Is auto-mode not a good choice in Australia?

[swifty]

but IF the metering system is inaccurate for the SH then auto mode is affected as it is the metering system that determines what settings the camera selects in Auto mode. The initial post asked should we not be using auto-mode in Australia? IF the metering system is off, for the light in the SH, then the answer is probably that auto-mode should not be used.

But we still rely on the meter, even in manual mode as an indicator of where we are exposure wise. Just that we change the settings ourselves to vary the exposure, instead of dialing in exposure compensation in the auto and semi-auto modes.
I agree that 'IF' its an issue, it's the metering that's affected and wil affect all modes, not just auto.

[ricktas]

But we still rely on the meter, even in manual mode as an indicator of where we are exposure wise. Just that we change the settings ourselves to vary the exposure, instead of dialing in exposure compensation in the auto and semi-auto modes.
I agree that 'IF' its an issue, it's the metering that's affected and wil affect all modes, not just auto.

True, but in manual mode or semi-auto modes the photographer is taking control of their camera and making adjustments to get the result they want. In Auto-mode, the photographer is relying fully on the tech in the camera to get the photo the camera 'thinks' the photographer wants. This thread was/is about auto-mode!

[geoffsta]

A person I know here in Hobart has recently taken up photography, using a consumer model DSLR, but on auto, it is over-exposing ever so slightly

If a tree falls over in the forest, and you didn't see it. Did the tree actually fall.


Had you not notice the ever so slight over exposure, would your friend have known any difference?
As newbies when we first venture into DSLR do we notice such things? Generally not. We are so blown away by the quality of the image compared to a point & shoot.
It's not until we find a great forum like this. (Generally because we want to get out of Auto mode) And we listen and take note of what our more experienced peers tells us. That we venture into the realm of other settings on the camera.


And if we respect our peers, and put full trust in what they tell us. The Auto mode becomes a thing of the past.

Now it's my belief that the smarty pantsers of the northern hemisphere would know this. And not give a rats wrinkle whether the camera over exposes in Aus, NZ, or deep South Africa. Because they believe that people buy DSLR's to get better at photography. Not to spend mega bucks, and use the thing as an oversized pocket camera.

My 2 bobs

[arthurking83]

I'm pretty sure that manufacturers will have UV and other wavelengths calculated into their algorithms when engineering their products.

More important than actual ambient light levels, is the transmissive efficiency of the lens in use, and as we're talking DSLRs here, there is a very high probability that the camera operator will have access to more than one lens.
As each lens is going to have a different impact on the amount of light reaching the sensor and metering system, then these variables will have been taken into account.

An old '59 model non coated lens is almost certainly going to allow more UV light transmission through to the camera's relevant light sensitive components, than a modern multicoated lens design will.
These will almost certainly have been accounted for by the manufacturer.
If you follow some of the UV/IR (ie. non vis light spectrum) photographers, they all tend to seek out very old lenses from the early days of SLR photography, prior to the widespread use of coatings on lenses.
They transmit more of the out of bounds wavelengths of light.

But even more important is that levels of light of all types, UV IR and vis, will all vary more wildly according to latitude not hemisphere.
A photographer located between the equator and either equinox is going to experience much higher levels of UV and IR light transmission, than they will at either pole .. angle of the sun on the horizon is the major factor involved here. The hemisphere they move into won't be as much of an impact as the actual latitude they will travel into.

If anyone is experiencing exposure anomalies using a particular exposure mode, it's more likely to be lens related rather than hemisphere or even latitude related light level differences.

Even if there was a slight difference between the light quality of two opposing latitudes in each hemisphere, the difference would be so slight and insignificant that it wouldn't register either on the meter nor on the sensor.
Lens, cameras sensor(relative to another), and other LOCAL environmental forces(such as suspended dust in the air, or pollution levels on a given day) would impact far more than any difference between the hemispheres.


This argument is like saying that the light differences between Lat 37° South is softer/more muted/harsher/brighter than it is at Lat 37° North.
It may well be! ... but you have to consider other location differences such as, are you in a desert, or are you in a major and massively polluted megalopolis at either latitude.

If you travel along the South 35 parallel, you will experience far more difference in light quality going from Sydney to Adelaide along that path, going from polluted Sydney though much less polluted desert country and onto to far less polluted Adelaide(relative to Sydney). It's just the quality of the light in the different regions due to the local environmental conditions for each location.

Travel up to Japan, tho and the difference between light quality in a major Japanese industrialised city and Sydney will be much less than those differences between Sydney and the desert country along that South 35 parallel.
And then there is the lenses used to capture the images too.

.. I think the light quality level differences are less important than the actual gear in use, and the gear used will have been accounted for.

Exposure anomalies are usually accounted for by sensor technology(the D70s and D300 are classic examples of this in my world) and lens related discrepancies ...... sticking apertures or ambitious aperture ratings by manufacturers ..... lens design( ie. T values!!) etc.

