I just never liked auto ISO .. I have my cameras setup to use the front command dial for ISO and rear command dial for shutter speed, with the aperture set how I want. I then can quickly change either/both settings depending on the situation - I watch the histogram to determine if I need to adjust a setting.
That's call the human behind the camera doing the thinks and managing the creative process rather than blindly allowing the camera to make the decisions and then puzzled by what it does. :-O
It should be mentioned that is actually possible to make smart use of partial automation in a way that doesn’t hinder the creative process in the slightest. Letting the camera make all the decisions on its own is a profoundly bad idea, but when the camera is set up to react to
your creative decisions by automatically (and instantly) setting complimentary parameters that you would have set anyway, it can help you to work more efficiently and with greater freedom to concentrate on the most important stuff.
Sure but in this case when the camera hits information that is contradictory to it's instructions for the human, it has to make a decision or go off into an infinite look and hang. The camera can't read your mind. If a simple addition to Auto ISO was made that allowed one to select the priority order of max ISO and shutter speed then the human could make that selection. As it is now - the camera is in charge. You gets what you get. Or more precisely you get what some nerd programmer who may or may not have ever used a camera in conditions the photographers wants to use the camera in. He's in charge at this point.
There is more than one wart to Auto ISO implementation. The first - prioritizing max ISO over min shutter speed. The second is limiting min shutter speed to 1/500 which might not be sufficient for some sports shots. Of course these two warts might be related.
I agree and understand what you’re saying, but this is not entirely what we’re talking about here. 99.9% of what I do is under co trolled light and I’m either indoor under shade or I’m doing outdoor photoshoots.
BUT, there have been a total of three weddings that I’ve done for friends and in all of them I ran into a really bad situation when shooting in fully manual when when the limo arrives to when we walk into the building and vice versa. I already explained that I’m not sure if you read it. I missed shots during those exact moments because I was in the process of adjusting my camera settings, and I also got really ugly over exposed photos because there is simply (no time) to pause and you can’t freeze a weeding and ask everyone to wait for you to make camera settings just because you want to have full control of your camera. Weddings don’t work like that and they are indeed very stressful.
So, for the next paid weddings that I’ll be doing soon I sure as heck am not planning on running into the same situation and give my customer ruined or missing weddings photos. So for this particular and unique situation yes I do want my camera to (react) and make those changes immediately so that I at least get something instead of nothing
When shooting the paid gigs, do you carry a second body with a different focal length lens mounted so you can switch between a portrait look and a wide angle look quickly without missing shots? (Also carried as a backup if the primary body STB) If so when you're shooting the occasional transitional moment going from outdoor to indoor light, you could setup the second body for the lighting environment you're going into.
Do you work with a second shooter? Have that person get the transitional photos either inside or outside. You get the other.
Do you scout the venue ahead of time to identify the lighting change in those traditional areas? If you know the degree of adjustment needed and have a plan for how to effect that change, it only takes a moment to execute it.
How about bouncing a speedlight off a wall or ceiling when you first go inside?
Rather than changing how you shoot, makes use of the tools, strategies, and techniques available to you. It's an approach that offers the benefit of allowing you to stay in a mode you know well, have been using for years, and allows you to be more instinctive.
How is simply flipping the top SS and ISO dials to "A" when it makes sense to do so, not making use of the tools, strategies, and techniques available to him?
When shooting manual is simpler and more consistently delivers the goods...or basically, always.
But it
isn’t simpler at all, and if speed and significant lighting changes are part of the equation, it won’t deliver the goods…basically, ever.
This sidebar is moving well-beyond the scope of the discussion as set up in the top post. However, it remains at least partially relevant in the context that the OP usually shoots manual and is inquiring about how to setup their camera to shoot in a manual + auto mode and get the results he desires.
So let's talk about what "simpler" means. While we both agree that simplicity is good, we may bee using that term differently.
To me, simplicity involves removing unnecessary steps, tasks or work. It also involves consistency. Having one workflow that applies in multiple situations is a form of simplicity. Having to use a different workflow when using the same tool for different tasks is an unnecessary complication.
My path over the years from shooting full auto, to semi-auto, to manual plus auto-ISO, to just manual has been in pursuit of that kind of simplicity. Hand-in-hand with that - really the catalyst for the path I've taken - has been a simultaneous pursuit of getting more consistent, reliable results when doing photograhy.
