Is Manual mode on Digital cheating ?

[myotis]

The person at Nikon who came up with the idea of 'highlight weighted metering' deserves a big hug. It's quite possibly the best thing since deep fried Mars bars.

It is indeed, but it's also a bit of a mystery as to what it does as its meant to analyse both the luminosity and colour characteristics of the scene. But it's great to have it available at a press of a button.

 

[Adamcski]

I'll be honest and state I find the live view on the camera a life saver. As I'm still learning what works where and in what conditions, I find it really helpful to have something to look at that shows me how changing X impacts on the scene.

I'm still not 100% sure on this focus peaking thing that has blue edges on the screen when using manual focus, but I will get there in the end (I hope lol).

 

[SFTPhotography]

OK, I'll join in.

I don't see how it's possible to select a "proper" or "optimal" exposure by looking at the EVF or rear screen.

The image you see is based on a "processed" raw image i.e. what the JPEG will look like. A correctly exposed JPEG is an underexposed raw.

You eyes adjust to ambient lighting conditions, and you can adjust the brightness of the EVF of rear screen so how can you accurately assess exposure by looking at the EVF/rear screen.

I think it's a great feature to immediately see grossly wrong exposures, but not for assessing whether you are at the "correct" exposure.

As for the subsequent discussion on "manual" mode. I think of manual as being where the photographer consciously selects shutter speed, aperture and ISO. I don't think it matters whether you get help from a built in, or hand held meter, blinkies, or a histogram. None of these things force you to use a specific setting without you actively interpreting what the tool is telling you, and you actively selecting the settings.

Many people probably use semi-manual exposure. e.g. I often use auto-iso with manually selected shutter and apertures (bird photographs). I try to predict the aperture and shutter speed I will want, but I also keep an eye on the auto ISO in the viewfinder and adjust the shutter speed or aperture to indirectly adjust the ISO.

I also rarely take a picture without a tweak on the exposure compensation dial (which also adjusts the ISO), and I have a function key set to temporarily activate nikons, rather clever, highlight recovery metering, which can be instantly hit to avoid blowing out highlights e.g. when you have a white bird fly against a dark background.

So I have an auto exposure approach which still lets me feel in full "manual" control, except for grab shots I don't have time to think about. On those occasions, I am grateful for the auto-exposure features.

On your final point, I still use handheld spot meters to read light levels (for landscapes), so I kind of also do what your last sentence says, I take several light readings across the scene, decide on the optimal shutter speed and aperture for the scene and set those on the camera while ignoring what the camera meter says, or what the live view looks like. I obviously don't use auto-iso, or exposure compensation or highlight metering in this instance.

Yes - the correctly exposed JPEG is usually means there's one more click (ie 3rd stop) within the raw more exposure available to you.

 

[myotis]

Yes - the correctly exposed JPEG is usually means there's one more click (ie 3rd stop) within the raw more exposure available to you.

And it also depends on what kind of JPEG processing you have asked the camera to do

 

[SFTPhotography]

And it also depends on what kind of JPEG processing you have asked the camera to do

I disable all that stuff, raw only, all picture controls standard etc so what i see is as close to the raw as it can be.

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

The person at Nikon who came up with the idea of 'highlight weighted metering' deserves a big hug. It's quite possibly the best thing since deep fried Mars bars.

Sounds like a good idea

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

I read some where that ( and I'm not sure how true this is) That some editing suits convert to jpeg for you to tweak the photo rather than actually allowing you to alter the raw file
.Has anyone else come across this ? I only really ever start with a.jpeg ( camera programed to the way I like my .jpegs) as I just hate messing with a PC plus I've not got on with the raw editing software I've come across ( Linux)

 

[sirch]

A raw file cannot be displayed on a screen as an image, it lacks colour space information, so even when viewing on the camera's LCD the raw data is converted to an image format. Hence all editing software has to convert raw files to an image format for editing and display.

 

[myotis]

I read some where that ( and I'm not sure how true this is) That some editing suits convert to jpeg for you to tweak the photo rather than actually allowing you to alter the raw file
.Has anyone else come across this ? I only really ever start with a.jpeg ( camera programed to the way I like my .jpegs) as I just hate messing with a PC plus I've not got on with the raw editing software I've come across ( Linux)

As far as I am aware no editing software allows you to alter the raw file, which is a "data" file rather than a "picture" file. All editing software needs to convert the raw data file into something you can see as a picture preview e.g. a Jpeg (but it could also be a proprietary file format).

What you actually see on screen depends on the instruction set (profile) that the raw editor uses to create the preview from the raw. The raw file isn't directly affected and you never see the raw file.

Every time you make an adjustment in the raw editor to the exposure, contrast, colour etc, the instruction set is modified, and a new preview is generated to show the effects of the changes you made. When you are happy with your edits and export as a JPEG, the edits are baked into the JPEG, but you can always go back and start again by re-opening the raw file.

The initial preview you see, when you "open" the raw file uses the raw editors default set of instructions which control what the preview looks like. With some, the editor emulates the profile you chose in the camera, and with others they use their own default profiles and offer a range of alternative profiles

I'm not sure what happens when your original is a JPEG rather than a raw file. With Capture One, everything is treated as an "original", not to be edited, file, so whether it’s a genuine raw file, a jpeg, a tiff or a PSD it still writes and stores any edits as an instruction set and never alters the original.

