P Mode

[george013]

I gotta disagree again. To say that photography in the four decades spanning 1930s through the 1960s didn't have to be technically excellent doesn't make any sense to me. To say that is to say that a period lasting one-third of the entire history of photography at the time didn't have to be technically excellent. Similarly, that is to say that some of the most famous photographers using Leica cameras, photographers along with HCB who co-founded Magnum and others who became members of Magnum, and the photographers hired by the magazines such as Life with the largest circulations in the world didn't have to produce photographs that were technically excellent. The list of similar statements about photography of the time all over the world goes on and on. In my mind, your assessment is a misleading generalization that doesn't pass the test of viewing vast collections now held in the most famous museums of photography in the world.

The main issue of that article is the advice to think less about the perfect technical creation but more about the artistical and emotional. Not always but in some situations. And I do agree with him in that point. Just a pitty he used the P-mode for that to explain.
In many kind of photography the moment is making the picture. And that is made with your finger on the right button. A reason why we still watch the D-day pictures of Robert Capa. And HCB wrote his book "the decisive moment"

One mor quote from that article. The finishing of that article.

Ultimately whether you decide to shoot fully-automatic, in P mode, aperture-priority, or fully-manual is a personal decision. Every genre of photography is different.

But my statement is don’t blindly listen to people who tell you that you “need” to shoot fully-manual to be a “legit” photographer. After all, who ever goes to a photography exhibition and ask the artist, “What aperture and shutter speed did you shoot this photograph?”

George

[Rebel]

As has been said, it depends on the situation.

I used to shoot in Aperture or Manual mode when I was doing landscapes.

I'm switching between P and Aperture mode now when doing street photography with auto ISO as everything happens so fast.

[george013]

As has been said, it depends on the situation.

I used to shoot in Aperture or Manual mode when I was doing landscapes.

I'm switching between P and Aperture mode now when doing street photography with auto ISO as everything happens so fast.

First I want to say I don't care what mode you're using. Whatever mode you use will work with the same result.

I'm just curious what makes you decide to use P or A?

George

[Rebel]

First I want to say I don't care what mode you're using. Whatever mode you use will work with the same result.

I'm just curious what makes you decide to use P or A?

George

Hi George,

I am still experimenting with both to find which one is best for me.

With P mode the camera sometimes sets too wide an aperture resulting in too much of the image being out of focus.

Thats why at the moment I'm in aperture mode and my camera allows me to set a minimum shutter speed and a maximum ISO. This combination is working well at the moment so its probably the one I will be sticking with.

[george013]

Hi George,

I am still experimenting with both to find which one is best for me.

With P mode the camera sometimes sets too wide an aperture resulting in too much of the image being out of focus.

Thats why at the moment I'm in aperture mode and my camera allows me to set a minimum shutter speed and a maximum ISO. This combination is working well at the moment so its probably the one I will be sticking with.

With P the settings will always be a surprise. I can't believe a serious photographer can except that.
What is easier as just setting an aperture. If the shutterspeed is ok, than you can concentrate on the shooting itself.

This afternoon I was shooting on a fare and there I used M and prefocussing. M only to disconnect the lightmeter and the camera,. I hope I expressed myself good.

George

[Rebel]

With P the settings will always be a surprise. I can't believe a serious photographer can except that.
What is easier as just setting an aperture. If the shutterspeed is ok, than you can concentrate on the shooting itself.

This afternoon I was shooting on a fare and there I used M and prefocussing. M only to disconnect the lightmeter and the camera,. I hope I expressed myself good.

George

The argument is that in P mode you can concentrate on the actual framing/composition/image and let the camera take care of the settings.

I think its a valid argument, especially for street photography.

I wouldn't dream of using it for landscapes or portraiture obviously.

[george013]

From my former post.

With P the settings will always be a surprise. I can't believe a serious photographer can except that.
What is easier as just setting an aperture. If the shutterspeed is ok, than you can concentrate on the shooting itself.

When you think about it rational, the A or S mode gives you the maximum possibility to concentrate on your framing.

George

[Manfred M]

As has been said, it depends on the situation.

I used to shoot in Aperture or Manual mode when I was doing landscapes.

I'm switching between P and Aperture mode now when doing street photography with auto ISO as everything happens so fast.

I know at least one commercial photographer who does most of his street photography using shutter priority. As rule he sets his camera to 1/500th sec and lets the camera worry about aperture and ISO.

[Rebel]

I know at least one commercial photographer who does most of his street photography using shutter priority. As rule he sets his camera to 1/500th sec and lets the camera worry about aperture and ISO.

Thats interesting, I might give that a try over the weekend.

It will be interesting to compare results.

[Manfred M]

I gotta disagree again. To say that photography in the four decades spanning 1930s through the 1960s didn't have to be technically excellent doesn't make any sense to me. To say that is to say that a period lasting one-third of the entire history of photography at the time didn't have to be technically excellent. Similarly, that is to say that some of the most famous photographers using Leica cameras, photographers along with HCB who co-founded Magnum and others who became members of Magnum, and the photographers hired by the magazines such as Life with the largest circulations in the world didn't have to produce photographs that were technically excellent. The list of similar statements about photography of the time all over the world goes on and on. In my mind, your assessment is a misleading generalization that doesn't pass the test of viewing vast collections now held in the most famous museums of photography in the world.

I quite agree with you here Mike. Look at the classic images pulled off by Ansel Adams with his landscapes, Edward Weston with his still life / product shots and Yousef Karsh and his portraits, in addition to the work done by the likes of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Arthur Fellig (better known as WeeGee) and Erich Salomon. While I would suggest that some of their work might not be "technically perfect", especially in the case of Cartier-Bresson, Salomon or WeeGee, the other three created stunning images that are technically excellent.

Part of the reason for the technical excellence of Weston, Adams and Karsh is clearly due to their use of large format cameras. Much of WeeGee's work was with the large format SpeedGraphic 4x5. These images needed little or no enlargement, so minor technical issues would not show up. Cartier-Bresson with his 35mm Leica and Erich Salomon with his 4.5 x 6 cm Ermanox were definitely at a disadvantage here and we can see the disadvantage of the small format in some of their images.