use of Manual Mode

I care! Because i can't go back in time to cure blown out parts of a bird thats just flown past me in 2 seconds after waiting for it for 3 hours! ;)

Besides, digital still benefits from exposing the whites right to the edge of the histogram to reduce noise. If you want to do that in scenes that don't just sit there for you to chimp and try again, then you need to get it right :)

HoppyUK said:
There have been numerous references to film above. Film is irrelevant. History. We we are digital now. (Get with the programme Steve ;) )

With film you had to use every tool at your disposal to get the exposure right, because there was no way of checking until after the event, and it was quite possibly too late. It was belt and braces. And you would use different settings for negs and trans. Even then, we would bracket important shots, just in case.

Digital makes all this stuff redundant. Look at the LCD, enable blinkies, check the histogram. You can do all that in less time than it takes to even get out your hand meter. Just chimp it - you can't go wrong. Who cares which modes you used to get there?
Click to expand...
 
gavinb said:
Whilst reading through it come across a part that says No one uses Manual mode and to ignore anyone that says to use this mode (stating they only recommend it as it's all camera had in the 1950's :D).
Click to expand...

What Mr. Rockwell meant to say was,
"Use manual when you need it. Ignore me and almost 95% of my advice."

I use manual when I want longer exposure times without having any other settings changed automatically for me.
Manual comes in handy with ND grads and such filters, sometimes cameras just aren't too good with them. I like manual when I want to keep something consistent.
 
TG. said:
When everyone is talking about auto mode here, are you referring to the green symbol on the camera mode dial ? just that as far as i know pro DSLR,s don't have an auto mode, unless i've missed it :lol: this thread has really got me thinking though, as a while back when i first started i used manual quite a lot, then when i read threads when everyone talked about how good aperture mode was i went onto that, i always felt i got my best shots in manual though, one of the reasons being i suffer from camera shake quite a bit so was able to control the shutter speed better and nail the shot, i guess at the end of the day it's what works for you personally (as in my case) i'm definately going to have a go shooting in manual again, as it's been a while since i have, thanks to everyone for the info (apart fron Ken :lol:) it's given me food for thought.
Click to expand...

I was refering to any of the settings that the camera makes the decision about exposure, program, shutter or apeture priority (green square if you have it) or any of the other modes like portrait if you have them, they are all auto because the camera is setting one or both of the parameters automatically.
Then theres white balance, are you on auto or manual for that?
 
Werecow said:
The subject needed about 1/800 at f5.6 to expose it properly. The background would have been close to 1/60. The only way to expose it accurately for any shot, let alone the bird moving around was to use manual mode.

So much of the scene was dark that any auto mode would have ruined the shot.
Click to expand...

I agree about subjects moving between backgrounds and have said so myself but I have to suggest that manual is not the only way as you said to expose accurately in the case you describe. Av, spot metering and appropriate exposure compensation could give the same result.

My point is that manual exposure is a tool that is useful in the right conditions but I have seen a number of people imply that they think they are better photographers because they use manual and then blindly set the exposure using the camera's internal metering. At this point, you may as well use an auto mode and no compensation.

Using Av, Tv or P does not make you a bad photographer. Using any mode and blindly trusting the camera's metering will always lead to some failures and manual won't save you from that.
 
I agree it's not the only way. I'm just trying to describe the uses of it to some of the people who think that it's not needed.

It was the right mode for that scene even if the bird was still. I was ready for any sort of action without needing to think about exposure.

From my own experience, spot metering is incredibly unreliable in the situations described, particularly when the white parts of the bird arent the major part of the body that the AF point is aimed at.
The lighting difference in that example was so dramatic that it was even beyond the reach of the furthest setting of exposure compensation in evaluative mode as well.

It was easier and more reliable in every way to use manual mode.

The other modes are indeed essential to know how and when to use as well.


grumpybadger said:
I agree about subjects moving between backgrounds and have said so myself but I have to suggest that manual is not the only way as you said to expose accurately in the case you describe. Av, spot metering and appropriate exposure compensation could give the same result.

