going Manual!!!!

[beezwax]

so... today I played witht teh camera, taking pictures of my wifes car... and relized that I LOVE how easy Manual is to use... I don't have to battle with changing my Apeture and having the shutter speed change with Av or vise vera with Shutter Priority.

I like being able to adjust my Apeture and Shutter speed independently.... it really makes you aware of how your changes affects the photo.


now.... if only the damn LCD screen was easier to see on the bright Texas sun :mad:

[PhotosByCynthia]

LOL! Welcome to manual! I shoot a lot of equine events in the summer, which are held indoors. 9 times out of 10 the lighting sucks big time and you can't use a flash because of spooking some of the horses. So I go manual all the way and love it! No more depending on auto settings and hoping you got the shot! :)

[cosworth]

"You WILL use manual."

http://www.ebogjonson.com/mt-static/images/darth.jpg

[beezwax]

TRUE THAT Cynthia!!!

Manual ROCKS!!!

[beezwax]

"You WILL use manual."

http://www.ebogjonson.com/mt-static/images/darth.jpg


:lol::lol::lol: The force is strong with Manual..... LOL!!!!

[Chandler.]

"You WILL use manual."

http://www.ebogjonson.com/mt-static/images/darth.jpg

Jason I'm thinking that could be a good sig for you. You could force all of us to use manual and the empire would be complete.

[Bear073]

:-D

[cosworth]

Jason I'm thinking that could be a good sig for you. You could force all of us to use manual and the empire would be complete.

I'm on board if the title fairy is...

[PhotosGuy]

Another convert! These will help:

Need an exposure crutch? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=89123)

A few Car Lighting Tips - Updated (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70290)

[Perry Ge]

Excellent, another who realises that M is not only better, but FASTER and easier than the other modes too!

[cosworth]

FASTER and easier

Careful, the men in black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_Black) might pay you a visit.

[Perry Ge]

Careful, the men in black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_Black) might pay you a visit.

Bah we're in Canada, we're safe.

[samnz]

I attempted to shoot part of a dog agility show entirely in AV. Wasn't being paid so I was doing it just for fun.

Whilst reviewing 297 RAW photos of 'jumpers', only 6 were taken using AV!

I could not for the life of me get a consistent series of frames so I switched back to manual.

I FAILED! I couldn't do it! :cry:

AV is still a great tool for many applications, but for light consistency - not very reliable.

Oh - start learning to 'ride the ISO' without taking your eye away from the vf - comes in reeeeel handy:)

[DStanic]

I still like Av mode, for outdoors anyways. Indoors I have almost completely switched over to manual (with flash) cause it's just plain easier. I don't know why I was scared of manual.. I've used my Minolta SLR in the past which is fully manual with a light meter. With DSLR, if the picture is crap just shoot again, no wasted film.

I'm sure that as time goes buy I will be using M more and more.

[tiziano]

I too love manual focus!

[Perry Ge]

I too love manual focus!

I do believe this thread is about manual exposure :p.

But OMG I just looked at your gear list and you must have the largest collection of glass I've ever seen.

[DozerLYP]

"You WILL use manual."

http://www.ebogjonson.com/mt-static/images/darth.jpg

OR I will hurt you. If I can get that thing to work...

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n56/dozerlyp/dark.jpg

[tiziano]

I do believe this thread is about manual exposure :p.


Right...:o
But I love manual exposure too! :)


But OMG I just looked at your gear list and you must have the largest collection of glass I've ever seen.[/quote]
most of it...manual... :D

[syco]

This might help
http://goingmanual.com

One thing that's really important to consider, is how to meter. Once you get the concept of how the buttons and dials interact that should be the next thing you concentrate IMO.

[ZGMF-X20A]

Just make sure to remember changing the values accordingly. Once I was using manual for indoor shoot with flash. The next day I have to do outdoor and it was way over exposed.

[DStanic]

RAW saved my butt, but yesterday I wish I had shot in manual instead of Av mode. It was overcast, then the sun poked through, overcast again- my camera was going whacky! The problem with XTi is you can't see the ISO in the viewfinder, and damn I wish it had auto-ISO sometimes! I really see now why 20/30/40Ds are better for faster operation. The LCD on top would be nice too..

[andrepaul]

What do you do though, when you set ISO, aperture and shutter speed that you want, and the exposure compensation is all the way to the right or to the left? For example in macro shooting, you want to have a small aperture to increase DoF but if you do that the shutter speed is going to be slow, so you use something high, one that wouldn't necessarily be for the correct exposure.

And how do you deal with that same condition when you have an external flash and the camera isn't recognizing since it meters for ambient light?

[TheHoff]

>>What do you do though, when you set ISO, aperture and shutter speed that you want, and the exposure compensation is all the way to the right or to the left?

If you set all of those things manually and the in-camera meter is telling you the exposure is not correct then you have to change one of the three until you're happy with it. You don't really use exposure compensation when you're in M since you are doing the exposure, you compensate by changing one of the three values.

>>And how do you deal with that same condition when you have an external flash and the camera isn't recognizing since it meters for ambient light?

You can set your exposure in M and then use the E-TTL metering of the flash to let it find its own exposure. Or you can set it in manual mode, too, and dial down the intensity until you're happy with the balance of ambient to flash. A handheld meter helps in these situations but is not necessary.

[andrepaul]

Thanks for quick response. I think it might be the ISO that I'm always forgetting to change, just that I don't like going over 400.

I have a follow up question for your second answer. When in E-TTL, and you want to bounce off a wall, card or someone dressed in white. . .wouldn't this cause an underexposed image? Cause the metering is for direct flash right?

[TheHoff]

Nope, not quite.

The camera is in manual, right? So the exposure is set and won't change that way. Then you fire off the flash in E-TTL mode. That is really an automatic exposure mode for the flash -- it knows what the camera is set at so it will then measure the light that it puts out "Through The Lens" -- that is the TTL part.

The camera measures the flash output and tells it how much to put out to make your manual exposure correct. The flash will try and automatically bring up the light level to make your combination of shutter/aperture/ISO work... regardless of whether it is bounced or not, since it is using the camera's meter, it doesn't matter.

[andrepaul]

Cool thanks a lot.

[oaktree]

now.... if only the damn LCD screen was easier to see on the bright Texas sun :mad:

Try switching to a LCD view that shows the histogram. WIll at least give you an indication if your exposure is close to OK.

