He who drills the well controls the water. The "well" was drilled almost two centuries ago when photography was invented and photographic equipment (lenses, light meters, shutters, and film) were invented using the current system. However unwieldy, the symptem is used globally. This is in part due to the the use of numbers (yes, Arabic, but these are universally recognized in sciences) rather than symbols and words and that these number (f-stop and aperture, T Stops, shutter speeds, ASA/ISO), have a mathematical relationship to each other and to the luminance of reflected light. To suggest another system is akin to attempting to introduce another language like Esperanto. It would be artificial and would require at least two or three generations of photographers to index any new system to the existing one. That is very cumbersome. Even the argument that ISO is not standardized pales somewhat when it is recalled that neither was film speed. Anyone who meters an 18% gray card, exposures at 1/3 or 1/2 stop intervals, developed the film and then measures the minimal film density against base emulsion knows that effective film speeds vs. manufacturer stated film speed vary significantly from a half to 1 1/3 stops. My comments are more directly critical of Tony's noble attempt. Folks who want to point and shoot are living in the best days of photography. Those who wish to understand how an image is exposed and how to manipulate controllable equipment variables will do well to read or watch existing tutorials rather than start with something like Tony's system.
Of course, I thought I was clear that I expected the old systems to remain. In mature markets, unwieldy systems can and are replaced with efficient ones
Thank you! I've now watched a couple of your videos and find them to be exceptionally concise and thought-provoking. Your delivery is perfection itself. I will certainly enjoy going through the rest of them very soon. 😊
I watched many of your videos. I like the way you provide comprehensive explanations or constructive comments on other people's opinions. Always articulate and civil (as you ask for regarding comments yourself). Thank you. I would love to see this kind op approach to communication everywhere ....
Love your take on this! It’s true that a lot of the learning curve in photography is building a mental model of the expected result of a certain set of variables through repetition. Having a more results-based user experience could indeed flatten the curve 😉
I remembered when I first started out I found that camera settings can be quite intimidating. Agreed that camera settings should be simplified if possible as that would encourage more people to take up photography as a hobby. Anyways, appreciate that you are coming up with content during these lock-down times at home to keep us entertained. Hello from Singapore and stay safe!
Thanks for taking the time to comment, your kind words are always appreciated. Stay safe in Singapore, but if you get the opportunity to say hello to my friends there, please do so.
Thank you. I am most certianly a novice, who just purchased a sony a6600. Since you are the wisest cameraman, you shall be my Teacher. I will began as you said in auto mode. Look forward to learning from you.
Excellent video again Maarten - your idea of a visual based concept of what a camera should be giving us is spot on. After spending time composing the right shot just how I want it I usually haven't a clue what focal length it was!! I'd have to look at the "info" in the editing suite!!! Just proves your point that it is the result that matters
Maarten, I've just discovered your site and really have enjoyed what you have to say. I remember what Ansel Adams had to say regarding technology and it really is in line with what you're saying. “Electronic photography will soon be superior to anything we have now. The first advance will be the exploration of existing negatives. I believe the electronic processes will enhance them. I could get superior prints from my negatives using electronics. Then the time will come when you will be able to make the entire photograph electronically. With the extremely high resolution and the enormous control you can get from electronics, the results will be fantastic. I wish I were young again!” In recent years (AP after Photoshop) there has been considerable discussion concerning "would Ansel" or "wouldn't Ansel" be using the current technology? I think he would be and would probably have a digital series of "The Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print".
Terrific lighting, color, and depth of focus. Maybe drop that seating position six inches to keep the parallel shelf line out of the top of the frame. But, really this is one of the best looking to-the-camera setups I’ve seen on RUclips. Ever.
Good suggestion - was thinking the same thing myself. And thank you for the kind words. Now that I can dedicate a space to a studio setup, I've been able to fine tune all the parameters to get a shot that pleases me - glad to read that it meets your approval. Any thoughts on the items on the shelves? I'm starting to think some are too obvious (yellow submarine) and it may be too cluttered. Thanks very much for your kind words.
Maarten Heilbron No...not a bit of distraction in the shelf contents. Everything is so nicely out of focus that no item calls attention to itself. Yet, there’s just enough detail that it’s not a frustrating blob of blur.
@@mattcom2 Thanks for the check on that. Incidentally, it's shot with the Nikon Z7 with the 24-70 F2.8. It's here on quarantine loan. I'm not sure I'll be able to part with it. A couple more things I want to try - like F-log - on some upcoming videos.
Thank you, another thoughtful and thought provoking comment/discussion. In my humble opinion virtually everyone who attended junior high or high school was introduced to fractions and ratios. You and I as well as most photographers know F-stops and shutter speeds are not magical, they are simply ratios. F-st TV vs S (time value vs. shutter) on the dial. The digital photographer is well positioned to shoot and experiment at different setting combinations. Live view and EVFs provide a wonderful view of the effects of change in the F-stop. 1s and Os are amazingly cheap and easily erased so take lots of photos keep track of settings (file generally automatically recorded with each picture) an view on ones computer. Some of grew up with having to process film, forego the immediate gratification/confirmation of a digital image and take time in a darkroom to see results. No longer my photo friends. I am, however, glad that I grew up during a time of a manual camera standard (Nikon S2D, Pentax Spotmatic and Leica M3), stopped-down metering, and ASA/ISA/ISO speeds of 25, 50, 60 160 and a whopping 400 (loved Tri-X). A time when fixed focal length lenses provided estimates of depth of field on the lens barrel based of chosen aperture. I'm fortunate in that I had to learn to estimate the photo affect of various settings and fixed focal length meant I learned to have a viewfinder in my minds eye. The proliferation of zooms makes doing so today so very difficult. Thank you again.
A pleasure to read your kind words. Understood, as I said, you and I get it. But many people don't. I'm not suggesting that the fractions and ratios you understand be removed. Just hoping to find a way to make it simpler for those who are confused and frustrated.
This video makes so much sense, that you just completely blew the fee photography world apart. I'm a Fuji user now, and they've simplified things, but your to theory is so much better!!!
Very good analysis and in the main, very good resultant answers, I am a fan of Tony have been for many years, as I have of yours, but we did have a misunderstanding once, but you have helped me with a couple of problems I had. As 70 year old, I have been photographing for many years, it brings to mind some photos of my younger age, one of which, was my Nana who would catch three buses, and walk a half a mile, every Sunday, to visit my mum, her daughter, born in 1909, Nana was born in 1883, her father I found out many years later, he had a photographic studio in Manchester and Manchester archives have four contact prints, I digress. I have a photo of Nana, that I took with my Box Brownie 60 years ago, I loved what cameras did/do, I collect cameras, but I think the points you raise bring a sensible system in, I liken it to HiFi systems, everyone knows the basic icons for play, fast forward etc, they have even transferred to TV control pads, mobile phones and to some extent laptops/computers, in those cases, dependant on machine or unit, there are visual dials that show what happens. The jargon surrounding photography, is like the jargon of anything that is done professionally, it has to have constants, otherwise all before us was? Improve, Yes! Alter, Yes! Get a universal simplicity, Yes! I think the success of Apple is down to its front facing, updating, user interface, yet they are using symbols still, perhaps the answer is. Communication! It is done at very successful companies, that ask for ideas, put technical, with science, the Nerd like all of us, deserve our place, need to be heard, but ultimately if you respect the basics, the intricate aspects deserve a uniformity, TV I think is Nikon or Canon and I’m not knocking that, but it has to be a continued logic. I use mainly Olympus M 4/3 & Fuji XT range, they are both brilliant, but both are a nightmare, the real issue is when you switch to one or the other, but different models, I’ve watched you vlogs on them and, how can you make something so different, with a change, you have to tweak, not this, I’m the new chairman approach of, complete makeover. Communication and Compromise. Keep Safe always, not to many days to canoeing again, I don’t see the objection, if your canoeing alone, wilts observing safety and social distancing. But who am I?
I don't mind canoeing solo, but I'd only do that if someone else was also soloing alongside. And its impossible to shoot a video of myself canoeing without a camera person. Otherwise, thanks for taking the time to comment. An interesting read.
Thanks for your refreshing take on using a camera for making images. Makes a lot of sense. Thanks for creating the most useful photo related channel on youtube!
Hi Maarten. The canoe would have been perfect for this one! Just watched the start of Tony’s thinking, which seemed to be as a (very) amateur photographer to be even more confusing! I think anyone who is seriously trying to improve their photography and/ or having invested in better kit (both like me) will take the trouble to understand how aperture, shutter speed and ISO interact. The only one of these that’s counter intuitive is aperture, but that sinks in after a while. There is so much good stuff online including your channel, RealWorld, Tony’s etc to help us through this. I don’t think changing names or definitions will actually help, although the thought of simplifying the technicalities is a noble one. Keep up the great work - when you getting back into the canoe? David (Essex, UK).
As a relative novice, shooting just a couple of years I must say I love the current'old' system. Once you learn what the settings mean, you can mostly let them go, and I agree that I mainly leave my camera in auto iso, and then either Aperture priority or Manual, it depends on the situation, or even sometimes how I feel, or sometimes the given light and contrast. I flick between different metering, auto modes a lot, but mostly in combination with auto ISO and manual I can achieve quickly what I'm going for. Also by the by, I find I love manual focus lenses and once you practice, I can get pretty solid results that has a more immersive photography experience and helps me focus on the image and away from settings. In the end there really is no substitute for practice and experience, and once you take a firm look at the somewhat initially jumbled terminology in photography it sinks in pretty fast. Whatever terminology you use, you still have to practice, fail, and keep practicing right ? What is it they say ... 'your first 10,000 shots will suck' something like that, but it''s true practice makes perfect no matter the terminology. Interesting video Martin, love your free content.. Another guy from Dublin here !
Thanks, it's good to hear that there are people who feel that the current system is understandable and manageable. Unfortunately, that's not true for all people. I'm sure you'll find some great photos even in your first 1000. And thanks, I appreciate your kind words.
