I am going back to RAW & manual.

[MrB]

...the manufacturers have invested an awful lot of money in R & D to help us get the pictures we want in the easiest possible way. So it's a bit stupid not to make use of all that investment and technology and use the semi-auto modes that still allow the photographer control of the shot...

...and yet, whenever I summon the courage to admit to setting up my camera options to make use of the in-built software technology, optimised by those R&D technicians to give me a high quality JPEG that is close to the image I want, which then I can tweak in PC software (often using quite selective adjustments) with, in my viewing of my final image, no discernible loss of quality, there are always comments from some of those who shoot raw only stating, either directly or by implication, that I must be stupid/I do not care about my images/I cannot be a serious photographer for not shooting in raw.

...so I don't admit to shooting JPEG most of the time (but I do admit to paying attention to the histograms).

Cheers.
Philip

[tao2]

Ignoring the environmental impact of pouring the expended chemicals and metals (silver) from processing down into the sewer system. It's been a while, but I seem to remember the bleach / fix (blix) step chemistry included potassium dichromate, which is really nasty from an environmental standpoint.

ah did say...

Develop in caffenol

Caffenol consists of...

instant coffee
ascorbic acid (vitamin C)
water-free sodium carbonate (washing soda) - planet threatening?

https://www.flickr.com/groups/33051635@N00/

and, of course, raw is the nouveau negative...

[DanK]

But they were not my shots. so I am back to manual and RAW. The shots won't be as consistent, possibly not even as good, but they will be mine.

Brian, my reaction was: good for you! The issue should be whether you can get what YOU want, not whether you can match the results of a processing algorithm someone else wrote.

I had a thought about this, in the light of another post you posted recently about trying to refine your work flow. The work flow you listed was long and complicated, with at least two and maybe three different pieces of software. I had a thought and didn't post it because I thought I might be completely off the mark about what you are doing. I'll post it now, trusting that you will pardon me if I am guessing wrong about what you are doing.

I got the impression that you were trying to figure out workflow that you could apply, with some tweaking, all the time. If so, I think you are making things harder for yourself and going about things, well, not backwards, but maybe sideways. I certainly have things I almost always do, e.g., changing tonality in various ways and sharpening. However, I have been trying NOT to develop too set a procedure. Instead, I look at the first rendering of the raw file--always in Lightroom for me--and ask myself: what do I really want to this to look like? And given that, what tools do I need--from the rather meager arsenal of my mediocre postprocessing?

The result is that I use very different workflows for different things. Often, I can't get things just as I want, but sometimes I come close enough to be satisfied. I never know whether it looks like one of the Canon jpeg picture styles because I virtually never take any jpegs. Gave it up years ago.

Re the manual mode question: what I tell people learning photography and trying to figure out what mode they should use is that they are putting the cart before the horse. The essential thing is learning what settings you want for a given set of images and recognizing that you have to take control to make the camera use those settings. The modes are just different tools for getting there, and as long as you aim for the settings you need, it make sense to me to use whatever mode gets you there most easily. I don't keep track, but I probably use M and Av most, with fixed ISO, but sometimes use Tv or M with auto ISO. Whatever best compensates for my klutziness in getting the settings I want is fine with me.

[Manfred M]

I'll probably never understand the discussion about shooting M or not. The only thing you do in M is disabling the "dictatorship" of the lightmeter. But if you follow the lightmeter it's still there.

Exactly my point, George. The "dictatorship of the lightmeter", as you put it, can be handled in one of two ways. Shooting on manual is one way and using Exposure Compensation (EC) is the other. Some might argue that setting aperture or shutter speed manually is easier, as you only have to adjust one dial, whereas with you have to hold the EC button down at the same time as turning the wheel (not overly difficult, in my experience).

With both these techniques, we are looking to obtain a "correct exposure". In my view, getting correct exposure is actually slightly different is shooting SOOC jpeg versus raw. In a SOOC jpeg, say we are shooting a snowscape or bird in flight, we would add positive EC to lighten up the scene, whereas in a night scene we would apply negative EC to darken up the scene. In other words, we are looking for a constrained dynamic range so that the image comes out looking properly exposed.

In raw work, we are looking to maximize the data we collect and are a little less concerned about the overall accuracy if the exposure coming SOOC, as we plan to correct this in post. As long as we do not clip either the highlights or shadows, we are good. When we employ a technique like Expose-to-the-Right (ETTR) we are deliberately overexposing the image to ensure that the data captured lies in a region where digital noise is mitigated.

The problem when shooting on manual, it is quite possible to totally screw up the exposure, whereas with EC, we usually tend to be in the ±2 stop range and can generally save the image.

