DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Camera Settings: Av, Pv, M, Auto...?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 33, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/23/2010 09:15:29 PM · #1
Here is a recent blog post by David Pogue in the NYT.

I thought I would pass it on as a possible suggestion for DPC...????

//tinyurl.com/24sj26b

"A Plea for Honesty in Photo Specs
I’m a big fan of photography magazines. There’s nothing like seeing someone’s successful photo and reading, right next to it, how they did it. You learn so much so fast.

(Actually, what was even better was the Popular Photography monthly feature where they’d show you the outtakes — the photo right before and right after the winner. You could see the muffed versions of the fantastic shot. You learned what not to do — and you learned that even the pros don’t get every shot right. Unfortunately, the magazine eliminated this feature with its recent redesign.)

Anyway, the caption always gives the specs for the photo: “Taken with a Nikon D90 at 1/200th second, aperture f/2.8, exposure +1, using Sigma 18-200mm lens” or whatever.

It’s always bothered me that often, the camera came up with these settings.

Plenty of shutterbugs use Auto mode or Program mode, where the camera computes the shutter speed and aperture size.

Others use Aperture Priority mode or Shutter Priority mode, where the photographer dials up one variable (the f-stop or the shutter speed) and the camera calculates the other one (the shutter speed or the f-stop).

So publishing all of those stats, as though the photographer manually calculated each one, is a little deceptive and unhelpful! I think they should SAY what the photographer did (“set aperture to f/7”) and what the camera did (auto shutter speed 1/20th sec).

I’m not about to start a national campaign for this, but you know — in a parallel universe, this revised system would be more helpful to those of us trying to master this complicated art."
05/23/2010 09:20:34 PM · #2
Originally posted by tehben:

(Actually, what was even better was the Popular Photography monthly feature where they’d show you the outtakes — the photo right before and right after the winner. You could see the muffed versions of the fantastic shot. You learned what not to do — and you learned that even the pros don’t get every shot right. Unfortunately, the magazine eliminated this feature with its recent redesign.)

I also enjoyed that feature. A huge aid in learning how to both recognize and anticipate the shot. I didn't realize until you said so that it had been a regular feature they aborted. Too bad.
05/23/2010 09:30:24 PM · #3
Man, thats a great idea! (I think I suggested it a long long while back) :)

I would like to see those numbers included with the photos during the voting stage.
05/23/2010 09:31:38 PM · #4
Originally posted by tehben:

. . . "Anyway, the caption always gives the specs for the photo: “Taken with a Nikon D90 at 1/200th second, aperture f/2.8, exposure +1, using Sigma 18-200mm lens” or whatever."


I saw this post linked from another blog, or twitter, or something -- I have too many info sources to remember any more. ;) Anyway, my take on the whole "camera mode" thing is "meh." When I care at all, I'm more interested in the exposure specs (iso, ap, speed) than how the photog or camera (mode) came up with them.

What *I* want to know, though, is where to get this Sigma 18-200/2.8 lens he's referring to in his example. :P

(Before anyone sends a snarky reply, check your sarcasm-meter...)

Message edited by author 2010-05-23 21:33:41.
05/23/2010 09:35:10 PM · #5
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think the Av and Tv settings are in any way deceptive. In the pre-SLR world, we usually decided what shutter speed we wanted, or decided what aperture we wanted, and then read the corresponding shutter speed off the meter dial. Then we got through-the-lens metering, and we'd dial in either the shutter speed we wanted or the aperture we wanted, then adjust the other until we zeroed the needle. Then came "automated" metering, where we'd choose Av or Tv and the camera would zero the needle automatically.

It's all exactly the same thing, just a little more streamlined...

R.
05/23/2010 09:37:52 PM · #6
Whether the camera came up with the settings or the photographer did is really irrelevant. It's the setting combination that is important since that is what achieves the exposure. However, what would be interesting is if any adjustment were made to exposure in post processing as then the camera settings become misleading.
05/23/2010 09:49:24 PM · #7
Why is there such an obsession over the how and so little interest in the why?
05/23/2010 09:51:00 PM · #8
cause
05/24/2010 01:22:02 AM · #9
Originally posted by yanko:

Why is there such an obsession over the how and so little interest in the why?


Because the "why" can't come into its own until the "how" is nailed down. In order to free oneself from technique, one has to master it. But you know this, Richard...

R.
05/24/2010 02:32:37 AM · #10
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by yanko:

Why is there such an obsession over the how and so little interest in the why?


