Photog folks, do you shoot in manual mode?

[masraum]

I've had SLR/DSLR cameras for years, but have always shot with Av, Tv, or P modes unless I was tinkering with astrophotography or bulb mode and had to go into manual mode.

I've started tinkering with Manual mode, and I'm curious if you shoot in manual mode, and if so, how to do get started setting your exposure? What I mean by that is do you use the camera's meter or a hand held. What metering are you using evaluative, spot, center-weighted, etc...? Do you meter off of a gray card, the palm of your hand, green grass, etc...?

What I've been doing is spot metering off of my subject, pushing the exposure +2/3 (I shoot in raw and use ETTR), check the histogram, and watch for blown highlights. I don't necessarily do that on every shot, but usually on the first shot or two of a series of the same or similar subject/situation.

[willtel]

I almost always use manual mode unless I'm shooting something moving and I need the camera to adjust the shutter speed for me.

I'm sure I miss a good number of shots because of it but it has taught me more about how the camera works and how different settings effect the outcome.

I don't own a handheld meter so I used the in-camera meter. Metering depends on the dynamic range in the shot and if the test shot gives me what I want but I don't have the best grasp on metering.

[Scott Douglas]

I've just recently had time to delve into off 'auto' mode here.
I've been using the spot meter of the camera (D7000) and have started to experiment with some manual focus lenses on it.
Here's a shot I took this afternoon.
Nikkor 300mm f4 at 1/500.

[gchappel]

If the light is not changing- I always use manual.
If the light is changing I am in Aperture mode with exposure compensation.
It really does not matter how you get the exposure right, as long as you get it right.
Remember you are always smarter than your camera
Gary

[rusnak]

If it's a really important shot like a graduation or wedding, and it's outside, then I just go full auto with burst mode. Usually the first exposure is the one that I print.

[GH85Carrera]

We set our Nikon D3 to shutter priority. We shoot aerials from an airplane so we set the speed to 1/2000 and the ISO to 1000. We shoot everything in RAW and make adjustments if necessary to the RAW file. We are not shooting works of art, they are just pictures of the site someone ordered.

Just shoot in RAW and tweak from there.

[sc_rufctr]

I still use film for 80% of my photos... My old film cameras are manual only so no choice there.
I've got a modern DLSR but that's mostly used as a digital solution for my Leica R lenses.

Manual is fun and you generaly get better pictures but there are times full auto everything just rocks. It helps you concentrate on the picture only so you get what you want.
I mainly do that at a wedding or a christening.

[Z-man]

My first SLR camera was a Pentax ME Super. It had three shooting modes: manual, aperture priority, and shutter priority. Back then, shooting with film, you really couldn't change the ASA settings too much: you were stuck with the sensitivity the film was. Since I cut my photography teeth on that camera, I pretty much shoot in one of those three settings.

Nowadays, I have a Nikon D3200. Most often, I set the ISO at somewhere between 100 and 800, and set the mode to shutter priority. If I want depth of field, I'll shoot at 1/60th or 1/125th, if that allows me to open my aperture enough. If I'm shooting landscape in bright sunlight, I'll lower my
ISO to 100 or 200, and leave the camera in shutter priority mode.

I also typically use a primary lens -- I love my 50mm f1.8 Nikon AF-S glass - I have always found that fixed, non-zoom lenses offer less compromises and more clarity. However, for sightseeing shots, or when I don't have the possibility to move around the subject, a good zoom lens can be quite versitile.

-Z-man.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

I still use film for 80% of my photos... .

Huh? What is this film that you speak of?



I think I would have really enjoyed shooting in B&W and then developing my own film, but I always shot in color. Color was expensive for the film and developing (by the time I had a camera most places did one hour processing).

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Z-man

My first SLR camera was a Pentax ME Super. It had three shooting modes: manual, aperture priority, and shutter priority. Back then, shooting with film, you really couldn't change the ASA settings too much: you were stuck with the sensitivity the film was. Since I cut my photography teeth on that camera, I pretty much shoot in one of those three settings.

Nowadays, I have a Nikon D3200. Most often, I set the ISO at somewhere between 100 and 800, and set the mode to shutter priority. If I want depth of field, I'll shoot at 1/60th or 1/125th, if that allows me to open my aperture enough. If I'm shooting landscape in bright sunlight, I'll lower my
ISO to 100 or 200, and leave the camera in shutter priority mode.

I also typically use a primary lens -- I love my 50mm f1.8 Nikon AF-S glass - I have always found that fixed, non-zoom lenses offer less compromises and more clarity. However, for sightseeing shots, or when I don't have the possibility to move around the subject, a good zoom lens can be quite versitile.

-Z-man.

Prime lenses are nice, but the convenience of a zoom is so nice.

[LWJ]

Very rarely use full manual. I (and my spouse who really is the photog) am simply not talented enough! Wish I was.
Larry

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by masraum

Huh? What is this film that you speak of?



I think I would have really enjoyed shooting in B&W and then developing my own film, but I always shot in color. Color was expensive for the film and developing (by the time I had a camera most places did one hour processing).

I process a roll of B&W film in about 35 minutes but you have to let it dry before you can scan. I usually let mine dry overnight.
It's really not that hard if you do everything at room temperature. I use the Massive Dev app on my iPhone for processing times. The chemicals are cheap and it's fun.

Colour can be done at home but ideally you need a developing machine rather than hand agitation.

