right off the bat when doing urbanscapes at night. Ideally I'd like to shoot everything at 100, but can't. Sometimes I need a couple of test shots to dial in the ISO.

I get people preferring exposure compensation when using Av mode, but that isn't nearly as intuitive to me as manual.

Certainly there are starting points and the camera can help me measure that, but rarely does the camera do exactly what I want it to do, and for me, manual is as (more) fast and more reliable then exposure compensation. Plus, those starting points help determine/teach me what the camera wants to do and therefore, what I need to do to overcome it.

Without a doubt, I'll shoot some things, using Av mode. But rarely are those shots that I consider to be stand-outs. They might be a really decent snapshot, but still, only a decent snapshot.

As skiers, many of the examples given are in regards to moving quickly through a backcountry lap or at the resort.

That's a fine place for Av and exactly what it is used for. But "we are moving quickly through the environment", meaning, we are skiing and taking pictures, not photographing skiing. There is a difference.

In many cases we aren't hiking a different ridge for a good vantage point or skiing an aspect based on sunrise or sunset light in those examples. If we have put that much effort into a shot, then I would argue that manual would be the way to go.

True, many wedding photographers shoot in Av for the same reasons given. And it is certainly do-able in the situation. But there are many wedding photographers and if they are worth their salt, they, at the very least, are probably using manual in the formals. And if they've been doing it a while, they are likely using manual in much of the other work. Or only have one camera set to Av. But just because many are using it, doesn't prove much. There are a lot of people doing wedding photography and they aren't all very good.


btw truth, lonnie looooves his sony NEX point n shoot (winkeez lonnie!)

I did get to handle one of those though, and while it's a great little camera and maybe a harbinger of things to come in mirror-less, it is far from my DSLR.

[Lonnie]

Galen Rowell is one of the photogs I admire most and he said "f8 and be there."

I always thought that was a Arthur Fellig quote and mainly applied to the photo-journalistic craft? Regardless, it's good advice as a starting point...

I did get to handle one of those though, and while it's a great little camera and maybe a harbinger of things to come in mirror-less, it is far from my DSLR.

Manual focus glass my friend, manual focus glass (let's throw one more wrinkle into the equation why don't we!) That's all I have to say about that!

[Max Archer]

I always thought that was a Arthur Fellig quote and mainly applied to the photo-journalistic craft? Regardless, it's good advice as a starting point...

Yeah, that's who I've always heard it attributed to. It made sense in his case because he shot everything with direct flash on a Speed Graphic, so the shutter speed didn't really matter and the aperture was always the same because it was always the same light source.

[Tippster]

It also gave him enough DoF so focus wasn't as critical.

Truth - I think Chainsaw's point is even if you shoot Manual you're still relying on a meter to an extent. Of course you are making a conscious decision to ignore what those readings are recommending and can force your camera to do just that.

Honestly if someone is going to go full manual full time and not use a gray card they're just guessing - no different than shooting Av or Tv and making a conscious decision to over/under-expose.

If you know how to use a histogram and how to avoid clipping you should definitely try out the "ETTR" technique: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right

[truth]

Jesus fucking christ...it's not about exposure Tipp. That's the fucking problem. If all you want is perfect exposure every time then buy a fucking point and shoot and snapshot your way to flicker infamy. Of course I'm using the meter and the histogram, but I'm also aware of all the other tools I have at my command. The auto modes will only get you a properly exposed image. They will not create a beautiful photo using all the variables that one can manipulate to alter the image that you capture. If you don't understand this then you really don't have any grasp on what makes a great photograph and I can't help ya there. You wonder why pros don't bother with this forum or any other for that matter? It's because every time we answer your questions 20 know it all's that can't shoot a decent image to save their life chime in yapping about everything under the sun and refuting everything we say that might require some effort and learning. God fucking forbid. You're a great cameraman but you're no cinematographer. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Press the buttons and get the same image every other monkey gets.

Lonnie, lost auto-focus on a shoot the other day. Manual focus is for the birds, especially in -20 windchills. Luckily it was just a glitch in the custom function settings and I eventually solved it. Turns out there's a combo of settings that if used all at once can effectively disable the autofocus on a 1dmk4. Not sure how they got selected but it was hella annoying. Not something you're gonna solve in the field with 7 models and a marketing director watching.

[kidwoo]

The auto modes will only get you a properly exposed image. They will not create a beautiful photo using all the variables that one can manipulate to alter the image that you capture.

For THAT, you need a plastic flower, a weather report and a lakebed!




























come on you know that was funny

[Lonnie]

It also gave him enough DoF so focus wasn't as critical.

Exactly. Point being, and we can all learn for this tidbit, Be THERE is the most important thing!

[systemoverblow'd]

For THAT, you need a plastic flower, a weather report and a lakebed!




























come on you know that was funny

That was actually fucking hilarious. The link would have been even better for those not in the know.

[Lonnie]

Lonnie, lost auto-focus on a shoot the other day. Manual focus is for the birds, especially in -20 windchills. Luckily it was just a glitch in the custom function settings and I eventually solved it. Turns out there's a combo of settings that if used all at once can effectively disable the autofocus on a 1dmk4. Not sure how they got selected but it was hella annoying. Not something you're gonna solve in the field with 7 models and a marketing director watching.

Depends on what you doing, and for sport/action, I'd agree it isn't as easy a process as using AF (Af was invented for a reason). So in your typical style of shooting I'd say you're right. But one the flip side, if I had an AF failure, I'd also know how to compensate for it using manual settings. F/8 and be there, right?

The point I was trying to make to Spliter, which was a bit off topic to the discussion at hand, is that there are times, when using MF, just like full manual, is a very aesthetic, organic, hands on process. I've very much enjoyed shooting that way recently, and it's something that I recommend to everyone wanting to improve their technique.

[systemoverblow'd]

Depends on what you doing, and for sport/action, I'd agree it isn't as easy a process as using AF (Af was invented for a reason). So in your typical style of shooting I'd say you're right. But one the flip side, if I had an AF failure, I'd also know how to compensate for it using manual settings. F/8 and be there, right?

The point I was trying to make to Spliter, which was a bit off topic to the discussion at hand, is that there are times, when using MF, just like full manual, is a very aesthetic, organic, hands on process. I've very much enjoyed shooting that way recently, and it's something that I recommend to everyone wanting to improve their technique.

I agree. I shoot complete manual (exposure settings and focus) the majority of the time. When shooting action I will deal with AF but for the most part, specially with super big aperture primes I always use manual everything.