Previsualization heresy

I've been operating cameras and earning a living from photography since the 1950s, so I have no problem calling myself a photographer. Or using the term Pro.

🙄

Placing a modern camera in Aperture Priority is not "trusting a computer to make a creative decision for me." I'm selecting the aperture. Only me. The computer is doing only what the electronics are programmed to do to select the correct "exposure" based on the ISO ( which I have also selected) and the shutter speed which it determines based on the light its light sensing system detects. That doesn't mean I have any less understanding of how my craft functions.

In the long-ago past, I also used "Aperture Priority" on my Fully Manual cameras that had absolutely no connection between the manual shutter speed knob and the lens manual aperture ring. I set the aperture, then read the light value on my hand-held exposure meter (sometimes an incident meter, sometimes a reflective , meter, eventually a spot meter), and then I set the shutter speed, according to its recommendation based on the ASA speed of the film I had put in the camera. All fully manual. Was I a better photographer for being "in full control" of all those functions. I don't think so. I think I became a better photographer when my cameras started removing some of that need to make and transfer mechanical settings from one mechanical device to another mechanical device. It was tedious and errors could be made. When that process was integrated into the device, I had more time to pay attention to all the other important aspects of composition, subject selection, and actually looking at the "scene" that I wanted to become an "image." That integration didn't mean I had any less understanding of how my craft functioned.

Even in full Auto mode, the camera is not making all the decisions. It's acting according to programming that can be selected in several ways. It can respect aperture wants under a range of lighting conditions and only change aperture if lighting issues force that to happen, but all that is something the photographer can predetermine if he knows how to use the programming built into Auto mode. In such difficult situations, the auto functions maintain the parameters that he wants leaving him to be as creative and productive as he can without the tedium of the mechanics.

Lack of understanding of craft has nothing to do with the camera.

I haven't used "full manual" on any camera (well, other than my view cameras) since that was the only way cameras worked.

Is someone who has no photography experience, who buys a fully automatic camera, and uses it that way less a photographer than I? Or you? I don't know. Let's take a look at what he comes back with after a day of shooting. That's all that matters.

Rich 😉

Au contraire....famous portrait chappie here:
www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/opinion/cevallos-monkey-selfie-copyright/index.html

ooops. Sorry Bob. Only just noticed you posting this as well. Cést la vie.

Ape rture priority is a great setting. You don't 'chimp' your photos?

Don't let the English sense of humour bother you. 😉
Don

He he he. Your analogy is so flawed it's hilarious. Let's look at MotoGP. The bikes, and riders, are the fastest motorcycles on the planet, around a race track. Yet the motorcycles have traction control, anti wheelie, anti stoppie, ride by wire throttle, multiple engine maps, who knows how many IMU's and sensors, all hooked up to computers, making the bikes rideable, fuel efficient, and eye wateringly fast. 300+ HP, and 360+ km/hr proper fast.
Below amateurs right, because they've let computers make decisions for them. He he he.
Your selective elitism is showing

The value of previsualization varies with the genre. I find little or no application for action photography such as sports, wildlife, or capturing other movements such as the variations in waterfalls.

Previsualization is a skill. Some photographers have not developed that skill and hence cannot apply it with any level of success.

Previsualization is of highly useful for B&W photography. Loss of color can greatly changes relationships and compositions. I rarely do B&W conversions but still find previsualization skills to be of high importance. It is important to understand the differences between how our cameras see and how our brains alter out perceptions. A simple example is the tree growing out of someone's head. Clearly out cameras do not have stereoscopic vision and we need to be able to previsualize that effect. Our cameras see colors differently. They still lack our human depth of field. We look and focus on small areas of our visual field and constantly scan and adjust for focus and lighting. Our cameras do not. Without previsualization the world we see is apt to be very disappointing when captured 2 diminsionally. With previsualization we can take advantage of the ways our camera see differently. I often use short focal length macro lenses to create images that cannot be seen with the human eye. I can think of countless other examples where I utilize how a camera sees differently to create images that match my vision and go beyond strict reality.

I could write a big long essay about the uses and power of previsualization but I doubt it would change many opinions to the contrary.

Interesting perspective - I‘d love to see some of the shots you mention. Do you have some online here or elsewhere you could link to?

While I create things quite spontaenously most of the time, I‘m pretty sure some form of previsuslization is happening in my mind regardless. I‘m often particularly aware of that when something in a finished image doesn‘t feel right to me, even though a majority of people who view it assure me that everything‘s fine with it. 😅 It sometimes is hard to pinpoint for me though. Kinda feels like being stuck in Plato‘s cave…

Here is an example. I saw a flower, decided to us a short focal length macro in an attempt to create the feeling of being inside the flower.

Thanks! That's fantastic - it looks like paper or some of the ornamental windows in churches. Excellent work! Is the Exif accurate though? If so, I wouldn't call a 100 mm lens a "short focal length"...

Nice job! Would also work as a coloured Rorschach inkblot test.

And I don't see someone who puts no effort into learning or growing as an equal to those who do.

Do you have a portfolio or website to peruse, so we can see the difference between M and A mode photos?

We are judging people now?

Someone who has a very good understanding of exposure, putting a camera in full auto mode, knowing the general algorithm the camera uses in pursuing exposure is free from the technical aspects of the situation and can concentrate on composition, light quality, subjects, and a while spectrum of other issues. I think that could make that person a very good photographer.

Some one with a limited knowledge of exposure issues, likewise could by free to concentrate on all those other issues, since "exposure" is largely a mechanical exercise in camera settings.

People who want to learn the mechanics certainly can. I have. I can say that I've been pretty deep in the weeds regarding such matters. It certainly is a good thing to know. But modern cameras and the nature of digital sensors can both make the path difficult, or just supply the "automatic tech" for a while so that other skills can be acquired.

How are such individuals not putting effort into learning and growing? I think they certainly doing that. If I see good photography and learn that the photographer has a poor understanding of exposure issues, I could give a rodent's behind.

What's this Equal thing? All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?

Is there a test involved?

I don't think there can be any distinction between photographs acquired in full Auto mode vs those acquired in full Manual mode as to having any particular merit, appearance, value, beauty, value, etc, etc, etc. One way or the other.

Rich

Agree. The right mode to use is situational and a matter of personal preference. I think it’s generally better to start out in full manual, but I recognize that’s not better for everyone.

Only tangentially related, but had they had it available, I bet Capa and DDD would have used auto modes a lot.

Totally agree, years ago at our local photography club a lady member bought an fz150 that I recommended for her .
For the next 2 years she took out highest points and photographer of the year and shot full auto. She had an amazing eye.
Personally I shoot all modes depending on image criteria.

I have often posted that with today's modern cameras and with a big enough supply of bananas you can train a monkey to take a nice picture in many situations and especially in good light.

But in low light situations where the aim could be to maximise the quality of the raw data within DOF and blur constraints then it is very unlikely Auto mode is going to achieve that.

Having a proper understanding of what exposure* actually is certainly helps in maximising the quality of raw data.

* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open

I think using the automaton modern camera gear gives us is nothing to be ashamed about and should be used, as it frees the mind for more important compositional tasks. But It is important to be able to step in with manual settings when needed.