During this video I checked my phones manual mode. It's from Sony so it may vary across manufacturers. But basically they do exactly what you have said. More or less. Anyway manual mode on a mobile phone is pretty much useless from my pouint of view. I have never used it. Full auto all the way. The manual mode is even pro friendly when it shows numbers you would expect on the screen but away from the slider so novices are not distracted by them. It would be great to have it in DSLRs as well. Even though I know the old system and there were times I could set manual settings without a meter just by looking at a scene.
Scene-mode icons from one of my P&S cameras had small 'cartoons' that reflected the image outcomes. Portraits icon was a head & shoulders; running athlete for high speed photography, etc. No words required!
Interesting discussion. For me, now just a bit over a year into photography, I found learning these things a bit challenging up front, but looking back, I'm happy with the standard terminology I've come across and feel comfortable with it. That said, I can see how using the language you suggest can be very helpful in explaining the concepts to someone learning this stuff.
I am an avid amature photographer who is teaching my two grandaughters (ages 6 and 8) to make photographs. They are using SONY a6000 cameras in complete auto mode. As close to point and shoot as you can get, as simple as possible. Their goal at the moment is to have fun and try to get their desired subjects in focus by learning to pay attention to the wondeful auto focus SONY provides. Some of their photos are wonderful. I am a Manual shooting snob, but I am learning that Auto is great in a pinch.
What a great opportunity and a good camera to use, as its auto modes can help your granddaughters focus (sorry) on the image, the story and the mood they are trying to convey.
www.kickstarter.com/projects/samellos/im-back-35-new-version-with-manual-priority-function?.mirrorlessrumors.com& unfortunately it seems the sensor doesn't look like it's up to most modern standards...it also kinda looks like a kludge stuck on a lovely film camera...
@@MaartenHeilbron maybe , most of my workflow was made with a Hasselblad 500CM from 1980 to 2006... no AF , no auto nothing, nice IQ , Never know about FF or BF issues , had my own B&W lab , the rest was Ekta or Kodakchrome, the hardest thing with her was to compose in square format. Never got the same IQ with digital backs. I discovered that I´m a dinosaur. Greetings from Málaga /Spain
Great video. I've great respect for Tony and Chelsea. When my dad gave me my 1st Pentax K-1000 in 1983, he also gave me a copy of the Joy Of Photography. That book had chapters about how to get the most out of auto settings that I could not take advantage of yet. The camera was just a tool to take the pictures I wanted to take. It is still a tool to take the pictures I want to take. I am glad to have the knowledge I have. I have no issue admitting how I use that know how. Most of the time it is "Do I want to use Aperture or shutter priority today? How high do I want the auto ISO to go today?" Then I go out and play. I am reticent to say this, but I think the biggest barrier to understanding is not the terms, but we, the users of the terms are often the gatekeepers keeping people away from going out and playing. Then we get mad that cell phones become better and better because they understand people want to go out and play. We can simplify this in our conversations and our videos and tutorials. I doubt we can find a common language suitable for all cameras anymore, but we can simplify things. I can go to a craft store and learn how to knit something simple or make a bracelet in under an hour. Am I ready to start a business? No. But we can get people out there in an hour composing shots and having fun and that is a good start. Apologies for being so verbose! You have my brain churning on behalf of little boys and girls in 2020 like I was in 1983 when I held my first grown up camera!
It’s interesting what you say. I set up a series of interactive training sessions for my camera club, to try to encourage people to join the club. I didn’t start with the settings, the first session was on composition, and the second session on exploiting light. These two topics are important whether you are using either a phone or an expensive camera. Only after that did I go into settings.
So, safe at home, awaiting call from my doctor, who like many don’t seem to know anything about photography, especially streaming video. I’ve been digitizing my slide collection (nearing end of 1979, thankfully) using very demanding slide scanning software. I’m amazed at the quality of my Minolta SRT-101 (1971). Not much automation, but London and Rome and evening Kuwait didn’t seem to need it. Should have tossed more blurred or badly exposed slides, but St. Peter’s Square in the rain with Kodachrome- well, I didn’t know if I’d ever be back. Had to figure out the technical stuff, so I did. Glad I did. A serious photographer is likely to be plenty smart enough. Might take a while. The scanner book had to be read at least three times and I think I need a refresher on how to use that densitomiter, but let’s not forget you can’t recover what’s not there.
hi maarteen , I just like your way of explainantion of points here & review of Fuji xt 100 I had viewed . I am learning photography with omd em10 mk ii & your reviews are very usefull for me.stay safe ! ….. thanks !
Ive been a pro for 35 yrs - after I sold my studio in the late 90's my brother was releasing book and needed a cover shot which included an Enfield rIfle, a tin helmet, a war memorial and a poppy. At that time I didnt even own a camera so he brought his. Some Canon thing with a zoom lens which when he got it out of the bag pulled the flange clean off the lens. So I held it on went to full manual mode - guessed the exposure, used a toffee wrapper as a filter and got the shot. I has never been about the camera but what is in front of it and what the person behind it is doing!!!! Nice video.
@@MaartenHeilbron Another one: I got out to Amsterdam from the UK to photograph a disabled pool lift for a brochure. I opened the Bowens Travleler case to find my assistant had forgotten to put back the three tripods - I sat the lights on the floor and bounced them up to the ceiling - which wasn't even white - the art director loved the shot and commended my creativity - I didn't tell him why I had done that. had to shoot a plate of food by a Michelin star chef. My Hass 503 didn't have a metered prism - and the batteries in my light meter had gone. I used 12 different exposures for 1 shot thinking well 1 of them must be right. and it was just that. I used to put my rolls of film back in any silver foil I had available, once I put all my E6 into C41 foils and they got crossed processed by my assistant in my lab - the client was overjoyed - now you can press a button in LR to do the same. Stay safe - thanks for the videos
I love your ideas. When I started learning about photography (almost three years ago), it really didn’t take long to understand the formal/traditional terminology. I was shooting in manual mode on day two of owning my first dslr. RUclips videos taught me so much. Maybe simplified terminology would attract more people to photography???
Thanks for your kind words. I think that the cameras in phones (with their lack of traditional photo terms) have already dramatically increased the number of photographers in our midst.
I watched Tony's video and if ever there was a way to confuse photography it was explained within that video. I glazed over and switched off almost immediately. A camera is a tool, and becoming proficient with a tool takes time and effort. Whatever nomenclature camera makers put on their cameras it will still take time and effort to understand and apply to practical use. I tend to take practical approach based on what I learnt when shooting film. I look through the lens and either zoom or walk backwards and forwards to compose, as you say in your video. When composed adjust aperture using the preview function to adjust depth of field to what I want, seeing the expected result in the viewfinder. An easy guide for shutter is for 200mm lens then I need 1/200 second, 1/20s for 20mm, 1/35s for 35mm, etc, obviously this can be pushed somewhat with VR, but as a guide I still find it a useful place to start. Adjust the iso to make the shutter speed suitable based on the above guide for shutter. Now we are digital I look at the shot and if it is not what I want then I take another with different settings (cannot do this with film of course). This is what I did when cameras were less smart. These days I let the computer do some of the work. Generally I stick to aperture priority (as this is the setting with the smallest scale), and let the cameras set the shutter speed. I set the auto iso between a band that I am happy with from a noise perspective. Two of the variables are set by the computer and I override if necessary. Personally I think there is no substitute for talking the time to learn. This may sound a bit harsh, but if people cannot be bothered to take the time to learn how to interact with what is essentially three settings, then they don't deserve to understand.
I'd suggest you go back and give it a fair audition, he makes interesting and valid suggestions. Granted, they're not for everyone, however its straightforward simplicity is very appealing. Please ask a non-photographer to read your second paragraph. As my family likes to say, "When are you going to do videos in English?". The skills a photographer needs to learn are composition and timing. The rest is mundane clerical skill and I'm happy to let the camera/computer do that work.
@@MaartenHeilbron Hello, to be clear, I did watch the whole video from Tony. I would say that for experienced photographers the suggested system is irrelevant since they are used to the current nomenclature and for the inexperienced photographer it takes just the same amount of learning than the existing system, so I find it a bit pointless.
@@markwith140 Thanks for being clear. When you said "I glazed over and switched off", I thought you hadn't watched it. While that's certainly true for experienced photographers, think of the generations of photographers yet to come.
Hi Maarten, great topic a very well put it. I sometime feel when I try to explain cameras and camera setting to someone new to this that it is hard for both of us - it is like explaining how to boil an egg to someone that does not understand what an egg is, or a chicken or fire or water. I confess I still love to use manual settings on film cameras that's why I relate so well to the Fuji XT series. But for those that had their first contact with photography on a smartphone, understanding camera settings is complicated.
It's complicated for everyone, however there are some who grasp the relationships between the terminology and the results more easily. Thanks for your kind words.
I hope Tony sees how much further you are taking this, and I certainly agree with you. But I know plenty of people who would find choosing between (dialing) both 'blur background' vs 'everything sharp' AND 'motion-stop' vs 'motion-blur' still way too complicated. The Auto setting of modern cameras pretty much does that for them, and will probably get much better in the future. Tony mentions how the photography community revels in technical complexity. Surely we don't want to spoil ALL our fun.
I don't want to spoil anyone's fun - I certainly didn't advocate removing the existing complications we all love - just to add another system (or two) to help those who find it frustrating. Auto setting rarely gets a defocussed background portrait, a quickly moving object or a milky waterfall.
A very thoughtful variation on the Northrop nerd-a-drama. One major reason that the smartphone camera is so successful is that little technical thought is required. Remember that half the population have IQs south of 100 and the ability to multitask and engage in analytical processing diminishes as one heads toward the equator, unless you are living in the Southern Hemisphere." This, combined with most Americans dread of anything "math" or "numbers," supports your contention to focus on only the results. And in this context, understand that only a small percentage of folks care about results that are any degree above passible. Northrop speaks to the 1-percenters out there that care, understand and are motivated. The rest of his viewers just come along for the ride. Remember, he prospers if you agree or not, for it is the click that counts.
@@MaartenHeilbron The analogy, if you read carefully, is a play off of south of 100 and not suggesting a correlation with ones geographical location. Sorry for the sloppiness. The point is, the more complex or abstract technology becomes the fewer people are adept and/or interested in engaging such.
