"AUTO" on digital cameras

"Scott W" wrote

Just what is your point in this? With very little effort just about
anyone can learn how to use the other modes and take control of the
camera rather then the other way around.

True. But the main reason I never use Auto on my Coolpix 995 is that it
leaves autofocus on all the time and flattens the battery.

Also, in every other mode, the camera goes into standby mode after 30
seconds of idle time (switchable) which also saves battery power and wear.

Paul

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
oiuyt wrote:
Daylight, outside, just put the thing on full "Auto", until you learn the
particular features of the camera.

Just what is your point in this? With very little effort just about
anyone can learn how to use the other modes and take control of the
camera rather then the other way around.

Not true. Many don't have time to learn the intricacies of digital
photography, and many are smart enough to understand "digital" is a new day
in photography. You will alway have diehards claiming their "settings" are
better than the manufacturer's "auto". But in truth, "daylight, outside"
photography can be accomplished with superb results using "Auto" with
digital cameras. I'll bet any money, you have made numerous mistakes with
white balance outside daylight........"Auto" on many digital cameras has
error free white balance.

Admit it stalwart. Digital has changed everything. There are $30 cameras in
the drugstore which produce superb digital photos and they are fully
automatic, no options cameras.


For anyone who cares at all about photography I tell them to just about
never use the auto mode. The closest that I come to auto is aperture
priority.

That's bad advice. Especially to a newcomer to digital.

Admit stalwart...folks today don't have know a thing about ISO / ASA, and
can compile hundreds of excellenct photos using "Auto" mode, until such time
they are ready to learn more about DIGITAL photography.

oiuyt wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
oiuyt wrote:
Daylight, outside, just put the thing on full "Auto", until you learn the
particular features of the camera.

Just what is your point in this? With very little effort just about
anyone can learn how to use the other modes and take control of the
camera rather then the other way around.

Not true. Many don't have time to learn the intricacies of digital
photography, and many are smart enough to understand "digital" is a new day
in photography. You will alway have diehards claiming their "settings" are
better than the manufacturer's "auto". But in truth, "daylight, outside"
photography can be accomplished with superb results using "Auto" with
digital cameras. I'll bet any money, you have made numerous mistakes with
white balance outside daylight........"Auto" on many digital cameras has
error free white balance.

Admit it stalwart. Digital has changed everything. There are $30 cameras in
the drugstore which produce superb digital photos and they are fully
automatic, no options cameras.


For anyone who cares at all about photography I tell them to just about
never use the auto mode. The closest that I come to auto is aperture
priority.

That's bad advice. Especially to a newcomer to digital.

Admit stalwart...folks today don't have know a thing about ISO / ASA, and
can compile hundreds of excellenct photos using "Auto" mode, until such time
they are ready to learn more about DIGITAL photography.

Since many people seem to want to just leave the camera in auto mode
and never learn your advice just gives them more reason to never learn
to use their cameras.

I think it is best to jump right in and learn what you are doing, sure
they may miss a few shoots but at least they are going to learn.

Are we so lazy a people that we don't want to take any time at all to
learn anything at all.

In auto mode most cameras will close down the aperature as much as
posible, but do you want that much DOF in every photo? If you have a
live histogram you can normally do better at getting the exposure right
then the camera. In some cases you might well want to bracket a shot
with EV adjustments up and down. If you have a spot meter mode you can
use this to good effect in tricky lighting. But none of this will be
learned if you just leave the camera in auto mode.

Scott

oiuyt wrote:


"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
oiuyt wrote:
Daylight, outside, just put the thing on full "Auto", until you learn
the particular features of the camera.

Just what is your point in this? With very little effort just about
anyone can learn how to use the other modes and take control of the
camera rather then the other way around.

Not true. Many don't have time to learn the intricacies of digital
photography, and many are smart enough to understand "digital" is a new
day in photography. You will alway have diehards claiming their "settings"
are better than the manufacturer's "auto". But in truth, "daylight,
outside" photography can be accomplished with superb results using "Auto"
with digital cameras. I'll bet any money, you have made numerous mistakes
with white balance outside daylight........"Auto" on many digital cameras
has error free white balance.

The only way to have "error free white balance" is to set the white balance
using a white card. "Auto" cannot possibly have "error free white balance"
under all conditions because it relies on an scene average rather than a
white-level reference.

Most photographer who do not use a white card also do not second guess the
auto white balance, so this is not a particularly telling argument
regardless.

Snapshots can be made nicely using the full auto settings. But they don't
know that you're trying to use depth of field to pull one flower out of a
field or that you're trying to use a slow shutter to deliberately _not_
stop the motion of the waterfall or the like.

Admit it stalwart. Digital has changed everything. There are $30 cameras
in the drugstore which produce superb digital photos and they are fully
automatic, no options cameras.

