Beginner Am I wrong to use Auto mode?

Auto is AWESOME - I use Auto pretty much all the time :)

There's a few times Manual is better, not many, but they tend to be important times

Forget the Histogram, its as close as close can be to pointless

Unlike Phil V I don't think the net has grown up at all :D

For the OP - you just need to learn how the camera's meter really works and when it's likely to be wrong, and of course how to correct for that when it is wrong; sometimes that's as simple as Exposure Compensation and sometimes its a case of switching to Manual - and sometimes NOTHING will work in the way you want - but that's a whole new area to learn about, so start off with how the meter works and go from that :)

Dave
 
kennethwfd said:
I thought primarily Aperture is the amount of light admitted. Every time you move up the scale, say f5.6 to 8, ii, 16,22 (for example) you halve the amount of light admitted to the camera sensor. Yes, it does influence depth of field as well, this is also influenced by the focal length of the lens

In fully automatic mode the photographer has no control of the camera settings
Click to expand...

Actually some have program shift and the photographer has control of ISO

In Aperture priority mode, the photographer selects the amount of light to admit and the camera selects what it thinks re ISO and shutter speed
Click to expand...
the camera will let in just the same amount of light as in program, it is just that the photographer has selected the aperture and the camera will use an appropriate shutter speed. The camera will only change the ISO if it has an auto ISO mode and that is in operation
In Shutter priority mode, the photographer selects the shutter speed, the camera selects what it thinks are the correct aperture and ISO
Click to expand...
same as previous except photographer selects the shutter speed

In manual "M" mode as opposed to manual focus the photographer has total control of all 3 aspects
Click to expand...
ISO can be set in any mode, so Manual does allow all 3 to be set.

ISO is light sensitivity, as one moves from 100, 200 ,400 etc one is doubling light sensitivity, the downside is that budget equipment usually handles high ISO poorly, images become noisy ie grainy

also a seriously underexposed photograph will be prone to loosing details in the darker areas (shadows)
A seriously overexposed photo will be prone to loosing details in the pale areas, especially whites such as the OP's swans ("blown"). again such detail cannot be recovered by PP[/QUOTE] If the image is shot in RAW then some of this detail may be recovered

Mike
 
DG Phototraining said:
Forget the Histogram, its as close as close can be to pointless
Click to expand...

Possibly one of the silliest outright statements I've ever seen anyone make regarding digital photography. If you're happy snapping away and that works for you then fine but not everyone's content with that. For me learning how to read the histogram and learning how exposure actually works on digital was an absolute revelation in learning to work with digital as a format - not only in terms of exposure but also for colour correction.

If you 'train' photographers and give advice like that... Well... I don't even want to think about it...
 
I'm hoping Dave will be back to reply. I said earlier that I don't use the histogram, and indicated one of the reasons why I distrust it. I'm keeping out of this, as it's off topic, but my position is probably accurately summarised by saying that I see the histogram as being like the camera's built in meter. You can rely on it in all cases that are straightforward, and it will fail you when the situation isn't average (plus a few other actually quite normal ones). If you shoot in raw, it will fail you more than if you use jpg.

I would like to hear an explanation of the phrase "how exposure actually works on digital" and how it differs from (say) exposure on slide film though, and use of the histogram for colour correction (unless you mean the histogram in PhotoShop) since I can see many situations in which, on my probably simplistic view of what you mean, the histogram would fail.

Please forgive me if I don't respond to any reply you make, as I really do want to keep out of this, but would like to know if I'm wrong.
 
Stephen, I'm not saying you need to use it to decide whether you've taken a good photo or not, I'm saying for someone to outright say it's next to useless is ridiculous.

As for how exposure works on digital, you're aware of how highlights on E6 respond and how difficult it can be making sure you don't blow them? The histogram on a digital camera tells you when you're blowing highlights (you can then judge whether that's alright or not). Paying attention to the histogram can help you learn how far you can push certain things so it can help you learn exactly what I said - how exposure works on digital.

Not all formats are created equal.

Also jumping in with such a question then saying you really don't want to get involved doesn't make any sense. You're either involved or you're not.
 
Last edited:
I didn't want to take the thread way off topic by getting involved in what could be a lengthy (and to the original poster) irrelevant and confusing discussion.

To say that the histogram is next to useless might be extreme, but it's still the case that it isn't reliable, and if you put your faith in it you can be mislead. Exactly the same as relying on a camera's built in meter; there are times when it will definitely mislead, and times when it can tempt the user to make a mistake. The histogram doesn't tell you when you're blowing highlights - it will go off scale when the jpg limits are reached, and it will indicate specular highlights (which will always be blown) as blown; if you attempt to correct these, you'll underexpose.

