What mode do you use most?

[cwphoto]

I have been thinking the same thing Jev. What your saying is pretty much what I meant in my original post about using manual but going off the meter.

My reason for mentioning that is in my class pretty much everybody shoots manual mode but always just putting the meter in the middle. I always wondered why because in the end that is just going by the meter which the camera can do a lot faster than a person turning the dials. I asked a couple of people why they bothered and they all basically seem to have the idea that shooting in manual at all times is just what experienced photographers do and that any semi-auto modes are bad.

Maybe we have totally missed something, I will be interested to see why everybody sticks to manual.

While I was typing this I thought of one other time when I do use manual. At weddings when I am shooting the couple in the shade with a bright background. I will use the ICM to meter the sky in the background.

Because putting the needle in the middle is not always going to result in correct exposure.

If you're shooting an average reflecting subject then the needle 'should' be in the middle and manual exposure offers no appreciable advantage.

But if you're shooting anything but an average reflecting subject (ie; high/low key) than your needle shouldn't be in the middle anyway for correct exposure of such subjects.

Manual exposure gives you ultimate control in consistent light but when your subject's reflectance is non-average. Examples: weddings (black tuxedos and white wedding dresses), sport (different coloured uniforms/cars/bikes etc)...

[lazarus219]

I don't really understand what specifically in my post you are referring to there CWphoto. Everything you have said I agree with and was my point about it not really being any use just using manual but going off the internal meter.

[cwphoto]

I don't really understand what specifically in my post you are referring to there CWphoto. Everything you have said I agree with and was my point about it not really being any use just using manual but going off the internal meter.

The first part where you agree with Jev. Jev doesn't appear to know how metering works - and I thought you were accepting the same misunderstandings that he was.

[hoffy]

I am another one who is about half ap & the other half sp modes. I think that most of the time the camera will make a better attempt on getting it right then I will, but I do look at the histogram & I also look at the screen & will dial in or out EV compenstation as required.

[lazarus219]

I see, I was actually agreeing with some of the other points. I agree with you in regard to internal light meters being average reflected meters.

I guess what Jev said does hold some relevance in the way evaluative metering works by comparing it a database to try and find similarities. In the end though it is still just another reflected meter with the same old problems of being tricked by the tone of something.

[cwphoto]

I see, I was actually agreeing with some of the other points. I agree with you in regard to internal light meters being average reflected meters.

I guess what Jev said does hold some relevance in the way evaluative metering works by comparing it a database to try and find similarities. In the end though it is still just another reflected meter with the same old problems of being tricked by the tone of something.

Don't believe the hype - this is mostly marketing spin. If Evaluative was that good, then power pros would use it all the time - they don't.

[lazarus219]

I don't believe the hype, that's why I have an incident light meter. Evaluative (matrix for nikon) is far from perfect, it is a fair bit better than average though.

In camera reflected meters are still better off than most people just guessing.

[cwphoto]

In camera reflected meters are still better off than most people just guessing.

Sure, but two of the four examples I listed for metering in manual involve using the reflected meter: grey card and white point.

And one of the others is not really guessing (sunny-16). It's as accurate as any method in the relevant conditions.

Manual exposure isn't about guessing - you often still use the reflected meter. The difference is how one uses it.

[jev]

All metering modes in your camera are based on the age-old principle of reflected light - which means when you're photographing a subject of non-average reflectance, the metering won't be accurate - Evaluative mode or otherwise.

I know how they work, I designed lightmetering systems for security cameras in a previous job. However, modern evaluative metering systems *can* work differently, they don't necessarily need an 18% reference.

Did you ever work with Ansel Adam's zonesystem? Here is a good read... Modern evaluative metering uses similar techniques.

For example, in full evaluative mode the system can actually analyse the whole image and look for hightlights, than base the exposure on these highlights (in combination with several parameters in the rest of the measured histogram), thus making sure you use the optimal dynamic range the camera is capable of. That is very similar to what Minolta did in a crude form in their Dynax 7 series if I remember correctly (they offered a brightness distribution display). Bottom line: there *are* other ways to measure for non-18% reflective scenes.