For certain values of "superb". No camera produces superb photos unless it
is in the hands of someone who knows how to compose good photos and
contrive that the lighting conditions be within the capabilities of the
camera and who actually triggers the shutter at the moment which will
result in its being open when the event that results in "superbness"
occurs.

For anyone who cares at all about photography I tell them to just about
never use the auto mode. The closest that I come to auto is aperture
priority.

That's bad advice. Especially to a newcomer to digital.

Admit stalwart...folks today don't have know a thing about ISO / ASA, and
can compile hundreds of excellenct photos using "Auto" mode, until such
time they are ready to learn more about DIGITAL photography.

Depends on what you mean by "excellent". The stuff that gets published in
National Geographic is pretty damned good. Aunt Tilly's snapshots, while
they may be perfectly exposed, are not in the same league.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

oiuyt wrote:

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
oiuyt wrote:
Daylight, outside, just put the thing on full "Auto", until you learn
the
particular features of the camera.

Just what is your point in this? With very little effort just about
anyone can learn how to use the other modes and take control of the
camera rather then the other way around.

Not true. Many don't have time to learn the intricacies of digital
photography, and many are smart enough to understand "digital" is a new
day in photography. You will alway have diehards claiming their
"settings" are better than the manufacturer's "auto". But in truth,
"daylight, outside" photography can be accomplished with superb results
using "Auto" with digital cameras. I'll bet any money, you have made
numerous mistakes with white balance outside daylight........"Auto" on
many digital cameras has error free white balance.

Admit it stalwart. Digital has changed everything. There are $30 cameras
in the drugstore which produce superb digital photos and they are fully
automatic, no options cameras.


For anyone who cares at all about photography I tell them to just about
never use the auto mode. The closest that I come to auto is aperture
priority.

That's bad advice. Especially to a newcomer to digital.

Admit stalwart...folks today don't have know a thing about ISO / ASA,
and can compile hundreds of excellenct photos using "Auto" mode, until
such time they are ready to learn more about DIGITAL photography.

Give up. You will never convince diehard manual guys that anything more
advanced that an Argus C3 (great camera) is worth using. Let them go
their way.

I take 90% of my pictures in Auto, even though I have the ability to use
manual settings, and know how to use them, I just don't often have the
time for all that messing around, test shots, bracketing, etc. Anything
not right with Auto, there is Photoshop.

J. Clarke wrote:
oiuyt wrote:

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
oiuyt wrote:
Daylight, outside, just put the thing on full "Auto", until you learn
the particular features of the camera.
Just what is your point in this? With very little effort just about
anyone can learn how to use the other modes and take control of the
camera rather then the other way around.
Not true. Many don't have time to learn the intricacies of digital
photography, and many are smart enough to understand "digital" is a new
day in photography. You will alway have diehards claiming their "settings"
are better than the manufacturer's "auto". But in truth, "daylight,
outside" photography can be accomplished with superb results using "Auto"
with digital cameras. I'll bet any money, you have made numerous mistakes
with white balance outside daylight........"Auto" on many digital cameras
has error free white balance.

The only way to have "error free white balance" is to set the white balance
using a white card. "Auto" cannot possibly have "error free white balance"
under all conditions because it relies on an scene average rather than a
white-level reference.

Most photographer who do not use a white card also do not second guess the
auto white balance, so this is not a particularly telling argument
regardless.

Snapshots can be made nicely using the full auto settings. But they don't
know that you're trying to use depth of field to pull one flower out of a
field or that you're trying to use a slow shutter to deliberately _not_
stop the motion of the waterfall or the like.

Admit it stalwart. Digital has changed everything. There are $30 cameras
in the drugstore which produce superb digital photos and they are fully
automatic, no options cameras.

For certain values of "superb". No camera produces superb photos unless it
is in the hands of someone who knows how to compose good photos and
contrive that the lighting conditions be within the capabilities of the
camera and who actually triggers the shutter at the moment which will
result in its being open when the event that results in "superbness"
occurs.

For anyone who cares at all about photography I tell them to just about
never use the auto mode. The closest that I come to auto is aperture
priority.
That's bad advice. Especially to a newcomer to digital.

Admit stalwart...folks today don't have know a thing about ISO / ASA, and
can compile hundreds of excellenct photos using "Auto" mode, until such
time they are ready to learn more about DIGITAL photography.

Depends on what you mean by "excellent". The stuff that gets published in
National Geographic is pretty damned good. Aunt Tilly's snapshots, while
they may be perfectly exposed, are not in the same league.


It may shock you to discover that not everyone aspires to having his
photos in National Geographic, or Texas Highways. Most of us are happy
to see the smile of Aunt Tillie, given that she died last year.

