Why use manual mode?

[MTdigital]

I am now quite familiar with my DSLR (canon) and can almost get a resonable shot of most subjects.

But, I haven't been able to find any real reason for choosing manual mode ove the other two? Av / Tv.

The way I see it, on Tv mode, you set the shutter speed and the internal processor will adjust the aperture, to the correct value (depending on which metering mode you are using) to correctly expose the image. Av mode is the other way round.

On Manual mode, you have to adjust both values to correctly expose the image, and the only possibe way to ensure a good exposure (before you view it on the preview screen) is by placing the marker in the center of the exposure bar by adjusting correctly.

But this is exactly what the other two modes will do automatically!

By being creative with manual mode, am I correct in saying we cannot expect anything more than an over-exposed or under-exposed image?

Does anyone here only use 100% manual mode, if so . . why?

Thanks

 

[HoppyUK]

Newcomers usually have a go at manual because they think it's some kind of initiation procedure and will magically give them a better exposure. As you correctly point out, it does nothing of the sort and once you've discovered that, you can go back to Av which most people use as default. You then tweak the exposure with compensation, which is actually more 'manual' than manual if all you have been doing is lining up the needle in the viewfinder.

Being less cyncial if you think of manual as 'set & lock' then it makes more sense. I use it a lot for that.

 

[KIPAX]

I
But this is exactly what the other two modes will do automatically!

which is why its called manual.. the other are semi auto or semi manual if you like..

take a pic of a plant pot in AV or TV mode... nice pic?

now place pic of plant pot with the sun directly behind it... take same pic and tell me what you get?


OK hoppy will say you can compensate in AV or TV mode

Now imagine same problem but you have no idea when the extra light is going to appear.. or how bright it is.. or how long it will be there for... lets see that pic in AV or TV?


MANUAL isnt there to be used all the time so its not a very good question.. manual is a tool the same as tv or av is.. if you photogrpah enough different things enough times you might find a use for all of them.. there are occasions when only manual will do the trick.. there are occasions when av or tv is best.. they are all there to be used.. why ask if anyone only uses one?

 

[Mouldy]

I use manual for aircraft pictures. I take a reading from something like grass or trees using the shutter speed that I want, taking note of the aperture. Then switch to manual and use these figures to get the plane correctly exposed.

'Set and lock' is a good discription, I lke it!!

 

[SpikeK6]

I use manual mode all the time, Not found a reason not to yet.
It started for me when I first got my camera I messed with all the settings but found it more of a challenge to use manual, it felt for me as though it is what you are meant to do, rather than let the camera do the work for you.
I have made alot of mistakes along the way and still do but my photography is for fun and pleasure so in my eyes i donot have to get it right 100% of the time BUT my challenge is to try.

spike

 

[AJQS]

The way I see it, on Tv mode, you set the shutter speed and the internal processor will adjust the aperture, to the correct value (depending on which metering mode you are using) to correctly expose the image. Av mode is the other way round.

'Correct' is a bit optimistic there isn't it? It will only set the theoretical aperture that corresponds to the given shutter speed and ISO setting, for example 1/250 F8 would be the same as 1/500 F4 and the same as 1/500 F8 at ISO 200. The Camera's processor doesn't have a clue how much depth of field you want, so if you set a fast shutter speed on a fast lens you're likely to end up with next to no depth of field (may be good, may be bad depending on the shot). It's no substitute for knowing how all these things relate to each other and knowing how to use them properly - IE in manual mode.

By being creative with manual mode, am I correct in saying we cannot expect anything more than an over-exposed or under-exposed image?

Only if you have no idea what you're doing and are just guessing at values for aperture and shutter speed, and even then the camera will be telling you it thinks your wrong with it's meter reading!

With practice you will get to know ballpark figures to start from, and of course with digital you can chimp it and adjust accordingly. The camera is always going to be giving yo uit's meter value even in manual mode, it's up to yu if you choose to agree with it.

Does anyone here only use 100% manual mode, if so . . why?

Thanks

I use perhaps 50/50 Aperture Priority and Full manual, Full manual is easier if I find I need AE lock as it is exactly the same effect essentially, and I always use Full manual if shooting flash as A mode doesn't quite behave properly with flash.

On film I use only full manual mode spot metered, as I have split prism focussing on that, which is the same point the meter reading is taken from, it's the film equivalent of using AE lock.

 

[tdodd]

I shoot almost exclusively in manual mode and it serves me far better than any autoexposure mode.