In manual metering mode I use various methods: sunny-16, grey card, white-point, incident meter - all of them offering more control than any AE mode you care to suggest.

Sunny f/16: guesswork, based on a flimsy rule of thumb. Might work in your area in circumstances you usually shoot under, but not everywhere at anytime.
Grey card: reflective (how do you determine the reading there?)
Whitepoint: What do you do with "whitepoint" where exposure is concerned?
Incident meter: agreed, the best method, beats any other method hands down - provided you can get close to your subject and take readings at different points. A little time consuming too...

Really, these methods don't offer "more control", that's just a state of mind. You have full control over exposure in both, manual and (half-) automatic modes, you just need to know what you're measuring and how to do it correctly (but that goes for incident reading too... ).

Bottom line: use whatever you feel most comfortable with in a given situation - if that is manual mode after having measured using incident reading or any other effective method, great. But do not wipe other techniques off the table - they can be at least as effective - if you know their limitations.

[Wazza999]

I leave it on program but frequently change the aperture so effectively Av. My pentax k10d has two program modes, auto-everything and P which sticks with user settings for iso and raw mode, so I use P. My rationale is if need to take a quick shot I don't have to worry about shutter speed and if I have time I can simply use the override.
Warren

[cwphoto]

I know how they work, I designed lightmetering systems for security cameras in a previous job. However, modern evaluative metering systems *can* work differently, they don't necessarily need an 18% reference.

Did you ever work with Ansel Adam's zonesystem? Here is a good read... Modern evaluative metering uses similar techniques.

For example, in full evaluative mode the system can actually analyse the whole image and look for hightlights, than base the exposure on these highlights (in combination with several parameters in the rest of the measured histogram), thus making sure you use the optimal dynamic range the camera is capable of. That is very similar to what Minolta did in a crude form in their Dynax 7 series if I remember correctly (they offered a brightness distribution display). Bottom line: there *are* other ways to measure for non-18% reflective scenes.



Sunny f/16: guesswork, based on a flimsy rule of thumb. Might work in your area in circumstances you usually shoot under, but not everywhere at anytime.
Grey card: reflective (how do you determine the reading there?)
Whitepoint: What do you do with "whitepoint" where exposure is concerned?
Incident meter: agreed, the best method, beats any other method hands down - provided you can get close to your subject and take readings at different points. A little time consuming too...

Really, these methods don't offer "more control", that's just a state of mind. You have full control over exposure in both, manual and (half-) automatic modes, you just need to know what you're measuring and how to do it correctly (but that goes for incident reading too... ).

Bottom line: use whatever you feel most comfortable with in a given situation - if that is manual mode after having measured using incident reading or any other effective method, great. But do not wipe other techniques off the table - they can be at least as effective - if you know their limitations.

With all due respect you're talking rubbish.

First your 'Evaluative' rant. I'm glad you use words like 'can' in your description because that's exactly what they might, may, or potentially be. Which is precisely the problem when used as AE. They are simply no match for manual exposure. Evaluative metering and AE is still incapable of correctly exposing a high or low-key scene - because it still relies on the fundamental underlying base that it simply measures a reflected value of light and has no way of knowing what the subject's reflectance is.

21-zones of 'average' is still 'average'.

Sunny-16 guesswork? Hogwash. Anywhere on the globe if your subject is in full sun then sunny-16 is as accurate as any exposure method period. That's not a guess - it's fact. Try using evaluative under such conditions when shooting a high-key/low-key subject and see how you go - sunny-16 will be more accurate 100% of the time.

Grey card? Takes the non-average reflectance variable away from the argument that's how. But I see you seem to already know how a grey-card works so I don't know why your arguing against it.

Whitepoint, ie; pegging the highlights. Take a spot reading of the area in the scene you want to be rendered as the brightest part with detail and back off 5x (or 2&1/3rd stops) for correct exposure.

For exposure control you cannot successfully argue that AE gives just as much as ME. You can't because you're arguing against fact. Any form of AE (P, Tv/S, Av/A etc, regardless of EC) still ultimately gives the power of exposing the scene to the camera. ME is the only setting which gives it to the user. There are plenty of scenarios out there where AE falls over - I've even listed a few.

