Previsualization heresy

We are judging people now?

Someone who has a very good understanding of exposure, putting a camera in full auto mode, knowing the general algorithm the camera uses in pursuing exposure is free from the technical aspects of the situation and can concentrate on composition, light quality, subjects, and a while spectrum of other issues. I think that could make that person a very good photographer.

Some one with a limited knowledge of exposure issues, likewise could by free to concentrate on all those other issues, since "exposure" is largely a mechanical exercise in camera settings.

People who want to learn the mechanics certainly can. I have. I can say that I've been pretty deep in the weeds regarding such matters. It certainly is a good thing to know. But modern cameras and the nature of digital sensors can both make the path difficult, or just supply the "automatic tech" for a while so that other skills can be acquired.

How are such individuals not putting effort into learning and growing? I think they certainly doing that. If I see good photography and learn that the photographer has a poor understanding of exposure issues, I could give a rodent's behind.

What's this Equal thing? All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?

Is there a test involved?

I don't think there can be any distinction between photographs acquired in full Auto mode vs those acquired in full Manual mode as to having any particular merit, appearance, value, beauty, value, etc, etc, etc. One way or the other.

Rich

Agree. The right mode to use is situational and a matter of personal preference. I think it’s generally better to start out in full manual, but I recognize that’s not better for everyone.

Only tangentially related, but had they had it available, I bet Capa and DDD would have used auto modes a lot.

Totally agree, years ago at our local photography club a lady member bought an fz150 that I recommended for her .
For the next 2 years she took out highest points and photographer of the year and shot full auto. She had an amazing eye.
Personally I shoot all modes depending on image criteria.

I have often posted that with today's modern cameras and with a big enough supply of bananas you can train a monkey to take a nice picture in many situations and especially in good light.

But in low light situations where the aim could be to maximise the quality of the raw data within DOF and blur constraints then it is very unlikely Auto mode is going to achieve that.

Having a proper understanding of what exposure* actually is certainly helps in maximising the quality of raw data.

* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open

I think using the automaton modern camera gear gives us is nothing to be ashamed about and should be used, as it frees the mind for more important compositional tasks. But It is important to be able to step in with manual settings when needed.

I think people who shoot predominantly with primes or fixed focal length lenses are probably more adept at previsualisation. Adept or prone to -I'm not sure which it is. Because they kind of have to be. There is no fallback of simply twisting that zoom ring to "fit it all in", or isolate a particular part of a scene on a whim, quite often you have to both improvise, & compromise. Personally, I find that damn good fun. Which, at the end of the day is pretty much the only reason I take pictures. I think you're also a little bit more aware of the effects of focal length, field of view, and the other properties that go along with such. Because there are much larger, more noticeable jumps, or steps between fixed focal length lenses, rather than the infinite increments of a zoom ring. So you're kind of forced to think ahead a bit, or previsualise.
I think previsualisation may occur at a couple of different levels too. Some people may set out with a predetermined concept in mind, and go looking for the situation to implement it in, while others may go with the flow, and it happens a bit more instinctively for them.
Personally, I'm not particularly fussed about it, in some ways my orderly, logical engineering brain likes to have a set plan or blueprint as it were, the rebellious side of me likes to say f#@( that, & shoot weird angles, non traditional focal lengths and all that. Whatever makes it fun.

Sorry I picked the wrong example. I usually shoot 35 or 60mm macro and just got the 100 used for this example. Still the power of previsualization pertains. The colors are a good example. The colors shown are what the camera produced. The flower was white and that is what I saw.

This technology does exist: www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00019557

Or for something even more autonomous: flashingstarsphotobooth.com/flashtheselfiebot/

"This technology does exist: www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00019557"

And when it's finished, a certificate of authenticity prints out, declaring the image to be a First Prize Blue Ribbon winning photograph. No training necessary.

"Or for something even more autonomous: flashingstarsphotobooth.com/flashtheselfiebot/"

Just in case you didn't know you were at a party, the images are instantly sent to the party's pre-configured Web page and broadcast to all Social Media sites for population to all your contacts, follows, followers and you. You never have to keep up with reality on your own ever more.

/Disgruntled-Sarcasm

Rich

I'm not saying they are good 😅 but cameras which take composition out of the hands of photographers exist. A few years back I was teaching an intro to photography class and one of my students had a Sony with the auto-composition feature turned on. It took me a while to figure out what the camera was doing and turn off so the photographer could actually learn composition when there were people in the frame.

Seriously, until this post I had never heard of "Auto Composition." It's really a thing?

Wow.

Rich

This thread is about examining how people approach their techniques. There's been judging since page one, lol.

If all you're doing is buying a camera and shooting in auto mode with no exploration of what the tool is capable of, which is what my issue is about - people who do that, how is that person learning and growing? Framing better so they actually take pictures of what they aim it? Perhaps, but compared to someone who leans to shoot in other modes, learns about ISO settings, learns about setting WB, etc, they are simply not learning and growing.

You say there is no difference in the images. Individually, sure. Now show me a handful of selected shots between someone who shoots in only full auto, vs someone who knows how to work their tool. I have to imagine only the blind couldn't spot the difference with a larger sample pool of shoots to compare between.

It really is. I was initially baffled at what was going on- the student had her camera held horizontally and was framing a loose portrait to show some background as part of an exercise on perspective. When we looked at the "final" result, it was cropped to a tight vertical on the person in the frame. I finally figured out that the camera was "fixing" her composition for her and promptly turned that feature off.

You seem to have some "True Believer's" expectation, that because you have put in the time to learn technical aspects of "the tool" that you are entitled to some kind of recognition. Some kind of certificate or Grade Point Average. " I know ISO and WB." That's the way it works in school. That's not the way it works in life.

I don't care if someone uses a Brownie Box camera. If their photography is good, that's all that matters. The fact that they don't have "the grades" to back up their actual work is totally irrelevant.

I've played guitar and piano for many years. I've taken many lessons. I've practiced my ass off. I know music theory to the point I can teach it myself, quite well. I am mediocre at best. I can "play" guitar and piano. I am not a musician. I will never be. That's not how my brain is wired. I have watched young players, with not more than a few weeks of experience, surpass my level and soar beyond that with ease. Their music is already beautiful at their level of experience and will only get better. They have none of my technical knowledge of chord structure, scales, modes, voicing, harmony. Yet their music makes use of all those things intuitively and naturally. They can easily hear things, I struggle to perceive. They are musicians. They will eventually learn technique and theory but their work is already superior and they deserve every accolade for that and respect for their talent. They don't need a GPA from someone who forced them to take lessons.

There are people who have the ability to produce good, even great photography without knowing a whole lot about the workings of their cameras. Right from the first time they pick up a camera. Should they learn those things. Yes. I guess so. Eventually. Will that make them better photographers? I don't know. Maybe a little. Not much. I think their response probably would be, "Oh, is that how that thing works? Didn't know that. Cool!" Then they would just go out and continue to be the good photographers they are, but not because they had some additional technical "skills."

Then there are people who know their cameras inside and out, and upside down. They are completely comfortable with them in some Auto configuration of their choosing so that they can get the job done, without having to devote brain power to mechanical issues that can be automated to their wishes.

Rich

Around Monterey, there’s a saying amongst the photographers. If you buy a violin, you own a violin. If you buy a camera, you are a photographer.

Also to one of your points here, when Molly Tuttle, already a phenom at bluegrass festivals, showed up at Berklee, they gave her a bunch of tests. She did very poorly on all but one. A few years later, she was the first woman to be the International Bluegrass Association guitarist of the year. The next year, to prove it was no fluke, she won it again.