Tips for getting out of lazy snapper mode?

onona wrote in post #16275878
Why don't you just shoot in auto? Contrary to the elitism commonly found on photography boards, there's nothing wrong with it.

because it turns a dslr into a point & shoot,they should just get rid of the dumb square box any way ! and use m,or p,tv av when needed...

I have two camera: My DSLR and a nice point and shoot.

If I am going somewhere that i know I wont care enough to check my setting i leave the DSLR at home and I bring my point and shoot. While shooting in full auto with my DSLR may be an option... I figure if im not going to take the time to do it right, then no point in carrying all the extra weight.

blanex1@netzero.com wrote in post #16276540
because it turns a dslr into a point & shoot,they should just get rid of the dumb square box any way ! and use m,or p,tv av when needed...

See, this is the elitism I was talking about.

How does a small green box "turn a DSLR into a point and shoot"? A DSLR has a larger, better quality sensor than your average P&S, and as such, even on full auto, is likely to produce better quality images.

I echo what was mentioned earlier, and that is shoot in manual all the time. I had a small issue of not checking my settings before each shot when I first started, but shooting in manual cured that fast. I never went a whole day without checking, however.

The OP''s problem is simply just a bit of over-reliance on automation.

First, to get it out of the way, the camera does possess some kind of 'auto' mode. This is the mode to use for when you have no time or inclination to put much thought into settings at all. It will give passable results in some situations, awful results in others and hit-or-miss results at reading the photographer's mind on DOF, blur and plane of focus location.

The Av, Tv and even P modes on the camera are not really good for being used as 'pick it up and shoot without thinking' modes. What these modes are really for is to help a photographer deal with situations where the light is changing frequently within an anticipated span.

To me the OP's struggle is that he's trying to use the auto-metered modes as if they are full auto modes. To break free it might be a good idea to try and shoot manual for a while for most things. Two common myths hold people back from using manual exposure:

1) They think that it will take them too long to get the camera into action when an opportunity arises. But really, as the OP had discovered, modes like Av are no faster. You still have to make sure the ISO and aperture you have selected result in an appropriate shutter speed for the shot.
2) They think light levels change a lot more than they do. I shoot with manual exposure nearly all the time, and I think a lot of inexperienced photographers would be surprised to see just how often I'll spend 10 seconds getting my exposure and then never having to touch it again as I shoot for the next hour or so.

One other cool think about shooting manually most of the time is that you will learn the correct exposure for the places you shoot in frequently by memory, and you will get to be good at guessing correct exposures most of the time anyway. I can usually get within 2/3 stop at the first guess before I meter.

onona wrote in post #16276567
See, this is the elitism I was talking about.

How does a small green box "turn a DSLR into a point and shoot"? A DSLR has a larger, better quality sensor than your average P&S, and as such, even on full auto, is likely to produce better quality images.

But it is heavy, cumbersome and expensive ... Sorry, no offense intended, but I think it is also elitism to hold SLRs as pinnacle of photography, good for everyone no matters what.

I don't see (almost) anything wrong with P mode too, but the OP has asked for advice for how to "wake up" or "shake himself". The con with P mode is that is to damm comfortable, like a fluffy couch. It works well almost everytime, leading to complacency.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16276650
The OP''s problem is simply just a bit of over-reliance on automation.

Jeffrey,
With all due respect, the OP's problem may be more than over-reliance on automation. His issues might run a little deeper than that.

It seems to me like his primary problem might be that he does not care all that deeply about the photos he is making. He himself describes his technique as "lazy". Often, laziness stems from not having an intense drive to do one's best, or from not having a deeply rooted desire for a particular result. I think that if these are indeed factors in his "Lazy Snapper" approach, then that is an issue that goes deeper than a reliance on automation.

I am in yours shoes: 450D user, almost blind and absent-minded.

I recently lost the rubber eyecup in my 450D. Funny thing is, now I can see better!

My two cents? Don't use the auto ISO. You do not want the machine to obscure what is going on. Also, you need some extra task to be keep in your toes. Manualy set ISO will do.

And chimp.

Marcos Dantas wrote in post #16276778
But it is heavy, cumbersome and expensive ... Sorry, no offense intended, but I think it is also elitism to hold SLRs as pinnacle of photography, good for everyone no matters what.

But the heaviness of the camera has nothing to do with the point I was making, nor did I even so much as insinuate that SLRs are the best thing for everyone. Please re-read my response strictly in the context of it as a response to the comment I'd quoted. The whole anti-auto brigade is elitism, pure and simple.

onona wrote in post #16276843
But the heaviness of the camera has nothing to do with the point I was making, nor did I even so much as insinuate that SLRs are the best thing for everyone. Please re-read my response strictly in the context of it as a response to the comment I'd quoted. The whole anti-auto brigade is elitism, pure and simple.

I was only pointing that SLRs are awfull P&S!

onona wrote in post #16276567
See, this is the elitism I was talking about.

How does a small green box "turn a DSLR into a point and shoot"? A DSLR has a larger, better quality sensor than your average P&S, and as such, even on full auto, is likely to produce better quality images.

Because using the green box means that you give up all control over how the picture is created. You have no direct choice of aperture to control the depth of field, no direct choice of shutter speed to allow you to freeze motion or allow a slow speed for motion blur, you can't even select what the camera focuses on, as all points are active and it will decide what it thinks is the subject. You literally "point and shoot", and accept the settings (and therefore the creative decisions) that the camera decides upon. Yes, there are modes that can skew the settings a little towards those "suitable" for "sports" or "portraits" or "landscapes", but that is just going to give you typical, average settings for a decent snapshot.