[Manfred M]

ah did say...



Caffenol consists of...

instant coffee
ascorbic acid (vitamin C)
water-free sodium carbonate (washing soda) - planet threatening?

https://www.flickr.com/groups/33051635@N00/

and, of course, raw is the nouveau negative...

Which might work for B&W but certainly not for colour; and being primarily a colour shooter, if I go back to film I'd be using the nasty stuff again. But then, even when shooting B&W, you still have to fix the negatives with some form of sodium thiosulphate and throw the silver into the environment.

[Manfred M]

But they were not my shots.

Brian - I guess that is a part of the statement that I don't understand. If they are not your shots, whose were they then?

I don't know your camera, but in mine, I can nicely customize how the jpegs come out. I can adjust staturation, hue, exposure In fact many of the parameters that you set in Sony Express can be set in camera. Some of these are single presets while others involve setting points on graphs or making more complex adjustments. Even in default mode when you first turn on the camera, these presets are there and by doing nothing, you have effectively "agreed" to shoot that way.

I fully agree that people should know how to shoot on manual, as there are times where no other technique will work as well (Dan and I (and others) have mentioned a few of them, but frankly the type of shooting you do does not benefit from. On the other hand, you have also told us that your MS does affect your vision and other muscle actions (or lack of them) that makes it more difficult get a good shot. If I were in your position, I would concentrate on using all that fancy engineering Sony did on your camera (and you paid for) to help me get the right exposure.

[xpatUSA]

Hi one and all,

. . . I am back to manual and RAW. The shots won't be as consistent, possibly not even as good, but they will be mine.
Brian

Welcome back to the club, Brian!

Take no notice of they who can not understand why

However, I've been lately buying lenses with optical stabilization (another form of the equipment doing everything for you) as my old hands get shakier with time; also using the tripod more (another artificial aid) . . . bloody nuisance though it is . . . .

[JBW]

Hi one and all,

For the past week or so I have been experimenting with my cameras settings. I must admit that the auto settings available with JPEG allowed me to shoot some nice shots.

But they were not my shots. so I am back to manual and RAW. The shots won't be as consistent, possibly not even as good, but they will be mine.
Brian

Okay let me try to explain. My first motorcycle was a Honda 90 cc. It was the only stock motorcycle i ever owned and i have owned a hait number. Sometimes they ended up full blown 'choppers', other times they just had some minor mods. I just liked to ride something unique.

Same deal with photography. I like to have creative control. I started with the Fujifilm and shot 15,000 or so shots on Aperture priority. I enjoyed it... a lot. When I got the Sony I had the option of continuing in Aperture priority or exploring the camera's potential. I chose to explore.

RAW was part of the exploration and I decided that I might as well learn something about shooting in manual as well.

I like the creative potential in RAW and manual.

I don't always do it so well but when i muck up it was my choices that mucked it up.

I am not saying it is the best way or the only real way but it is the way I enjoy.

I realize that JPEG on full auto can and does create a unique shot that can and often will be better than what i turn out but that's not the point.

The point for me is to make my own choices as much as I can.

B.

[xpatUSA]

In raw work, we are [. . .] a little less concerned about the overall accuracy if the exposure [is] coming SOOC, as we plan to correct this in post.

I exclude myself from that general "we", Manfred. As a Sigma raw shooter, I concern myself greatly with "the exposure" which, for me, means a first step of reviewing the raw histogram in RawDigger. That is where I look at, especially, the highlights as they relate to the scene and decide the unacceptable shots as they relate to under/over exposure.

Some might find that a little extreme but Sigmas are not exactly dripping with dynamic range, unfortunately, which makes us work much harder than Canonistas for our masterpieces

As long as we do not clip either the highlights or shadows, we are good.

Arguable. Some scenes can call for such clipping, I reckon. Product shot backgrounds or sunsets, for example. Or, when it is unavoidable - shiny motor cycle chrome in sunlight or flash, for example.

When we employ a technique like Expose-to-the-Right (ETTR) we are deliberately overexposing the image to ensure that the data captured lies in a region where digital noise is mitigated.

Based on my foregoing, overexposure as seen in a raw histogram is, to me, unrecoverable, unacceptable and is rarely done deliberately. It is of course quite possible that "overexposing" means something different to your good self than it does to me.

The problem when shooting on manual, it is quite possible to totally screw up the exposure, whereas with EC, we usually tend to be in the ±2 stop range and can generally save the image.

Please excuse me if I don't join the EC crowd. With Sigmas, EC stays in place until you change it and I forget it quite easily.

