most cameras these days feature sophisticated multi point reading sensors for establishing the light falling at various positions on the sensor, these readings are then subjected to a complicated algorithm to establish the correct exposure. So often, we then have to apply exposure correction to get things right. Does this mean multi point exposure readings are a waste of time and, if we need to apply an input, we would be better off taking a basic reading and, using our past experience, decide on the correct exposure for the particular scene?
I think you're pretty much spot on.
For all the algorithms and chips and blah blah blah inside a camera these days, it still doesn't compensate for an ideal exposure. You still have to tell it via preset that you're in the snow, or that you're shooting fireworks etc. For those who are not familiar with this concept of 'ideal' or 'correct' exposure, it's when the image captured falls within the brightness range of the cameras sensor or the film emulsion.
This is what they teach students in basic school. If you are a photographer, than you should know that correct exposure is the amount of exposure necessary to makes the photo look exactly the way you want it to look.
It's exactly what I was taught, and what I've read in every book on the subject. Slide film having ~5-stops range requires the same consideration as a Nikon D810 having ~14 stops range. ie. There is a limit to the capture range and it should be observed.
Nevermind though.. cameras with more and more dynamic range are mostly being used by those who don't know how to meter, or don't care to, and would just rely on the cameras push capability to save their shots.
That is a weird statement. For every other sensible photographer cameras with more and more DR, are more and more suitable to deal with high DR scenes without burning highlights or darken shadows. This has absolutely nothing to do with knowing how to meter because if you shoot a scene that exceeds the camera's DR, no metering knoledge will help you.
Yes, It is a very weird statement which is in response to very weird admissions from photographers like Lord Brain above who says 'No need for geeky meter readings in select spots' when you, I and every photographer I've studied with was taught that meter readings are important in particular for select spots that might be over or under exposed. Also statements from him saying that 'intuition' is a suitable way to ensure subject brightness range.
Same goes for autofocus and.. eventually composition.
So for you, autofocus is only useful for people who do not know how to focus manually? I've been using manual focus for many years and thanks god I don't have to do it anymore except for some particular cases.
You know, I've passed the age to tell everyone, hey look at me, I'm a great photographer, I use only manual focus...
And btw, what about composition?
I think you understood me wrong. I was sarcastically mocking those who don't see the importance in certain things.
On top of the Lord Brain comments (which I believe is a method a lot of new photographers rely on) there was a comment from Rishi some time ago where he welcomed more advanced auto focus in cameras because he didn't want to think about focus while taking photos.
I'm of the strong mindset that selective/deep focus is a primary element of composition that can be used effectively to draw the eye through the frame and/or in the telling of a story.
My statement had nothing to do with auto vs manual focus, nor auto focus in general. But rather the hyper advanced and complicated autofocus options available in consumer level cameras that so many people seem to nit pick as if they want their camera to do everything for them. Not saying everyone is like this, but there is a trend.
I hope the background/context helps to explain why I made that statement.
Set and forget your camera, and Sony's Hypercomp (TM) feature will take the best shot for you, and automatically assign copyright to the coders who made the algorithm.
There is much more in photography than just getting the exposure 'right' and there is nothing wrong to do it in auto mode. Just bear in mind that even if you can perfectly master manual exposure, that just makes you a better technician. To become a better photographer, you need much more than that.
My wife shoots many of her photos in P mode. That didn't disturbed her fron being awarded as a fellow of the Royal Photography Society, (FRPS) which is the highest distinction given in the UK for outstanding photography excellence.
Also some of her photos were chosen by the British Media Achives as part of the U.K. Art collection. And she shoots in P mode.
So maybe it is time to get off your high horse and to understand that people who think and work differently than you, are not necessarily ignorants.
Lol, I'm not sure if you thought I was being serious or not. I was being sarcastic. I agree with what you say and people can do things differently if they wish. I use P mode and auto mode and all that when I know they are appropriate. But those modes and methods don't absolve the importance of knowing what is going on behind the scenes, because the camera isn't always going to get it right.
My high horse is pretty much just as high as the basic fundamentals of photography.
If someone doesn't 'WISH' to know these things, that's fine. One can always work around their own limitations.
But when they say there is 'NO NEED' to know these things, then it's a statement that encourages ignorance to everyone that is reading it.
My opinion. From whatever high horse, rocking horse or straight jacket position you see me in.