Autoexposure modes rely on reading light reflected back from the subject/scene. Dark things don't reflect much light. Autoexposure modes think they should be brighter and will ramp up the exposure. Bright/light/white things should be bright/light/white. Autoexposure, left to its own devices will disagree. It thinks everything you point it at should be grey. It will underexpose a predominantly light scene - think snowy mountain for example.

If you rely on making reflected light readings and having the camera work out your exposure you will need to keep adjusting the exposure compensation every time the reflectivity of your subject/scene alters. That is hard work and quite difficult to do with perfect reliability from one shot to the next. Imagine you are shooting a wedding. First you shoot the bride in white on her own. Then you shoot the groom in his black tux, again on his own. Then you shoot the two of them together. Which exposure setting is correct for the three shots? Should each one be a different value or should they all be the same? Well, the answer is that they should all be the same. Manual exposure will let you set and lock the correct exposure for the lighting. Autoexposure will have you chasing your tail on that one.

With manual exposure you set the exposure to suit the light that is illuminating your subject/scene, not the light reflected back from it. That way black stays black, white stays white and grey stays grey. You can shoot hundreds of images under the same lighting and never have to make a single adjustment to exposure once it is set correctly.

Shooting with manual exposure puts you in control, not the camera.

Here's an example from three years ago when I shot 140 images in 40 minutes. The exposure is identical for every single one and perfect for every single one. The light didn't change at all and my exposure didn't need to. I locked it in manual mode and was free to concentrate on timing and composition. It didn't matter how much snow was in the scene or how much sky or what the subject was wearing etc. etc..

 

[Lunaticsamurai]

I love full manual even on a lens as i feel it gives me more control over what i am doing, i never use the camera's pre-set settings, manual is a must for me on any camera.

I buy old Manual lenses before the invention of AF as again it just gives me more control over what i am doing. Yeah of course i could use the settings, Av, Tv, but then i think i would get pretty bored with photography.

I like the challenge.

 

[KIPAX]

how do you people advocating full manual manage outside on a sunny windy cloudy day when no sooner have you setup the exposure the light changes... but you only have seconds to tkae the shot... sports or wildlife.. sorry but sat there missing the shot saying i only shoot manual would be nothing short of madness..

 

[Lunaticsamurai]

how do you people advocating full manual manage outside on a sunny windy cloudy day when no sooner have you setup the exposure the light changes... but you only have seconds to tkae the shot... sports or wildlife.. sorry but sat there missing the shot saying i only shoot manual would be nothing short of madness..

But that's the challenge. Its easy to set the camera to auto mode and click away. That for me takes the enjoyment out of it. I get far more satistaction knowing that i did it all myself.

 

[KIPAX]

But that's the challenge. Its easy to set the camera to auto mode and click away. That for me takes the enjoyment out of it. I get far more satistaction knowing that i did it all myself.

Thats not an answer..

Football match.. light changing constantly...you ahve to get the pic of player scoring goals... it happens in seconds and you dont know when its going to happen and you ahve no idea of the lighting it changes so dramitcally with fast moving clouds with the sun high.. your camera is set to X settings.. then in an instant a player latches onto the ball to shoot.. and a cloud moves in front of the sun....

thats the challenge? yes it is... your answer is you enjoy it? i say you cant do it.. you have 1 second to change your settings and get the right exposure... camera can do that... you lose the shot.. but you go home knowing you lost it yourself?

 

[cambsno]

I have been shooting in pretty much just manual for ages now. Find the exposure is a lot better than a or s modes where the camera would often under expose. If as kipax says you may be at risk of missing a shot I will often use a mode to make sure

 

[tdodd]

how do you people advocating full manual manage outside on a sunny windy cloudy day when no sooner have you setup the exposure the light changes... but you only have seconds to tkae the shot... sports or wildlife.. sorry but sat there missing the shot saying i only shoot manual would be nothing short of madness..

Speaking as an amateur photographer I can afford to pick the moment when I release the shutter. If I want the shot in sunshine rather than shade then I'll set the camera up for sunshine and wait for the clouds to pass. Equally, if I wanted to shoot in shade I'd be set up for that and not bother to shoot when the sun was shining through.

If I wanted to get whatever I could, as the light was altering, then I would determine on arrival at the scene the settings I would require. My shutter speed and aperture would be set to suit and I'd tweak the ISO if I needed to to match the varying conditions. Occasionally I've been caught out by not being prepared, but those times are very rare, and for my needs not a problem.

