|
|
Post by MJB on Jun 5, 2024 17:49:35 GMT
Q:What's the best photography advice you've ever been given? A:Ignore people who insist you have to shoot in RAW, or insist you have to shoot in full manual mode. Whilst the ability to do both is useful, neither is essential to getting good pictures. Arguably the best way to learn the basics is to use manual mode and experiment. The knowledge and experience gained will then help you use automated modes with an understanding of what they do. Personally, after trying various automated exposure modes, the only one I ever use is 'auto ISO' because I want to choose the shutter speed and lens aperture, understanding what adjusting them will do to the image. If the ISO is too high for the image quality I want, I then use my experience to compromise on shutter speed and/or lens aperture knowing what the effect of this compromise will be. I believe the the RAW/JPG choice depends on how much (if any) adjustment you want to make after taking the shot. I once shot dozens of landscape shots in the Lake District with the camera body's JPG output set to 'tungsten' light because I forgot to change it back to 'daylight' after taking some shots in a room lit by 'warm' LED bulbs the day before. Creating new JPGs was easy because of the accurate colour temperature adjustment possible with RAW files, and more reliable than trying to 'correct' JPG files. Apart form this occasion, I usually only need to use the RAW file if I am preparing an image for printing and want more control of image sharpening (often only applying it to a selected area of the image). No one is disputing that understanding the exposure triangle isn't beneficial, but the mantra, that is often spouted, that you must use manual mode is totally ridiculous. Personally I use aperture and shutter priority modes, combined with a limited range auto ISO. My photographs that I share are, in the main, well received by photographers and non-photographers alike. If you regularly fail to check your white balance settings, or using an older digital body then its probably prudent to shoot RAW format. However, if you're using one of the more recent cameras, then the in-body JPG output is really very good. After shooting in RAW + JPG and comparing the processed RAW images against the in-body JPG images, it became apparent that except in extreme circumstances RAW was an unnecessary burden on write speeds and storage capacity. No one is saying don't use RAW or manual mode, but the insistence that one must use those settings or your photographs will be somehow unworthy is both unhelpful and off-putting to a novice photographer. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on Jun 5, 2024 20:00:58 GMT
I cannot say that I have had any advice on photography since I left school.
I would say to a beginner the first thing to do with a new camera is play with it. The second thing to do is learn how to get back to the factory settings. Any modern decent camera can work very well as a point and shoot. That was true for every Nikon camera I have owned for at least thirty years or even more. Users of Cannon, Fuji, Sony or Pentax may well say the same.
Learn from there. The settings that I have set on my remaining D500 and newish Z 8 are certainly not factory settings. I would not recommend them to anyone even if I had a twin brother. Do your own thing.
For some purposes I use aperture or shutter priority. Mainly I use P for professional. I also set auto iso within strict limits. I will not be offended if you write that I am bonkers.
|
|
|
|
Post by nimbus on Jun 6, 2024 7:58:09 GMT
Arguably the best way to learn the basics is to use manual mode and experiment. The knowledge and experience gained will then help you use automated modes with an understanding of what they do. Personally, after trying various automated exposure modes, the only one I ever use is 'auto ISO' because I want to choose the shutter speed and lens aperture, understanding what adjusting them will do to the image. If the ISO is too high for the image quality I want, I then use my experience to compromise on shutter speed and/or lens aperture knowing what the effect of this compromise will be. I believe the the RAW/JPG choice depends on how much (if any) adjustment you want to make after taking the shot. I once shot dozens of landscape shots in the Lake District with the camera body's JPG output set to 'tungsten' light because I forgot to change it back to 'daylight' after taking some shots in a room lit by 'warm' LED bulbs the day before. Creating new JPGs was easy because of the accurate colour temperature adjustment possible with RAW files, and more reliable than trying to 'correct' JPG files. Apart form this occasion, I usually only need to use the RAW file if I am preparing an image for printing and want more control of image sharpening (often only applying it to a selected area of the image). No one is disputing that understanding the exposure triangle isn't beneficial, but the mantra, that is often spouted, that you must use manual mode is totally ridiculous. Personally I use aperture and shutter priority modes, combined with a limited range auto ISO. My photographs that I share are, in the main, well received by photographers and non-photographers alike. If you regularly fail to check your white balance settings, or using an older digital body then its probably prudent to shoot RAW format. However, if you're using one of the more recent cameras, then the in-body JPG output is really very good. After shooting in RAW + JPG and comparing the processed RAW images against the in-body JPG images, it became apparent that except in extreme circumstances RAW was an unnecessary burden on write speeds and storage capacity. No one is saying don't use RAW or manual mode, but the insistence that one must use those settings or your photographs will be somehow unworthy is both unhelpful and off-putting to a novice photographer. My view is quite simple, whatever works for the user at the time. My preference is aperture priority and I adjust the ISO and compensation accordingly. It's my understanding, I may be wrong, that most pros do not shoot in RAW, not having the time to process large numbers of images. Those who have no knowledge but have had the manual thing drilled into them invariably don't know what they are doing and end up disappointed with their results having battled with the camera. The camera is a tool, no more, no less, just like a Makita drill to a tradesman. |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Jun 6, 2024 10:35:13 GMT
I mostly use RAW in manual. For flash work I usually use ETTL with exposure compensation which is basically the same as using auto exposure and exposure compensation for ambient light but lets me shoot at base ISO, a fast shutter speed and any aperture I want.