The histogram can help you gauge what subject brightness range your camera can capture in jpg; but it won't tell you what the camera can capture in raw, and it won't tell you as much (or as precisely) as controlled testing can.

As I said, I don't want to drag the thread off topic, but I did genuinely want to know the reasoning behind couple of statements that I believed (and still believe) are erroneous.
 
StephenM said:
To say that the histogram is next to useless might be extreme, but it's still the case that it isn't reliable, and if you put your faith in it you can be mislead.
Click to expand...

You seem to be reading much too far into my comments and I have absolutely no idea why. I never said put your faith in it, I never said it was the be all and end all of exposure (as your replies seem to imply I did). It's a guide, but in digital the histogram and blinkies are the only guides you have. You might mistrust them and that's fine, do whatever you want to do, it's of no consequence to me whatsoever. Personally in my experience (both in digital photography and in scanning film) I've found both luminosity and RGB histograms to be absolutely invaluable and from that all I'm saying, very simply, is don't write off a tool that many people find extremely useful.

I realise you're trying to justify your point of view by the technical limitations of the histogram itself (which with experience you learn to take into account anyway so they're rather irrelevant), but there's such a thing as trying to be so technical you miss the point altogether.
 
Last edited:
I never said that you used the phrase "put your faith in it" - in that part of my post I was addressing why the histogram could be described as next to useless. I'm not convinced that the histogram and blinkies are the only guides you have when using a digital camera, but concede that they might be the only guides that are built in to the camera.
 
StephenM said:
I'm not convinced that the histogram and blinkies are the only guides you have when using a digital camera, but concede that they might be the only guides that are built in to the camera.
Click to expand...

Which is what I meant, I didn't think I needed to make that clear considering most people don't carry laptops and check every single frame they shoot.

Maybe I should change what I said earlier about being too technical and missing the point to being overly pedantic.
 
PMN said:
Possibly one of the silliest outright statements I've ever seen anyone make regarding digital photography. If you're happy snapping away and that works for you then fine but not everyone's content with that. For me learning how to read the histogram and learning how exposure actually works on digital was an absolute revelation in learning to work with digital as a format - not only in terms of exposure but also for colour correction.

If you 'train' photographers and give advice like that... Well... I don't even want to think about it...
Click to expand...


There's always someone who bites at statements like mine without really thinking about why anyone would say it :D

In Landscape Photography you often have the Sun, or its reflection in water, in your images. Taking the histogram into account alone will show you what? That there's a huge blown area, derrr, so then what do you do about it to make your histogram look 'nicer' ??? If you change exposure until your Sun isn't blown there's probably bugger all left you can see in your image. So in the real (non-histogram) following world you have to make a learned decision based on what you're trying to achieve and what you're happy to sacrifice. The typical domed histogram with no blown or blocking areas is usually a flat as a fart image and rarely makes for a striking image

In Weddings and Portraits, then you may have similar high contrast subjects where the histogram often tells you nothing about the exposure of your subject, especially if a sky is in shot and the subject is backlit - even if only slightly

I'm a great fan of ETTR and the easiest way to judge that by far on my subject is by using the 'blinkies' rather than the histogram as blinkies show you where the 'problem' is, and its then easy to decide if it is indeed a problem or something that doesn't matter

What would the histogram tell you about shooting on a white background for instance? Only that a large part of your image is blown, like its supposed to be, but its that it doesn't tell you where its blown that's the problem; the same goes for shooting on a black or underexposed background

Colour correction then - yep - back home on the computer, not a lot you can usually do out in the field as things my change swiftly. I use a grey card a lot of the time for helping with that, far more useful than trying to decide what cast there may be and how to adjust out & about

And yes - I'm happy to teach people where & if the histogram is useful, but while shooting is rarely one of those times :)

Dave
 
PMN said:
Maybe I should change what I said earlier about being too technical and missing the point to being overly pedantic.
Click to expand...

One man's "overly pedantic" is another man's "concerned with accuracy" :).

Edit to add: If you think that by aids to correct exposure not built in to the camera I meant laptops and checking every frame, you're completely wrong and guilty of not reading what I wrote, but reading into it what you think I meant. That idea never even crossed my mind - although some photographers do do just that as I understand it.
 
Last edited:
Actually I did skim over this bit:

DG Phototraining said:
What would the histogram tell you about shooting on a white background for instance? Only that a large part of your image is blown, like its supposed to be
Click to expand...

White backgrounds are supposed to be blown? Really? A blown white background looks nothing short of disgusting, you might be happy with that but I certainly wouldn't be.
 