Being accustomed to manual shooting, I do screw up less often - but lately I've taken to five-shot bracketing important shots (rather than taking five separate shots manually).

(Bracketing in Sigmas is available in Manual mode, where it varies the shutter speed only.)

Drifting off a little, I also shoot only at ISO 160 on the SD1 Merrill because a) that is closest to ISO's saturation-based method giving a 1/2-stop headroom in their standard scene and because b) the SD1 Merrill is ISO-less, which means that the raw data always matches the actual exposure - irrespective of the ISO setting, because there is no ISO in-camera amplification. No so-called "exposure triangle" for me

Pardon my pedantry.

[george013]

Okay let me try to explain. My first motorcycle was a Honda 90 cc. It was the only stock motorcycle i ever owned and i have owned a hait number. Sometimes they ended up full blown 'choppers', other times they just had some minor mods. I just liked to ride something unique.

Same deal with photography. I like to have creative control. I started with the Fujifilm and shot 15,000 or so shots on Aperture priority. I enjoyed it... a lot. When I got the Sony I had the option of continuing in Aperture priority or exploring the camera's potential. I chose to explore.

RAW was part of the exploration and I decided that I might as well learn something about shooting in manual as well.

I like the creative potential in RAW and manual.

I don't always do it so well but when i muck up it was my choices that mucked it up.

I am not saying it is the best way or the only real way but it is the way I enjoy.

I realize that JPEG on full auto can and does create a unique shot that can and often will be better than what i turn out but that's not the point.

The point for me is to make my own choices as much as I can.

B.

Brian,

There's no more creative potential in RAW or manual as is in JPG or half-automat. Forget about the full automat.

The JPG is created out of the RAW in the camera. The half-automat, S or A mode, is doing exactly the same as when you shoot manual. You choose 1 parameter and adjust the other.

The advance of RAW is that it's better suited for PP.
The advance of JPG is that you've directly an image you can send to somebody or whatever.
These are technical aspects. The creative aspect is in your head and hart.

George

[NorthernFocus]

... I started there and got so used to it that I've stayed there. If I switch into Aperture or Shutter Priority modes, I have to do a lot of thinking about what I'm doing, rather than concentrating solely on the composition. No doubt, if I went in to these modes and stayed there, I would get equally used to them and be able to operate the camera in that same, almost unconscious, way.

The other point that we noted yesterday in our discussion is the fact that the manufacturers have invested an awful lot of money in R & D to help us get the pictures we want in the easiest possible way. So it's a bit stupid not to make use of all that investment and technology and use the semi-auto modes that still allow the photographer control of the shot.

But like I say, it's where I started and I just got comfortable there.

Thanks for saving me a bunch of typing, Donald. I can just say ditto.

I rarely go out and shoot just for practice. And when on a serious shoot or when presented with a great opportunity it's not the best time to be trying something that you aren't used to. This past season I shot mostly mammals and did make a concerted effort to use the camera's functions more. But when the action heats up and there isn't a lot of time to think I still flop back to fully manual mode. Another complicating factor is that Nikon moves the EC button around on different camera bodies whereas aperture and shutter controls are consistent.

When this type of discussion arises on CIC, it is somewhat appalling for such an international community to be so closed minded. After all shouldn't we all seek to understand one another? And respect diverse views on any given topic? OK, so maybe I'm not the sharpest knife in the CIC forum drawer. And yes I shoot in manual mode. And no doubt my work suffers for it. But please have some compassion and understand for those of us who are doing the best we can and just trying to get by. After all, there are few situations in life which make me seriously consider self inflicted life threatening injury. But one of them is fumbling around with camera controls while a "shot of a lifetime" event is taking place. So for most of you this is just a hobby but for me it can actually be a matter of life or death. Who are you to judge?

[tao2]

And here we have the classic dichotomy that is modern photography.

One camp goes out with the intention of capturing that "classic moment in time". Tae be true tae the image in front of them and trying tae capture that image...as it is/was.

The other camp goes out tae capture an image that they want tae take home and process as they want tae see it ...and not as it is/was.

They both have a validity but whilst both camps are able tae appreciate the images from these opposing views - it is axiomatic that they will never agree that either is right or wrong. And... that's OK.

PS

Manfred...sodium thiosulphate? an extremely useful compound (outside of photography). Used in treatments for kidney disease, chemotherapy, a huge number of other uses. It dissolves in water.

And of course the undeveloped silver salts are dissolved by....sodium thiosulphate...