I fully agree that using manual settings, and a good light meter, and
knowing about composition, and waiting until the lighting is just right,
and using all the manual features of a camera can result in 'better'
pictures, but they probably will take longer, and you may just miss that
opportunity which will never happen again. My camera stays on Auto,
because that is the kind of photography I do. Did it with film, do it
with digital. The medium isn't the message.

Ron Hunter wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
oiuyt wrote:

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
oiuyt wrote:
Daylight, outside, just put the thing on full "Auto", until you learn
the particular features of the camera.
Just what is your point in this? With very little effort just about
anyone can learn how to use the other modes and take control of the
camera rather then the other way around.
Not true. Many don't have time to learn the intricacies of digital
photography, and many are smart enough to understand "digital" is a new
day in photography. You will alway have diehards claiming their
"settings" are better than the manufacturer's "auto". But in truth,
"daylight, outside" photography can be accomplished with superb results
using "Auto" with digital cameras. I'll bet any money, you have made
numerous mistakes with white balance outside daylight........"Auto" on
many digital cameras has error free white balance.

The only way to have "error free white balance" is to set the white
balance
using a white card. "Auto" cannot possibly have "error free white
balance" under all conditions because it relies on an scene average
rather than a white-level reference.

Most photographer who do not use a white card also do not second guess
the auto white balance, so this is not a particularly telling argument
regardless.

Snapshots can be made nicely using the full auto settings. But they
don't know that you're trying to use depth of field to pull one flower
out of a field or that you're trying to use a slow shutter to
deliberately _not_ stop the motion of the waterfall or the like.

Admit it stalwart. Digital has changed everything. There are $30 cameras
in the drugstore which produce superb digital photos and they are fully
automatic, no options cameras.

For certain values of "superb". No camera produces superb photos unless
it is in the hands of someone who knows how to compose good photos and
contrive that the lighting conditions be within the capabilities of the
camera and who actually triggers the shutter at the moment which will
result in its being open when the event that results in "superbness"
occurs.

For anyone who cares at all about photography I tell them to just about
never use the auto mode. The closest that I come to auto is aperture
priority.
That's bad advice. Especially to a newcomer to digital.

Admit stalwart...folks today don't have know a thing about ISO / ASA,
and can compile hundreds of excellenct photos using "Auto" mode, until
such time they are ready to learn more about DIGITAL photography.

Depends on what you mean by "excellent". The stuff that gets published
in
National Geographic is pretty damned good. Aunt Tilly's snapshots, while
they may be perfectly exposed, are not in the same league.


It may shock you to discover that not everyone aspires to having his
photos in National Geographic, or Texas Highways.

Doesn't shock me at all. I'm well aware of this. The discussion was not of
aspirations but of excellence.

Most of us are happy
to see the smile of Aunt Tillie, given that she died last year.

Which doesn't make the self-portrait she took using the bathroom mirror
"excellent".

I fully agree that using manual settings, and a good light meter, and
knowing about composition, and waiting until the lighting is just right,
and using all the manual features of a camera can result in 'better'
pictures, but they probably will take longer, and you may just miss that
opportunity which will never happen again. My camera stays on Auto,
because that is the kind of photography I do. Did it with film, do it
with digital. The medium isn't the message.

If they can be "better" then on what basis do you claim that they are
"excellent"?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Ron Hunter wrote:

oiuyt wrote:

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
oiuyt wrote:
Daylight, outside, just put the thing on full "Auto", until you learn
the
particular features of the camera.

Just what is your point in this? With very little effort just about
anyone can learn how to use the other modes and take control of the
camera rather then the other way around.

Not true. Many don't have time to learn the intricacies of digital
photography, and many are smart enough to understand "digital" is a new
day in photography. You will alway have diehards claiming their
"settings" are better than the manufacturer's "auto". But in truth,
"daylight, outside" photography can be accomplished with superb results
using "Auto" with digital cameras. I'll bet any money, you have made
numerous mistakes with white balance outside daylight........"Auto" on
many digital cameras has error free white balance.

Admit it stalwart. Digital has changed everything. There are $30 cameras
in the drugstore which produce superb digital photos and they are fully
automatic, no options cameras.


For anyone who cares at all about photography I tell them to just about
never use the auto mode. The closest that I come to auto is aperture
priority.

That's bad advice. Especially to a newcomer to digital.

Admit stalwart...folks today don't have know a thing about ISO / ASA,
and can compile hundreds of excellenct photos using "Auto" mode, until
such time they are ready to learn more about DIGITAL photography.

Give up. You will never convince diehard manual guys that anything more
advanced that an Argus C3 (great camera) is worth using. Let them go
their way.