Because the "why" can't come into its own until the "how" is nailed down. In order to free oneself from technique, one has to master it. But you know this, Richard...

R.


I was referring to the why, as in why did the photographer choose this subject in the first place? Why was this specific moment chosen to be captured over another? Why was this particular setup used? etc, etc. To me the why is most important. It dictates the how yet we learn it in reverse or worse never get around to learning what the initial spark was. No wonder people treat creativity as if it's some sort of magic.
05/24/2010 03:01:41 AM · #11
Where is that blog article, when the author gave his example does it say that the photo WASN'T taken in full manual mode? The use of exposure compensation is common and most photographers with at least an intermediate or advanced knowedge of their camera know when to use it and how much. His example only lists the basic exposure building blocks, and doesn't say what mode the camera was in so what's the point?

I shoot most of the vast majority of my shots in full manual mode adjusting every setting the way I see fit. If I'm not in full manual mode I'm in Aperture Priority where again I have control over everything with the exception of the shutter speed which of course I can override with exposure compensation as well.

Obviously the author of the blog has a problem with a photographer taking credit for a great image that he/she might haven given the camera full technical control over with auto mode or program mode. Well, I can see where they are coming from to a degree, and I never shoot in either of those modes and haven't for YEARS. However, there is a lot more to capturing a great shot than just the technical side of the camera settings. Creativity, composition, environment, great lighting situations be it natural or studio etc. If you haven't a clue with the artistic side of it the best camera in the world set to auto will get you no where fast.
05/24/2010 03:08:30 AM · #12
The Why comes first, as it clearly is the motivation for capturing the image. But the How is Not Necessarily dictated by the Why at all: the How is dictated, first and foremost, by the tools and conditions present at that moment. I consider knowledge of techniques, equipment, processing ALL to be tools in the toolbox. Seeking knowledge about one's equipment, alternate methods, etc., should not be pompously waved off with a smug "you must first know why, grasshopper" but should be encouraged, as it allows the artist another "how" choice to be available that may better serve the Why at the next opportunity.

05/24/2010 03:17:31 AM · #13
Originally posted by chromeydome:

The Why comes first, as it clearly is the motivation for capturing the image. But the How is Not Necessarily dictated by the Why at all: the How is dictated, first and foremost, by the tools and conditions present at that moment. I consider knowledge of techniques, equipment, processing ALL to be tools in the toolbox. Seeking knowledge about one's equipment, alternate methods, etc., should not be pompously waved off with a smug "you must first know why, grasshopper" but should be encouraged, as it allows the artist another "how" choice to be available that may better serve the Why at the next opportunity.


Agree with you here. My personal opinion on the WHY of it is....if a person has to ask why they took the photo then the photographer failed. The answer to that question should be evident in the final exposure. That's my take on it.
05/24/2010 03:23:04 AM · #14
Originally posted by chromeydome:

The Why comes first, as it clearly is the motivation for capturing the image. But the How is Not Necessarily dictated by the Why at all: the How is dictated, first and foremost, by the tools and conditions present at that moment. I consider knowledge of techniques, equipment, processing ALL to be tools in the toolbox. Seeking knowledge about one's equipment, alternate methods, etc., should not be pompously waved off with a smug "you must first know why, grasshopper" but should be encouraged, as it allows the artist another "how" choice to be available that may better serve the Why at the next opportunity.


It goes without saying that learning technique and the tools of the trade are important, but from what I've observed, not just here, is a serious lack of interest in the why things are done. That's all. Maybe that's just not important to most people? If so then by all means lets get back to trying to swap f/stop info or whatever and I'll take my musings elsewhere. :)
05/24/2010 03:44:37 AM · #15
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by chromeydome:

The Why comes first, as it clearly is the motivation for capturing the image. But the How is Not Necessarily dictated by the Why at all: the How is dictated, first and foremost, by the tools and conditions present at that moment. I consider knowledge of techniques, equipment, processing ALL to be tools in the toolbox. Seeking knowledge about one's equipment, alternate methods, etc., should not be pompously waved off with a smug "you must first know why, grasshopper" but should be encouraged, as it allows the artist another "how" choice to be available that may better serve the Why at the next opportunity.


It goes without saying that learning technique and the tools of the trade are important, but from what I've observed, not just here, is a serious lack of interest in the why things are done. That's all. Maybe that's just not important to most people? If so then by all means lets get back to trying to swap f/stop info or whatever and I'll take my musings elsewhere. :)
.

