When do we break free from film?

I shoot manual mode most of the time, but whenever I do need to use an automated exposure mode on a dSLR I cannot help but resent the film based shooting modes.

In a nutshell, the camera OEM's offer us 'Tv' and 'Av' modes which both act as if ISO is a fixed parameter. Because in film cameras one could only change ISO by swapping out the roll of film we are stuck with antiquated shooting modes.

The better practice would be to recognize that ISO is now a third variable and allow us to pick which of the three we want to let wander.

The 1D Mark IV has come close to this. If you put the camera in 'M' mode and set ISO to 'auto' the camera functions in a pure mode where ISO is the dependent variable. The only problem? No exposure compensation.

Perhaps soon cameras will discard this last legacy of film and move to new auto-exposure settings where you always pick two variables and one is dependent (with EC). My expectation then is most people would choose to make ISO the dependent variable as it has the least effect on the final picture.

I hate Av and Tv modes generally because both shutter speed and aperture are far too important to leave up to the automation.

anytime I've ever used AV or TV I always end up going back to Manual. As long as I have the right lens I can do whatever I want in manual.


it's frustrating sometimes to leave it up to the camera.

well, iso has the biggest impace on IQ, too high and your shot is worthless... M is the only way to go. now, if the camera would allow a non fracture ISO system that would be cool... iso 174, iso 1121 etc...

dwarfcow wrote in post #9832714
well, iso has the biggest impace on IQ, too high and your shot is worthless...

I'd disagree. My 1D IV IQ is almost unchanged between ISO 100 and ISO 1600 and the performance at 3200 and 6400 is quite good.

Think about that. Suppose you are dealing with some really dramatically changing light levels such that M mode is not a viable option. Suppose the light is swinging over a three stop range.

Which is likely to ruin a shot more? A shutter speed dropping by three full stops or an ISO level increasing by three whole stops?

Usually. But if the indident light levels are really in flux (theater perhaps?) then M will actually result in incorrect exposures.

well, i'm always very aware of my light metering, more so than my iso, but honestly... i don't usually take pictures where there is a spot light going back and forth over my subject that is out of my control...

and most theatrical productions prohibit any kind of photography...

I've thought the same thing, since I first bought a DSLR. It very much surprised me that there wasn't a workable auto-ISO with a settable range.

As old as the 5D is, I'm never afraid to shoot anywhere from 50-1600 ISO. That gives quite a range to play with, while leaving Av and Tv under my control in a theoretical M-EC mode.

So instead of 2 variables and a constant (ISO) with EC, you want us photographers to have 3 variables and deal with EC?

I stick with manual ^^

dwarfcow wrote in post #9832761
well, i'm always very aware of my light metering, more so than my iso, but honestly... i don't usually take pictures where there is a spot light going back and forth over my subject that is out of my control...

and most theatrical productions prohibit any kind of photography...

Unless you are hired to photograph them =)

I don't really see the need for film anymore. With computer software it doesn't really matter if your image a little underexposed or just a touch over exposed. The digital image and software are more forgiving then film ever was. ISO was set by the film you bought - same with color or black and white.

Keep the iso low to minimize noise and you can contrast, saturate, brighten and darken, blend, mix and touch up til your heart is content. One shot can have many looks like where a film print was limited to exposure time in the dark room. A few hundred dollars worth of software and some camera equipment can turn the average picture taking joe into a photographic god or goddess in a short time.

Noise in the picture is everthing - or lack of it we should say. You can hide some of it, maybe turn an image into gritty picture and get away with it with some photos. But noise is a killer. I was taught long ago with film "low ISO" keep it low, low, low. It's part of the reason why I wonder so much with so many people shooting at 1600 and 3200 for stuff that could be shot between 200 to 400 with the same results, but a hell of a lot less noise. For low dpi webshots pix that would be okay, but when you print big that noise is deadly.

crimsonblack wrote in post #9833512
I don't really see the need for film anymore. With computer software it doesn't really matter if your image a little underexposed or just a touch over exposed. The digital image and software are more forgiving then film ever was. ISO was set by the film you bought - same with color or black and white.

Keep the iso low to minimize noise and you can contrast, saturate, brighten and darken, blend, mix and touch up til your heart is content. One shot can have many looks like where a film print was limited to exposure time in the dark room. A few hundred dollars worth of software and some camera equipment can turn the average picture taking joe into a photographic god or goddess in a short time.

Noise in the picture is everthing - or lack of it we should say. You can hide some of it, maybe turn an image into gritty picture and get away with it with some photos. But noise is a killer. I was taught long ago with film "low ISO" keep it low, low, low. It's part of the reason why I wonder so much with so many people shooting at 1600 and 3200 for stuff that could be shot between 200 to 400 with the same results, but a hell of a lot less noise. For low dpi webshots pix that would be okay, but when you print big that noise is deadly.

This is true for 35mm film.. I'm getting better image quality out of my 50D than I could ever had expected out of 35mm and better than I was getting out of 6x4.5 at the same ISO.. I'm nearing 6x7 quality now,, close but not quite as good.. Naturally I'm talking large prints of 12x18 inches..

But,, there is no way digital can compete with 8x10 or even 4x5 for sheer reproduction of fine detail and dynamic range..

I shoot about 95% manual mode, the rest is AV or TV. Anything else is wasted dial space (for me, not everyone). As for ISO, my preference is to choose my own setting, not let the camera do it.

As an old school guy it's a bit difficult for me to understand the obsession some have with automation on modern cameras. It's always been an important part of the creative process for the photographer to make decisions for themselves. Now we have automation that does practically everything for us and yet we still hear crybaby complaints that it doesn't do enough. What next? Auto legs for the camera that will carry it to the subject, compose the shot perfectly and deliver it to us on a silver platter? If you want to call yourself a photographer it may be necessary to have a bit of input into the photograph. OK, rant over.

breal101 wrote in post #9835098
As an old school guy it's a bit difficult for me to understand the obsession some have with automation on modern cameras. It's always been an important part of the creative process for the photographer to make decisions for themselves. Now we have automation that does practically everything for us and yet we still hear crybaby complaints that it doesn't do enough. What next? Auto legs for the camera that will carry it to the subject, compose the shot perfectly and deliver it to us on a silver platter? If you want to call yourself a photographer it may be necessary to have a bit of input into the photograph. OK, rant over.

Spot on. I shoot in M - I get more keepers, and it's just a lot more fun. Tell you the truth, my cameras are pretty dumb

breal101 wrote in post #9835098
As an old school guy it's a bit difficult for me to understand the obsession some have with automation on modern cameras. It's always been an important part of the creative process for the photographer to make decisions for themselves. Now we have automation that does practically everything for us and yet we still hear crybaby complaints that it doesn't do enough. What next? Auto legs for the camera that will carry it to the subject, compose the shot perfectly and deliver it to us on a silver platter? If you want to call yourself a photographer it may be necessary to have a bit of input into the photograph. OK, rant over.

Hear him!
Modern DSLRs have too many gadgets built in, IMO. So many people out there with $1K+ cameras stuck on the green box. Bells and whistles do not a photographer make!
Everyone should have to start out with something like this:

crimsonblack wrote in post #9833512
The digital image and software are more forgiving then film ever was.

That's an awfully broad statement. You can overexpose negative film by as much as 8-10 stops and not have anything blown out, and with the right scanning technique or darkroom processing you can pull full detail out of the overexposed area. Digital is more user-friendly and accessible than film, but its "forgiving" aspect is mainly that you can take 1000 photos without worrying about getting it right.