I take 90% of my pictures in Auto, even though I have the ability to use
manual settings, and know how to use them, I just don't often have the
time for all that messing around, test shots, bracketing, etc.

If you need "all that messing around, test shots, bracketing, etc" then you
don't know how to use manual or the priority modes. You may know the
theory but you don't have enough practice to be able to do it without
thinking about it a lot more than you need to. Yes, sometimes you'll do
test shots and if the nature of the subject allows it bracketing is a good
idea in any mode.

You use whatever mode suits your purpose at the moment. If you "always use"
one mode then you never learn to use the others.

Anything
not right with Auto, there is Photoshop.

"Fix it in Photoshop" means you do a lot more work than you need to. And
Photoshop can't recover highlight or shadow detail that isn't there.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I would disagree with your finish because I start from a different place.
The difference between a photographer and a casual camera user is that the
photographer knows what his camera does well and what it doesn't. I shoot
mostly in AUTO (RAW) and do so only after testing to be sure that AUTO does
what I want. I also tested the other modes be sure they will do what I want
when the situation warrents.

The casual user just shoots so he might as well use AUTO.

J. Clarke wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
oiuyt wrote:

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
oiuyt wrote:
Daylight, outside, just put the thing on full "Auto", until you learn
the particular features of the camera.
Just what is your point in this? With very little effort just about
anyone can learn how to use the other modes and take control of the
camera rather then the other way around.
Not true. Many don't have time to learn the intricacies of digital
photography, and many are smart enough to understand "digital" is a new
day in photography. You will alway have diehards claiming their
"settings" are better than the manufacturer's "auto". But in truth,
"daylight, outside" photography can be accomplished with superb results
using "Auto" with digital cameras. I'll bet any money, you have made
numerous mistakes with white balance outside daylight........"Auto" on
many digital cameras has error free white balance.
The only way to have "error free white balance" is to set the white
balance
using a white card. "Auto" cannot possibly have "error free white
balance" under all conditions because it relies on an scene average
rather than a white-level reference.

Most photographer who do not use a white card also do not second guess
the auto white balance, so this is not a particularly telling argument
regardless.

Snapshots can be made nicely using the full auto settings. But they
don't know that you're trying to use depth of field to pull one flower
out of a field or that you're trying to use a slow shutter to
deliberately _not_ stop the motion of the waterfall or the like.

Admit it stalwart. Digital has changed everything. There are $30 cameras
in the drugstore which produce superb digital photos and they are fully
automatic, no options cameras.
For certain values of "superb". No camera produces superb photos unless
it is in the hands of someone who knows how to compose good photos and
contrive that the lighting conditions be within the capabilities of the
camera and who actually triggers the shutter at the moment which will
result in its being open when the event that results in "superbness"
occurs.

For anyone who cares at all about photography I tell them to just about
never use the auto mode. The closest that I come to auto is aperture
priority.
That's bad advice. Especially to a newcomer to digital.

Admit stalwart...folks today don't have know a thing about ISO / ASA,
and can compile hundreds of excellenct photos using "Auto" mode, until
such time they are ready to learn more about DIGITAL photography.
Depends on what you mean by "excellent". The stuff that gets published
in
National Geographic is pretty damned good. Aunt Tilly's snapshots, while
they may be perfectly exposed, are not in the same league.

It may shock you to discover that not everyone aspires to having his
photos in National Geographic, or Texas Highways.

Doesn't shock me at all. I'm well aware of this. The discussion was not of
aspirations but of excellence.

Most of us are happy
to see the smile of Aunt Tillie, given that she died last year.

Which doesn't make the self-portrait she took using the bathroom mirror
"excellent".

I fully agree that using manual settings, and a good light meter, and
knowing about composition, and waiting until the lighting is just right,
and using all the manual features of a camera can result in 'better'
pictures, but they probably will take longer, and you may just miss that
opportunity which will never happen again. My camera stays on Auto,
because that is the kind of photography I do. Did it with film, do it
with digital. The medium isn't the message.

If they can be "better" then on what basis do you claim that they are
"excellent"?

The term 'excellent' is relative, and only meaningful within the context
of purpose. I can think of reasons for such a bathroom mirror picture
being 'excellent'. Grin.
Depends on just how Aunt Tillie looks, doesn't it?

If you mean technical quality, most people aren't very discriminating
when it comes to pictures. What my wife sees as 'excellent' relates
more to who is shown, than the depth of field, sharp focus, or
composition. There is an 'elitist' attitude in this group that leaves
many users feeling inadequate. I refuse to cater to it, or those who
can't see that photography is something we can all feel good about,
without being able to produce world-class photographs. I can barely
walk to the back of a Wal-Mart store and back, and I will never run a
marathon, but I do enjoy walking in the sunshine. Surely you can see
the parallel.