The Beginners Questions Area

I find that, left to its own devices, automation often does things I don’t want it to do. I use it sparingly.

With automation you always trade control for comfort. That is why people are afraid of AI.

This is a long thread with several somewhat subplots, but if you are talking fixing the shutter speed and aperture, and letting the ISO float then I tend to agree with Jim on this.

I shoot BIF, and I consider BIF against blue sky as more documentary than anything, so I shoot against scattered background. So in constant light, if I'm panning against a scattered and varied background, if I go from a light background to a dark background, with floating ISO, the exposure will change where it should not have.

It's really not that hard to use M. A subsequent post says something to the effect that you're giving up something for the convenience of letting the floating ISO determine "an exposure" (not necessarily a correct one) Similar to me getting lazy and using my 200-500 instead of my exotic long primes. You give up something.

Edit: Another member said "With automation you always trade control for comfort."

I think I have a fundamental disagreement with that. I disagree that “Nailing Exposure” is the most important thing, it’s “Nailing Lighting.” More to the point, it’s about learning how to see light and seeking out good light.

When the lighting is poor, the photo is no good, and it doesn’t matter how you twist the dials.

In my current pursuit, concert photography, the lighting is always poor, and you have to create ways to position yourself to optimize the result. And you have to twist the dials a lot.

To summarize: When the beginner asks about exposure settings, we should steer the discussion to lighting. With modern sensors, the Aperture and Shutter controls are more about controlling blur.

You may both be saying the same thing but in different ways. I often describe exposure as the brightness per unit area (or intensity, if you prefer) of the scene as projected by the lens upon the sensor. As long as scene brightness (luminance is another term that's often used), f-stop (sometimes lens aperture is used), and shutter speed (exposure time) are indicated as the three factors determining exposure, a person is probably saying the same thing but in a different way. This is the nature of conversational language, cultural and native language differences. We often say the same thing but in slightly different ways.

Expecting that everyone who talks about exposure will use exactly the same language to define or describe it in a Beginners forum, is unrealistic. It's never going to happen. But that's OK. It doesn't need to happen. Frankly, I enjoy getting to know folks through their posts and coming to recognize their voice.

Rather than focusing on the specific terminology a person uses, I recommend seeking to understand a comment within the context of the entire post and the member's posting history. Read what else they've contributed to the thread. Get a feel for what they mean. If what they're conveying is generally accurate, allow them some room to communicate that in their own way.

My $0.02

And then someone disagrees with your disagreement and you disagree with that and somebody else disagrees with that and the Beginning photographer wonders what the heck just happened.

Bob, you and others have been arguing about this topic for years. Surely this isn’t the reason for creating this new board and all the work you’re putting behind it.

I’ve been a photographer over four decades and I don’t care one bit about how the image sensor works, I just want to take better photographs. And some ultimate perfect definition of exposure and exposure compensation and ISO does absolutely nothing to help me take better photographs.

Knowing how sensor works helps to take better photographs.
I was sitting in a bar processing some night shots. A gentleman was standing behind me, watching. After some 30 minutes he asked why he never could achieve such "dynamic range". The faces on his shots, he complained, were "flat as pancake". I explained that I shoot setting lower ISO, because of how the sensor works. He was interested. I explained further. He said, impossible, went up, grabbed his camera, set it the way I do, and in half an hour, after reviewing his shots, returned with a bottle of a good single malt.

I have the impression that we've seen DonaldB in several reincarnations on DPReview, probably due to the argumentative nature of his postings. I recognize the style, both photographically and behavioral. Argumentation is futile, actually, it's what keeps him going.

Here in the states they are rare. I brought my truck to the local retail chain for new tires. I told the service writer the truck is a stick. He said cool and sent a guy out to get it. He couldn't get it started, had no idea what to do. SW tells me to drive it in myself. We chuckle. Service all done, the SW tells me I can pull it out. I ask "You are not gonna do it?" he shakes his head. It was then I realize that not one person in the shop can drive stick.

To be fair, they were all under 30, and they have precious little to learn on. 95% + of cars on the road in the states are automatics.

Hi Klaus, welcome!

If memory serves, DonaldB has consistently posted pictures of dancers and other models with Broncolor reflectors or lights or something. So much so that he’s been contacted by the company to use his images. Posted a lot in Samples and Galleries and Portraits subforums. Probably one of the more active image posters vs discussion posters.

DannoB has had several incarnations at DPReiview and as never met an exposure debate that wasn’t worth a full 150 posts. Also posts a fair bit to Samples and Galleries for C&C on creative edits.

Having similar monikers now makes it a bit confusing but I think I have it sorted in my head. I think both produce nice images and contribute positively to a photography forum in that way.

Having a manual transmission is quite the theft deterrent these days.

I always wondered why automatics were in the minority here, but thinking about it, there are a lot of small cars with 1 litre engines. Automatic gear boxes might suck too much performance and fuel economy from small cars. My VW Polo 1.2L turbo has a 5 speed manual gearbox and it's great on the motorway (65 mpg) but terrible around the city (constant gear changing, can't accelerate at all when the revs drop). Although there are definitely some tiny city cars with near-moped engines, that are autos. CVT transmissions were the thing at one time. My friend had a 1.1L Ford Fiesta with a CVT transmission back in in 1987.