[canonnoob]

welcome to the dark side... I also am a recent convert.... its alot of fun and the pictures come out alot better...

[Mike]

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/5273/ladooscurocapa5xo.gif

Manual is the only way for sure. It makes shooting a lot easier, you get much more consistent results.

[Methodical]

I'm hooked now too

[neilwood32]

Once you get used to manual and its predictability - theres just no going back imho. Plus I like to be in control of the camera and not the other way around :D

Just make sure to remember changing the values accordingly. Once I was using manual for indoor shoot with flash. The next day I have to do outdoor and it was way over exposed.

What i do is always reset my camera to a set of default values when im finished shooting for the day (generally ISO100, SS 1/100 and F9) which are good for shooting on an average day here. Then its just a case of adjusting them to suit the next days shooting. Once you get the habit - its easy.

Thanks for quick response. I think it might be the ISO that I'm always forgetting to change, just that I don't like going over 400.

I have a follow up question for your second answer. When in E-TTL, and you want to bounce off a wall, card or someone dressed in white. . .wouldn't this cause an underexposed image? Cause the metering is for direct flash right?

There is no reason with a 50D not to go way beyond ISO400 - i have used far higher with acceptable results)

Oh and bouncing doesnt affect ETTL (it is Electronic Through The Lens metering) so it actually measures the amount of light on the subject not the amount put put by the flash. It does reduce the maximum available flash but unless you are shooting full power thats not an issue.

[DaveSt]

I have been trying to use my 30D in manual for the past week or so with mixed results. For you "M" people out there, if you are shooting something like kids outdoors where the light conditions are constantly changing (more because of location than weather conditions) do you still stay in manual mode? It seems so difficult to constantly have to recalculate the exposure in cases like this, and a four year old isn't going to give you time to meter your shot ahead of time.

[Mike]

I have been trying to use my 30D in manual for the past week or so with mixed results. For you "M" people out there, if you are shooting something like kids outdoors where the light conditions are constantly changing (more because of location than weather conditions) do you still stay in manual mode? It seems so difficult to constantly have to recalculate the exposure in cases like this, and a four year old isn't going to give you time to meter your shot ahead of time.

In cases like that I might well switch to Av as it will be easier.

[snyderman]

Good for you! Here's an interesting experience I had recently. The 'formula' for shooting football is in AV mode so shutter speed can be kept constant. During pregame shooting, I only use manual because I have time and can compose.

When reviewing pics, the exposures, color saturation and clarity were BETTER in "M" than on any shot taken in AV. Not sure why, but my eyes aren't lying to me!

dave

[Wilt]

This reminds me once of a co-worker, who told me that she told her boyfriend to go 'on manual' :lol:

[Methodical]

...The 'formula' for shooting football is in AV mode so shutter speed can be kept constant...

I think you mean Tv mode. In Av the aperture stays constant.

[HappySnapper90]

Manual mode is fine if if you have ample time to do the shot setting adjustments the camera would do for you if you were Av or Tv mode, or if you have lighting conditions that will not be changing.

If you need to take shots quickly and may be pointing your camera at locations that have different lighting, Av or Tv is better than manual.

[Geo]

Manual mode is fine if if you have ample time to do the shot setting adjustments the camera would do for you if you were Av or Tv mode, or if you have lighting conditions that will not be changing.

If you need to take shots quickly and may be pointing your camera at locations that have different lighting, Av or Tv is better than manual.
You are right no always manual are preferred, when you are shooting in a wedding for example Av or Tv are the way because the wedding are too fast and never you will have the chance again.

[airfrogusmc]

You are right no always manual are preferred, when you are shooting in a wedding for example Av or Tv are the way because the wedding are too fast and never you will have the chance again.

Thats a real load. I shot weddings with blads for YEARS (20) as have millions of photographers and I never missed shots and so did most of the really successful medium format photographers I know. I shoot manual now and doubt anyone can nail exposure and shoot faster in any mode and my images will be MORE consistent exposure wise that those shooting in auto. Its discipline. If you discipline yourself and learn you will be surprised at at how it become second nature.

The problem with shooting auto is the meter LIES and different colors and objects reflect light differently even if the light doesn't change so in auto modes the meter is causing the camera to change the exposure even if it shouldn't be changed If you're shooting manual you're not changing your exposure when the reflectance changes but you can in a real hurry if the light situation quickly changes and you know and do this from experience. Experience you would have never gotten if you always shot in auto modes.

[Wilt]

The problem with shooting auto is the meter LIES and different colors and objects reflect light differently even if the light doesn't change so in auto modes the meter is causing the camera to change the exposure even if it shouldn't be changed If you're shooting manual you're not changing your exposure when the reflectance changes but you can in a real hurry if the light situation quickly changes and you know and do this from experience. Experience you would have never gotten if you always shot in auto modes.

^^^
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=9217019&postcount=6

[TheHoff]

Thats a real load. I shot weddings with blads for YEARS (20) as have millions of photographers and I never missed shots and so did most of the really successful medium format photographers I know. I shoot manual now and doubt anyone can nail exposure and shoot faster in any mode and my images will be MORE consistent exposure wise that those shooting in auto. Its discipline. If you discipline yourself and learn you will be surprised at at how it become second nature.

The problem with shooting auto is the meter LIES and different colors and objects reflect light differently even if the light doesn't change so in auto modes the meter is causing the camera to change the exposure even if it shouldn't be changed If you're shooting manual you're not changing your exposure when the reflectance changes but you can in a real hurry if the light situation quickly changes and you know and do this from experience. Experience you would have never gotten if you always shot in auto modes.

Amen.

For as long it takes to fudge and chimp with EC, you might as well be in M.

[neilwood32]

With practise and some knowledge, Manual becomes the only mode that you can use with confidence.

Learn the "Sunny 16" rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule and pay attention to light levels and you very seldom get caught out. It is very easy to discern the difference between the different light levels mentioned (ie between Sunny skies and slightly overcast) and to adjust accordingly ie one stop of light lost= halve the shutter time or open a stop of aperture.

[Wilt]

I have been trying to use my 30D in manual for the past week or so with mixed results. For you "M" people out there, if you are shooting something like kids outdoors where the light conditions are constantly changing (more because of location than weather conditions) do you still stay in manual mode? It seems so difficult to constantly have to recalculate the exposure in cases like this, and a four year old isn't going to give you time to meter your shot ahead of time.