AE certainly has it's place, when speed and convenience are weighted over ultimate control then AE is great - situations where the shooting environment has rapidly changing ambient light is great for AE, but that's exactly what AE offers: convenience and speed - ME has the control.

[Tannin]

Any form of AE (P, Tv/S, Av/A etc, regardless of EC) still ultimately gives the power of exposing the scene to the camera. ME is the only setting which gives it to the user.

Oh dear, now you are talking nonsense. On the back of your camera there is a big round dial.* Turn it clockwise to increase exposure, anticlockwise to decrease exposure. It works in both aperture and shutter priority modes, it's called "exposure compensation" and it gives you, the human being, the power to expose the scene exactly as you wish.

(* Other brands of camera put the dial in a different place. Works the same way though.)

[cwphoto]

Oh dear, now you are talking nonsense. On the back of your camera there is a big round dial.* Turn it clockwise to increase exposure, anticlockwise to decrease exposure. It works in both aperture and shutter priority modes, it's called "exposure compensation" and it gives you, the human being, the power to expose the scene exactly as you wish.

(* Other brands of camera put the dial in a different place. Works the same way though.)

Only if you use AE lock it does, otherwise the camera is ultimately deciding exposure.

AE with EC is just that: the camera's interpretation less (or more) of a value.

The key is in the bold part.

And a practical scenario: football match in consistent light, one team has a white uniform - the other black. Please explain how AE with EC is going to work from a practical perspective when you are shooting a piece of action of a white-uniformed player who is then suddenly engaged by a black-uniformed player?

And here I was with all this wonderful respect for you after your great response in the hi/lo ISO thread, oh well.

Now all - repeat after me; AE = convenience and speed, ME = control.

Either are useful depending on your situation.

[Tannin]

Why bring AE lock into it? It's a needless distraction from the the real points:

First, that the user retains control over the exposure (in your example, by adding +ive or -ive EC to the metered value - exactly as in manual mode one adds or subtracts from the suggested exposure given by the needle. The only difference - and I stress the only difference - is that in the first case one starts from a fixed pre-set base relative to the brightness of the metered scene, where in the second case one starts from a fixed pre-set base relative to absolute exposure.

Second, and more importantly, you are putting a subtle but critical spin on the question which, were I not to pull you on it, would neatly derail the discussion. This is your assumption of consistent light.

Now maybe your subjects of choice tend to have very different shades and be in consistent light (your football example would be a good one for this, provided you are not at the MCG or another large stadium where half the ground is usually in sunlight and the other half in deep shade), but then my subjects of choice tend towards the exact opposite situation: they are reasonably consistent in colour, but they move constantly between different places and through different lighting conditions. (I primarily do birds and other wildlife. They move. A lot.)

But perhaps we should return to the key word in your contention: "control". Both methods offer the ability to select (within reasonable limits) any exposure you wish. You might object that most cameras only offer ~3 stops of + and ~3 stops of - EC, meaning that if you want an exposure outside that six stop range of the metered value, you can't have it. I'll happily conceed that point, but then ask how often you (or any photographer) actually wants to be more than three stops over or under the metered value? I can imagine such a circumstance, but I can't say I've ever experienced it, nor would I expect to. So let's set this aside as a red herring, and return to the fact that either method allows (in so close to all circumstances as not to matter) the photographer to decide the actual exposure. Is that not "control"? Certainly sounds like "control" to me, and perfectly fits a dictionary definition of the term.

So where do we differ? What is it that you mean by "control" that I have not considered? The answer, I think, requires that we redefine "control" to mean something like "camera does what the user expects it to, in a consistent way". If I was shooting your football example (unlikely, but you never know) or something like a surfing contest, then I suspect that manual would indeed give me more control (in the sense of "more camera does what I want and expect it to). On the other hand, if you have ever tried to follow a fairy-wren in its frenetic travels in, under, through, and on top of the foliage, the opposite applies - not just because we are talking rapidly varying brightness levels which you'd never be able to keep up with on manual, but also because the subject itself remains constant, while the light changes rapidly.