This is what rbeene was talking about above, the difference between a snapshot and a good photograph. If you just point the camera and shoot, accepting whatever settings it gives you, you are taking a snapshot (by definition). If you think about things beforehand, setting a specific aperture to give you the amount of DOF you want, a shutter speed that gives you the effect you want, focus on what you want the subject to be, etc., etc. then you are creating a photograph the way you want it to look, rather than the way it just happens to turn out.

I have no "elitism" over full auto users, everybody is free to use what they like to deliver what they want. The vast majority of DSLR users don't want to have to think about what they are shooting, or how to set the camera up, and they are happy with snapshots. Green box mode is fine for them, and I am not going to look down on them for wanting that. It sounds like it would suit the OP too, as they seem to just put in a "one size fits all" setting and shoot with it all day, going by what they said.

But, I agree with the comment about full auto turning a DSLR into a point and shoot, because as soon as it is set, that is exactly how you use it. Your comment about it having better quality than the average p&s is correct of course, but (to me) point and shoot is not defined by the image quality, it is defined by how the camera is used.

onona wrote in post #16276567
See, this is the elitism I was talking about.

How does a small green box "turn a DSLR into a point and shoot"? A DSLR has a larger, better quality sensor than your average P&S, and as such, even on full auto, is likely to produce better quality images.

OTOH, in the days of film, two cameras took 135 format film and 24x36mm frame sizes, one was called an 'SLR' and the other was called a 'P&S'...the format size is/was not the primary determinant of the 'Push Here Dummy' orientation of the P&S, according to that precendent! No elitism, merely the orientation of the different populations of buying public which are targeted by the camera manufacturers.

sandpiper wrote in post #16277030
You have no direct choice of aperture to control the depth of field, no direct choice of shutter speed to allow you to freeze motion or allow a slow speed for motion blur, you can't even select what the camera focuses on, as all points are active and it will decide what it thinks is the subject. You literally "point and shoot", and accept the settings (and therefore the creative decisions) that the camera decides upon.

That's a point and shoot in Auto mode. I'm stepping up to defend my maligned G15, which offers all the choices you speak of--aperture and so forth--and more, including full manual. Why do P&Ss take so much trash talk here? Even my older, smaller P&S, which admittedly isn't very versatile, allows choice of focal point and ISO.

OhLook wrote in post #16277172
That's a point and shoot in Auto mode. I'm stepping up to defend my maligned G15, which offers all the choices you speak of--aperture and so forth--and more, including full manual. Why do P&Ss take so much trash talk here? Even my older, smaller P&S, which admittedly isn't very versatile, allows choice of focal point and ISO.

I'm not giving any trash talk about P&Ss. That description you quoted was about why a DSLR in full auto mode could be decribed as a P&S, it wasn't intended as a comment that (small) P&S cameras cannot be taken out of full auto.

Indeed, many small P&S cameras give the option for significant control over the image, should you wish to use them that way.

My point was that "point and shoot" is really more of a way of working than a type of camera. What we refer to as a "P&S camera" is simply one that is typically used in that manner. If your "P&S" camera allows full creative control, and you take advantage of that, it is not being used to simply "point and shoot", whereas a DSLR in green box IS. A DSLR has a "point and shoot mode" for snapshots, just as many P&Ss have a "creative mode" for serious photography.

OK guys here is my response. I left it a few days not because of being lazy. I left it because I wanted some time to chew on things and wait for a run of opinions to think about instead of replying to one or two then having to wait again. I also have a few things on my mind right now.

I think my problem is not so much automation as automaton.

The problem is I am thinking so much about the shot itself I am not thinking about the camera anymore. I see 'through' the viewfinder. I don't see the stuff around the edges of the viewfinder. I find wearing glasses a 'big' limiting factor in this. I struggle to see anything around the sides and squish my glasses onto the rubber (so much so it leaves streaks on my specs).

I have an inkling why this is the case. I have some personal issues. One is depression and lack of motivation which I am struggling with. The other is ill health physically. I suffer from chronic tinnitus and have been reading that studies have shown that people who suffer from tinnitus have concentration issues. I can relate to this. I find tasks hard to keep my mind on. Even typing this is quite an effort for me. It feels like I have brain freeze. I get tunnel vision a lot (hence not seeing what is going in the viewfinder other than the actual shot).

I do love photography. I just have a problem with breaking out of my insecurities. I have become even less likely to take photos of people unless I am somewhere where it's normal to have lots of photographers (tourist traps etc).

Live view may help but on the 450D it's a pig to use and slow as molasses at focusing.

My low light technique also sucks. I have to force it to Tv mode and try not to go lower than 60 because I have trouble holding a shot steady enough otherwise.

I know I am laying it on thick here. I was considering getting a 70D but lack of cash is restricting me at present. I make more use of my S90 because I find it easier to deal with. Don't get me wrong. I know how to use my 450D. I just have a lack of concentration and technique because of the issues mentioned above.

Sometimes I feel like I have a thick fog in front of my brain and eyes that I can't shake. It's something I am always discussing with my GP but thus far nothing has really worked well (plus I have gotten a bit overweight and loss of muscle tone probably due to not enough exercise so am seeing a physio as well).

As you see there are some bigger issues at hand here. Thanks for the responses I shall cogitate on them. The remark about quitting for a while may not be such a bad idea as maybe I will get the photo bug back later.

In earlier posts in the lens forum I was asking about buying new lenses and bodies etc and I think I was just trying to find a way to overcome my own issues through technology. Sure my gear ain't great but I am pretty sure the biggest limitation right now is myself.

Again. Thanks for reading and replying.