I find your results-oriented system interesting. In programming there are the notions of imperative and declarative commands. Imperative is a style in which you tell the system how to do something with an order of steps. In declarative style, you're more or less *describing* what you want the output to be, which I think of as the analogue to what you're talking about. I think eventually AI will play a role here. "Siri (or Alexa, or Google), I want Steve (which your device recognizes from his Contacts photo) to be in focus with the blurriest background possible." Until then, I like the idea of figuring out how to get a camera to understand intent and be proactive rather than waiting to take a series of orders.
That’s why on my camera (Olympus e m1ii) I shoot auto iso with manual aperture and shutter. One dial at my thumb and one dial under my shutter finger. Super easy compose and shoot.
Maarten, I think one of these big camera manufacturers need to use you as their lead consultant in designing the next generation camera. I'd preorder it now :-)
Thank you for another interesting topic. I enjoy the learning experience in photography. You are my favorite teacher. I only take photos during my vacations and special occasions but I want all of my photo to look good enough to be on a postcard. For me, the camera apps on the phone have what I need. How blurry is the background? How bright? What scene? I like what Fujifilm offers in X-T200. I wish more technology from smartphones are transfered to mirrorless cameras.
Thanks for the kind words. Of course, we're all learning and thinking. I think phones have shown many of us the value in simple interfaces for photography.
Have an easy mode to have those sliders on a touch screen but have physical dials so the user can choose how they want to control the camera. If anyone has played with a smart phone in manual mode they would know all the sliders, focus, shutter, ISO and exposure comp, start at auto. Most smart phone cameras don't have aperture settings so many people may not understand how this affects shutter speed. Between a simple way of illustrating what the the effects are and the option of having something familiar such as computational digital bokeh could really draw someone in to a mirrorless system.
You could call it the Settings Wizard. In software, a "wizard" walls you through a complicated set of settings by asking you "results oriented" questions. This is the same. Then, the camera could show you what settings it arrived at, based on your novice-mode choices. This way, you could eventually learn the numeric systems as well, whether you choose the standard or Northrup systems.
Yes, exactly that. I'm just not following why, after the wizard did what I wanted, I'd have to be told what it did. When I indicate to my car that I want to go at 60km/hr, it doesn't tell me what rpms are required so the next time I can adjust that setting.
@@MaartenHeilbron But you don't indicate to your car that you want to go 60 kph. You indicate that you want to go a little faster by pushing the pedal a little more down. You indicate that you want to go a LOT faster by mashing the pedal all the way down. Physics "calculates" the results of all that, based on the mass of the car, the efficiency of the engine, and wind resistance. Then the car shows you a numeric value to indicate the result. In this case, you need that numeric value for several reasons: A) There are laws about how high that numeric value can be. The laws don't tell you how far down your pedal can be. This is analogous to bumping up against the limits of the capabilities of your equipment. Contrary to your claim, there are many times when I do not attempt to take a photo because I know the results will be disappointing. After getting a lot of disappointing pictures in a specific situation, I learned not to waste my time until I could afford better equipment. B) You may want to compare your speed today with your speed yesterday. People are notoriously terrible at estimating their speed just from looking out the windshield. Ask any cop. This is analogous to just seeing how much bokeh is in your picture. It is very difficult to examine a picture and specify the exact "degree of bokeh" is in it for comparison. That is why people use vague terms like "beautiful bokeh" or "smooth bokeh" or "buttery smooth bokeh." Novices may not care about the exact degree of bokeh but, as one advances in skill, one may desire to replicate the amount of bokeh that was in a previous photo. Knowing the numbers allows one to replicate that better than moving some vague sliders until things "look about the same." C) You may want to compare your speed with that of your friend, who is also traveling to the same destination to ensure you will both get there at about the same time. You don't call each other and say, "I have my pedal half way down." Nor do you say, "The telephone poles are going by really fast." No. You report the numbers on the speedometer. (OK, these days you just report the time Google says you will arrive. But that is still a number calculated based on your speed and other factors. But Google calculates based on average speeds of everyone on that road. So, if you want a real estimate of your arrival time you have to calculate it yourself. This is analogous to your friend looking at your picture and wanting to replicate the bokeh. You tell them all the numbers, including the size of your sensor, then they can calculate what settings will give them the same bokeh. Then they can choose what equipment and settings they will need to replicate your bokeh. So, no, a complete novice with no desire to improve their skills would not need to see the numbers. But if someone wanted to advance their skills, they would eventually need those numbers. Yes, composition, timing, and storytelling are important. But, at a certain point, one learns that controlling things like bokeh and exposure and dynamic range helps with those first three. For a while, simply adjusting vague sliders will help with that. But all those sliders will be interdependent. Adjusting one will sometimes, but not always, move all the others. If a person does not understand why that is happening, they will get frustrated. My decades of experience supporting computer users tells me they will invent all kinds of incorrect theories and outright mythologies as to why things are happening. So, people will eventually need to know the actual numbers and how all those numbers affect their final result if they want to be able to replicate previous results, especially with different equipment.
A fascinating and interesting read. I appreciate that you are not willing to understand my view, have misinterpreted, jumped to conclusions and gone reductio ad absurdum on this. That said, I do always enjoy my interactions with my viewers - thanks very much for taking the time to chat, it is appreciated.
Great topic! i agree, it's more about the resulting image, rather than which settings did you use. What are your thoughts about just leaving cameras in full auto mode, perhaps with a scene adjustment (which is practically standard on every camera)? Are your thoughts closely related to a more 'enhanced' auto/scene mode?
My view is that those settings are fine until you realize that the camera doesn't understand what you want. If you just need to adjust the brightness, there's EV, otherwise you are lost.
I think Fuji has already implemented a user friendly system in the X-A7. I was watching a review of it and noticed you can switch the degree of "blurness", and the scenes mode allows you to do light trails (as an example).. But I don't own one so can't be sure. However you do raise a very valid point. Just like most cars are now automatic or use some sort of paddle shifters with dual transmissions.. no one is driving manual anymore.. is it about time photographic controls move to a more user friendly based system?
Yes, that's true - both Fujifilm and Sony have, on some models anyway, implemented a version of the depth of field slider. Thanks for joining this conversation.
Agree with your approach - and particularly with making use of AI to balance ISO with the other requirements. Getting the manufacturers to agree on a common understanding or naming convention might be the most difficult thing to achieve!
First, let me say that I am an amateur in the nth degree. Fortunately this late in life I'm able to afford the really nice equipment, far beyond my capabilities. I do however enjoy the process of trying to get the cameras with all their thousands of iterations of settings to create a pleasing photo "in camera" instead of altering it to the point that it looks nothing like the original shot in a post editor. Anyway, I really appreciate your videos, I find them very informative.
With regards to focal length, the human body more or less has the same relative sizes. I find that when I stretch my arm and hold my thumb and finger apart, this roughly comparws to an 135mm lens full frame. 85 mm is roughly my "center vision", or suitable for people a few metres away. We can think of similar measurements for other common focal lengths and give them names.
I remember in the '80s a Nikon lens brochure listing angle of view diagram, for beginners today with the different sensors sizes it really adds to the confusion when picking a lens in mm. Just having the angle of view for the lens on the sensor size would be a little simpler. ISO, light sensitivity is the way I've discribed it. We who know photography, take for granted a lot of simple things that we learned and became second nature to us - like the sunny 16 rule. I have been answering questions from a beginner in my photo group and have been coming across just this. She was complaining that her images she edited were not that sharp. I asked if the file she was editing was jpeg, she responded Yes, I got her to edit the raw files. She didn't edit the raw files because she couldn't see them in Windows, but could see the image thumbnail of the jpegs. There are just so many variables for a beginner to unpack the knowledge of.
Brochures like that are useful, insofar as they help you make a selection. And you're very right, those of us who've managed to get ourselves up to this level of understanding don't remember the struggles we've been through.
@@MaartenHeilbron I don't know about you Maarten but when I was learning ( on slide film ) there was an added encouragement to figure things out ( and quickly! ) after you had spent some good cash on quality film and developing only to pick up your long awaited slides from a guy who looked at you with pity in his eyes as he rang up your bill...;-) !
@@MrKikoboy As always, thanks for joining in - nice to see my friends. Added encouragement, but you had to remember what you'd done while you were on holiday. These days you can see your mistakes and fix them while you're still in France.
@@MaartenHeilbron I actually used to keep a small notebook when I shot for that very reason - especially when I wasn't sure what I was doing...later on I got much better at predicting and visualizing...every shot would turn out exposed the way I wanted and 5-7 keepers ( compositionaly )from a roll of 36 seemed to be a good average...the delete button on digital cameras sometimes seems a bit of a crutch to me - I'm not an "action" shooter so it seemed like you should learn to recognize what you are looking for before clicking the shutter - although happy accidents have their places as well...;-)
Interesting as always. I didn't watch Tony's as the title page just looked confusing from the start. I'm all for simplicity and I think after 3 years of shooting I have a basic feel for what I want. Earlier this year a fellow birder set me up in Manual with auto ISO and I find it great.
I like it a lot. especially because as you say it could co-exist with the traditional number based system based on software. this could be done now. there is a huge market I am guessing. although some still would prefer the flower mode for close ups etc. Your sytem would be a great middle ground for a novice and that is probably the bell curve holding most of the people who own a camera.
I am one of those who has changed my mind in taking some photos because the result was going to be noisier than I was willing to accept. My Nikon D800 didn't do so well at ISO 6400 and above. A simpler system probably would help a lot of new photographers. Better ways of explaining the old terms would also help. Personally, I think of bigger aperture numbers as "greater depth of focus", and also understand that they are inverse numbers like shutter speeds. 1/2.8, 1/4, 1/5.6, etc. The only time I set ISO manually is when using off-camera flash. Otherwise, I let the camera do it automatically, and just look at the number to gauge how much noise is likely to be in the image, and decide whether I can live with less depth of focus, or more movement to get a cleaner image.
I think it is a brilliant idea and cameras definitely should have an easy to understand mode like that. Some entry level or consumer oriented cameras already do have "scene" modes for portraits, sports etc. which kinda work in that direction. However there is also no way in hell I would use such a system regularly, I'm to old school and to be honest fiddling with the settings and getting it right is at least half the fun of taking a photo for me personally.