Let's boil tht down to a nice, simple pair of rules:

Constant light, varying subject: shoot manual, it saves a lot of messing around with EC, and is less likely to result in duds.

Constant subject, varying light: shoot Av or Tv, it saves a lot of messing about with manual controls and is less likely to result in duds.

I'd have said that the second was the more common circumstance, but I'm only guessing that. Depends on what you shoot, really.

[jev]

I'm glad you use words like 'can' in your description because that's exactly what they might, may, or potentially be.

I strongly suggest you go and take a look at the Minolta Dynax 7.

Sunny-16 guesswork? Hogwash. Anywhere on the globe if your subject is in full sun then sunny-16 is as accurate as any exposure method period. That's not a guess - it's fact. Try using evaluative under such conditions when shooting a high-key/low-key subject and see how you go - sunny-16 will be more accurate 100% of the time.

As I said: maybe it works where and when you are shooting. Over here (Netherlands, latitude=52 north, longitude=5 degrees east) full sunny conditions are an exception to the rule. There almost always are clouds. And that's the point where the guesswork starts.

Second, the sun here is never as harsh here as it is in the southern parts of Europe (or in central Australia and probably a lot of other places). The angle under which the sun reaches the earth often is a showstopper for sunny f/16 over here. Sunny f/16 is a good thing to quickly detect ISO setting failures with but that's about it over here.

Third, there's (as Tannin so nicely describes) a large dial on the back of your luxureous dSLR. Using that, you can dial in exposure compensation, exactly for the reasons you mention. Low key? Dial in -2 or so. High key? +2.

I don't know why your arguing against it.

I'm not arguing against greycards, I'm just making clear you most likely take a reading from the greycard using the same system that is used in half automatic modes. If you use a graycard, you also can use AE with that same greycard. It's just a lot faster that way.

Whitepoint, ie; pegging the highlights.

Basically, that is part of the zone system - there is no fundamental difference between pegging highlights and using midgrey. And yes, you could do the exact same thing with exposure compensation on your camera in automated modes (how are you gonna measure the highlights BTW? Most possibly reflective, right?). Again, taking a reflective reading and compensating for it's reflectiveness (wow, use that word in scrabble once!) is the key and it doesn't make any difference if you tell the camera about it or if you tell and calculate that difference yourself. Except in speed.

What I'm trying to make clear is that a lot of the methods you describe are not fool-proof and often are based on the methods used in AE. Knowing *what* to measure and *how* to measure it is the key. Your camera can do that for you, provided you know how to work it.

I'd have said that the second was the more common circumstance, but I'm only guessing that. Depends on what you shoot, really.

Amen to that!

PS: some interesting stuff from Nikon on the subject here. This interview, straight from the horse's mouth, makes perfectly clear that in-camera metering is not just 18% grey reflective metering anymore in modern cameras.

[Analog6]

I tend to leave the 300D permanently on Tv @ 1/125 as it means I can grab it and (mostly) get a usable image. I mainly use Manual for the 20D.

I find Tv more useful than Av due to the fact that I like to keep to 100ASA and Av often results in too slow a shutter speed.

[cwphoto]

Why bring AE lock into it? It's a needless distraction from the the real points:

First, that the user retains control over the exposure (in your example, by adding +ive or -ive EC to the metered value - exactly as in manual mode one adds or subtracts from the suggested exposure given by the needle. The only difference - and I stress the only difference - is that in the first case one starts from a fixed pre-set base relative to the brightness of the metered scene, where in the second case one starts from a fixed pre-set base relative to absolute exposure.

Second, and more importantly, you are putting a subtle but critical spin on the question which, were I not to pull you on it, would neatly derail the discussion. This is your assumption of consistent light.

Now maybe your subjects of choice tend to have very different shades and be in consistent light (your football example would be a good one for this, provided you are not at the MCG or another large stadium where half the ground is usually in sunlight and the other half in deep shade), but then my subjects of choice tend towards the exact opposite situation: they are reasonably consistent in colour, but they move constantly between different places and through different lighting conditions. (I primarily do birds and other wildlife. They move. A lot.)