If you're shooting time critical events like sports where you have to be ready at any split second then maybe the needs are diferent, especially if, for example, you have play moving in and out of hard light and shade across the pitch/field. However, one might equally ask how you deal with a team from Nigeria kitted out in black vs a team from Finland kitted out in white. How does that work out in practice if you're filling the frame with individuals? The EC dial must see some major action then.

 

[CT]

Well you've got a pretty good grasp I'd say - apart from this bit which you're not really getting at all....

On Manual mode, you have to adjust both values to correctly expose the image, and the only possibe way to ensure a good exposure (before you view it on the preview screen) is by placing the marker in the center of the exposure bar by adjusting correctly.

But this is exactly what the other two modes will do automatically!

If all you're ever going to do in manual mode is centre the cursor in the display then you might just as well be using AV or TV which as you say will produce exactly the same result, and are just as likely to be wrong in SOME situations.

The whole point of using manual is that you make your own adjustment for exposure - even if that means the cursor not being centred. You can of course use exposure compensation in AV or TV to give more or less exposure than the meter indicates - or even use the exposure lock button, although you'll have to do the latter for each exposure.

There are situations where you want to maintain a fixed level of exposure even in changing light, and Manual mode is very handy for that, although in truth, most situations can be overcome in AV and TV.

Manual mode is another option in your toolbox - that's all! Anyone who shoots manual mode all the time is missing out on a lot of the real shooting aids which modern cameras give you.

I shoot in AV probably 95% of the time. Manual can be extremely useful and it's a good mode to use to understand the relationship between shutter speeds, apertures and ISO, but once you have a good grasp of all that, AV or TV offer much faster and more convenient shooting as long as you know when you need to compensate.

 

[KIPAX]

If you're shooting time critical events like sports where you have to be ready at any split second then maybe the needs are diferent, especially if,

exactly...I love shooting manual and will do when the light is constant.. i do a lot of indoor (no flash) and floodlight shooting and always use manual...

but the people advocating manual all the time are not looking at all photogrpahy and have no idea what the OP wants to shoot..

each mode has a use.. nobody should advocate one mode only.. its plain silly .. and not IMHO

 

[Stratman]

Imagine you're taking a full frame picture of a chessboard. Using auto, it will probably be correctly exposed. Now magically remove all but one of the white squares, so you're left with one white square on a black background. Auto mode will very likely increase the exposure to let more light in.

Why? The white square is the same brightness as before, it hasn't become darker because its companions have gone away. Auto makes pre-programmed guesses which work for most, but not all, situations. That's when you use manual mode.

 

[Bristolian]

I use manual for aircraft pictures. I take a reading from something like grass or trees using the shutter speed that I want, taking note of the aperture. Then switch to manual and use these figures to get the plane correctly exposed.

'Set and lock' is a good discription, I lke it!!

Surely exposure lock does the same thing and you don't even have to remember settings or switch to manual.

 

[Lunaticsamurai]

Thats not an answer..

Football match.. light changing constantly...you ahve to get the pic of player scoring goals... it happens in seconds and you dont know when its going to happen and you ahve no idea of the lighting it changes so dramitcally with fast moving clouds with the sun high.. your camera is set to X settings.. then in an instant a player latches onto the ball to shoot.. and a cloud moves in front of the sun....

thats the challenge? yes it is... your answer is you enjoy it? i say you cant do it.. you have 1 second to change your settings and get the right exposure... camera can do that... you lose the shot.. but you go home knowing you lost it yourself?

It is an answer.

For one what i shoot does not require me to adjust my setting in a split second, i shoot landscapes, animal and Static cars.

Ok, i said i never use auto settings, that was a slight exaggeration, about 5 years ago i went ot Santa Pod raceway and shot extremely fast cars, i probably could not have done that in full manual and kept the same amount of shots.

Your camera is a tool for the job, you have to know how to use your tool for your specific requirement, does not mean that manual has no place, it does.

Like i said before, i use it because i enjoy it, but if i need to get a shot of a 5 second car, i'll change the settings.

 

[KIPAX]

Your camera is a tool for the job, you have to know how to use your tool for your specific requirement, does not mean that manual has no place, it does.
.

well ten minutes ago you where answering someone in talk basics and suggesting manual was the only way to shoot... now your saying it has its place.... well done for coming round.... next?

 

[Lunaticsamurai]

well ten minutes ago you where answering someone in talk basics and suggesting manual was the only way to shoot... now your saying it has its place.... well done for coming round.... next?