Dave, imagine the sun is in a perfectly clear sky, with no moisture or clouds to alter its intensity. The SOURCE is FIXED in output, so ONE EXPOSURE VALUE is the correct one to shoot the scene -- regardless if a Scandanavian bride in white gown walks into the scene, or if a Nigerian groom in black tux walks into the scene!

So use of Manual allows you to shoot a single value exposure for the entire period of time, until something changes the way the SUN hits the scene, not because the bride or groom have entered the picture. The use of the reflected light meter in the camera makes the scene seem to be forever changing, when the source of light is constant. Exposure should NOT be keyed to the brightness of the subjects, it should be keyed to the brightness of the light falling onto the scene.

[kskitt]

Ive shot in manual since the day i bought my camera - and that was about a month ago

[airfrogusmc]

In cases like that I might well switch to Av as it will be easier.

I only shoot in manual. And yes I do stay in manual. one word EXPERIENCE. I also only shoot with the spot meter and I know whats usually about 18% gray in mist scenes so I can ajust very quickly to changing light but you would probably be really surprised if you took a couple of incident meter reading indoors in light thats making the meter in your camera jump all over the place how little the light really changes. Not in all situations but in a good deal of them.

[TheHoff]

I only shoot in manual.

Pure laziness for casual shots is the only time I'll switch to Av.

[bikgc]

M is when you take the photos. It's Great

[Methodical]

For those that shoot manual what type of photos do you take? Wondering if this has a bearing on why folks use different methods.

[TheHoff]

For those that shoot manual what type of photos do you take? Wondering if this has a bearing on why folks use different methods.

Street / wedding / portraits / kids / family / anything. I've never been in a situation where I think "I better switch to Av" to get better exposures. M = consistency.

[Timphoto]

I'll use the green box once in a great while when I am rushed and just to do a quick documentation shot of something I need to send to a contractor or supplier. Otherwise its usually manual.

[Nate P.]

I shoot Av 95% of the time. Question for you manual shooters: How do you actually get proper exposure? Light meter? Trial/error? Do you look at the meter in the camera? Because if you look at the meter in the camera, are you not doing what the camera could do instantaneously anyway? For candid situations, trial/error or a light meter do not really seem ideal... so what is the secret?

[TheHoff]

I shoot Av 95% of the time. Question for you manual shooters: How do you actually get proper exposure? Light meter? Trial/error? Do you look at the meter in the camera? Because if you look at the meter in the camera, are you not doing what the camera could do instantaneously anyway? For candid situations, trial/error or a light meter do not really seem ideal... so what is the secret?

I'm usually within 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop by guessing the exposure. One frame, chimp the histogram, and go. Also, if you keep it on spot metering, you can eyeball a patch of grass or a patch of skin, make your manual setting w/ adjustment, and go.

I do use a handheld incident meter but even if you rely on the camera's on-board meter to give you the exposure, just setting it in M will keep it consistent. The issue with Av is that it jumps around. Your images aren't consistent from one frame to the next. This drives me mad even with ETTL on the flash; you're constantly bumping or lowering the exposure in post from 1/3 to a whole stop because the flash or meter is jumping all over. Same with Av vs M... M is consistent from frame to frame; in reality the light level rarely changes as much as Av thinks it does.

Take any scene, really any scene, and point your camera around to different parts of it. The meter will jump around, right? Yet there really is only one 'correct' averaging exposure based on what you want to see from the image. By setting it in M, even if you use the camera's meter to do it, you will get that same exposure every frame no matter where you're aiming.

[WAD]

Thanks for the great explanation TheHoff.. I appreciate it and will apply this in the future.

-Wayne

[Milla]

This reminds me once of a co-worker, who told me that she told her boyfriend to go 'on manual' :lol:

HAHA This makes me think of my husband who asks "Do you shoot in the Raw?"

Oh sweetie....it's not sugar....

[Milla]

BTW I think TheHoff is dreamy ;)

[John Sheehy]

Thanks for quick response. I think it might be the ISO that I'm always forgetting to change, just that I don't like going over 400.


Higher ISO only means more noise *IF* it also means less real (absolute) exposure. ISO 100 has far more noise than ISO 1600, with the same shutter speed and f-stop, with the 1600 at +2 and the 100 at -2!

[Methodical]

Are you talking about adding or subtracting exposure compensation?

...ISO 100 has far more noise than ISO 1600, with the same shutter speed and f-stop, with the 1600 at +2 and the 100 at -2!

[John Sheehy]

For you "M" people out there, if you are shooting something like kids outdoors where the light conditions are constantly changing (more because of location than weather conditions) do you still stay in manual mode?

That depends on what is changing. If there are sunlit whites or saturated colors in all frames, but the balance of dark and light is changing, then you really can use the same exposure in all frames ("sunny f/16", or "sunny f/11" if shooting RAW). IOW, a white wall with black dots needs the same exposure as a black wall with white dots. If *everything* moves into the shade for some shots (whites in the shade), then you might want to open the aperture more, lower the shutter speed, or raise the ISO, to minimize noise (the latter only on some DSLRs, but including all current and recent Canons). If you are still shooting sunlit but the highlights are not white, you can increase the exposure some for ETTR benefit, but it is not essential, and you can use the same conversion for all images if you don't, for consistent images.

[John Sheehy]

Manual mode is fine if if you have ample time to do the shot setting adjustments the camera would do for you if you were Av or Tv mode, or if you have lighting conditions that will not be changing.

If you need to take shots quickly and may be pointing your camera at locations that have different lighting, Av or Tv is better than manual.

Auto-ISO in manual mode is a much better option, in many cases. However, Canon has yet to implement it intelligently enough so that other modes can be ignored - Canon is very slow in the head.

Auto-ISO is disabled when flash is enabled (really stupid, as most people who would use auto-ISO would only be using flash for fill, and it should not be determining exposure). It has no manual escape (shutter speed increase) for scenes that are too bright, and it has no EC (or what would actually be an ISO bias). It does work very well within its limits, though. I take 95% of my telephoto shots on my 7D in manual mode with auto-ISO. I go without fill flash to use auto-ISO-M.

Canon's exposure modes and metering are primitive and pathetic. There are lots of very simple programming changes which could make their cameras far more usable to a variety of people with a variety of needs.