 

[Tringa]

I know that the end result is the important thing but I've been playing a little with manual mode. By looking at the rear screen or EVF it seems you would have to be a total idiot to get it wrong because it is all displayed in front of you, So is it not the case that Some of the " I only use Manual mode " types are just Hyping themselves up ? ( I'm ducking for cover ) Now I would be more impressed if they looked at the scene first, decided on the settings they were going to use, turn the camera on dial said settings in take an excellent photo ! ( Now digging a Bunker to hide in ) What do you think ?

In some situations, 'yes', and in some 'no'.

For most, if not all. shots at night I will choose the settings I want.

However, anyone who selects 'manual' on their camera and (for a fixed ISO) decides on an aperture but then adjusts the shutter speed to get the '+' or '-' indicator in the viewfinder to be in the middle(ie at 0) is doing what the camera would have done if they had put the camera in 'aperture priority'.

They are times when full manual is they way to go to get what you want, but many times one of the semi-automatic modes or full auto will give you a good photo.

Dave

 

[Nod]

Full manual (ALL parameters - using ANY of the automatic options is NOT full manual!) is the easiest way to get the settings you want but one of the automatic modes is generally easier and often gives better results, especially if you know when to override the camera's choices!

 

[Phil V]

There’s some weird assumptions in this thread.

Starting with the premise in the OP that all people using full manual do it out of a sense of superiority (I appreciate some do, sadly).

Secondly in the OP is the use of ‘digital’ when in fact he’s referring to exposure simulation in live view or using a mirrorless. Not all ‘digital’ cameras even do exp simulation, let alone by default.

Conversely, almost the only times I use full manual (and no it’s not manual if you use auto ISO) is when using flash, and at that point, exposure simulation has to be switched off, cos it becomes a complete hindrance. And whilst I might be in a minority only using Manual when using flash, almost everyone using flash will soon switch to Manual as it’s the only way of ensuring consistency.

As always; there’s no right or wrong way to use a camera, but there definitely are some rules of thumb for an easy life.

 

[stumac]

To play devils advocate, if the camera uses auto ISO in manual, is that truly manual?

No it's not and infact you may as well be in full auto as the iso will try and automatically change to give you the "correct exposure" regardless of F number and S/S . It actually baffles me why anyone would use auto iso in manual mode

 

[myotis]

No it's not and infact you may as well be in full auto as the iso will try and automatically change to give you the "correct exposure" regardless of F number and S/S .

But that is the point. You have full control over the choice of aperture and shutter speed, which is the important bit, while leaving the auto-iso part to change ISO as the lighting changes. Which now a days gives a fairly wide flexibility, while still allowing good quality

It actually baffles me why anyone would use auto iso in manual mode

It's really useful in circumstances like bird photography where you are trying to juggle depth of field and stopping the action in conditions where the light is also changing rapidly. In those circumstances, you want to keep ISO as low as possible but within the constraints of manually chosen optimal aperture and shutter speed.

I discussed it in an earlier post and described it as semi-manual, where I also explained a bit of why/how I use it.

Is Manual mode on Digital cheating ?

I know that the end result is the important thing but I've been playing a little with manual mode. By looking at the rear screen or EVF it seems you would have to be a total idiot to get it wrong because it is all displayed in front of you, So is it not the case that Some of the " I only use...

www.talkphotography.co.uk

 

[Ed Sutton]

It actually baffles me why anyone would use auto iso in manual mode

Because they consider controlling shutter speed and aperture more important than controlling ISO - although if you monitor the ISO you can control that too. It's the way I use my camera 99% of the time.

 

[TimHughes]

No it's not and infact you may as well be in full auto as the iso will try and automatically change to give you the "correct exposure" regardless of F number and S/S . It actually baffles me why anyone would use auto iso in manual mode

It’s extremely useful giving control of shutter speed and aperture, which full auto does not. Combined with adjusting how the auto iso works with +/- exposure based on the scene and the metering mode it saves a lot of time. I’m like @Phil V and normally only use full manual including ISO when using flash.

 

[woof woof]

No it's not and infact you may as well be in full auto as the iso will try and automatically change to give you the "correct exposure" regardless of F number and S/S . It actually baffles me why anyone would use auto iso in manual mode

Here's my use and reasoning.

I normally use aperture priority but when the light level drops the camera may select too slow a shutter speed, for example 1/60, which may be ok for some static shots but may be too slow for people or freezing motion due to any breeze or slight camera shake, so I switch to manual and set the aperture and a suitable shutter speed which may be 1/80, 1/100, 1/160 etc. and I then let auto ISO set the exposure. With a couple of cameras I have I can also dial in exposure compensation whilst in manual mode with auto ISO.

Auto ISO + exposure compensation are IMO very useful.

 

[Petrochemist]

It can be quite rewarding with static subjects to set yourself the challenge of just guessing suitable settings. After all you can always review the image & revise your settings.
In low light conditions this is often exactly what I'll do & I have set myself he challenge of doing it using a single manual only lens over a lunchtime (without chimping).
The woods I've tried it in are near enough that I can return & re-shoot the next day if there's something spectacular that I've badly messed up.

Personally I find the camera metering tends to make night scenes far too bright - I don't usually want them to look like daylight!

However I don't think many people (perhaps some analogue purists?) would consider manual or even any of the semi auto modes to be 'cheating'.
IMO these modes are less cheating than shooting RAW & correcting everything after the shot.

 

[Nod]

It can also be fairly frustrating! Less so these days when you can instantly review an image and reshoot but when you had to wait an hour or 2 (at least) before you got a hint as to how you'd done with the guess, only to find you were way out, it was enough to put some people right off!!!

Raw files are sometimes described as digital negatives, allowing plenty of manipulation as necessary/wanted. Does that mean that JPEGs are digital slides?