The wild differences that each bit of gear will make to exposures and metering accuracy, will far outweigh any differences between the hemispheres.

[Film Street]

I've found auto mode can produce minor over exposure on some models. Auto-ozone mode may appear in future.

[arthurking83]

I've found auto mode can produce minor over exposure on some models. Auto-ozone mode may appear in future.

Which auto mode tho??

full auto, semi auto(program auto) and compared to what other mode.


My experience with my cameras, I've never seen any difference between an auto mode and the same exposure setting in manual mode.
..... D300 level cameras don't have any auto scene type modes, only the program auto modes(A S and P modes).
D70s is the only camera I have that uses scene modes, and I've never used them personally other than once, long ago to see what they actually do.
The kinds of stupid things they do is to pop up the on board flash when you select Portrait mode.
It's this kind of incompetent software engineering that puts me off scene auto modes ... not to mention the confounding landscape mode program the engineers concocted on the D7000!

[Film Street]

Which auto mode tho??

full auto, semi auto(program auto) and compared to what other mode.

P,S,A modes using matrix metering and full auto mode can give, in outdoor scenes, a slight over exposure in base models such as the D40. To get around this I use centre weighted metering.

[arthurking83]

P,S,A modes using matrix metering and full auto mode can give, in outdoor scenes, a slight over exposure in base models such as the D40. To get around this I use centre weighted metering.

D40 shares the same sensor as the D50 and D70/s, as well as the D100.
I'm not sure which metering components Nikon have used in the D40 and whether those components have anything in common with the D50 or D70(at least), but the only way to safely say that you're finding overexposure is to compare the results with another camera using the same sensor.

D70s consistently underexposes by about -2/3Ev compared to the same settings on the D300 .. and that's using manual mode.

Matrix metering in an outdoors environment has to take in so many variables and make so many compromises, that it's a difficult task to label the images as over exposed.
D70 sensor I know I noisy for any given ISO level .. even base(200) compared to other cameras.
As the D40 is a much later model, with the same old sensor tech, Nikon may have deliberately specified the D40 to maintain a higher degree of exposure(say by about 2/3) .. and this may appear as over exposure.

That is(after all that jibberish) .. I could just as easily head up into the NH, and use my D300 in matrix metering mode on any given day and produced slightly over exposed matrix metered outdoor images.

That I'm aware of in Nikon camera circles, there is no setting to protect highlights as there is in other cameras, such as the highlight tone priority feature on some Canons which specifically protects highlight levels at the expense of shadow detail.
(although newer Nikon cameras may have such a feature .. I just don't have any experience with it).

That sort of feature(highlight tone priority) is separate to what's currently discussed tho.

[sunny6teen]

the demographic for 'auto' wouldn't recognise a poor exposure in either hemisphere.

[pgbphotographytas]

the demographic for 'auto' wouldn't recognise a poor exposure in either hemisphere.

This is very true, if "Auto Mode" is all they have ever used then they will by default be happy with the results.

[Xenedis]

Auto modes are designed to produce an image which would be acceptable to the average person without requiring much (or any) input from the shooter. The idea is that by making some simple assumptions, a person can achieve a decent result without investing much effort.

Of course, serious and semi-serious photographers understand that a camera's CPU, for all the cleverness it has, simply cannot read minds and know what the photographer really wants; such photographers also understand that it's necessary to break the 'rules' to achieve certain creative or technical results.

To such people, sometimes the auto modes would work, but a lot of the time, such modes will not produce acceptable or desirable results.

Personally I prefer to tell the camera to do what I want it to do, such that I may achieve the result I want. I don't like being unable to alter the two main exposure controls (shutter speed and aperture) independently of each other. I will deliberately under- and over-expose images. Using the automatic or semi-automatic modes obstructs my ability to easily do that.

For the same reason I choose to use manual mode on my cameras, I also choose to drive cars with manual transmission. I've never liked autos, and get frustrated that they change gears when I don't want them to, or worse, don't change gears when I do want that. As far as cars and cameras, I cannot see a day when I will want to sacrifice the human intelligence I put into the decision-making process, in favour of the decisions someone else has made on my behalf and programmed into the equipment I am using.

While I prefer to exercise control over what I am doing, that's not to say I don't recognise that automation can sometimes be quite useful. In my case, for the sheer majority of the time, I don't desire that automation.

[Mark L]

Auto modes are designed to produce an image which would be acceptable to the average person without requiring much (or any) input from the shooter. The idea is that by making some simple assumptions, a person can achieve a decent result without investing much effort.

Of course, serious and semi-serious photographers understand ...........

And technology has allowed the average person to get what they consider to be acceptable results.
Of course, serious and semi-serious photographers probably make up a small proportion of photographers in this digital age (if only they know what they could do).