But perhaps we should return to the key word in your contention: "control". Both methods offer the ability to select (within reasonable limits) any exposure you wish. You might object that most cameras only offer ~3 stops of + and ~3 stops of - EC, meaning that if you want an exposure outside that six stop range of the metered value, you can't have it. I'll happily conceed that point, but then ask how often you (or any photographer) actually wants to be more than three stops over or under the metered value? I can imagine such a circumstance, but I can't say I've ever experienced it, nor would I expect to. So let's set this aside as a red herring, and return to the fact that either method allows (in so close to all circumstances as not to matter) the photographer to decide the actual exposure. Is that not "control"? Certainly sounds like "control" to me, and perfectly fits a dictionary definition of the term.

So where do we differ? What is it that you mean by "control" that I have not considered? The answer, I think, requires that we redefine "control" to mean something like "camera does what the user expects it to, in a consistent way". If I was shooting your football example (unlikely, but you never know) or something like a surfing contest, then I suspect that manual would indeed give me more control (in the sense of "more camera does what I want and expect it to). On the other hand, if you have ever tried to follow a fairy-wren in its frenetic travels in, under, through, and on top of the foliage, the opposite applies - not just because we are talking rapidly varying brightness levels which you'd never be able to keep up with on manual, but also because the subject itself remains constant, while the light changes rapidly.

Let's boil tht down to a nice, simple pair of rules:

Constant light, varying subject: shoot manual, it saves a lot of messing around with EC, and is less likely to result in duds.

Constant subject, varying light: shoot Av or Tv, it saves a lot of messing about with manual controls and is less likely to result in duds.

I'd have said that the second was the more common circumstance, but I'm only guessing that. Depends on what you shoot, really.

I don't know whether it's convenience or ignorance Tony, but you have totally missed the crucial point that AE with EC still involves AE, so you don't have control any more - the camera does. AE is not an absolute value, it is a variable - so how can you argue that it gives the same result as a constant (ME)? AE +/- a value is still a variable.

Example: You're shooting a bride in consistent light with AE. Lot's of white around so you dial in some + EC. Now you re-frame slightly and the camera now offers you a different EV than before because the scene is slightly less/more high key due to the new composition. With AE you now have to re-adjust your EC to suit, whereas with ME you don't.

Which one offers more control?

I brought up AE lock because that is the only way you can achieve an absolute value with regards to EV in an AE mode - the only way.

As for your example, Tony I never said that ME is the best choice for all subject matter. If you read my last post carefully you'll notice that at the end I was very clear that both are valid modes to work in depending on what you are shooting. I don't do birds so I will defer to your judgment here, but I do shoot sport at large stadiums like ANZ, SFS, SCG etc. ME is still much preferred, as 80% of the time the games are under lights (consistent light), or under cloud (consistent light), or I'm shooting into the sun (consistent light). The other 20% of times I just roll my finger over the Main dial three clicks when the play enters shade and I'm at an EV which suits the scene - simple and effective, and I retain control of EV regardless of which team is in the frame (which I wouldn't get with AE).

[cwphoto]

As I said: maybe it works where and when you are shooting. Over here (Netherlands, latitude=52 north, longitude=5 degrees east) full sunny conditions are an exception to the rule. There almost always are clouds. And that's the point where the guesswork starts.

Err Jev, it's a rule for when a subject is in full sun. When you have clouds the rule doesn't apply.

[cwphoto]

Third, there's (as Tannin so nicely describes) a large dial on the back of your luxureous dSLR. Using that, you can dial in exposure compensation, exactly for the reasons you mention. Low key? Dial in -2 or so. High key? +2.

AE with EC offers less control than ME with subjects which rapidly change in reflectance (sport), or when re-framing/composing a high/low key subject in consistent light.

[cwphoto]

I'm not arguing against greycards, I'm just making clear you most likely take a reading from the greycard using the same system that is used in half automatic modes. If you use a graycard, you also can use AE with that same greycard. It's just a lot faster that way.

Sure, but the difference is you are taking a reading from something which matches the calibration on your camera (normally 18% reflectance), not some random scene which may or may not reflect 18%.