[John Sheehy]

The problem with shooting auto is the meter LIES and different colors and objects reflect light differently even if the light doesn't change so in auto modes the meter is causing the camera to change the exposure even if it shouldn't be changed If you're shooting manual you're not changing your exposure when the reflectance changes but you can in a real hurry if the light situation quickly changes and you know and do this from experience. Experience you would have never gotten if you always shot in auto modes.

The real problem there is the metering system; not automation per se. Automation is great if it does what you need it to do; it is only an issue when it does things arbitrarily, from the perspective of your needs. The camera should be metering different RAW color primaries separately. And, rather than having average metering, or "evaluative", which isn't a whole lot different, the camera should also have a mode of metering where your "EC" actually means a percentage of highlights allowed to clip. IOW, 0%, 0.001%, 0.003%, 0.01%, 0.03%, 1%, 3%, and 10%, instead of a range of negative and positive ECs.

[John Sheehy]

Are you talking about adding or subtracting exposure compensation?

If you point the camera at a scene, in manual mode, and you vary the ISO so that the meter says +2 at ISO 1600, +1 at ISO 800, 0 at ISO 400, -1 at ISO 200, and -2 at ISO 100, then the ISO 1600 will give the least noise, and ISO 100 the most. If the scene has a majority of area as the brightest tones, the 1600 at +2 might be usable.

The point is that increased absolute exposure is what makes ISO 100 images cleanest, not the ISO 100 setting itself, which is the noisiest in manual mode (IOW, with a fixed, given manual exposure). The tradeoff is noise vs highlight headroom.

[Methodical]

I will have to give that a try. So at ISO 100 I want to expose to the right by 2 stops (overexpose a bit) Is this in affect reducing ISO. And at ISO 1600 I want to expose to the left by 2 stops (underexpose a bit)

If you point the camera at a scene, in manual mode, and you vary the ISO so that the meter says +2 at ISO 1600, +1 at ISO 800, 0 at ISO 400, -1 at ISO 200, and -2 at ISO 100, then the ISO 1600 will give the least noise, and ISO 100 the most. If the scene has a majority of area as the brightest tones, the 1600 at +2 might be usable.

The point is that increased absolute exposure is what makes ISO 100 images cleanest, not the ISO 100 setting itself, which is the noisiest in manual mode (IOW, with a fixed, given manual exposure). The tradeoff is noise vs highlight headroom.

[John Sheehy]

I will have to give that a try. So at ISO 100 I want to expose to the right by 2 stops (overexpose a bit) Is this in affect reducing ISO. And at ISO 1600 I want to expose to the left by 2 stops (underexpose a bit)

I think you miss the point still. You're talking about 8 stops difference in absolute exposure there, impossible with a fixed absolute manual exposure (Av & Tv).

This is what I am saying: If you have set the Av and Tv values manually, and are now choosing the ISO, there is no repercussion from going higher, other than the possibility of clipping, if you go too high. The highest ISO which doesn't cause unwanted clipping will give the least noise (but you may only notice this in shadows). The normal rules about high ISO contribution to noise reverse when you have fixed Av and Tv values, in Canon DSLRs, many Nikons, and a few Pentaxes (but not at all with other Nikons, Pentaxes, and with P&S cameras or Olympuses- they have the same noise or very close, regardless of ISO setting).

[bobobird]

Was reading something else and came across this.

Just did a quick test to check your assertions. RAW, ACR all default settings, all noise and sharpening to 0.

First series - Av f8, metering to brightest area gave 1/250 @ ISO 100, snapped a series from ISO 100-1600, severe clipping from 32 but that is because on the 550D, the shutter cannot go any faster then 4000.

2nd series - Av f8, metering to midtones gave 1/160 @ ISO 100, snapped just ISO 100 and 1600.

Import though ACR in PS5.

All pics at normal zoom look good.
Bright tone metered pics - zoomed to 400%, substantial noise at 1600 decreasing steadily to none visible at 100.

Midtone metered pics - none visible at 100, evident at 1600 but no color color noise compared to bright tone metered pics.

Either I am doing this wrong or there is something else going on ?

I think you miss the point still. You're talking about 8 stops difference in absolute exposure there, impossible with a fixed absolute manual exposure (Av & Tv).

This is what I am saying: If you have set the Av and Tv values manually, and are now choosing the ISO, there is no repercussion from going higher, other than the possibility of clipping, if you go too high. The highest ISO which doesn't cause unwanted clipping will give the least noise (but you may only notice this in shadows). The normal rules about high ISO contribution to noise reverse when you have fixed Av and Tv values, in Canon DSLRs, many Nikons, and a few Pentaxes (but not at all with other Nikons, Pentaxes, and with P&S cameras or Olympuses- they have the same noise or very close, regardless of ISO setting).

[John Sheehy]

Either I am doing this wrong or there is something else going on ?

You tested something completely different than what I was talking about. You varied the actual sensor exposure, along with the ISO, so that the lower ISOs had more actual sensor exposure. What I am talking about would be tested as follows:

Set the camera on a tripod, and pick a subject. Set the camera to the highest ISO and choose a manual exposure that centers the meter (or even a little bit to the right), then, change only the ISO, bringing it down to ISO 100 eventually.

The tradeoff will be lower noise for the highest ISOs, but less highlight headroom.

[bobobird]

Thanks for the quick response.

Will do as you suggested.

Forgive another newbie question but how could this be used in a practical situation ?

[John Sheehy]

Thanks for the quick response.

Will do as you suggested.

Forgive another newbie question but how could this be used in a practical situation ?

It lets you know what you're trading off, when choosing an ISO in "M" mode. At the lower end of the ISO scale, leaving a lot of headroom comes at a big cost in extra shadow noise. At the higher end of the range, using a lower ISO has little or no cost in extra noise, while giving much more headroom.

[bobobird]

Thanks John, tried it out this morning.

Bright day. Camera on tripod pointing out the window. In-camera noise reduction turned off. Spot metering to a midtone.

At ISO 6400, needle would only center at F20 for shutter of 1/3200. Took a sequence of shots for each ISO to 100.

The historgram did not hit either the left or right sides except at 100.

All the pics turned out very noisy perhaps a little less at 6400 but very soft. No noise improvements were seen in any of the images down to 100.

Doing it wrong again ?

[arkphotos]

sticking my nose in bobobird ...
Did you keep the shutter speed and aperture setting the same for all your pictures?

