EOS 90D Auto vs Manual Exposure

[Ramsden]

Hi Folks

I've been quiet for a while - working with my EOS 90D as a keen learner. A month ago I was in London at St Pancras Railway Station, indulging in one of my favourite topics. At the time, I was perseveering with M and Raw - then this other photographer approached me for a chat. Cut a long story short, he takes up to 600 photos on his days out and just clicks away, then edits back home. He said I shouldnt be fiddling around with M on days like this - its ok for the studio.

He gave me his card and he has a professional website! 

I like trying to work out compositions with M - and feel Auto is a cop out - but I could see his point as we spent an hour together and he was everywhere, clicking away while I worked out settings. ( I'm still learning, and its fun)

Ramsden

[Waddizzle]

Look at it this way.  You are using a film camera loaded with ASA 100 film.  You calculate your settings based on the film speed.

You need to change to a new roll of film, one which is ASA 400.  You must now adjust your exposure (Av and Tv) settings to compensate for the change in film speed.

[LeeP]

I do RAW + jpeg and because I'm an SOOC advocate, I rarely go to a RAW and start editing. I don't believe that files that have been Frankensteined to death with Photoshop or Lightroom are photographs. They are images, but the Frankensteining feels disingenuous to me, but I'm a weirdo in that sense. I'm OK with my bias and I'm OK with the Frankensteiners doing their thing. Live and let live.

[rs-eos]

In terms of RAW, always capture RAW if you can. Personally, I capture RAW+JPEG (and often to both cards) to have the best of both worlds and to have redundancy prior to when the images are backed up.

There are situations though where you may need to only capture RAW or only JPEG (e.g. you require high frame rate capture and want to maximize what can be captured with the existing buffer).

[justadude]

"I do RAW + jpeg and because I'm an SOOC advocate, I rarely go to a RAW and start editing. I don't believe that files that have been Frankensteined to death with Photoshop or Lightroom are photographs."

I know others that do the same with zero edits for the most part, and I like your outlook on live and let live.  I also agree with you that many folks really over do it with editing, and at this point they are images, not photos.  Someone was arguing with me recently (well, debating) because I said if you use a tool to remove a garbage can, and a bit of litter off of a street scene, it's now an AI image since that isn't what the camera captured... It's no longer a photo.  I'll even change an invoice line for a client and call it "AI Art" instead of a "Photograph".  Personally, I only do that for clients needing this or that to be done to an image.

But I'm drifting from my question... I am simply curious, on your thoughts, Lee.  Most of us that edit do so with a light touch.  Take a RAW photo, adjust the white and black points, balance the color to look like as we saw it, and maybe add a touch of sharpness when needed.  So in your opinion, are light edits like this still a photograph?  Or do you feel it is an image?

The reason I am asking is because there is such a debate these days on where you cross the line from Photograph into Artwork, so I've been asking a lot of fellow photographers their opinion.  

[ebiggs1]

"...the EOS90D has a lot to offer,..."

Yes it does and sometimes the camera is smarter than you think it is.

"But I’m a control freak, ..."

Then you are a perfect candidate for learning Photoshop. PS is where you have way, way more control over your photos then you do in-camera.

"Understanding Composition -" And it is the most important 'camera setting'!

I also teach music to kids and I always tell them to let the manin most important thing be the main most important thing. And photography isn't any different and falls under the same statement to,  "Let the manin most important thing be the main most important thing."

[ebiggs1]

"You are contradicting yourself." Yes he is!

There is no difference between ASA and ISO in the context of photography. They are both used interchangeably to describe a film's or sensor's sensitivity to light. The reference to 100 ISO in the light meter's specs is the sensitivity range of the light meter not that it is the only useable ISO.

[LeeP]

To answer your question, I think light edits are still photography.

As for what to call it if you edit to remove trash etc., I'd call it a photograph.

But I am no one's compass.

I haven't been elected king of everything yet, so until such time I will respect well-considered perspectives even if they differ from mine.

I'm a firm believer in to each his own, "you" do "you" and I'll do me, high 5 to "you".

For me when someone stitches together multiple images and pretends they shot that or uses software to undo something that they failed to see during composition that I get testy. Trash on a street isn't a composition thing; you're stuck with it if it's there, so edit it out if you choose. That kind of editing doesn't bother me. 

But I'm neither right nor wrong. It isn't my job to force my biases on others. In fact, a local photographer I respect tremendously is a "stitcher" that is adept at composition and exposure.

Photography must be first and foremost enjoyable. I've been a working photographer for nearly 5 decades and have taught it. What I have learned is that everyone has a path. If I can make my students enjoy photography, they will continue to dig deeper. 

When I teach photography I do not mention exposure triangle and all the arcane minutiae that people throw out to show how much "they" know and "you" don't. I despise the "I know more than you do" attitude because it's an anathema to teaching and coaching.

I like the tone here in this forum of people who know more than someone else using their expertise genuinely to help someone. That's the best use of greater understanding i.e. to meet someone where they are and help them Socratically (listen to understand first and then provide the "just right" amount of support to help the person grow).

Composition, not exposure, comes first. Teaching "perfect" exposure and thinking you've done a "thing", but ignoring composition, produces perfectly exposed mediocre pictures. I would argue that because some have not learned good composition that they have to Frankenstein their images.

Conversely, excellent composition forgives exposure flubs. Now bookend that with just how astoundingly good cameras are today for nailing exposure, and teaching exposure first makes photography a chore rather than a joy.

In the end, get out there and enjoy your path as a photographer doing it the way that "doing it" works for you.

[LeeP]

"There is no difference between ASA and ISO in the context of photography. "

100% correct

ASA and DIN are outdated terms used to quantify film speed. ASA stands for American Standards Association, and DIN stands for Deutsches Institut für Normung AKA German Standards Institute.

A zillion years ago the ASA number was maintained but "ASA" and "DIN" went away in favor of "ISO" (International Standards Organization).

[Ramsden]

Thanks Lee and all the other contributors,

This has been a great thread, far better than I expected. And I have genuinely learnt a lot reading the comments. I will now use P and also be more flexible in my use of the camera - rather than striving to be a  - M, Raw - guy ( which I haven’t been too good at). But the thing I’m taking away, is that my camera has a lot to offer, and I’m not being lazy using all of the options available. Indeed, I’ve probably been silly not using all the features up to now.

Ramsden

[LeeP]

Never feel silly. Instead see such moments as "A-ha!" moments where you learn and go deeper. Shoot and enjoy!