Oh, and yes as StephenM said, the blinkies too are only a hint as to what's going on being jpeg rather than raw (assuming we all shoot in raw); a little bit of blinkies generally means the raw file is fine

And I'm not going on anymore here either, the OP will be getting sidetracked

Happy New Year everyone :)

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Oh, and yes as StephenM said, the blinkies too are only a hint as to what's going on being jpeg rather than raw (assuming we all shoot in raw); a little bit of blinkies generally means the raw file is fine
Click to expand...

Which, as I've again already said, with experience you learn to take into account.

I'm done anyway, this has descended into petty idiocy. I'm off to take some photos...
 
Paul-H said:
Hi

Auto v Manual ? The answer is actually quite simple

If you know when the auto setting will give an incorrect expose you will also know when the manual setting will give the wrong exposure and if you don't know when the auto setting is going to give an incorrect expose you won't know when the manual setting will be wrong.
Click to expand...

WHAAT?

My head hurts!
.
 
Alastair said:
I'd say it's too early to call..
.. there are at least two of the usual suspects that haven't replied to this thread, and they'll both disagree with themselves if no one else will argue with them.. ;)
Click to expand...
And tonights lottery numbers will be.. ..
 
I feel sorry for the OP. In the classic How to win friends and influence people the question is asked "Would you rather win an argument or win a friend?"

Off to railforums...you know...trainspotters
 
DG Phototraining said:
Forget the Histogram, its as close as close can be to pointless
Click to expand...

In fact I regard the histogram as VERY important and I think most good photographers would, and allied with blinkies can really help you in improving your photos.
.
 
Ah well, I don't mind not being a good photographer, as I do at least manage to get my exposures right.
 
Last edited:
petersmart said:
In fact I regard the histogram as VERY important and I think most good photographers would, and allied with blinkies can really help you in improving your photos.
.
Click to expand...

Its funny you say that - I know an awful lot of good photographers but I don't know ANY of them that routinely, if at all, refers to their histogram when shooting

And as StephenM rightly alludes, all that matters is that whatever you do works for you :)

I did 'Unwatch' this thread but people keep quoting me so it pops up as an alert again lol

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Its funny you say that - I know an awful lot of good photographers but I don't know ANY of them that routinely, if at all, refers to their histogram when shooting
Click to expand...

That may be because they don't need to - but the histogram is still a useful tool for those that havent yet got to the stage where they intuitively know whether they've nailed the exposure or not. (That said Andy Rouse uses the histogram a lot - and i'd say he falls into the 'good photographer' bracket)
 
petersmart said:
In fact I regard the histogram as VERY important and I think most good photographers would, and allied with blinkies can really help you in improving your photos.
.
Click to expand...

Look back at some of the true greats in the photography field from the last century. Fairly sure that most of them didn't use histograms...

Blinkies are quite helpful - more so (IMO) than the histogram. Look at the scene you're shooting then shut your eyes for a moment and see where you have the highlights still showing - chances are that those areas will be blown in a correctly exposed image. Back off the exposure until there are no blinkies in a scene with a wide range of tones and the shot will be underexposed.

Most of the time, one of the auto modes will give a reasonable result. The trick is knowing when the meter is likely to be fooled and so using the exposure correction dial to deal with the "problem".
 
Nod said:
Look back at some of the true greats in the photography field from the last century. Fairly sure that most of them didn't use histograms...
Click to expand...

Maybe because they didn't have them?

Nod said:
Most of the time, one of the auto modes will give a reasonable result. The trick is knowing when the meter is likely to be fooled and so using the exposure correction dial to deal with the "problem".
Click to expand...

But if you're a beginner (or me!) then the histogram comes in very handy along with "blinkies"
.
 
Nod said:
Look back at some of the true greats in the photography field from the last century. Fairly sure that most of them didn't use histograms...
Click to expand...
I'd hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek when you wrote this.

Otherwise (and it's not obvious which) it's the most ridiculous statement I've seen on this forum.
 
I took lots of good photos with a point and shoot, before I owned a DSLR.

In fact, I got a bridge camera before I got a DSLR and didn't know how to use it. P and Auto modes did the job.

Was I wrong?

Photo-taking-wise no. The camera is a tool. Use whatever floats your boat.

Being able to use manual modes only means you understand the physics of exposure. It is a great skill to have for your photography, but that is what it is.

Automodes: Av, Tv, P and Auto, are basically the logarithmication (automation) of the physics of exposure based on light value (the camera decides what settings you need for the ideal exposure based on the amount of light it reads). Artistically speaking, the automated value is not what you want artistically. Knowledge of these things, these variables and the relation between them to have a good exposure.
 
Phil V said:
I'd hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek when you wrote this.

Otherwise (and it's not obvious which) it's the most ridiculous statement I've seen on this forum.
Click to expand...