I think the idea is to vary ONLY the ISO. This way, the total amount of light is the same - only the camera amplification (ISO) is changing.

You should end up with a set of photos - ranging from very very bright .. bright ... normal ... dark ..etc.

Then in post, you adjust the photos to the same apparent brightness.

The dark shots at ISO 100 (which are brightened) should show more shadow noise than the higher ISO shots (initially too bright, then dimmed in post).

(Take what I say with a grain of salt ... i am often wrong)

[bobobird]

Yes only changed ISO, bright to dark as you said.

Only looked at the noise levels in post but did not try to correct assuming I was doing it wrong and had to redo.

I will pp the ISO 200 as it appears a bit better and post back.

Thanks.

[tonylong]

Yes only changed ISO, bright to dark as you said.

Only looked at the noise levels in post but did not try to correct assuming I was doing it wrong and had to redo.

I will pp the ISO 200 as it appears a bit better and post back.

Thanks.

Heh! You got the right idea, although you went farther than I typically advise people to go:)!

My test is: take a scene, not particularly bright, that you can get a "good" exposure at ISO 1600, in Manual, shooting Raw and with any in-camera settings for noise reduction off including HTP if you ever use it.

Take the shot, and you want few if any highlights clipped, few if any shadows clipped -- those things can skew your results. Don't worry about "exposing to the right" so much as to get a well-balanced scene with enough lighter areas as well as shadow/darker areas that can help you really evaluate things.

Then, all you really need to do is lower the ISO by four stops to 100. You are in Manual, so you will be taking in the same amount of light, the sensor will collect the same amount of light, the only difference is that the camera will then pass the signal off to the respective ISO electronic amplifier, it will be amplified and then the resulting Raw data will be saved to the Raw file (again, no in-camera "fiddling").

Now the acid test: we all learned that "A high ISO produces noise so it is always better to use a low ISO", right?

If that were true, then we can test that here. It's easy: take the ISO 100 image into your Raw processor of choice, and increase the overall exposure by four stops so that it is the equivalent of ISO 1600 -- it sounds scary, but this is exactly what we are talking about here -- the ISO 100 signal "should" according to the "urban photographer legend" be cleaner than the ISO 1600 shot. Well, you be the judge. It has actually been found that in at least most Canon models, presumably because of all the work that has been put into high ISO performance, the ISO amplifier produces a bit less noise than the lower ISOs.

Believe it, or not!

[Invertalon]

I am too impatient for Manual for most cases... I find Av mode every bit as useful, and usually do little adjustment if at all. I can look at a scene and expected what EC I would need, ISO, etc... Manual would be much slower, and for much of the candid stuff I do, I don't have time!

Manual I use for special occasions (and when using flash), but not often!

[djorijun]

Yea I started to use manual two months ago and haven't looked back

[Tony_Stark]

Manual sure is a blast to use. I used it back in December when I was in Florida taking night shots, especially of fireworks, and manual really helped me achieve the results I wanted! This post makes it sound like I never use Manual, but since I use a prime, Im 99% in Av mode ;)

[djorijun]

Manual sure is a blast to use. I used it back in December when I was in Florida taking night shots, especially of fireworks, and manual really helped me achieve the results I wanted! This post makes it sound like I never use Manual, but since I use a prime, Im 99% in Av mode ;)

I use prime on manual. Are you saying it's better to be in av? I ask cause I'm new to manual.

[Tony_Stark]

I use prime on manual. Are you saying it's better to be in av? I ask cause I'm new to manual.

I prefer to use Av so I just control the aperture primarily, but when I did use Manual for low light it really made the experience better. I guess Manual is better when the camera wants to meter a certain scene different than how you want it.

For general use, Av mode is fine, if you want more specific results, use Manual :)

[djorijun]

I prefer to use Av so I just control the aperture primarily, but when I did use Manual for low light it really made the experience better. I guess Manual is better when the camera wants to meter a certain scene different than how you want it.

For general use, Av mode is fine, if you want more specific results, use Manual :)

Ah Thanks

[bobobird]

Tony thanks for taking the time to explain this in newbie terms.

I really like to read your posts and the way you make relatively "complex" things simple for people like me to understand. Plus the "how to use it" parts are just great.

[Dan Barron Photography]

I use manual if time isn't an important factor such as landscape work, but leave it in aperture priority for all other times - just makes life easier and works for me.

[bobobird]

Now that the testing methodology has been explained in easy terms.

Took 2 shots - all in-camera settings off, auto wb, one shot, metering off a mid-tone. Took both at f/8, 1/3200 +1/3EV.

ISO 1600 - washed out and noisy as expected, disturbing yes but just that disturbing
ISO 100- almost black and totally noisy, very disturbing, in fact it was very very bad.

In ACR, noise in the 1600 looked relatively light and sparsely spaced but very tight and dense in the 100 shot.

Did minimal PP - the 100 pushed 4 stops and the 1600 normally. No NR applied within ACR. Tweaked the basic sliders a bit to get the shots "balanced" for the scene.

Took both into PS for only NR and basic sharpening.

Result - Both images are good but the 1600 one feels "gooder" because it seemed to require much less NR and sharpened up pretty well. The 100 is not bad but required more aggressive NR thus a shade more blur. Sharpening was the same for both.

But for both images, sharpening did introduce a slight grain which are not normally seen in normal low ISO images.

So now what ? Perhaps the next step is test in real world use.

For example, go out in good light late afternoon, set ISO to 1600 and keep it there for the duration until evening? Lighting will keep changing quite rapidly so what would be the thing to do in those situations? Keep ISO at 1600 but open up aperture and/or reduce ss as appropriate ?

[John Sheehy]

Now that the testing methodology has been explained in easy terms.

Took 2 shots - all in-camera settings off, auto wb, one shot, metering off a mid-tone. Took both at f/8, 1/3200 +1/3EV.

For example, go out in good light late afternoon, set ISO to 1600 and keep it there for the duration until evening? Lighting will keep changing quite rapidly so what would be the thing to do in those situations? Keep ISO at 1600 but open up aperture and/or reduce ss as appropriate ?

How could both be +1/3EV? Do you mean 1600 was +1/3EV and 100 was -3.67EV?

You can't use 1600 by day, usually, unless you want high shutter speeds all the time, or want to use a tiny aperture. The point is not that 1600 is a better ISO to shoot at; the point is that if your chosen manual exposure doesn't blow highlights at 1600, you will be better off set to 1600 than something lower.