Most scene modes are pretty primitive, but can be useful. Of course settings are fun, but for many who have a valid use for photography as a means of expression, they're just frustrating and because they don't understand them they feel they're missing out.
2:53 "When you use manual mode, the camera is taking advantage of you" - Love this! 7:42 "I'd like to meet the photographer who says I'm not taking this shot because the image will be noisy and grainy" ... "interesting content is more important that photo quality". I'm not sure that this belief is as commonly held as you think! Taking the Fuji system as an example, I often see people stating that their AUTO ISO MAX settings is set considerably lower than the allowable maximum.. which indicates that once a particular level of ISO is reached, they would prefer to have a blurred image over a noisy one. Doesn't make sense to me, but this is my observation. 8:40 We don't need to revolutionise camera settings to achieve this, IMO. Again using Fuji as an example, capturing the scene "without blur, and with the highest quality possible" is not possible without needing to either adjust ISO manually (depending on lighting conditions) or dig into menus to customise minimum shutter speeds. With regards to focal length, the most user-friendly way of representing this, in my opinion, is the distance that you would need to be from a given universally-recognised subject to have it fill a particular percentage of the frame. For example, for an average-height adult human to fill 80% of the frame, how many meters away would you need to be. Obviously US-based photographers might find this usage of metric offensive, and average adult human height varies, but this is just an example. Excellent video as per usual and very thought-provoking. As much as I'd like to see the camera industry move towards a more contemporary and well-designed UX, I really can't see it happening for market reasons. It seems to me that the clunky, confusing, technical interfaces of cameras and the high barrier to entry is what makes some people proud to call themselves "photographers". Otherwise, they'd just be like everyone else taking photos with their iPhones.
Thanks for your kind words and insight into my comments. 8:40 - that's exactly why I want the camera to take over here I don't think that citizens of the US find the metric system offensive, just mysterious. I don't think the photo industry has any interest in limiting their market to elite photographers. They'd like to appeal to everyone. Thanks again.
@@MaartenHeilbron yes you're right, I don't think they find it offensive per se, but nonetheless it makes my idea quite a hard one to implement! But another point you brought up is probably a more important one: the ability to have different firmware versions depending on your needs/preference. If Fuji's firmware were somewhat open, I could have gone in an tweaked the features that I saw as deficient and shared that with other users. Then interfaces like the Northup system and the excellent Heilbron system could be a reality!
@@MrJed_s Yes, good suggestion. Open source camera firmware. It's interesting to note that Sony tried that when their cameras had downloadable apps. They provided a limited set of the APIs, but although some developers (me included) had a look at it, the limitations meant that nothing interesting was possible.
I don’t want photographic terminology to be made simple, if it does become easily understandable any Tom, Dick and Harry would walk in and start making masterpieces! Understanding aperture, ISO and shutter is in itself a reward! I am just being snobbishly silly. I thought once I understood the exposure triangle I would start making masterpiece, sadly that is not the case . I do enjoy and look forward to your videos, thanks MH.
While it's nice to see your avatar, and I suspect your being ironic - even a master of the settings is not going to take great photos. That requires a creative impulse to recognize good composition and timing to wait for the right moment. But you know that - as always, thanks for taking the time to comment and for your kind words.
Here are a few I'd recommend: My friend Paul's bird feed: @birds_onthebrain Arienne Parzei - who can turn a most mundane shot into a spectacular image @seeusoontravel Neil Ever Osborne - my favourite eco warrior @neileverosoborne Kael Rebick's most interesting take on things @punkodelish Travel photography (mostly sponsored, but) with amazing colour and flair @zorymory Lois Greenfield's amazing dance photos @loisgreenfield Hopefully that's enough for now. Please do return the favour - who are your favs?
@@MaartenHeilbron A short list of my favorite photographers are English-Canadian, Adam Gibbs, Scotsman, Alister Ben, Dutch Photographer,Theo Bosboom Daniel Kordan, not sure where he is from German traveling writer Photographer Photography Viola. Adam Gibbs is my fav because he creates masterpieces from almost all scenes and subjects. Theo Bosboom is more of an abstract nature photographer however, his ability to spot engaging composition from nature is magical! Hope you can look-up and enjoy my list. Enjoy your summer, MH!
Thanks and thanks. I shot this with the Nikon Z with the 24-70F2.8. You'd expect great results from this combination - but I have spent the last two weeks configuring the set and the lighting. I've also spent some time adjusting all of the picture control settings to my taste. Nice to read that those efforts paid off.
@@MaartenHeilbron Every video you make involve a great deal of effort, thus the worthy results. This one made somehow a difference. I would be very interested of knowing this Maarten Custom Z P Profile !! Sharing is Caring after all !! 😊
@@MaartenHeilbron Thank you for sharing the settings !! I appreciate all of you videos, even when I do not comment. As a matter of fact, every time I want to learn about a new camera, I go to your channel, because I know I will find a review that will be complete, accurate and fun to watch. Thank you again !
I agree with you, there should be an easier way to take pictures and manage a camera's possibilities but it should be noted that standardization is key. Imagine if cars controlled differently from one another. Now for the way itself i'd stick with the sliders of some sort.
I went to the link for Tony's presentation on reinventing the wheel. My conclusion is that he has been in lock-down too long and is having some sort of break-down. Maybe we all are :o -Loren
I feel the most important aspect of photography are the two creative ones: composition and moment. In my opinion that's more important than technical expertise. It's nice to understand the technical details, but a missed moment or a bad position / frame is worse than the wrong shutter speed, aperture or, heaven forbid, ISO.
Thanks for the kind words. This video was recorded with a Nikon Z7 using the Neutral profile with reductions in sharpening and saturation and a custom white balance that was tweaked in editing.
Very nice ideas and I subscribe to them. I think eventually that will happen. I find myself when using the phone to take a picture that I care little or not at all of the ”technicalities”. :) Probably is the same with the most, I think that is pretty close to what you are saying. Then, once the ISO performance is getting to a good-enough level even for smaller sensors and the AI will start to be implemented deeper into the cameras (so far, very little I'd say) again we are close to the cameras themselves doing all the math reliably and we only take care of composition. But I am afraid for right now this might be a little bit too avangarde... I'd also like to see you on the canoe soon! :) That fills very... refreshing!
I remember (it wasn't that long ago) that I was really trying to learn settings. Even though I kinda knew what the terms meant, I had trouble remembering what settings to use to in certain situations. I would just spin the dial to see what happened, and of course with disastrous results since I just shot at whatever the default settings were. I don't know how much simpler you can get that the little icons for settings like macro, sports, landscape, night shot, etc. I suppose that regardless how simple we try to make it, people will still be confused; it takes practice, like most things.
Part of the fun is to discover all the weird settings. But iAuto can take that fun away when I just need the shot. No need to think any more about it. No need for new numbers, that will complicate further. Good advice for all is not to take Toneh too seriously.
I'm not seeking to destroy your fun. I'm trying to suggest how some techniques might be easier. However, I am intrigued. Which settings would you describe as weird? Also note that neither Tony or I are seeking to impose this on you. We are both suggesting that this be an alternate, exactly so that you can continue to play with the weird settings.
I like the manual stuff and imo learning that makes you to see the pictures in a different way. Maybe even makes one improve his knowledge and abilities. I agree on making this simpler for new photographers but I hope it will also help them to learn the manual settings. The automatic modes will never take 100% what you want...
As I said, I wasn't advocating for this to be the only way to use the camera. I agree, there's lots of fun to be add playing with settings but it's a limited number of people who will want to explore the way you do.
@@MaartenHeilbron because lots of people don't want the hurdles to learn and give up early. I think that's one of the things that can separate the ones that make the effort and try to be better from who don't care enough... There's a book called "the dip" by seth godin that talks just about that
@@DiogoFilipeR Why do you need to judge? The vast variety of human experience on this planet means that there are very few people who share our interests and enjoy the things we enjoy. They spend their time and energy understanding and pursuing their own interests and passions.
@@MaartenHeilbron sorry if I sound judging, I read what I wrote and I didn't mean to sound like that! I meant to say that I don't want to lose the manual abilities because in a long future no one would be using them... For example smartphones, they are all super big now and people that like smaller phones (not me actually) don't have much offer to choose. The economy works in mysterious ways and can make the markets change direction to where the money is. Of course it's not possible to please everyone! Mirrorless cameras are changing the camera industry, let's see how it continues 😄
I watched the video as I was intrigued by the title.... didn’t expect being a response to Tony”s one, I left a long comment there, however in a nutshell my opinion is: why do you want to reinvent the wheel? Photography isn’t rocket science, it can easily be thought without having to understand the numbers, but, can you teach? This is the actual question, I have been to several photography exhibitions and the vast majority of tutorials, speeches, workshops are utterly rubbish simply because the speaker/trainer hasn’t got any training/teaching skills. A good teacher doesn’t give you the answers, makes you find the answers, stimulates your curiosity; a good teacher knows how to make you understand a concept. A good teacher can teach anything because understands what’s involved in the process of learning, not because knows a subject or is good at doing something. Back to your argument, I can see the logic behind it and agree that simplicity is always the best, not so sure about the technology part on its own, it is a bit like WYSIWYG where the main issue is that you don’t have a clue of what you aren’t seeing.
Good comments, thanks. While I agree that all learning styles are different and require teachers who are sensitive to that, for photography some of the settings have an unnecessarily obscure and arcane basis that could do with some rationalization. Tony's comparison to the metric system is spot on - for many people imperial measure remains incomprehensible, and that's not the fault of teachers.