It was very firmly planted in my cheek - maybe I should have included a smiley!

The histogram and binkies can be helpful when they're available but are only a guide. If in doubt about the exposure, bracket around that suggested by the camera's meter (if it has one) so you get one "perfectly" exposed shot. One of the joys of digital is that failed exposures are free and don't need to be printed to discover they're failures!
 
The histogram can be useful while we're shooting, if it suits to check it. If we're using a tripod it's worth having a look - we may get more tones without blowing key highlights. That's handy later in software. We might save highlights we otherwise would have missed. If we're hand-holding it's worth checking, if there's time. But that's not always the case.

Referring to the histogram is worthwhile too when editing an image properly. Looking at a screen in a darkened room can give the wrong impression, for example. Prints can suffer. Learning to read a histogram for an entire image, or selected parts of it, is well worth the effort too.

And a camera's LCD screen can be misleading too.

Blinkies are a good rough guide though in actual practice there may be some useful data where it blinks.

DG Phototraining said:
Forget the Histogram, its as close as close can be to pointless

Click to expand...


Dave, maybe it ain't what you say, but the off the wall way that you said it?
 
So long as you remember that the histogram shows the results in the jpg, not the raw; that clipped highlights in the jpg may not be clipped in the raw; and that "correcting" the clipped highlights in the jpg may lead to either loss of shadow detail or increased noise in the shadows.
 
KingRoach said:
Dont forget the difference between P and Auto:

Auto chooses absolutely everything (apart from lens zoom) including ISO value and flash settings.
P(rogram) mode lets you choose ISO and flash settings. It takes care of the Aperture and Shutter.
Click to expand...

P also (usually) allows you to shift away from the suggested settings while keeping the same exposure, so you can shift to whichever aperture or shutter speed you are after (just like the other 2 semi automatic modes, S and A (Tv and Av). You can also use exposure compensation in P.

In short, pretty much all the settings available have their uses - even the scene modes as long as you understand what their priorities are. And the only non automatic mode is M - full manual.
 
Nod said:
P also (usually) allows you to shift away from the suggested settings while keeping the same exposure, so you can shift to whichever aperture or shutter speed you are after (just like the other 2 semi automatic modes, S and A (Tv and Av). You can also use exposure compensation in P.

In short, pretty much all the settings available have their uses - even the scene modes as long as you understand what their priorities are. And the only non automatic mode is M - full manual.
Click to expand...

I was thinking maybe it is a bit too early to explain this stuff. :p lol

P is an Aperture/Shutter combination resulting in the expected exposure value. I say combination because you can up on, and lower the other, to keep the same exposure value.

Best way to understand it is use a Voigtlander Vito BL with coupled Aperture/Shutter rings LOL but serious. It is a fantastic way of doing it in the olden days.
 
I have to say you have taken some cracking shots so don't fret about being on 'auto' just at the moment.

An example of where auto gets it slightly wrong however is of the owl standing in the snow, as the camera doesn't allow a correct exposure of the largely white scene and all cameras just see 18% grey as their 'standard' (or thereabouts).

In manual you would have to have allowed for the brightness of the scene which would have given the snow more 'texture', (or in aperture or shutter speed mode allowed maybe a couple of 'stops' compensation (read up on exposure compensation), but carry on learning, you have a good eye for a shot and asking questions and reviewing the settings when you are back home in the warmth will allow you to ultimately make the judgement as to which mode to shoot in, dependent upon conditions, (not necessarily the same as what is supposed to be 'right', by the book or what some know it all tells you)
 
Perhaps I'm picking this up wrong but...
Using Automatic means the camera takes control, the photographer has no input, no opportunity to change Aperture or shutter speed or anything. And, most important, Automatic fires the on-camera flash, which I never want to happen.
Whenever I answer this question I suggest moving to P for Program mode at least since changes are possible, move a dial to change the Aperture/Shutter speed, use exposure compensation etc.
I do not consider Aperture or Shutter Priority are automatic modes at all.
whatever you take from this post, please, read the manual.
 
Hiya Markov... That's some camera you have! Mine certainly doesn't choose when to release the shutter, frame the scene, engage a subject in eye contact, wait for that magical moment or choose a different time of day to get the "right " light ;).

Obviously my response is deliberately obtuse but that's the point: if the OP is happier taking shots in Auto and focusing on the really important things I've mentioned it is - in my opinion - more likely to lead to an interesting image than one which is captured perfectly technically but doesn't actually communicate anything interesting and/or is poorly lit.

The camera is a tool. A photo (or image on screen) is something which communicates. Being technically proficient at using the former doesn't necessarily make you adept at creating the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top