Another experiment you might want to try is to compare the same way, but with 1600 as the lower ISO. IOW, use something like +1 EC at the camera's highest ISO, then change only the ISO to 1600. The results will be much closer, even indistinguishable, from each other, in contrast to your 1600 vs 100 test.

People often speak of higher ISOs adding more noise, but as you can see, this is not true. What is true, is that at 0EC (or any constant EC), the metering calls for less exposure on the sensor, which is the only reason that higher ISOs tend to yield noisier images, in most cameras (some compact cameras use really bad amps that really do "add" more noise at higher ISOs).

[bobobird]

Thanks John, getting my head round this as much as possible.

As a 6 months newbie, I started out with the "easy" ways Av or Tv, auto ISO, etc depending on what I wanted and adjusting as necessary. Only recently started understanding the ISO part. But the results were neither consistent or needed way too much pp. Good shots now and then but more luck or just happened to be a bit more disciplined at the time. Not technique in my opinion.

I thought that starting easy and working up was the way to go. Apparently not for me and all I was getting was more and more frustrated. If I cannot even manage to control the camera and relate the scene to the setting what am I doing taking pics in the first place and investing all that time and money ?

2 very frustrating experiences with blown highlights and pics in heavy shade me me rethink my approach. So last week decided to end the frustration and start fresh - start with the "hard" part and work down. So went fully manual for everything. May just add to the frustration or may not, hopefully not. Either way it can only help me understand the technicalities better.

So this discussion here is helping me a lot with regard to understand the relationship between noise and ISO.

Thank you (and Tony) for hand holding me.

Will certainly try out the suggestions again in the morning and come back.

[Wilt]

bobobird, I have been trying to follow this discussion between John Sheehy and yourself, and frankly I am having a hard time even trying to interpret the specifics of the testing that John has suggested to you. So let me offer this instead, so you can comprehend the concepts of Signal and Noise ratios.

Let us first start with the understanding that all electronic circuitry has inherent 'noise' within, and ordinarily the signal being measured or amplified is high enough make that noise effectively 'invisible'.
Next, let us also stipulate that the ISO value which the camera processor is set to amplifies the signal BUT also the inherent noise.

The result is that ordinarily as the light levels drop and we increase the ISO value of the camera, the signal:noise ratio declines.
This scenario is shown in the upper half of this chart. Note the declining signal:noise levels in row 9. The problem with the above scenario is that the number of photos striking the sensor are dropping (with with lowered light levels of the scene), so the ratio of photons to inherent noise is dropping as well...we are not truly comparing inherent noise of different ISO levels.

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/signal_noise_ch.jpg

John Sheehy is perhaps (my own interpretation of his hard-to-follow proposal) suggesting that you keep the level of ambient light fixed (Row 15 values), and keep the total number of photons striking the sensor at the identical level. That scenario is depicted in the lower half of the chart above. Note that the signal:noise ratio is identical across all ISO values in Row 19 of the chart.

But the problem of this specific test scenario is that the AMPLIFICATION is also changing, and the result is that the 'proper exposure' is NOT being kept the same as a result. We are deviating from 'proper exposure' for that ISO value, as shown with the values in Rows 21+22. We have UNDERexposure at the low end of the ISO range while we have OVERexposure at the high end of the ISO range, as depicted in Row 23 of the chart.

I am, nevertheless, failing to grasp the logic which he presents, that it is better to shoot at higher ISO than at lower ISO. "The point is not that 1600 is a better ISO to shoot at; the point is that if your chosen manual exposure doesn't blow highlights at 1600, you will be better off set to 1600 than something lower."

[mi1stormilst]

No other way to shoot! :-)

[bobobird]

Thanks Wilts. I know you from other threads and very glad you dropped in.

Signal vs noise is not new to me albeit in a computer network environment.

But the challenge for most of us is getting an image that is the cleanest, sharpest and best focused. For that to happen we need to have a correct exposure. In good light that is not an issue, we use 100 and the sunny 16 rule is fine. As soon as conditions get darker we have to compensate with aperture, speed and iso. Here is when things become tricky and we (I) start to fumble.

We think naturally of the scene and composition at all times first and the tool second. We dont think tool first then scene which would make thing easier I suppose. We wish to be "creative" but we also want it to be easy and definable. That is why many started of with Av or Tv or even P.

What I have learned here from John, Tony, yourself and others is that

- manual is the way to go for consistent results.
- on a shoot, set aperture/speed and iso for the prevailing lighting conditions
- if highlights are blowing use a higher iso and set exposure for that iso (or increase EC substantially).
- do not just bump up the iso in declining light but set the correct exposure for that iso.
- for fast declining light go as high on the iso as you are comfortable with and expose for that iso.

Am I making sense ?

Will experiment auto iso tomorrow and see how that works out. I have only ever used it in Av or Tv and wide apertures in city light environments and has not been too bad - but could be better as it is just like Auto in a sense.

Thanks.

[Wilt]

What I have learned here from John, Tony, yourself and others is that

- manual is the way to go for consistent results.
- on a shoot, set aperture/speed and iso for the prevailing lighting conditions
- if highlights are blowing use a higher iso and set exposure for that iso (or increase EC substantially).
- do not just bump up the iso in declining light but set the correct exposure for that iso.
- for fast declining light go as high on the iso as you are comfortable with and expose for that iso.

Am I making sense ?

Will experiment auto iso tomorrow and see how that works out. I have only ever used it in Av or Tv and wide apertures in city light environments and has not been too bad - but could be better as it is just like Auto in a sense.

Thanks.

If highlights are blowing, what is achieved by use of higher ISO?! :confused:



Canon implementation of Auto ISO is too fraught with flaws. For example,
in panning around just now in Auto ISO mode at various light levels,

in low light and f/4.5 in Av mode it suggests shutter of 0"4 and ISO value of 800...why the heck didn't it selected ISO 1600 or 3200 instead, permitting a more handholdable shutter speed?!
in bright light and f/8 in Av mode it suggests shutter of 1/2000 and ISO value of 400...why the heck didn't it select ISO 100 along with shutter speed of 1/500?!If I could pick shutter speed and f/stop, and the camera could choose the right ISO to permit me to use that combination even as the light changed up or down in intensity, then 'auto ISO' capability has value. But today it is a PHD setting that makes stupid choices.