[pnodrog]

Pretty simple really. In any of the auto modes you need to set EC for the exposure offset between the subject and expected metering and provided this remains relatively constant over the shots being taken just let the metering set the individual exposures required.

In manual mode you effectively make this exposure adjustment with every shot taken and it provides the quickest solution when the offset between the subject and expected metering is not constant.

In either case the photographer has to determine the exposure correction required. When teaching photography I think the tutors "promote" the M mode because it makes the student think about the exposure requirements of every shot. Not because "M" is a better method. The best method depends both on shooting conditions/subject and the photographers preference.

[rpcrowe]

I think the tutors "promote" the M mode because it makes the student think about the exposure requirements of every shot. Not because "M" is a better method. The best method depends both on shooting conditions/subject and the photographers preference.

IMO, the ABSOLUTE BEST METHOD is the method that produces the best image.

The mark of professionalism is the final image result, not the method used to attain that result.

I can think about the exposure requirements of every shot whether I shoot in P, Av or Tv. I do realize that my background in totally manual photography has given me a basis but, I don't need to shoot in manual to consider exposure. The only modes that I never use are the two fully auto modes on my Canon 7D.

I do shoot at times in manual, especially when shooting with studio strobes or when shooting night shots. However, whenever I stop shooting (despite shooting in M, Av or Tv) I will change the shooting parameters of my cameas to the P mode. In fact, I have my custom mode C1 set up for ISO 400 and Programmed exposure along with AEB and burst mode. I switch the camera to this setting whenever I stop shooting because, if I have to pick up the camera and shoot something quickly, I am most likely able to get a well exposed and sharp image with these parameters.

If I have the time, I will switch the parameters but, the C1 custom mode is a safety net...

[MrB]

...I don't know your camera, but in mine, I can nicely customize how the JPEGs come out. I can adjust saturation, hue, exposure In fact many of the parameters that you set in Sony Express can be set in camera. Some of these are single presets while others involve setting points on graphs or making more complex adjustments. Even in default mode when you first turn on the camera, these presets are there and by doing nothing, you have effectively "agreed" to shoot that way.

Exactly right.

And I wish some people would stop perpetuating the myth that the JPEGs that I decide to record in my camera, by setting the parameters how I choose to give me an image close to what I want (and often then fine-tune in PP), are not my creativity but the work of a lab technician in Japan or wherever, because that myth is obviously utter nonsense.

Happy photography to you all - however you choose to do it.

Cheers.
Philip

[pnodrog]

Exactly right.

And I wish some people would stop perpetuating the myth that the JPEGs that I decide to record in my camera, by setting the parameters how I choose to give me an image close to what I want (and often then fine-tune in PP), are not my creativity but the work of a lab technician in Japan or wherever, because that myth is obviously utter nonsense.

Happy photography to you all - however you choose to do it.

Cheers.
Philip

We know photographers are not creative at all. The sensor has not been designed by you, neither has the shutter control, exposure metering, focus control, RAW to image conversion, PP software design etc etc. In fact there has been such a massive input by technicians all over the place including research at numerous universities and manufactures that you should be thoroughly ashamed if you make any claim at all regarding any creativity for a photo you have taken.....


Photographers are merely tools in the camera's hands.

[Manfred M]

I exclude myself from that general "we", Manfred. As a Sigma raw shooter, I concern myself greatly with "the exposure" which, for me, means a first step of reviewing the raw histogram in RawDigger. That is where I look at, especially, the highlights as they relate to the scene and decide the unacceptable shots as they relate to under/over exposure.

Some might find that a little extreme but Sigmas are not exactly dripping with dynamic range, unfortunately, which makes us work much harder than Canonistas for our masterpieces



Arguable. Some scenes can call for such clipping, I reckon. Product shot backgrounds or sunsets, for example. Or, when it is unavoidable - shiny motor cycle chrome in sunlight or flash, for example.



Based on my foregoing, overexposure as seen in a raw histogram is, to me, unrecoverable, unacceptable and is rarely done deliberately. It is of course quite possible that "overexposing" means something different to your good self than it does to me.



Please excuse me if I don't join the EC crowd. With Sigmas, EC stays in place until you change it and I forget it quite easily.

Being accustomed to manual shooting, I do screw up less often - but lately I've taken to five-shot bracketing important shots (rather than taking five separate shots manually).

(Bracketing in Sigmas is available in Manual mode, where it varies the shutter speed only.)

Drifting off a little, I also shoot only at ISO 160 on the SD1 Merrill because a) that is closest to ISO's saturation-based method giving a 1/2-stop headroom in their standard scene and because b) the SD1 Merrill is ISO-less, which means that the raw data always matches the actual exposure - irrespective of the ISO setting, because there is no ISO in-camera amplification. No so-called "exposure triangle" for me

Pardon my pedantry.