Maarten Heilbron Love this conversation/argument.... I agree that the imperial system is the most absurd ever, specially when compared to the decimal system; it only makes sense from an historical perspective, foot from the Egyptian cubit, pounds (lb) from the peculiarity of quasi-constant wight of wheat grains etc., however there is a deeper level to it, the use of fractions, you can teach a 5 years old in minutes what 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 is the concept of breaking something into to equals is primeval, good luck trying to introduce 0.5, 0.25, 0.125.... fractions had been used for millennia before the concept of “zero” was even introduced, at least in the western culture. The decimal system is brilliant cause makes computation easy from an intuitive perspective, except between zero and one, where it becomes counterintuitive, in this case fractions are way more intuitive, a bit like doing calculations on an abacus in a certain way, where unknowingly, for the vast majority of people, you are actually using a binary system. Back to the main topic, photography, multiplay or divide by 2 is most intuitive with the decimal system for whole numbers and with fractions between one and zero, that’s shutter speed, a kid wants 4 cookies instead of 2 and prefers 1/2 a cookie versus 1/4; ISO is just a number, ISO 100 could be ISO 10 or whatever, as long as you don’t have to use numbers between one and zero if you want to avoid fractions,. When it comes to aperture values I agree that at first sight it looks completely nonsensical, however all you have to do is say that “f” means “1/“ so that f3.5 is bigger, gives you more light than f13, 1/3.5 is bigger than 1/13, unfortunately f2 doesn’t gives you double than f4, but you can’t change how light behave and it’s quadratic function, you will always have to introduce the idea of multiply a number by itself, going from 2,4,8,16.... to 2,4,16,256 which I still believe a lot more intuitive than 0,5,0.25,0.125,0.625... to 0.5,0.25,0.0625,0.0039. T stops are definitely more accurate and a superior quality of data, but more difficult to explain and understand compared to f stops, a second stage in the learning process, on the other hand it’s so easy to explain that f2 means that the size of the hole is 1/2 the length of the lens. The human being has used fractions for millennia way before basic numeracy has become a normal, last 100 years or so, it’s easy to understand and use for anyone on a daily basis. I sincerely hope that haven’t bored you to death...
@@nilofido411 Not bored, just confused. There is no historical basis to claim that fractions were used for millennia. And while half a cookie might make sense to a five year old, the same reasoning does not apply to photographic terms, particularly aperture. If you want half the light (a concept that's certainly a difficult one to grasp, as it's not something that we ever consider outside of photography) you do not have a dial that allows you to set the aperture to one half. Instead you have a dial that you have a turn from 5.6 to 11. How did you explain to the five year old that 11 is one-half of 5.6? What seems counterintuitive to you, makes perfect sense to me. How are T stops more difficult to explain? They relate to the amount of light, not the size of the aperture. The amount of light is what matters - no-one cares what size of opening is required . Please, let's end this conversation here.
Maarten Heilbron my Apologies, it wasn’t my intention to upset you, just an attempt to engage in an epistolary conversation and I will refrain to go any further; just a couple of points for clarification, it’s documented that the Egyptians were using fractions 2000 BC circa, the Greeks, Babylonians, Romans, Indians etc., you tell a kid that f5.6 it’s actually f 1/5.6 and it’s bigger than f1/11, T stops are the actual correspondent measured values of the f stops, that varies for each item coming out of the production line, they are accurate but they have the same theoretical math behind: ratio between focal length and physical size of aperture minus dispersions.
Honestly I believe shutterspeed measured in seconds (or fractions of seconds) is as intuitive as it gets. We are all familiar with seconds as measure of time, so I don't really see the point in changing it! Also "frozen" and "blurry" do not really apply in all situations, so I do think it could be kinda misleading. Aperture? Different story. It could definitely be simplified, at least so that the numbers go the same way with the actual size of the opening. Or how blurry the out of focus area becomes, though that too is not set-in-stone. E.g. I can shoot a distant object with an aperture of 1.8 on a wide angle lens and not get any blur whatsoever. So I believe just measuring the radius of the aperture in cms would be enough. ISO actually should stop being called ISO. It's basically signal gain, so we could use some term like "brightness gain" and measure it in dBs? Or some similar scale or even an arbitrary one that goes from 1 to 10 or 15 or whatever. How further should photography be simplified is a subject that can better be discussed over the course of an entire afternoon. Or two. Or plenty.
I think one issue that could arise if we use all of the different methodologies at once would be communication among the different methodologies. I suppose the potential for miscommunication comes from methodology change in any subject, but I'm just imagining standing next to a lake trying to capture the scene with mountains in the background and a random person is doing the same next to me. We get talking about how we're capturing the scene and our cameras and such. Then we start talking about camera settings and one or both of us is extremely confused and unsure how to translate the methodology that one of us uses with the methodology the other one uses. That's also not even going near the "internet debates" that would inevitably come up with something like this. Also, if people would begin to only learn the "new" methodology, then what about photo-editing software? Would that also need to have options for which methodology you're using? Or would that be reserved for the "pros" who know the "traditional" methodology? I think there are certainly better ways to think about how to take a picture than the "traditional" methodology, but changing an entire industry is much easier said than done; however, change always has to start somewhere, regardless how daunting it may seem.
The need to exchange settings would be an advantage of Tony's solution. However, I don't really see this as a requirement. Cameras are different, lenses are different - knowing my settings does not make it possible for you to recreate the photo I just took.
I am new to cameras and i really cant understand whats the problem for newbies. The auto mode is their friend. Even mobile phone apps use the same terms. Maybe they should not change the terms but adopt an extra parameter to the menu. Something like newbie shooting settings where they will have options like blur, more blur, more artificial light (iso) etc. Anyway keep up the good work Maarten.
I think the crux of what yore getting at here is UX and UI ... which is a massive topic in the space of computers pioneered by apple in the early 2000's ... Smartphones are the best example of this....would people really have adapted so well to computers so quickly without the easy to use smartphone? probably not...look at older operating systems, theyre confusing and very technical (to the untrained) but that all changed with the Iphone, now anyone can use a computer with ease. I think you have a point. we need a camera that is the Iphone of cameras .....
It's an interesting point, but I'm not sure I completely agree. I don't think computers were hard to use before the smartphone arrived and while the capabilities of both computers and smartphones have advanced, there are still a large cohort who find smartphones and computers difficult to use and impossible to master.
Another great video Maarten. But while I do agree that the naming conventions around settings in photography can be confusing, I also enjoy the level of adjustment possible in the framework around these numerical settings. But I'm sure a fully manual mode is entirely possible in your proposed system. It's all just software after all.
How about just 'S' for Sensitivity rating even, and rate it from 1-10 +. 1 being the least sensitive for each individual sensor (today's ISO 100 equivalent = S1) and 10 being the most sensitive ISO 56,200 = S10? It would be like a decimalisation of the outdated ISO settings simplified by numerical sensitivity.
@@nowisthetime6093 I would not find that realistic. The lowest or base ISO just means no amplification to the signal coming from the sensor. I think I'd prefer gain, although I'll admit that sensitivity has some aesthetic appeal.
@@MaartenHeilbron defenetly gain. Like on my guitar. Input is normal signal from guitar and gain boosts that same signal but results in more noise (audio noise) more gain = more noise but more audible.
I agree that the camera system needs to be dumb down. Especially the aperture F stop. I would rather have the camera let me know how much depth-of-field (like in metric mm, cm) in focus rather than F stop that doesn't help in composing a shot. Besides that, I don't see how the ISO value help in composing a shot, like how much grain/noise I need in the picture. Usually, people want a clean picture and then they can add grain in post if they want to. I hope manufacture can come with some AI tech to deal with the noise issue and turn ISO into how much detail/sharpness (super fine, fine, standard) to retain. In my opinion, it is bad to prioritize on ISO and let aperture/shutter speed suffer in a picture. In the end, photographers can focus on composing, depth-of-field, area of focus and shutter speed to make better pictures.
Thanks for the comments. The Noise value would be a reported number, not an adjustable setting in my view, to provide guidance for the photographer who might like to use a flash or possible change lenses.
My wife wants to be able to take control of her camera to create the images she sees in her mind but the math behind f-stop settings intimidates her. Cell phones have begun to implement slide controls and such, as you suggest, to make the picture-taking experience simple. It's a pity camera companies have not adapted as well.
@@MaartenHeilbron But please know that I do love your video's! Your input for me to better use my Nikon Z6 has been watched numerous times with each time being helpful!
Another way to frame the issue is we need a better user interface (UI) for photographers who are not as nerdy as Tony and who have not learned all the complex numerology of the old system, which derives from the old school of film. My bet for an improved, 21st century, friendly UI is Apple -- not Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Fuji. Cheers, thanks, and stay safe.
The history of popular photography has been to make things easier. From box cameras to autofocus point and shoots, it was all about making a sharp, well exposed photograph. If people want to go beyond that, and there's no reason they have to, the existing shutter, aperture and ISO dials are fairly straightforward. Digital camera manufacturers attempted to bridge the easy and hard stuff, in one model, with mixed success. If the exposure triangle is beyond their grasp, how is anyone going to understand variable dynamic range settings, or a host of other controls that go beyond simple reciprocity? If you don't want to look under the bonnet, auto mode does a fine job in most circumstances.
They may be "fairly straightforward" to you, but that opinion is not shared by all who are intrigued by the possibilities of photography. The camera industry has pushed those people to use smartphones, which are much less reliant on arcane terms and settings but are result-driven as I suggest. Thanks for commenting, an interesting read.
@@MaartenHeilbron I'm not sure substituting f5.6, 1/250 @ ISO 640 becomes any simpler by replacing it with equivalent clicks on an alternative metric. Before cameras grew multi-function interfaces, exposure variables had dedicated dials to avoid confusion. Sooner or later the user has to understand the consequence of moving a setting, the analogue of which is not the hardest part.
@@borderlands6606 Again, simply because you have come to terms with these terms and they now "make sense" to you, doesn't mean that it's equally simple for everyone. There are a wide variety of human beings with a wide variety of ways of understanding our world. Please don't assume that everyone is just like you. If someone finds it simpler to drive a car with an automatic transmission, while you have mastered the clutch and manual shift method doesn't make one better.
@@MaartenHeilbron Cameras do not lack automatic settings, they are festooned with incremental automation from point and shoot, via various program modes, to the abandonment of shutter speed and aperture size to the photo deities. You can shoot in manual and jpeg, adapting the camera menus to the precise look you want, or delve deep into the editing mines. I am not uniquely gifted, pretty much everyone looking at this and every other RUclips photo channel will have learned exposure relationships, often without learning the English language or basic interpersonal skills. If they haven't they can learn, or ignore them with little detriment to the visual quality of their photographs. My reaction to Tony Northrop's video was a solution looking for a problem. The pressure of content providing can send people down rabbit holes when there's no rabbit and very little hole.