[bobobird]

Thanks Wilt

You are right about the Auto ISO, scrub that. Was probably making an excuse to confuse myself more them I am already. haha

Highlights - had bad experiences in that area (flamingoes in bright light) and no amount of +EC would correct. -EC did but then everything else went dark. Did not make much difference metering off something neutral or the whites. Really need to get this down pat as birds shooting is one of my favourites and there are a heck a lot of white birds. :)

Edit : whatever tried and the histogram not showing anything hitting the right the highlights were still there in ACR. There are usually quite a few birds in the frame (they like to be close to each other) and if this one was not blown the the other one is etc. Single white ie a swan came out fine though. So it is either a setting thing or those sort of things are impossible to get right and as long as it is minimal the should leave it alone. But.... that niggles at me as being "unprofessional". The pics can be seen here

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1022143
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=12148574#post12148574
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1023338


Everything else makes sense then ?

If highlights are blowing, what is achieved by use of higher ISO?! :confused:



Canon implementation of Auto ISO is too fraught with flaws. For example,
in panning around just now in Auto ISO mode at various light levels,

in low light and f/4.5 in Av mode it suggests shutter of 0"4 and ISO value of 800...why the heck didn't it selected ISO 1600 or 3200 instead, permitting a more handholdable shutter speed?!
in bright light and f/8 in Av mode it suggests shutter of 1/2000 and ISO value of 400...why the heck didn't it select ISO 100 along with shutter speed of 1/500?!If I could pick shutter speed and f/stop, and the camera could choose the right ISO to permit me to use that combination even as the light changed up or down in intensity, then 'auto ISO' capability has value. But today it is a PHD setting that makes stupid choices.

[Wilt]

bobobird, sometimes the range of brightnesses in a scene are simply too wide for the camera to be able to handle...the 'wider dynamic range' that most photographers would rather have, rather than more megapixels! For example, just now I found areas with shadow detail at -6.8EV below a mid tone area (grass), and in the same scene there is an area with highlight detail that I might want to keep, at +3.5EV above the same mid tone area. It would take a camera with about 11.3EV dynamic range to cope with black-no-detail thru white-no-detail!

[bobobird]

True, but the but remains.
Maybe bracketing will help but always only remember after the fact.

Missed a fantastic shot of a bird sitting a branch with nothing but a blue sky, the half-moon behind the bird and that one spindly branch. Very nice and clean. Forgot to bracket!

Please excuse the haloing as I dont know how to deal with that (yet).
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_CJO7PukdLlc/Taek6CreN_I/AAAAAAAAFfE/ZmUaHY32cvI/s800/20110414_1625.jpg

[tkerr]

To add to this discussion a little, here is a good resource of information concerning digital photography. This page in particular covers the three things that control exposure.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

And another pretty good read
http://www.cameraporn.net/2007/12/24/aperture-iso-and-shutter-speed-the-good-kind-of-threesome/

[bobobird]

Thanks Tim.

[arkphotos]

There is a lot of information around the forum regarding 'Expose to the right', 'ETTR', or 'HAMSTR'.

Not sure if anyone posted yet .. lot of good info

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=744235

[John Sheehy]

I am, nevertheless, failing to grasp the logic which he presents, that it is better to shoot at higher ISO than at lower ISO. "The point is not that 1600 is a better ISO to shoot at; the point is that if your chosen manual exposure doesn't blow highlights at 1600, you will be better off set to 1600 than something lower."

Perhaps that is because your noise model is fabricated, and has nothing to do with Canon reality.

The electronic noise in the camera does not all originate before or during amplification, as your model suggests. There is a lot of noise incurred in the system after amplification. At ISO 100, it is most of the noise (other than photon shot noise, which is only related to the actual absolute exposure on the sensor). At ISO 3200, it is only a small part of the added noise. So, depending on the model, there is 5x to 10x as much added absolute noise at ISO 100 as at the highest ISOs. The steepest part of this curve occurs right at the bottom; ISO 100 adds almost twice as much absolute noise as ISO 200.

[Wilt]

Perhaps that is because your noise model is fabricated, and has nothing to do with Canon reality.

The electronic noise in the camera does not all originate before or during amplification, as your model suggests. There is a lot of noise incurred in the system after amplification. At ISO 100, it is most of the noise (other than photon shot noise, which is only related to the actual absolute exposure on the sensor). At ISO 3200, it is only a small part of the added noise. So, depending on the model, there is 5x to 10x as much added absolute noise at ISO 100 as at the highest ISOs. The steepest part of this curve occurs right at the bottom; ISO 100 adds almost twice as much absolute noise as ISO 200.

Since you seem to have insight into this, could you please explain for us the post-capture noise introduction as embodied within the Canon implementation? I know that I have a practice of using ISO 100, 400, and 1600, but it would seem that ISO 200 would be a better 'floor', and I want to understand why that might be true.

[bobobird]

Came across this in my travels. May be of interest to the discussion ?

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_1ds3_noise.html

[John Sheehy]

Since you seem to have insight into this, could you please explain for us the post-capture noise introduction as embodied within the Canon implementation? I know that I have a practice of using ISO 100, 400, and 1600, but it would seem that ISO 200 would be a better 'floor', and I want to understand why that might be true.

It's just the nature of CMOS sensors with analog signals, most likely.

The only sense in which 200 is unique is that 200 vs 100, (IOW, 200 with ETTR) gives the greatest savings in the added noise. 400 w/ETTR vs 200 is slightly less of a savings, but 6400 w/ETTR vs 3200 does nothing but lose highlight headroom.

I have the 20D values memorized, so I'll use them; measured in 12-bit RAW standard deviations of black frames, the noise is as follows:

ISO Read noise
100 2.07
200 2.2
400 2.45
800 3.2
1600 4.7
3200 9.4

As you can see, the read noise floor is not proportional to ISO, except at the upper end of the range.

This pattern is typical of all Canon DSLRs except the original 1D, which uses a Panasonic CCD sensor. It is also the way some Nikon-designed (non-Sony) DSLR sensors like the one in the D3 and the one in the D3s.