Or could it be simply that people ask the How questions precisely because the Why matters so much, and we all want to be better able to achieve it? Why separate them forcefully from each other when they are so directly connected? Why assume that question or discussion of How must mean that those participating have less, little, or no interest in Why?
05/24/2010 03:52:51 AM · #16
Originally posted by yanko:

No wonder people treat creativity as if it's some sort of magic.


Many signposts but no destination...
05/24/2010 04:26:27 AM · #17
Originally posted by chromeydome:

Why assume that question or discussion of How must mean that those participating have less, little, or no interest in Why?


The assumption is based on the number of posts and threads (countless) asking about settings and equipment and the lack of posts and threads regarding the why. So I asked why that was. Now I'm asking myself why am I being questioned for simply raising the question? The responses seem so defensive.
05/24/2010 06:04:32 AM · #18
I'm going to start a new thread to complain about the threads asking metaphysical questions about photographs, photographers, reasons for camera settings, and why people take pictures.

Then I'm going ot start a thread complaining about that thread. Neener neener. :P
05/24/2010 08:22:43 AM · #19
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by chromeydome:

The Why comes first, as it clearly is the motivation for capturing the image. But the How is Not Necessarily dictated by the Why at all: the How is dictated, first and foremost, by the tools and conditions present at that moment. I consider knowledge of techniques, equipment, processing ALL to be tools in the toolbox. Seeking knowledge about one's equipment, alternate methods, etc., should not be pompously waved off with a smug "you must first know why, grasshopper" but should be encouraged, as it allows the artist another "how" choice to be available that may better serve the Why at the next opportunity.


It goes without saying that learning technique and the tools of the trade are important, but from what I've observed, not just here, is a serious lack of interest in the why things are done. That's all. Maybe that's just not important to most people? If so then by all means lets get back to trying to swap f/stop info or whatever and I'll take my musings elsewhere. :)


I'm glad you're musing, because it gets me to thinking. However, it doesn't change anything. I rarely get interested in the why. I look at photography for my own pleasure, and so if the photo doesn't interest me, I rarely question why they did it in the first place. It doesn't interesting me; and the why so rarely changes my opinion on it.

So I sat back and stated wondering if I should care more about the why. And again, my selfish response was -- life's too short. While it may give me a better understanding of some photos, my guess is that it would be only about 10-20% of said photos. However, I could use the time more efficiently to really look at the ones I do like and figure out why it works for me, what makes it interesting, what can be done better. If I were not here to improve my own skills, I'd probably be more interested in the why. But right now the how is so important, because I want to get better. When I'm perfect, I'll be more interested in other peoples why's.
05/24/2010 08:36:23 AM · #20
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by yanko:

Why is there such an obsession over the how and so little interest in the why?


Because the "why" can't come into its own until the "how" is nailed down. In order to free oneself from technique, one has to master it. But you know this, Richard...

R.


I was referring to the why, as in why did the photographer choose this subject in the first place? Why was this specific moment chosen to be captured over another? Why was this particular setup used? etc, etc. To me the why is most important. It dictates the how yet we learn it in reverse or worse never get around to learning what the initial spark was. No wonder people treat creativity as if it's some sort of magic.


That's an interesting concept, and it bears a closer examination. Let's look at two possible responses to a hypothetical image: "My gawd, how did he DO that?" and "My gawd, WHY did he do that?"

The first is pretty much a universal response, among photographers; by what particular means was the shooter able to work his magic? The other, well that's almost self-answering; as someone else remarked earlier. if the image is worth lingering over, the "why" is pretty obvious.

I guess, in a larger sense, your question is intended to deal with the whole creative gestalt, and THAT makes sense to me. Beyond the question of f/stops, shutter speed, light placement, white balance, channel mixer conversions, etc etc, the myriad technical details that go into the making of an image, beyond all that... there is of course MORE. By what process does the artist arrive at his/her vision? How much of it is conscious? Unconscious? Planned? Spontaneous? Is s/he "preaching". Or is the work more in the nature of a "devotional"? There are just a gazillion variables that go into the formation of what becomes the creative output of an individual.

Is this what you mean to be asking about? Are you asking why we don't discuss it? I can think of one reason, off the top of my head, that we don't; very few individuals are *aware* of this process, let alone in a position where they can articualte it, after the fact...

R.
05/24/2010 10:51:22 AM · #21
I I agree with Pogue on this one … Is the point that if the camera is automatically making adjustments, it should be stated there? That makes sense.