Must admit as I am learning photography I am wondering why I am bypassing all the money and expertise Panasonic have put into my g85 to make it take great pictures in given situations. Don’t get me wrong I love manual, full or part, but am I wrong to pass up auto completely? I suppose raw/jpeg is a similar argument.
I think that's a valid thought - take advantage of the things your camera can do so that you can concentrate on the creativity and vision that only you can bring. Thanks for commenting.
Maarten Heilbron very very good. I have been creating face-to-fan videos for my business since 2013 and I know the effort that goes in to make presenting work. Your demeanour, your class, your knowledge, all exemplary, first rate. A doff of the hat to you sir 🎩
Of the opinion that current camera automation is coping for 80% of the pictures we are taking. In other cases some manual intervention is needed. How does the camera know what you want in focus? How much blurr you want? What type of backlit photograph you want? At some point you need some extra knowledge. As an old school formed photographer we had no choices in the past as you had to understand the intricacies of shutter speed, f stop, focussing and emulsion speed or you had a bad image. Humanity always wants to simplify, look at the early 20th century advert of Kodak "take the picture, we do the rest". These camera's were able to take decent pictures in daylight. Now we want more as we want to take pictures of black cats in a coalmine! Who remembers Minolta camera's with a variety of presets with the technology of the early nineties a precursor of the highly acclaimed AI...Who remembers a paritcular Canon camera who could follow your eye movement in the viewfinder and select the according AF point (sadly discontinued by Canon) With the shift in technology (chemical vs digital photography),improved processing power into the camera's we are just tipping the top of the iceberg of what is coming to us in a couple of years. In a very short time we'll just have to input the right parameters into the camera, and it will take photographs accordingly. Perhaps the next iteration will read our minds.... I am not against this evolution, but it has to be simple, not what we have now 500+ pages of camera manuals. Perhaps a Leica M is not so bad at all, manual focus, centre weighted metering, the rest is the task of the photographer, unfortunately the system is out of reach for most of us. People do not want to learn, they want instant gratification. Video and photography is getting closer and closer, just shoot video and take the pictures you want from the video stream. With 8K around the corner we will have enough resolution. These are of course my ramblings and we do not have a crystal ball. Who had anticipated in the mid nineties we would play with 5 figure ISO values...
Who would be so cruel as to put cats in a coalmine? And please be careful when you start tipping icebergs, they are even more dangerous than cows. As for 500 page camera manuals, I think you'll find they're excellent sleep aids. Do you keep the Leica out of reach because your children might damage it? What happened to your crystal ball? And your ellipsis at the end left me wondering what was next? However, I do agree that automation is terrific until it doesn't provide the results you want. Then, whether you use the current system because it makes sense, or Tony's or the sliders I've seen and suggested you should be able to easily achieve your vision, hopefully before you fall asleep reading.
I know it is not popular to say, but as much as you pay for new semi pro camera, I use the green or P mode, until doesn’t work for me, then go old school. Why work so hard unless you have to?
Please go to the front of the class! Exactly. "Until it doesn't work for me." If the camera can do the work while you concentrate on composition and timing, then you are taking full advantage of your camera.
Thanks for the kind words. Get your mind out of the gutter. It is a box of Droste cocoa powder with the image of a nurse, my small token to front line health care workers.
@@MaartenHeilbron It does not matter what it is, just like f-stops and ISOs. It matters if it is distracting, what its impact is. I want you to get the impact that you want to have.
@@MaartenHeilbron True, you do not. But we are not talking about me. I am just honest and caring. You have a viewership. Me: a retired MD who has made no prior mention of sexual content online in well over a year. My mind is likely far from where you seem to think that it usually is.
Talking of camera AI and auto functions, I'm amazed that camera manufacturers haven't yet come out with an adaptable bracketing option. I shoot motorsports, and would love to have the option of shutter speed bracketing. No not exposure bracketing but shutter speed, where I can have a number of shots with different shutter speeds but the same exposure. The idea is to have safe shots, where the image is caught with a higher shutter speed and consequently slower shutter speed shots for that blurred background look in conjunction with panning. Is this so hard to do?
While this sounds like a great idea, i think that technique and timing might not be in your favour in this application. It would be great to be able to say which exposure variable (aperture, shutter, ISO) is adjusted for an exposure bracket - and I do wonder why this hasn't been implemented by any manufacturer.
@@MaartenHeilbron , yes exactly, having the power to choose what will vary would be great. I for instance know that when I chose exposure bracketing in Aperture priority mode on my D810, the camera changes only the shutterspeed. The ISO remains the same. That's what I'm using to a certain degree to simulate my idea of a Shutterspeed bracket option. Yes, I will have different exposures from my existing solution, but it's better than missing a shot. Most underexposed images are recoverable so I always underexpose my middle exposure for a well-exposed "overexposure" (I hope you are following my logic here lol).
Reply to "While this sounds like a great idea, i think that technique and timing might not be in your favour in this application"... Most of us shooting action motorsports shoot in bursts, so that is the primary used technique. My idea is to have a burst mode with a variable shutterspeed duration of each consecutive shot. The timing in this technique is to decide the framing window you want to shoot in, so for instance if a car is going to go through a corner I will decide the entry and exit point for that move and shoot burst there with AF tracking on. If the distance from the camera to the vehicle is determined to be the same focal distance then I would prefocus and not use tracking at all.
I think the whole camera interface needs to be changed into a smart phone format where every setting can be configured and saved as custom settings. For example, on my Canon I was limited to there images for HDR. Now on my Olympus I have more options, but why can’t it be variable and let my choose the number of frames? I think there should be changes from the 1970s interface
While I could suggest that your memory of the 70's is faulty, I do agree, interfaces are somehow needlessly complex even though they do now offer a great deal more functionality.
Maarten Heilbron No, my memory is fine as I sold film cameras for five years in the late 70s and early 80s. I owned a Canon A-1 in high school so I understand the UI. Of course, it is just dreaming that all of the camera manufacturers are going change camera settings any time soon as it would be a major disruption in the industry. Based on sales it MAY be worth it?
Your suggested changes in terminology is the way point and shoot and phone cameras have gone. Automobiles have taken advantage of technology too. For me the sad trade-off is that people won't understand how a photo is created than how their cars now detect the environment around them (radar lane detection etc.). But that's fine. I don't have to know how my computer does what it does, to be able to take advantage of it's capabilities. I am glad I learned photography on an old film camera my father bought back in the 1940s. I have switched to Fujifilm digital mirrorless cameras from DSLRs, mostly because I like the dials/controls that are similar to old film cameras.
I have only one serious objection to this whole idea: new photographers who learn to compose and shoot this way will still have to learn all the technical stuff if they want to use the cameras made over more than a century before there were microcontrollers to make all the technical decisions for them -- trading off aperture, shutter speed, and sensitivity. Perhaps the long, long term looks like this -- but being a photographer has never made oil painting harder. Learning photography with this level of radical simplification, essentially reducing the process to "I want to shoot that, this way. Do it, camera!" will make it FAR harder to learn the "technical art form" of exposing film, and making prints you can handle and hang on a wall from that film. This is, in my opinion, the final admission that whatever people are doing with digital "cameras" is not "photography" -- writing with light -- but a different, albeit related art form and technical discipline, and like many disciplines that come to depend too much on computer assistance, digitography is in danger of forgetting how it got there, and thus forgetting what it's about. I'm getting to be an old man; I probably won't live to see the day when you can connect the descendant of a digital camera to your neural implant, and record exactly the picture you want simply by liking what you're seeing. I occasionally wish it were possible -- like when I see the sunrise from my car, on the way to work, and can't pull over alongside the highway and take the shot. And it will be, probably before the end of the century -- but that's not photography, that's letting a computer be your memory. And what will happen when we've forgotten how to remember for ourselves, because we let the computers do it for us?
The technology of photography is hardly essential to the art. Think about how much more sophisticated any instrument of the last 50 years is than anything that Mozart or Bach or even Ravel would have known. Do you think that they'd dismiss a digital keyboard, the electric bass, the amplifier or the precise sophistication of modern horns and strings? I think they would embrace them as wonderful tools to further enable their creativity. I'm sure that applies to the great photographers of the previous millennium also. And they would quickly appreciate the advances that have been made to further enable them to fulfill their vision.
@@MaartenHeilbron I had a long, well-reasoned reply almost finished, and my browser crashed. Suffice to say, I disagree: learning photography your way would be like learning to paint in oils without understanding the color wheel and how pigment and dye paints mix and cover differently.
IMO the confusion about shutter speed and aperture values being irrational has to do with the fact they they’re actually fractions, but mostly expressed as integers. 1/250 of a second is erroneously referred to as a shutter speed of 250 and f8 refers to 1/8. It doesn’t help that most people are naturally averse to fractions so an integer or graphically based system is perhaps a better solution?
While I'm happy to have the benefit of your scientific and rational explanation, there are many people who, even if you explain this slowly and carefully, will not appreciate this nuance as you understand. They need something simpler, which is what Tony (and I) are advocating.
I agree. I’m a new photographer. What does “wide open” mean? Does that mean a lower F-stop number or a higher number? Some of the terminology seems inverse. In this case when I hear wide, I think of more (higher number). But then in other cases, a higher number means less (as in quicker) like in the case of shutter speed. See what I mean? I guess it just takes time to get this ingrained into my mind. But in the end, I see how a combination of settings produce a certain end result. Then I start making the connections. All in due time, I guess.
@@_HMCB_ Agreed, every time I say "a smaller aperture, which is a larger F-stop" have feel the need to apologize. Next time I'm going to complain that dials nearly always turn the wrong way. Luckily many cameras can reverse the rotation.