What are you stalking me? :shrug:

On what thread did i say that then? If your talking this thread i did say it was a slight exaggeration on my part.

???????????

 

[tramp92]

Try working in a studio with only a basic trigger for the flashes. In one of the automatic modes, the camera will meter for modelling / ambient light. When you press the button all the lights fire and the poor camera is a million miles from where it wanted to be without a clue of what happened to it.

 

[KIPAX]

What are you stalking me? :shrug:

cheers. it was just a debate about manual mode.. lets just forget it eh...

 

[Lunaticsamurai]

cheers. it was just a debate about manual mode.. lets just forget it eh...

I'm not creating an argument with you far from it.

I'm just unclear on the answer your looking for?.

 

[tdodd]

The wedding example (simulation)....

I've set up three shots to represent a groom alone, a bride alone and the pair of them together. The background is roughly neutral toned. With the camera set to evaluative metering and autoexposure it has decided the three shots should all be exposed differently.....

The groom received a 1/30" exposure.
The bride received a 1/160" exposure.
The pair of them received a 1/100" exposure.

This is lunacy. They all have the same illumination for every shot. Why should the groom appear brighter when shot on his own than when shot with his bride? Why should the bride look dull and grey when shot alone, but not too bad at all when shot with hubby? Why does the background keep changing brightness? I reckon none of these exposures is correct. For my money I'd plump for about 1/60 and lock it there. Then each shot would come out correctly exposed.

If this was a real wedding how much EC would you be dialing in each time your subject changed? How perfectly could you estimate the amount of EC to dial in for each shot? Would you want to keep making that determination for every shot? Would you rather have to tweak exposure for every shot in post simply to level out the appearance of each image? I'd rather shoot in manual and only have changing light to deal with. It usually (not always) changes far less frequently than the reflectivity of your subjects and scene.

Here's the B&G shot with +2/3 exposure added in Lightroom, equivalent to shooting at 1/60. It looks like the best effort of all of them. The results with autoexposure were all completely useless.

NOTE : I should have also adjusted the black point, but I couldn't be bothered. I don't know what adjustment is required at the shadow end to achieve a +2/3 exposure increase.

 

[guybrush]

I use manual mode whenever I have control over the lighting on the subject, so in a studio or with external lights at my control then it's always going to be that for me. Simply aligning the marker to the point in the middle isn't going to cut it for me under those situations and I can't rely on any metering the camera will give me.

 

[HoppyUK]

Isn't the simple answer, it's not so simple? There are different times when different modes will be better/faster/easier but you can also get pretty much any exposure you want in any mode, and with any combination of settings (even in P, with program shift and compensation combined).

If the subject is changing but the light is not, use manual.

If the light is changing but the subject is not, use an auto mode.

If neither the subject nor the light is changing, it probably makes no odds.

If both the subject and the light are changing, then you are probably going to have to chase things around one way or another whatever mode you use.

Edit: Tim, you are discussing metering rather than setting. I know they are two halves of the same coin, but they are different operations. When it comes to metering, I use evaluative/matrix, and chimp it from there

 

[CT]

The wedding example (simulation)....

I've set up three shots to represent a groom alone, a bride alone and the pair of them together. The background is roughly neutral toned. With the camera set to evaluative metering and autoexposure it has decided the three shots should all be exposed differently.....

The groom received a 1/30" exposure.
The bride received a 1/160" exposure.
The pair of them received a 1/100" exposure.

Tim there's something very wrong here mate. Ignore the left hand shot but look at the centre picture and the right hand picture. Ignore the socks and just look at the background curtain. How is the curtain in the right hand shot so much lighter than the curtain in the centre shot with almost a full stop less exposure? :shrug:

Unless the lighting has changed, or the aperture or ISO, then there has to be something wrong with your exposure information?

 

[tdodd]

It doesn't have a full stop less exposure. It's 2/3 brighter. It's at 1/100 vs 1/160. The white sock bride is also brighter. This is because the presence of the black sock groom and the reduced size of the white sock bride in the frame is causing the exposure to be raised.

Here you go - I've swapped the images. Now there is a progression from black through mixed to white and you see the exposure diminish as the subject becomes paler and paler.

These are now sequenced 1/30, 1/100, 1/160.

 

[chphoto]

Try working in a studio with only a basic trigger for the flashes. In one of the automatic modes, the camera will meter for modelling / ambient light.