Almost all other cameras out there work pretty much in the simple linear way that you assumed, except that some cameras add a tad more absolute noise at base ISO as double the base, with no change above that, and some compact cameras have slightly more absolute read noise at higher ISOs, because of very poor amplifiers. For compacts with RAW, in general, it is always beneficial to do all your "high ISO" work from base ISO, with so-called "under-exposure", because even if it does not improve the noise, you get smaller RAW files and/or more highlight headroom.

[tkerr]

Does anyone have any side by side comparison shots under identical lighting. If not I'll do it later with my 50D to see the differences in noise at various ISO from low to high.

In the mean time, what it boils down to in the end is that you want to use the ISO that will be more of an advantage and give you the best IQ for the situation. In a low light situation which is better? A lower ISO and longer shutter speed, or a higher ISO and shorter shutter speed. Both ways are going to produce noise in one fashion or another. Personally I would rather deal with a little ISO noise that I can easily fix if necessary.

When I use my camera for astrophotography I have found the optimal ISO shooting dark skies is ISO 800. Above that is too noisy and would take too many light frame shots stacked to improve the SNR to an acceptable level.
The background colors as well as highlights and shadows also make a considerable difference in how visible the ISO noise will be in each picture.


in case anyone is interested here is some information on high iso and high iso noise reduction from Canon.
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/high_iso_noise_reduction_article.shtml

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/traveling_eol_george_lepp3_article.shtml

And a couple more
http://www.digital-photography-school.com/iso-settings

http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/iso-and-image-noise.html

[John Sheehy]

Came across this in my travels. May be of interest to the discussion ?

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_1ds3_noise.html

This would have been a little nicer if the histograms had been zoomed into, or gave some noise numbers, but you can still see the overall effect. The 3200 is clearly double the noise of 1600, but certainly not 32x the noise of 100.

You also see a secondary effect here, with the 1/3-stop ISOs. The way the original 5D and the 1D-series cameras do these ISOs is to use 1.25x and 1.6x analog gain just before or in the ADC (too late a stage to be of any real value), multiplying the read noise by these same values. At the lower ISOs, this means more read noise at the 1.25x and 1.6x gains than at the next higher ISO (more read noise at ISO 160 than at 200). At higher ISOs, where read noise is more proportional to ISO, these 1.25x and 1.6x gains do not cause extra noise (but waste RAW headroom).

[dawnwithacamera]

One thing that's really important to consider, is how to meter. Once you get the concept of how the buttons and dials interact that should be the next thing you concentrate IMO.

That's the one thing I am not quite getting the gist of. For example, I have a shot set, but my EV meter is at -2, what do I need to change to get it back to 0? Is the the shutter speed, the f/stop or the ISO?? Or is that dependent on what I am trying to achieve?[/QUOTE]

Just thought of the way I really wanted to ask my question--if my meter says -2, what way to I need to go with my f/stop? Smaller or larger, or my shutter, faster or slower? That is the part that I am confused on!!!

[tonylong]

The thing to bear in mind is that the "cure" for noise at any ISO is light. Underexposing at any ISO is, from my experience, inviting visible noise in your images.

But, of course, using a high ISO implies that your image would be underexposed at a lower ISO due to low light. What I've seen is that the "native" ISOs (which are electronically amplified) are of a better handling than trying to boost amplification in post.

When setting up a shot, my rule of thumb is to get the best exposure possible using the aperture and shutter speed and the parameters of your scene. If at ISO 100 you can get a great exposure, then that will be the best ISO. But if not, and you can't slow the shutter speed or open the aperture more without messing up your shot, then it is better to go a stop up in native ISO as long as you don't blow needed highlights.

Dawn, so you know, if you are using Spot metering and Manual Exposure, you can use a subject like that, or other parts of the scene, to set your exposure. It's more tricky in the "program" modes (Av, Tv and P) but people have learned to apply the same principles to get the right approach.

Basically, if you meter a subject and it shows a meter reading, it is up to you to determine if that is the "correct" reading for that subject in the scene/lighting you are dealing with. A very dark subject could in fact have an "accurate" reading at -2 EV and you could leave that stand. Or, if that subject has important detail you want to capture, you could nudge your aperture or shutter speed to get things "To The Right" as long as you keep an eye on highlights that you don't want to lose. Or, if your overall scene is "too dark" but you can't slow the shutter speed down without getting motion blur, or you can't open the aperture any more, well then it's time to raise the ISO -- if you can go to the next stop up of native ISO and not blow important highlights, assuming you are shooting Raw, then that will get you the best "starting point" -- in your Raw processor you can then get what could be a bit of a bright image toned down while keeping the shadows from being dragged too low.

[ALShooter]

This whole thread and links has validated my choices while using my new-to-me 50D for the first time. I was competing in a shotgun only practical shooting match. Most of the stages were "jungle runs" which are basically set up along trails through the woods with the targets placed out in the woods. Starting out I was getting frustrated because in Av the shutter speed kept bouncing all over as the shooter moved through the different sunlight and shadowed areas. After two shooters' runs and basically 0 keepers I decided to change to manual and set the EV on the competitor in the sun and keep it there. It worked out great and I learned more during that 4 hours of shooting than I thought possible. Now I need to start learning how to work with RAW files and get a bigger CF card.

[Methodical]

Curious. How fast were the targets going from sunlight to shade? What method did you employ to adjust for such changes? Was this some kind of contest or training or something?

Al

...Starting out I was getting frustrated because in Av the shutter speed kept bouncing all over as the shooter moved through the different sunlight and shadowed areas...

[ALShooter]

Curious. How fast were the targets going from sunlight to shade? What method did you employ to adjust for such changes? Was this some kind of contest or training or something?

Al

The targets are static with the exception of a few flying clays. The change from sunlight to shade pretty much happened anytime the competitor (my subject) moved. They are only shooting for 15 seconds if they are real fast to a minute or so if they have issues reloading or have malfunctions. To adjust for major changes I was cranking the wheel to adjust shutter speed and keep the EV somewhat centered. I did mistakenly shoot most of the match at too high an ISO. The main thing I learned is that I have a LOT to learn. I'll post a picture once I get home to show the environment.

It is a shooting match or competition. The goal is to hit the targets faster than others do so it involves running with guns. To start a stage a competitor "makes ready" by loading the gun and getting into the defined start position. When the buzzer sounds the timer starts and you can start shooting. The longest stage included about 40 yards of movement through the woods. This match was put on primarily for 3-gun competitors to get some shotgun only practice in.

[ALShooter]

This was one of the stages. You can see a target to the right.