Starting in full auto seemed pretty simple. It was basically point & shoot and let the camera choose all the settings. Often, the results were good. Not as often but too frequently for my taste, the results would be pretty awful. Delegating all the decision-making to the camera wasn't working.
I started experimenting with the scene modes (landscape, sports, etc.) and then with aperture and shutter priority. Most of my photograhy in those years, was either handheld landscapes while hiking or tripod-mounted landscapes. I also did some HDR work.
The tripod-mounted work was just much more efficient to do in manual mode. There's minimal time pressure and, from moment-to-moment, conditions tend to be consistent. I used aperture priority when doing photograhy while backpacking. It seemed less burdensome to me. I'd focus on one creative setting and let the camera do the rest.
Each mode worked but there were also times when I didn't get the results I wanted. More often than not, the gremlins would come out to play when I would transition the camera from one mode to another. Sometimes, it was because the camera would choose a suboptimal setting. At least when it was because of my suboptimal choice of settin, I could acknowledge and correct it.
Fast forward a few years and I was no longer doing HDR landscapes. I was shooting with a full-frame body and getting better results by processing single exposures. I was also doing a bit of sports photograhy. That's when I moved from aperture to shutter priority and also started using auto-ISO.
Again, the results were generally good but occasionally not. The camera would sometimes choose a weird f-stop or ISO. It wasn't often but happened with enough frequency to be an annoyance.
In addition to still doing occasional landscape work in manual, I was getting into portraiture using speedlights. I did that work in manual, too. The simplicity of manual was appealing. The results were consistently good. Best of all, if there was a settings problem, I had to own it. Those experiences helped me develop a reliable workflow in manual; one that simplified the process and avoided oversights.
Over the last seven years, I've been doing a lot of bird and wildlife photograhy, along with occasional landscape, portraiture and sports photograhy with my Nikon gear. I also use my Fuji X-T20 for travel photograhy.
For Mitch of that time, I've been shooting full manual with both systems. It's both simplified things for me and allowed me to get more consistent results. The reasons are many:
- Getting the shot is always about composition, f-stop, shutter speed, ISO, focus and white balance. I have one workflow that takes all those factors into account and can be applied to any genre.
- The Nikon and Fuji cameras I use have function buttons that make it easy to manually adjust exposure settings and ISO on the fly.
- Shooting in manual, I'm more aware of changing light conditions - brightness & color temperature - which makes it easy to anticipate and adjust for clouds, etc.
- Shooting in manual, I'm more selective about when I press the shutter release. If the light isn't good, I don't waste frames on photos I know will get rejected. That means I'm not constantly adjusting tp every change in lighting on the subject. I only need to adjust to changes that affect the shots I'm willing to make.
- Shooting in manual, I'm more aware of how a scene should meter to be captured with a lightness that matches how it looks to the eye or how I'd like it to appear. This allows me to use the in-camera meter as a reference when adjusting exposure or ISO settings in response to changing light...and to anticipate how I'll adjust when the scarce gets darker or lighter.
- Most modern cameras have an extended ISO invariant range. Using an ISO in that range means ISO can be left in place when shooting subjects that are moving in & out of variable lighting conditions. I'll use shutter speed & f-stop to control exposure knowing lightness (ISO) can be adjusted in post with no compromise in final image quality.
- I'm not distracted by exposure compensation (EC) settings. It's all done three inches behind the viewfinder.
- I'm not having to adjust limits for shutter speed or ISO. Again, all of that is done with grey matter.
- I've come to view statements that some scenes or actions change too quickly to be photographed well in manual as a myth. My perspective is based in years shooting in manual and not missing shots while adapting to changing light or action.
- That perspective is also shaped by a 30+ year career in television and professional video production; much of that time producing & directing live coverage of collegiate sports. Success in that field is all about having a plan going into the show and using your knowledge of the game, teams, coaches & athletes to anticipate what will happen next. With that plan & knowledge, one is able to make and execute decisions in the moment that result in coverage of what's important to the viewer.
With apologies for the length of the post, I'll wrap up by saying I just don't buy it when someone tries to make the argument that photograhy of (fill in the blank)
can't be done as well in manual as in a semi-auto mode. I understand that folks will have a diverse range of preferences when it comes to exposure modes. That's fine; we all have the freedom to shoot however we choose. But when someone tries ro argue that a good result
can't be achieved in manual or that a person
shouldn't be in manual for the kind of photograhy they want to do, I call that out as BS every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
