>> |
Anonymous
>>95222 Here's a better example: don't you think a writer should proofread his own work rather than relying on spellcheck?
A good photograph is a good photograph, but I'd argue that in most circumstances, going auto-anything is a bad idea. The "grunt work" is part of the process. You're a programmer, right? You should know better than anyone that a computer can only do what it's told to do, and no more. It can check your scene against thousands of different exposures and guess one. It can't take into account whether you need a fast or slow shutter speed, large or small depth of field (I know you shoot Av, but Rockwell said in that article he shot at least a few of those shots on Program), how much noise you can tolerate, it can't do "expose to the right," and so on. 90% of the time it'll end up with a correctly exposed scene. A correctly exposed scene isn't always going to be *right exposure,* and I don't just mean in terms of the amount of light that hits the sensor, which I know you can fix with compensation. And the other ten percent of the time it's off? Well, you're screwed. If you're shooting manual and using spot or center-weighted metering (so you know what it's doing) and doing it right, you'll always get the scene exposed exactly as you want, within the technical limitations of your equipment.
You're a "real photographer" if you take photographs. You're a good real photographer if they come out well. But the easiest way to get a decent result very often can make it harder to get a great one.
|