When shooting action I usually opt for consistent exposure in manual rather than let the camera vary exposure depending upon what colour the dog is and whatever is around them.
Not opposed to using automation when it saves hassle but for what I mostly use my DSLR for it can create hassle.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Sid on Jun 6, 2024 12:10:08 GMT
Mostly I too use manual - I started with a manual camera and it's what I'm so used to that it's mostly second nature. I normally only switch to an auto setting when the light is really variable and/or I simply don't have the time to keep changing the settings. That said the auto-ISO function on more recent gear is so effective that even though the camera is set to M is like shooting full auto...  I also shoot almost exclusively in RAW - mainly because I have a terrible tendency to forget/check if I've changed the white balance or something else vital... About the only time I've tended to use JPEG is in those situations when I know I'm going to end up with a LOT of shots - eg when I used to shoot my friends cricket matches. This is my way of doing it but I would never be so presumptuous as to insist that it's the only way to go; I fear those that insist manual and RAW are the only way are probably members of the 'All the gear & no idea' club...   |
|
|
|
Post by Ivor E Tower on Jun 7, 2024 18:44:26 GMT
My first camera was manual-only,as were a vast majority of cameras at that time.
I cancelled my mag subscription by phone. When I pointed out that the offer in the current edition was less than what I was being asked to pay as a long-term subscriber I was told that the rate in the mag would be going up very soon and there was no scope for reducing what was being requested of me in the renewal letter.
Sad times.
|
|
|
|
Post by andy on Jul 1, 2024 13:26:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Jul 1, 2024 18:19:28 GMT
Difficult to disagree with him, Facebook is now more accurately described as Adbook. Recently I have had one advert for every genuine post, I simply click on the X whether it is an Ad or a “Sponsored” post. |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Jul 1, 2024 19:29:48 GMT
Difficult to disagree with him, Facebook is now more accurately described as Adbook. Recently I have had one advert for every genuine post, I simply click on the X whether it is an Ad or a “Sponsored” post. At the moment it seems like every other post is sponsored by the Labour Party unless I'm browsing a group. Never got into Instagram but I also quite enjoy hearing X is going down the pan. |
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Jul 1, 2024 19:38:56 GMT
I must be doing something wrong. I'm getting about one advert per 10 posts on my Facebook feed. It's always related to what I've been looking at, so mostly mobility scooters at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jul 1, 2024 19:39:11 GMT
I read the paper magazine. I don't remember seeing anything in print about social media but I tend not to dwell on the editorial. Nothing to interest me in this week's version which is an advertorial for some bloke selling on expired film. Most odd. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jul 1, 2024 19:44:15 GMT
I must be doing something wrong. I'm getting about one advert per 10 posts on my Facebook feed. It's always related to what I've been looking at, so mostly mobility scooters at the moment. That's tracking - if you accept customised cookies then they pick up on everything you search for and customise the adds you get. |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Jul 1, 2024 19:56:59 GMT
I must be doing something wrong. I'm getting about one advert per 10 posts on my Facebook feed. It's always related to what I've been looking at, so mostly mobility scooters at the moment. That's tracking - if you accept customised cookies then they pick up on everything you search for and customise the adds you get. Â So how did it know one of my customers was telling me this afternoon she has taken up paddle boarding then Facebook showed me some posts about it? Hopefully it was just a coincidence and it was just testing if I reacted to some different content. It seems to track any words typed...I mentioned a bike brand in a reply to someone and ever since posts from a group for that brand have been showing up. |
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Jul 1, 2024 19:57:34 GMT
I must be doing something wrong. I'm getting about one advert per 10 posts on my Facebook feed. It's always related to what I've been looking at, so mostly mobility scooters at the moment. That's tracking - if you accept customised cookies then they pick up on everything you search for and customise the adds you get. I know, but it doesn't explain why I get 1/10th of the adverts others do. |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Jul 1, 2024 20:03:54 GMT
That's tracking - if you accept customised cookies then they pick up on everything you search for and customise the adds you get. Â I know, but it doesn't explain why I get 1/10th of the adverts others do. I may have been exaggerating. |
|