Hi Maarten, I commented elsewhere on one of your vids that ISO is not actually part of the Exposure Value as there are only two things that create the Exposure Value (EV). These are the Aperture Value and the Time Value. The EV is only made up by the amount of light allowed to reach the film/sensor and this is controlled by the aperture and shutter speed. ISO only affects how sensitive the film/sensor is to the the EV. Also it is a little misleading to say that the "larger" number (when referring to shutter speeds and apertures) is the shorter shutter speed or smaller aperture. This is because it is not actually true! These numbers are actually fractions and when I was at school, 1/1000th was a much smaller number that 1/5th or, in the aperture world, 1/16th is a much smaller number than 1/4th. The whys and wherefores as to where these numbers come from does not matter when pressing the button but, if you are shooting in any manual way, how they affect your final image does. When teaching photography, I quickly move on to refer to 'larger/smaller' apertures and 'shorter/faster and longer/slower' shutter speeds. All my students need to know is that the numbers are fractions, and then they know absolutely what is a shorter or what is larger etc. It is all very simple indeed and nothing needs to change at all. A student only needs to know how changing things will affect their image when they put them into effect. This is also why I only really refer to 'Stops of Light'. Each 'Stop' being equivalent to 1EV. Anyway, I am pretty certain you know all of this but great vid none the less. Thanks
First, I suggest you experiment with your camera(s) and determine what the EV dial is actually changing in the various modes. You may be surprised. Secondly, this is truly unnecessary information for the majority of photographers, who are simply trying to understand what the dials and settings do and they effect they have on their images. Photography is complicated enough for the majority, and insisting on terminology that is misleading is counterproductive. Incidentally, I'm surprised to see you use the term "shutter speed". It's correctly the "shutter duration".
@@selianboy8508 Okay. Then let's get away from the scientific terms and use ones that might make more sense to photographers. In the days of digital photography, the term ISO is meaningless. Gain is the right term to describe what's happening.
@@MaartenHeilbron Happy with that so long as the sensitivity of a sensor is not considered part of the Exposure Value! Then I am a happy chappie. BTW... this side of the pond I have never had a student who has not grasped the basics of what makes up the exposure value.
The Most Likeable camera expert around, love your reviews Maarten, Hello from Dublin..
Thanks for my new title, and for your kind words. Please say hello to all my friends in Dublin.
He who drills the well controls the water. The "well" was drilled almost two centuries ago when photography was invented and photographic equipment (lenses, light meters, shutters, and film) were invented using the current system. However unwieldy, the symptem is used globally. This is in part due to the the use of numbers (yes, Arabic, but these are universally recognized in sciences) rather than symbols and words and that these number (f-stop and aperture, T Stops, shutter speeds, ASA/ISO), have a mathematical relationship to each other and to the luminance of reflected light. To suggest another system is akin to attempting to introduce another language like Esperanto. It would be artificial and would require at least two or three generations of photographers to index any new system to the existing one. That is very cumbersome. Even the argument that ISO is not standardized pales somewhat when it is recalled that neither was film speed. Anyone who meters an 18% gray card, exposures at 1/3 or 1/2 stop intervals, developed the film and then measures the minimal film density against base emulsion knows that effective film speeds vs. manufacturer stated film speed vary significantly from a half to 1 1/3 stops. My comments are more directly critical of Tony's noble attempt. Folks who want to point and shoot are living in the best days of photography. Those who wish to understand how an image is exposed and how to manipulate controllable equipment variables will do well to read or watch existing tutorials rather than start with something like Tony's system.
Of course, I thought I was clear that I expected the old systems to remain. In mature markets, unwieldy systems can and are replaced with efficient ones
Thank you! I've now watched a couple of your videos and find them to be exceptionally concise and thought-provoking.
Your delivery is perfection itself. I will certainly enjoy going through the rest of them very soon. 😊
Thanks. I've been reading your comments in reverse, but have appreciated your interest in my videos, your kind words and your participation.
I watched many of your videos. I like the way you provide comprehensive explanations or constructive comments on other people's opinions. Always articulate and civil (as you ask for regarding comments yourself). Thank you. I would love to see this kind op approach to communication everywhere ....
I appreciate your kind words, thanks for commenting.
There is already a solution. The full auto mode. Done. End of discussion. Glad I could contribute. Excellent, thoughtful video, btw.
Please show me the blurred waterfall or the passing cyclist you took with full auto. Otherwise, thanks, I do always appreciate your contributions.
@@MaartenHeilbron The blurred waterfall is THE BEST!
Lovely.
might be interesting for someone to know which camera has the best auto mode
@@rotvonrat What an interesting topic. Noted for future reference.
Love your take on this! It’s true that a lot of the learning curve in photography is building a mental model of the expected result of a certain set of variables through repetition. Having a more results-based user experience could indeed flatten the curve 😉
How I wish I'd said that! Thanks for commenting and your kind words.
I remembered when I first started out I found that camera settings can be quite intimidating. Agreed that camera settings should be simplified if possible as that would encourage more people to take up photography as a hobby. Anyways, appreciate that you are coming up with content during these lock-down times at home to keep us entertained. Hello from Singapore and stay safe!
Thanks for taking the time to comment, your kind words are always appreciated. Stay safe in Singapore, but if you get the opportunity to say hello to my friends there, please do so.
Thank you. I am most certianly a novice, who just purchased a sony a6600. Since you are the wisest cameraman, you shall be my Teacher. I will began as you said in auto mode. Look forward to learning from you.
Happy to help! Always nice to know viewers respect my guidance.
Excellent video again Maarten - your idea of a visual based concept of what a camera should be giving us is spot on. After spending time composing the right shot just how I want it I usually haven't a clue what focal length it was!! I'd have to look at the "info" in the editing suite!!! Just proves your point that it is the result that matters
Thanks for the kind words, and I absolutely agree. I'm working to create an image, not to manage a set of numbers or calculations.
Maarten, I've just discovered your site and really have enjoyed what you have to say. I remember what Ansel Adams had to say regarding technology and it really is in line with what you're saying. “Electronic photography will soon be superior to anything we have now. The first advance will be the exploration of existing negatives. I believe the electronic processes will enhance them. I could get superior prints from my negatives using electronics. Then the time will come when you will be able to make the entire photograph electronically. With the extremely high resolution and the enormous control you can get from electronics, the results will be fantastic. I wish I were young again!” In recent years (AP after Photoshop) there has been considerable discussion concerning "would Ansel" or "wouldn't Ansel" be using the current technology? I think he would be and would probably have a digital series of "The Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print".
Thanks for your interesting comments, I appreciate your time to post this.
Terrific lighting, color, and depth of focus. Maybe drop that seating position six inches to keep the parallel shelf line out of the top of the frame. But, really this is one of the best looking to-the-camera setups I’ve seen on RUclips. Ever.
Good suggestion - was thinking the same thing myself. And thank you for the kind words. Now that I can dedicate a space to a studio setup, I've been able to fine tune all the parameters to get a shot that pleases me - glad to read that it meets your approval.
Any thoughts on the items on the shelves? I'm starting to think some are too obvious (yellow submarine) and it may be too cluttered. Thanks very much for your kind words.
Maarten Heilbron No...not a bit of distraction in the shelf contents. Everything is so nicely out of focus that no item calls attention to itself. Yet, there’s just enough detail that it’s not a frustrating blob of blur.
@@mattcom2 Thanks for the check on that. Incidentally, it's shot with the Nikon Z7 with the 24-70 F2.8. It's here on quarantine loan. I'm not sure I'll be able to part with it. A couple more things I want to try - like F-log - on some upcoming videos.
One of the few channels that click the like button for before I watch the video
That's very kind of you, thanks. Always nice to see your avatar pop up in the comments.
Thank you, another thoughtful and thought provoking comment/discussion. In my humble opinion virtually everyone who attended junior high or high school was introduced to fractions and ratios. You and I as well as most photographers know F-stops and shutter speeds are not magical, they are simply ratios. F-st TV vs S (time value vs. shutter) on the dial. The digital photographer is well positioned to shoot and experiment at different setting combinations. Live view and EVFs provide a wonderful view of the effects of change in the F-stop. 1s and Os are amazingly cheap and easily erased so take lots of photos keep track of settings (file generally automatically recorded with each picture) an view on ones computer. Some of grew up with having to process film, forego the immediate gratification/confirmation of a digital image and take time in a darkroom to see results. No longer my photo friends. I am, however, glad that I grew up during a time of a manual camera standard (Nikon S2D, Pentax Spotmatic and Leica M3), stopped-down metering, and ASA/ISA/ISO speeds of 25, 50, 60 160 and a whopping 400 (loved Tri-X). A time when fixed focal length lenses provided estimates of depth of field on the lens barrel based of chosen aperture. I'm fortunate in that I had to learn to estimate the photo affect of various settings and fixed focal length meant I learned to have a viewfinder in my minds eye. The proliferation of zooms makes doing so today so very difficult. Thank you again.
A pleasure to read your kind words. Understood, as I said, you and I get it. But many people don't. I'm not suggesting that the fractions and ratios you understand be removed. Just hoping to find a way to make it simpler for those who are confused and frustrated.
This video makes so much sense, that you just completely blew the fee photography world apart. I'm a Fuji user now, and they've simplified things, but your to theory is so much better!!!
Thanks for the kind words. Fujifilm does indeed seem to get these kinds of ideas and is willing to change.
Very good analysis and in the main, very good resultant answers, I am a fan of Tony have been for many years, as I have of yours, but we did have a misunderstanding once, but you have helped me with a couple of problems I had.
As 70 year old, I have been photographing for many years, it brings to mind some photos of my younger age, one of which, was my Nana who would catch three buses, and walk a half a mile, every Sunday, to visit my mum, her daughter, born in 1909, Nana was born in 1883, her father I found out many years later, he had a photographic studio in Manchester and Manchester archives have four contact prints, I digress.
I have a photo of Nana, that I took with my Box Brownie 60 years ago, I loved what cameras did/do, I collect cameras, but I think the points you raise bring a sensible system in, I liken it to HiFi systems, everyone knows the basic icons for play, fast forward etc, they have even transferred to TV control pads, mobile phones and to some extent laptops/computers, in those cases, dependant on machine or unit, there are visual dials that show what happens.
The jargon surrounding photography, is like the jargon of anything that is done professionally, it has to have constants, otherwise all before us was?
Improve, Yes!
Alter, Yes!
Get a universal simplicity, Yes!
