Do professional photographers use manual exposure to be edgy

>>2749616

I had a camera a while back that would randomly shit itself and spaz the fuck out in anything but manual or shutter priority modes. Ended up running manual all the time until I graduated, got a job, and was able to afford stuff that wasn't shit.

It's all about how much control you're willing to give up. People say put it manual mode so you learn before sitting your ass on a crutch

File: 1448787438007.jpg (1MB, 1485x3000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1485x3000px

Do professional painters use own mixed colors to be edgy and to give themselves an ego boost as an artist?

I do get why you would want to use own mixed colors under tricky circumstances where it's hard to find the exact color-tone in the store. But otherwise why use it over pre-mixed colors?

Pic related could probably have been just as nice with pre-mixed colors. Still, the painter just had to mix the colors himself.

>>2749616
I use to do that when I was a new pleb.
Literally because I thought it was pro.
I kept learning and one day I thought about it.
I switched to using Av and now my photos are much better in normal situations.
I now only use manual for stitching and flashes/studio lighting

Most pros know exactly what they want from a photo. They want a certain DOF and a certain amount of motion blur or stillness and a certain exposure. The priority modes are mostly useful for street or snapshots but there's no excuse not to take studio or staged photos in manual. Also OP photo could have been taken in a priority mode but you'd have to trust the camera to do what you want on its own. Protip: it won't

>>2749625
Artfag here

I hope you are being sarcastic.

>>2749616
>trusting a computer to handle exposure or focus

lol

if your paparazzi job involves standing outside doing nothing for hours on end, why the fuck not

>Go out with my buddy regularly to take photos
>He always uses P/Av
>Complains that all his shots are blurry
>Complains that all his shots are noisy
Why would I let the camera do for me that I can do better myself? I'd much prefer to have control over my shutter speed, aperture and ISO thank-ya very much.

>>2749616
When you're in one location with one subject and it's extremely important that you get good shots, it's best to use manual so you don't get any unpredictable results. Like, guy with a front-lit white shirt walks into the side of the frame and it fucks your exposure. Cloud passes over and Av puts your shutter speed too low and/or ISO too high as well as blowing highlights.

There's tricks you can use like spot metering (metering off the active AF points/s) but it's still a bit less reliable than manual. Even so, I still use aperture priority a lot for run-and-gun type stuff. I get way more shots that way.

>>2749690
Yep. At least some cameras allow you to set minimum shutter speeds to prevent any motion blur or camera shake, and a minimum and/or maximum ISO or a static ISO, all in aperture priority mode.

>>2749616
I'm hungry and bait is tasty at times.

Always shooting in M is the photography version of people insisting on driving manual transmission. No matter what reasons exist to not do it, you'll have people who religiously swear by it and believe that anyone doing it any other way is wrong. Then you'll have people who do it and don't give a damn what others do.

>>2749752
Give us those reasons, anonfag. Surely you have reason for both cars and cameras

>>2749765
You're seriously wanting to jump up and tell me that if there were some magical technology that read your mind and gave you instantly the exact exposure, DoF, and degree of motion blur you desired, that there still wouldn't be people shooting old fully mechanical leicas without meters claiming that that's the truest form of photography?

As for cars, automatic transmissions have been able to outshift the best drivers for over a decade now.

In any event, it's not the 90%, normal human beings out there just doing things the way they like that's a problem with either. It's that minority of zealous proselytizers that's the problem...just like most of the problems in the world today -- a few loud mouthed crazies dominate the conversation.

i use manual exposure and manual focus so that my photos look more human

there's a charm to everything being less than perfect and anyone would be hard pressed to argue otherwise

>>2749783
lol automatics are never in the right gear. super curious as to what kind of car you have.

>>2749616
Priority modes are for people that are too stupid to do basic math. That's it. Plenty of pros use them.

>>2749616
You want to use manual exposure if you are making a series of photographs of a thing or a person, because you want it/them to be of the same brightness and thus color shade throughout the series. For instance, if I'm taking photographs of a model, I measure the light at her face and keep that exposure, not worrying about blown highlights or underexposed parts of the image, because the model is the subject.

>>2749806
>because 1/200 second, f/8, ISO 100 gives the same exposure in open noonday light, that same noonday light but as a cloud passes over, 20 minutes before the sunset, and 8 feet from a subject two feet from three 600 Ws strobes

>>2749616
>500mm
>not wanting as short a time as possible to avoid any possibility of camera shake
>still want that noiseless 125iso
Welp, it looks like the third factor had to set to a specific value because physics, damn that artsy fartsy faggot.

I get the impression people who shit on manual mode are just resentful/jealous they haven't grasped the basics of photography.

>>2749616
You really think manual exposure is "edgy"? How big of a noob are you?

Have you ever done landscape, long exposure, or studio work?

If you're talking about street photography I'll buy it. "F/8 and be there".

>>2749783
automatic is garbage, especially if you use laggy cvt.

>>2749800
>automatics are never in the right gear
Not that anon, but I drove an automatic for the first time a few months ago (while travelling to the US), and it was right most of the time.
Driving automatic was weird at first, but I could get used to it.