My point is that manual exposure is a tool that is useful in the right conditions but I have seen a number of people imply that they think they are better photographers because they use manual and then blindly set the exposure using the camera's internal metering. At this point, you may as well use an auto mode and no compensation.

Using Av, Tv or P does not make you a bad photographer. Using any mode and blindly trusting the camera's metering will always lead to some failures and manual won't save you from that.
Click to expand...
 
grumpybadger said:
I agree about subjects moving between backgrounds and have said so myself but I have to suggest that manual is not the only way as you said to expose accurately in the case you describe. Av, spot metering and appropriate exposure compensation could give the same result.
Click to expand...

Would love to see someone spot meter a black and white bird flying at speed between different background and altering the compensation as it goes... :)

OK OK I know.. shut up :)
 
The example was of a static bird so you are, again, misinterpreting what is written. Shall I repeat "I agree about subjects mobing between backgrounds and have said so myself but I have to suggest that manual is not the only as you said to expose accurately in the case you describe."

All I said is that manual mode is not the only way. It is what I would have chosen but my point is that using manual itself is not a solution. You have to know what to meter and why...
 
My example was of a static bird that could have and did fly around in front of that background at any moment ;)

Manual wasn't the only way but it was the best way by far :)

grumpybadger said:
The example was of a static bird so you are, again, misinterpreting what is written. Shall I repeat "I agree about subjects mobing between backgrounds and have said so myself but I have to suggest that manual is not the only as you said to expose accurately in the case you describe."

All I said is that manual mode is not the only way. It is what I would have chosen but my point is that using manual itself is not a solution. You have to know what to meter and why...
Click to expand...
 
Welcome to the land of contradiction viewers. A world where what was said yesterday is not what is being said today. And tomorrow it could be something else completely.....

If you're not familiar with the world of contradiction please change channel

NOW!!
 
Werecow said:
I care! Because i can't go back in time to cure blown out parts of a bird thats just flown past me in 2 seconds after waiting for it for 3 hours! ;)

Besides, digital still benefits from exposing the whites right to the edge of the histogram to reduce noise. If you want to do that in scenes that don't just sit there for you to chimp and try again, then you need to get it right :)
Click to expand...

You appear to be disagreeing with me, then go on to describe a method of working which is exactly as I suggested :thinking:
 
I was replying to your statement that digital makes the mode used redundant and who cares because you can just chimp and then get it right anyway.

I care about the mode i use to do the job as well as possible and 90% of the time or more i can't chimp and then retake the image to get it right, because the subject or moment has gone.

HoppyUK said:
You appear to be disagreeing with me, then go on to describe a method of working which is exactly as I suggested :thinking:
Click to expand...
 
Werecow said:
I was replying to your statement that digital makes the mode used redundant and who cares because you can just chimp and then get it right anyway.

I care about the mode i use to do the job as well as possible and 90% of the time or more i can't chimp and then retake the image to get it right, because the subject or moment has gone.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. I never meant to say that manual, or any other mode for that matter, was redundant with digital. If you regard manual as more of a 'set and lock' mode rather than any method of metering, then it is of course incredibly useful.

In your post, you appear to be talking more about a ways of accurate metering and measurement than exposure setting, which are two separate functions. And of course the most accurate exposure measurement is to use the histogram as you say, hence the agreement :)
 
Yep i was just trying to demonstrate that a certain situation can favour manual mode in a really big way :)

I use av and tv too depending on the situation in front of me.
What ever gets the best results in the most reliable way is how i go about it :)

HoppyUK said:
Ah, I see. I never meant to say that manual, or any other mode for that matter, was redundant with digital. If you regard manual as more of a 'set and lock' mode rather than any method of metering, then it is of course incredibly useful.

In your post, you appear to be talking more about a ways of accurate metering and measurement than exposure setting, which are two separate functions. And of course the most accurate exposure measurement is to use the histogram as you say, hence the agreement :)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top