I am sometimes surprised that "real" photogs use automatic or even semi-automatic (P mode or Aperture mode) settings … because I am almost religiously MANUAL -

but yesterday I had a photo-shoot - partly at a kids park where the lighting was either shade, part-shade, or bright sunlight - and at one point I was essentially chasing the kids around to try to get more spontaneous shots and of course the lighting was all across the board … So I tried Aperture Priority. I also tried Cervo 3d-tracking focus.

I was NOT pleased with many of these shots - Regardless of how I had the metering set-up, it was pretty rare that the camera made "decisions" like I would.

So, strangely, I actually feel that using some of the semi-auto settings is something that i need to learn better … seems kinda ironic, really. I have to admit though, there aren't much tougher shooting situations.

So I suppose if you get a magazine-worthy image in S mode or something like that, I suppose I admire that ;)

Message edited by author 2010-05-24 15:33:49.
05/24/2010 12:58:55 PM · #22
Originally posted by Bear_Music:


I guess, in a larger sense, your question is intended to deal with the whole creative gestalt, and THAT makes sense to me. Beyond the question of f/stops, shutter speed, light placement, white balance, channel mixer conversions, etc etc, the myriad technical details that go into the making of an image, beyond all that... there is of course MORE. By what process does the artist arrive at his/her vision? How much of it is conscious? Unconscious? Planned? Spontaneous? Is s/he "preaching". Or is the work more in the nature of a "devotional"? There are just a gazillion variables that go into the formation of what becomes the creative output of an individual.

Is this what you mean to be asking about? Are you asking why we don't discuss it? I can think of one reason, off the top of my head, that we don't; very few individuals are *aware* of this process, let alone in a position where they can articualte it, after the fact...

R.


Yes that was the gist of it.
05/24/2010 03:25:47 PM · #23
Originally posted by yanko:

Why is there such an obsession over the how and so little interest in the why?

It's funny, I read that this evening and smiled. Totally nothing to do with photography, but today I asked one of my team members to prepare some training material that will be used to train some new team members. I asked her to specifically concentrate on the why of the process rather than the how. Unrelated to photography sure, but somehow I understand Yanko's point of view.

05/24/2010 03:35:18 PM · #24
Originally posted by yanko:

Why is there such an obsession over the how and so little interest in the why?


I'm always asking the same question. It's pervasive in the American culture. Take for example your kitchen stove--the will be a book explaining how to operate the stove but nowhere will it mention the why, that the stove is used for cooking food & for more information on the subject of cooking food, please refer to a cookbook. The cookbook explains the how, but not the why, unless you're reading one by James Beard. I don't understand it. If you sign up for a class in PhotoShop it will be about the how, nothing whatsoever about the why. The entire manual for your camera will be exclusively about the how.

Do we assume that if you learn the how, the why will take care of itself? Did the late great Ansel Adams ever publish a book about the why?

After thinking about it myself, I came to the conclusion that the why cannot always live through an explanation in words. Sometimes the why is its own reason for being.

Think of something you're very good at, that you take for granted because you've always been good at it. Do you remember when you didn't know how to do it? Do you remember learning it or looking for the why? No, probably not. You've always been good at it. Think of something you've never been good at--have people tried to teach you? Could you learn it? People try to teach you the how, but if you haven't got the why then the how isn't going to do you much good. Nobody can teach the why. I'm pretty sure the why is something you either have or you don't.

If you're an artist, then everything you do is art. You have your own hammer in your hand, everything is going to be your nail. I can't adapt to photography, photography is going to have to come to me, be with me, be my nail. See how silly I sound when talking about the why?

It is an interesting question, just not anserable. IMHO.
05/24/2010 03:47:09 PM · #25
Good point about the how and why. I kind of take a similar approach at work with trying to teach connectivity fundamentals to copier techs. I like to concentrate on understanding the concepts (the why) not simply rote button pushing (the how). The problem is, if you only know the how part, as soon as something changes, you will be lost.

A lot of people only want to know the short route to the objective: which buttons to push just to get the job at hand done. If you understand the concepts involved, you can still figure it out when the details change.

"Why", "concepts", "under the hood nuts & bolts". I think it all means a more thorough understanding of something.

I think we get so much "how", because it is easier, quicker, and gets the immediate job at hand done.

Message edited by author 2010-05-24 15:48:40.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 06:55:26 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 06:55:26 PM EDT.