Very true, when I was trying out studio stuff for the first time, I had the camera on manual mode, and at one point: 1/200s, f8.0, ISO 200. Naturally, the viewfinder info was screaming at me that the image was going to be more than 3 stops under-exposed, but lo and behold, once the studio flash fired as I pressed the shutter button, a correct exposure was obtained

Av mode, using the ambient light before the flash fired, would have led me to something like 1/30s, f8.0, ISO 200 which would have totally over exposed my image.

 

[HoppyUK]

Try working in a studio with only a basic trigger for the flashes. In one of the automatic modes, the camera will meter for modelling / ambient light. When you press the button all the lights fire and the poor camera is a million miles from where it wanted to be without a clue of what happened to it.

Very true, when I was trying out studio stuff for the first time, I had the camera on manual mode, and at one point: 1/200s, f8.0, ISO 200. Naturally, the viewfinder info was screaming at me that the image was going to be more than 3 stops under-exposed, but lo and behold, once the studio flash fired as I pressed the shutter button, a correct exposure was obtained

Av mode, using the ambient light before the flash fired, would have led me to something like 1/30s, f8.0, ISO 200 which would have totally over exposed my image.

Which has nothing to do with the OP

 

[CT]

It doesn't have a full stop less exposure. It's 2/3 brighter. It's at 1/100 vs 1/160. The white sock bride is also brighter. This is because the presence of the black sock groom and the reduced size of the white sock bride in the frame is causing the exposure to be raised.

My apologies Tim - I misread the exposure for the centre shot as 1/60th.

But OK then - aren't the three results exactly what you'd expect?

Pic 1 The groom on his own is well exposed against a brighter background and showing a resonable level of detail in his dark suit.

Pic2 The bride on her own is slightly under exposed as you'd expect due the presence of all that white fooling the meter.

Pic 3 Is a pretty good exposure with a better white for the bride's dress at the expense of the loss of a bit of detail in the groom's suit which is a real world choice you have to make all the time with wedding couples.

 

[Andyvalver]

I use manual to take photos of my dog because she is black and usually aperture priority doesn't work well. It exposes my dog ok but blows out the background but in manual I can get better shots.

 

[tdodd]

It is what we would expect, but is it what we would want? And could you hand on heart say that you could perfectly estimate the correct EC to dial in to correct for the foibles of autoexposure for each shot and get it right first time without a test shot and chimp first? Would you even want to have to do that during the pressure of a wedding? I would not.

I would spot meter for the highlights, the dress being about a million times more important than the groom's rented tux, and lock in my settings to expose the dress (and the groom's shirt come to that) correctly. One chimp to check and then I could rattle off a whole bundle of shots without worrying further about my exposures - so long as the light remained constant in that location, which odds are it would. It's a much more agreeable way to operate, IMHO.

How about if you're in the church, light streaming through the windows. Depending on composition you may get a lot or a little backlighting entering the scene. Do you want to fiddle about trying to dial that out or simply lock in your exposure for the ambient (and mostly pretty even) lighting within the church. Once again I'll take manual exposure please.

 

[u8myufo]

I might be totaly wrong with this Tim :shrug: You say that the background is roughly neutral toned, metering for the dark suited Groom it will obviosly give you the slower shutter, with the pleats in the backdrop having more lighter tones in that shot, then they will bound to be brighter. Slightly less lighter tones in the B&G shot and even less in the Bride shot. Also which focus points were you using? As if it was only centre I wondered how you focused on the B&G.

 

[CT]

It is what we would expect, but is it what we would want? And could you hand on heart say that you could perfectly estimate the correct EC to dial in to correct for the foibles of autoexposure for each shot and get it right first time without a test shot and chimp first? Would you even want to have to do that during the pressure of a wedding? I would not.

I wouldn't claim to estimate the correct exposure at all Tim -I'd take a quick test shot - how long does that take? I don't call that pressure at a wedding -I call it belt and braces.

I would spot meter for the highlights, the dress being about a million times more important than the groom's rented tux, and lock in my settings to expose the dress (and the groom's shirt come to that) correctly. One chimp to check and then I could rattle off a whole bundle of shots without worrying further about my exposures - so long as the light remained constant in that location, which odds are it would. It's a much more agreeable way to operate, IMHO.

I hear what you're saying, but without denying the importance of the bride's dress, you seem to be saying that you'd arrive at a common exposure and use it for all the shots- even though you'd be losing detail in the grooms suit on his own, or with the best man and any other geezers in dark suits. Surely it's better to meter those shots separately?