>>2749616
I do motorsport photography

I started shooting in manual because my light meter kept picking up the sun reflecting off cars, or picking up headlights when only some cars have them on, underexposing a lot of shots

>>2749627
So what you're saying is that you didn't know how to use manual and so you gave up? This is literally as stupid as saying "I used to shoot raw when I was a pleb but then I started shooting jpeg and all my pictures look better right out of the camera."

>>2749616
Professional photographer is kind of a bullshit term anyway.

Technically, anyone who's been paid to use a camera is a 'professional photographer'.

And if I'm a professional photographer, then there's really no way that that term can hold any real prestige.

On the real, though, most talented photographers use the camera mode that best suits the situation they're in. As many have mentioned here, there are times when it can be useful.

it's about getting the shot, not about getting the shot in manual, or any mode actually

>>2750430

It's a bullshit term because there's no licensure required to call yourself a professional. The only thing that comes close to the definition is photojournalism, and even that's a stretch.

It's more accurate to say commercial photographers, since that connotes that they do it for a living and need durable, high performance gear for it, but it also doesn't draw a line in the sand about skill.

You're at a location with a subject and the light isn't changing

Take a test shot, adjust until you have found your exposure, then forget about it

Then you can focus on composing, directing your subject, etc.

You then have a set of photos at the same exposure which reduces or eliminates post production

You asked specifically about professionals, time is money, less time spent on post means more time doing other things

I use a different auto mode; Manual mode + Auto ISO.

Set the maximum allowed ISO to however higher you're comfortable with, be it for noise reasons, what type of light you usually have to shoot in, whatever.

Then set your shutter and aperture manually. ISO will be used to get the correct exposure, and the camera can use smaller than 1/3 stops of ISO to get exposure, making it more accurate than setting 1/3 stops of either of the others.

>>2749752
Anon unable to drive manual identified.

>>2749625
faulty analogy. premixed colors would be auto
manual would be using only red, blue, and yellow paint. tv, av, etc modes would be using any and all paints, with the ability to mix your own as well

I learned with manual because i liked seeing how shots turned out with minimal use of the light meter, just judging off intuition (im an engineer, so i know a lot about light, optics, etc). but i typically use pentax's TvA mode, which is basically manual with auto iso, unless im shooting birds, then i just use Tv

with manual, I know that the highlight and shadow tones on my subject are going to be the same values every shot. this means I can find what I like, and then shoot freely without worry. every shot is exposed how I wanted. with A mode, the camera evaluates a new exposure value for every picture. as such, it drifts up and down, even to extremes if you rotate around your subject relative to your light source.

>>2749627
>>2750420
there are times when you should use manual and times when you might miss a shot because of it. I was out shooting with a friend, and got 5 photos of a hawk while he was dicking around with his settings because he insisted on using manual mode every single time because he wanted to look "pro"

>>2750969
This.

Manual should be thought of as "manual override" like some emergency feature. The only reason you should be in manual mode is if your camera is incapable of getting the correct exposure without your help. (crazy lighting situation, flash work, etc). If you're just walking around, or not using strobes, or just living your daily life, you are gaining literally nothing by being in manual, other than many some "fun" factor.

That fun factor is a real thing, so if that's your reason, go nuts, but other than that, bragging about it is ridiculous.

>>2749616
People can shoot whatever style they want...

I don't know about your guys' cameras, but mine has 2 dials that change aperture and shutter speed and an iso button without moving my right hand and it takes a split second to adjust them on the fly, so it's not like I'm sitting there menu-diving and spamming a button to go up or down a value,,, thus missing the shot. My aperture almost always stays the same anyway.
I don't think manual is any extra work because it's not often that I'm shooting in a scenario where the lighting drastically changes, and if it does, then a tiny flick to adjust shutter speed and it's metered back to center. Av mode has mixed results with low light, and going into somewhere shady can cause it to shoot too low of a shutter speed in my experience, a quick dial to change shutter speed to desired metering in manual is a lot more reliable.

If these quick adjustments cause me to miss a shot, then it was probably something super fast that most likely AF would have fucked up on anyway.

It's also more immersive and fun.

>>2751003
No matter how quickly you (claim) you can do it, it will never be as fast as letting the camera do it itself. You're also spending time thinking about exposure, rather than framing, timing, composition, etc.

>>2751011
My point is, lighting is always static enough that I don't ever need to change it, or have it vary much at all. The times I do change settings are when I change location, and It's so quick and then it's done with.

may as well say scratching my nose probably has me missing more shots than adjusting exposure does

It's handy for getting the exact look you want, personally using an EVF it means I can quickly check my exposure through preview and quickly see if I want a perfectly exposed image, high key or low key.

Also my girlfriend has extremely light hair and skin so it's easier for taking cute photos of girl/p/hriend.

>>2749752
>driving automatic
>driving

>>2749616
Don't know about "professional" photographers, but when I have taken photos of Bella Thorne I just left it on Auto. After all, wasn't trying to make art, or intending to publish them, just ordinary family and friends snapshits.

>>2750970
>>2750969

I never said that you should use manual all the time. I'm just laughing at the dipshit who claims his shots got better when he stopped using manual. There is a time and place for manual just like there is a time and place for jpeg. But to claim that manual is an "emergency mode" or that using aperture priority inherently makes pictures superior is just ignorant.