Ted - I shot on manual for years - through the 1970s for sure, because that what cameras did back then. I never needed a handheld reflective meter because all of my cameras had a built in light meter, so I effectively grew up using match the needle. No big deal. My next camera (the one I used right up to going digital) had aperture priority automation only so for the 20% of the shots that I do where selecting shutter speed was the driver, I continued to shoot manual right into 2010. No big deal. The only point I was trying to make, and this was really addressed at Brian, was the same as George's point - FROM AN IMAGE CAPTURE POINT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN CREATIVE POTENTIAL OF USING EITHER SHUTTER PRIORITY OR APERTURE PRIORITY VERSUS FULLY MANUAL. Brian tells us that his MS is one of the main reasons he has inconsistent results, so it makes no sense to me not to use the automation potential in his camera to help work around his disability.

I totally agree that there are instances where highlight clipping is unavoidable; specular highlights and shooting directly into a bright light source, but not really relevant to what i was writing.

The ETTR discussion was part of a view as to how someone who was shooting SOOC jpeg would look at over and under exposure differently than someone shooting raw. An ETTR image would look overexposed in a SOOC jpeg. I can't really see how someone would shoot ETTR in an scene that included specular highlights or a bright light source, as the histogram is already as far to the right as it can be.

With respect to EC staying in place until it is turned off, every camera that I have ever owned worked that way as well. forgetting to turn it off is no different than forgetting to turn off exposure bracketing, burst mode, self-timer mode or a host of other features that are set in camera. I generally turn these types of features off right after shooting, but do screw up occasionally. That's why I look at my histogram after taking my first shot or two; that way I usually catch my screw ups fairly quickly.

[Manfred M]

We know photographers are not creative at all. The sensor has not been designed by you, neither has the shutter control, exposure metering, focus control, RAW to image conversion, PP software design etc etc. In fact there has been such a massive input by technicians all over the place including research at numerous universities and manufactures that you should be thoroughly ashamed if you make any claim at all regarding any creativity for a photo you have taken.....


Photographers are merely tools in the camera's hands.

Frankly that was no different in the film days. Each different film and photographic paper had different characteristics and we selected those materials as they let us influence the "look" of our work. In B&W work, choice of developers had an influence as well. Pushing the film or cross-processing (developing the film in a chemistry made for a different product; for instance running Agfacolor or FujiColor film through Kodak chemistry) were two non-mainstream approaches, but frankly we no real control as the the laws of chemistry and physics were still determining the final results.

The tools we select, influence the outcome.

[Manfred M]

IMO, the ABSOLUTE BEST METHOD is the method that produces the best image.

The mark of professionalism is the final image result, not the method used to attain that result.

Well said Richard! The only thing that may vary is the "best method", which might be different for different photographers and even more so, might depend on the equipment available at the time.

[Manfred M]

When this type of discussion arises on CIC, it is somewhat appalling for such an international community to be so closed minded. After all shouldn't we all seek to understand one another? And respect diverse views on any given topic? OK, so maybe I'm not the sharpest knife in the CIC forum drawer. And yes I shoot in manual mode. And no doubt my work suffers for it. But please have some compassion and understand for those of us who are doing the best we can and just trying to get by. After all, there are few situations in life which make me seriously consider self inflicted life threatening injury. But one of them is fumbling around with camera controls while a "shot of a lifetime" event is taking place. So for most of you this is just a hobby but for me it can actually be a matter of life or death. Who are you to judge?

Dan most of the comments I have read here have little to do with judging but a lot to do with the following statement that Brian made:

For the past week or so I have been experimenting with my cameras settings. I must admit that the auto settings available with JPEG allowed me to shoot some nice shots.

But they were not my shots. so I am back to manual and RAW. The shots won't be as consistent, possibly not even as good, but they will be mine.

There is nothing mystical or inherently better about shooting in manual mode. It is a technique that both you and I use because it results in better pictures than the other options we have available to us. To suggest jpeg images are somehow inferior because in-camera processing was involved rather using manual "canned" routines in PP software strikes me as off the mark. Virtually every image we look at on this site is a jpeg, so they must be good for something.

Finally for someone to switch back to a technique that he knows gives him inferior results has me really scratching my head. I have no issues in saying, I know I will have inferior while I master this technique, but ultimately expect to use it because I will get superior results. That makes sense and I can understand. Going back to manual for the reasons Brian gives, I can't quite wrap my head around.