The bride and groom together is the classic problem, particularly in contrasty light and I agree it should be the groom's suit that loses detail rather than the blowing the dress. Even so - a lot can be done in processing now which would have been difficult if not nigh on impossible pre- digital. That's not to say we shouldn't try to get it right in camera - of course we should, but whatever mode of shooting you use, including manual, you can't rely on the camera meter and have to compensate accordingly.

 

[tdodd]

I use manual to take photos of my dog.

Me too. Running dogs change size as they approach the camera. They affect the metering as they move about or change size within the frame. Does that mean the exposure should change too? Of course not. Meter, lock it down, shoot. Carry on shooting until a cloud passes over and screws with your light. It's so much simpler than the other way.

Here you go - nine shots spanning 28 minutes and all with identical exposures. One had a +0.2 tweak to exposure and another had a +0.3. There were many other shots in the period, but for various reasons (focus/blur/composition/duplication) they have been binned. Exposure wise they were all within 1/3 stop of where they needed to be, if not bang on. It's the easy way to shoot.

 

[chphoto]

Slightly unrelated, but pic 7 (all the dog's feet in the air, not much grass in shot) is an absolute cracker

The joker in me wants the original so I can crop out the ground and pretend the dog's actually flying

 

[tdodd]

CT, what I'm saying is that the tone of the groom's skin should not keep yo-yoing up and down just because one minute he is next to his bride and then not. Should he look pasty faced in order to pull out detail in the tux when alone, but correctly complexioned and with a murky suit when he is with her?

If he's wearing a white shirt then do you want that to be blowing out all over the place just because you want to dial in an extra stop to pull out some shadow detail? Basically the whites/highlights set your ceiling. The rest falls in behind.

Put it another way - you might use an incident light meter or meter off a grey card or your own palm (with a suitable adjustment factor). You set your exposure and you're done. You could fiddle about from shot to shot to optimise the data capture for each individual scene, or you could shoot with the same settings (under the same light) to maintain a consistent and well exposed appearance from one shot to the next. That would make PP straightforward, if any was required at all, and simplify matching images for album layouts and so on.

We all have out own preferred way of working, but I'll take quick, easy and consistently accurate over laborious, random and patchy any day of the week.

 

[tdodd]

I might be totaly wrong with this Tim :shrug: You say that the background is roughly neutral toned, metering for the dark suited Groom it will obviosly give you the slower shutter, with the pleats in the backdrop having more lighter tones in that shot, then they will bound to be brighter. Slightly less lighter tones in the B&G shot and even less in the Bride shot. Also which focus points were you using? As if it was only centre I wondered how you focused on the B&G.

It was not intended to be a scientific test, just an illustration. The fact is that it doesn't matter just how perfectly neutrally toned the curtain was. It was somewhere in the middle and that's good enough for the illustration. As you've correctly observed, changing the tone of the subject has buggered up the exposure of the scene as a whole. The exposure should not have changed from one shot to the next. It is a demonstration of how/why autoexposure can be fooled and let you down.

Of course you have the ability to apply some exposure compensatoin to correct that, but who amongst us could accurately estimate how much should be applied when you couldn't keep on firing off test shots and chimping for every single shot? It would be much better to meter for the incident light, or spot meter the highlights and set an exposure accordingly, and then lock in that exposure for the all three shots. Chimping and guesswork ought not to be required.

As for focus points, I used the top one and recomposed as necessary. I don't recall whether I focused towards the bride or the groom, but focusing was not the point of the exercise, only exposure. I'm aware that evaluative metering biases the exposure towards the tones at the active focus point, while also giving consideration to the scene as a whole, but quite honestly it wasn't a significant factor in the outcome of this series. The point is that all the exposures were different and all of them were wrong. I could have set an exposure manually and rattled off the three shots far quicker and with more precision and consistency than I could by faffing about with autoexposure and EC adjustments.

And what if there weren't three shots to be taken but 33, or 333, and all with differing tones and combinations of tone? With manual exposure I would have been laughing. With autoexposure I would have been crying.

 

[fracster]

Newcomers usually have a go at manual because they think it's some kind of initiation procedure and will magically give them a better exposure. As you correctly point out, it does nothing of the sort and once you've discovered that, you can go back to Av which most people use as default. You then tweak the exposure with compensation, which is actually more 'manual' than manual if all you have been doing is lining up the needle in the viewfinder.

Being less cyncial if you think of manual as 'set & lock' then it makes more sense. I use it a lot for that.

............