Photography should be fun. Film cameras were too much of a chore for a lot of amateurs. Digital has turned theses same amatures into enthusiasts.
That's a good thing but pray you don't have a harddrive failure or data loss.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

That's a good thing but pray you don't have ANOTHER harddrive failure or data loss.

I've got a big NAS for backup purposes now....

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by masraum

Prime lenses are nice, but the convenience of a zoom is so nice.

I agree, but convenience = compromise. All zoom lenses have a 'sweet spot' in which their focal points are most ideal, and within that narrow range, images have the least amount of noise. So in a 50-200mm zoom lens, that 'sweet spot' is likely somewhere between 100mm and 150mm. Additionaly, zoom lenses typically don't have aperture openinngs are large as fixed lenses, unless you get into really expensive glass. My 18-55mm zoom lens opens up to f3.5, while my 50mm fixed lens goes all the way down to f1.8, giving it more flexibility in low-light situations.

I purhcased my D3200 last fall, and the only two lenses I have so far are the 18-55 zoom that came with the kit, and my 50mm primary lens I bought separately. Since the 18-55 doesn't give me that much more range, it is my 50mm that sits on the camera most of the time. I may have to more around & backup more than if I were shooting with my 18-55, but that does force me to think more about the picutre composition as well - which is a good thing in my book!

-Z-man.

[masraum]

Absolutely, fast glass is awesome, and when you start wanting fast zooms, it's very expensive. The "Nifty 50" which at least in the Canon world is the cheapest lens available, but also one of the best WRT image quality is a great lens to have. It was the first lens that I bought when I got my first DSLR (besides the kit lens). For me there are just too many cases where a 50mm just would not do, and I don't see myself buying fast lenses for wide angle (10-20mm), 50mm, 100mm, 200mm and 400mm. For my recent trip, I needed something with a lot of reach, so I bought the Canon 100-400 L lens which is in their pro line. It was more expensive than the camera body, and to get a better, faster prime would have cost 4-7 times what mine cost

Canon 400mm f5.6 L - $1250
Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L - $1500
Canon 400mm f4.0 L - $6300
Canon 400mm f2.8 L - $11000

Sometimes, the zoom is just the right option.

But yes, the 50mm f1.8 is a great lens.

[5String43]

I learned photography, in J-school, on Speed Graphics, of all things, and then Leicas. So yeah, I know how to use a light meter and I know how to use Manual mode on a camera. But these days, with my Canon DSLR, I shoot in Program mode - unless I use the automatic depth-of-field mode, which I find to be very useful. The camera's settings (which I have fiddled to approximate Kodachrome's warmth, or maybe Velvia's), I have found, are almost totally trustworthy. And I like being able to concentrate on composition without having to worry about the technical questions. That said, I do monitor the exposure numbers and very frequently adjust them with the roller atop the camera to get the shutter speed or aperture I think will work best. Call it, perhaps, informed, or controlled, Program mode. I also constantly manipulate the white balance and ISO settings.

To the comment that we're smarter than our cameras: Maybe, but I'm not so sure. I know that working the way I do, I cull, or toss out, about the same percentage of shots as always. But I toss them now for different reasons than in the distant analog past. Very rarely does a shot get culled because it's not in focus or because the exposure isn't right.

As for zooms, man, I love the things. Maybe the good ones still aren't quite as sharp as a fixed-focal-length lens; I suppose that's possible. But the ones I have are pretty darned sharp. My old Canon 28-80 is the sharpest lens I've ever owned, or even worked with. It's just spectacular. But it was spendy, and the prints I make - and yeah, I do aim at printmaking - are never larger than 8.5 x 11. I suppose that if you were to spring for a pro-level large-format printer you might see different results. But doing that opens whole different can of worms and at this late date, I just don't want to go there. I'm very satisfied to make my prints, which I put in plastic sleeves and then in ring binders where I can flip through them, maybe show them to friends, whenever I want to. Works for me. Might not work for everyone.

[masraum]

When I learn something new, I usually like to start with a solid foundation, then go from there. With photography, that didn't happen, so now I'm trying to work my way backwards. I think it's going to make me a better photographer. Once I feel comfy doing things manually, I'll probably go back to semi-auto.

[Scott Douglas]

Steve
Just wanted to say I've enjoyed viewing your macro pics a lot.
Wish I had a macro lens.

[masraum]

Scott, thanks. Believe it or not, it wasn't that expensive a lens, I think $200. It's a Sigma 70-300 APO DG macro. I have it from when I was younger and poorer, and I'm glad that I do because with all of the other money that I spent on my new camera, I'm not ready to spend another $500-1000 to get a better macro lens. I like this one because the camera doesn't have to be 3" from the subject. I think it's minimum focus distance is two or three feet. I've thought about getting some extension tubes to go with my 50mm.

Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro for Nikon
$199

I initially bought it for the 300mm end of things, and figured the macro was just a perk. I did a bunch of research on the 'Net and found that most folks considered it an excellent budget lens with decent image quality and sharpness. Also, the fact that it is apochromatic and uses a few chunks of "special low dispersion glass" which helps with chromatic aberration which enabled me to play around with some very basic astrophotography without having to deal with the blue rings around stars and other CA issues that you get when using non-apochromatic glass.

It's only downside as a macro is that it only magnifies to half-life size, but with the high pixel count of most modern cameras, you can crop shots down to make it seem like more. That probably also gives slightly more depth of field which is nice.