I think the success of Apple is down to its front facing, updating, user interface, yet they are using symbols still, perhaps the answer is.
Communication!
It is done at very successful companies, that ask for ideas, put technical, with science, the Nerd like all of us, deserve our place, need to be heard, but ultimately if you respect the basics, the intricate aspects deserve a uniformity, TV I think is Nikon or Canon and I’m not knocking that, but it has to be a continued logic.
I use mainly Olympus M 4/3 & Fuji XT range, they are both brilliant, but both are a nightmare, the real issue is when you switch to one or the other, but different models, I’ve watched you vlogs on them and, how can you make something so different, with a change, you have to tweak, not this, I’m the new chairman approach of, complete makeover.
Communication and Compromise.
Keep Safe always, not to many days to canoeing again, I don’t see the objection, if your canoeing alone, wilts observing safety and social distancing. But who am I?
I don't mind canoeing solo, but I'd only do that if someone else was also soloing alongside. And its impossible to shoot a video of myself canoeing without a camera person.
Otherwise, thanks for taking the time to comment. An interesting read.
Thanks for your refreshing take on using a camera for making images. Makes a lot of sense. Thanks for creating the most useful photo related channel on youtube!
It was a real pleasure to read your kind words, thanks for taking the time to comment.
Thank you, that really makes photography more approachable
Glad you think so! I appreciate the kind words.
Hi Maarten. The canoe would have been perfect for this one!
Just watched the start of Tony’s thinking, which seemed to be as a (very) amateur photographer to be even more confusing!
I think anyone who is seriously trying to improve their photography and/ or having invested in better kit (both like me) will take the trouble to understand how aperture, shutter speed and ISO interact. The only one of these that’s counter intuitive is aperture, but that sinks in after a while.
There is so much good stuff online including your channel, RealWorld, Tony’s etc to help us through this.
I don’t think changing names or definitions will actually help, although the thought of simplifying the technicalities is a noble one.
Keep up the great work - when you getting back into the canoe?
David (Essex, UK).
Thanks for your thoughts. ruclips.net/video/Fg_7b-WdFBA/видео.html
As a relative novice, shooting just a couple of years I must say I love the current'old' system. Once you learn what the settings mean, you can mostly let them go, and I agree that I mainly leave my camera in auto iso, and then either Aperture priority or Manual, it depends on the situation, or even sometimes how I feel, or sometimes the given light and contrast. I flick between different metering, auto modes a lot, but mostly in combination with auto ISO and manual I can achieve quickly what I'm going for. Also by the by, I find I love manual focus lenses and once you practice, I can get pretty solid results that has a more immersive photography experience and helps me focus on the image and away from settings. In the end there really is no substitute for practice and experience, and once you take a firm look at the somewhat initially jumbled terminology in photography it sinks in pretty fast. Whatever terminology you use, you still have to practice, fail, and keep practicing right ? What is it they say ... 'your first 10,000 shots will suck' something like that, but it''s true practice makes perfect no matter the terminology. Interesting video Martin, love your free content.. Another guy from Dublin here !
Thanks, it's good to hear that there are people who feel that the current system is understandable and manageable. Unfortunately, that's not true for all people.
I'm sure you'll find some great photos even in your first 1000. And thanks, I appreciate your kind words.
During this video I checked my phones manual mode. It's from Sony so it may vary across manufacturers. But basically they do exactly what you have said. More or less. Anyway manual mode on a mobile phone is pretty much useless from my pouint of view. I have never used it. Full auto all the way.
The manual mode is even pro friendly when it shows numbers you would expect on the screen but away from the slider so novices are not distracted by them. It would be great to have it in DSLRs as well. Even though I know the old system and there were times I could set manual settings without a meter just by looking at a scene.
Yes, phones seem to be moving in this direction more quickly than cameras with larger sensors.
Scene-mode icons from one of my P&S cameras had small 'cartoons' that reflected the image outcomes. Portraits icon was a head & shoulders; running athlete for high speed photography, etc. No words required!
Yes, but in most cases, the settings behind the icons did little to assist.
@@MaartenHeilbron Perhaps merely calling for an artistic vocabulary vs a technical vocabulary.
@@robertstonephoto Good point, thanks!
Interesting discussion. For me, now just a bit over a year into photography, I found learning these things a bit challenging up front, but looking back, I'm happy with the standard terminology I've come across and feel comfortable with it.
That said, I can see how using the language you suggest can be very helpful in explaining the concepts to someone learning this stuff.
An interesting viewpoint, thanks for commenting.
I am an avid amature photographer who is teaching my two grandaughters (ages 6 and 8) to make photographs. They are using SONY a6000 cameras in complete auto mode. As close to point and shoot as you can get, as simple as possible. Their goal at the moment is to have fun and try to get their desired subjects in focus by learning to pay attention to the wondeful auto focus SONY provides. Some of their photos are wonderful. I am a Manual shooting snob, but I am learning that Auto is great in a pinch.
What a great opportunity and a good camera to use, as its auto modes can help your granddaughters focus (sorry) on the image, the story and the mood they are trying to convey.
I Would love a camera like a Nikon FM2 , just put it a sensor instead of film...no autofocus , no auto anything !!! that will be my dream camera !!!
I think you may be heading the wrong way. :-)
www.kickstarter.com/projects/samellos/im-back-35-new-version-with-manual-priority-function?.mirrorlessrumors.com&
unfortunately it seems the sensor doesn't look like it's up to most modern standards...it also kinda looks like a kludge stuck on a lovely film camera...
You can already handle a camera like that if you want though
@@MrKikoboy Interesting nonetheless, thanks for sharing.
@@MaartenHeilbron maybe , most of my workflow was made with a Hasselblad 500CM from 1980 to 2006... no AF , no auto nothing, nice IQ , Never know about FF or BF issues , had my own B&W lab , the rest was Ekta or Kodakchrome, the hardest thing with her was to compose in square format. Never got the same IQ with digital backs. I discovered that I´m a dinosaur. Greetings from Málaga /Spain
Great video. I've great respect for Tony and Chelsea. When my dad gave me my 1st Pentax K-1000 in 1983, he also gave me a copy of the Joy Of Photography. That book had chapters about how to get the most out of auto settings that I could not take advantage of yet. The camera was just a tool to take the pictures I wanted to take. It is still a tool to take the pictures I want to take. I am glad to have the knowledge I have. I have no issue admitting how I use that know how. Most of the time it is "Do I want to use Aperture or shutter priority today? How high do I want the auto ISO to go today?" Then I go out and play.
I am reticent to say this, but I think the biggest barrier to understanding is not the terms, but we, the users of the terms are often the gatekeepers keeping people away from going out and playing. Then we get mad that cell phones become better and better because they understand people want to go out and play.
We can simplify this in our conversations and our videos and tutorials. I doubt we can find a common language suitable for all cameras anymore, but we can simplify things.
I can go to a craft store and learn how to knit something simple or make a bracelet in under an hour. Am I ready to start a business? No. But we can get people out there in an hour composing shots and having fun and that is a good start.
Apologies for being so verbose! You have my brain churning on behalf of little boys and girls in 2020 like I was in 1983 when I held my first grown up camera!
Fun to read your comments and memories. Thanks for taking the time to comment, things can be simpler.
@@MaartenHeilbron You are too kind, sir. Thank you!
It’s interesting what you say.
I set up a series of interactive training sessions for my camera club, to try to encourage people to join the club. I didn’t start with the settings, the first session was on composition, and the second session on exploiting light. These two topics are important whether you are using either a phone or an expensive camera. Only after that did I go into settings.
@@jerry2357 Sounds great. I love results-focussed training.
Excellent as always. Thanks for your videos.
Glad you like them! Thanks for the kind words, appreciated.
Very good approach Maarten, stay safe and enjoy life.
I appreciate your kind words, thanks!!!
So, safe at home, awaiting call from my doctor, who like many don’t seem to know anything about photography, especially streaming video. I’ve been digitizing my slide collection (nearing end of 1979, thankfully) using very demanding slide scanning software. I’m amazed at the quality of my Minolta SRT-101 (1971). Not much automation, but London and Rome and evening Kuwait didn’t seem to need it. Should have tossed more blurred or badly exposed slides, but St. Peter’s Square in the rain with Kodachrome- well, I didn’t know if I’d ever be back. Had to figure out the technical stuff, so I did. Glad I did. A serious photographer is likely to be plenty smart enough. Might take a while. The scanner book had to be read at least three times and I think I need a refresher on how to use that densitomiter, but let’s not forget you can’t recover what’s not there.
A lovely combination of quarantine-rant and memories of my own SRT-101. Thanks for commenting.
Great video, with logical information. Thank you,
Glad you enjoyed it! Always nice to know viewers appreciate my work.
Maestro de los maestros 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 saludos desde chile 🇨🇱
Gracias por las palabras muy amables, son apreciados.
hi maarteen , I just like your way of explainantion of points here & review of Fuji xt 100 I had viewed . I am learning photography with omd em10 mk ii & your reviews are very usefull for me.stay safe ! ….. thanks !
Always nice to read that my videos are useful and appreciated. Thanks for commenting.
I prefer your results-based system. Wonderful explanation, sir.
Thanks, nice to hear from a viewer who understands and appreciates what I'm suggesting.
Ive been a pro for 35 yrs - after I sold my studio in the late 90's my brother was releasing book and needed a cover shot which included an Enfield rIfle, a tin helmet, a war memorial and a poppy. At that time I didnt even own a camera so he brought his. Some Canon thing with a zoom lens which when he got it out of the bag pulled the flange clean off the lens. So I held it on went to full manual mode - guessed the exposure, used a toffee wrapper as a filter and got the shot. I has never been about the camera but what is in front of it and what the person behind it is doing!!!! Nice video.
I'd love to recreate that scene in a video - thanks for sharing!
@@MaartenHeilbron Another one: I got out to Amsterdam from the UK to photograph a disabled pool lift for a brochure. I opened the Bowens Travleler case to find my assistant had forgotten to put back the three tripods - I sat the lights on the floor and bounced them up to the ceiling - which wasn't even white - the art director loved the shot and commended my creativity - I didn't tell him why I had done that. had to shoot a plate of food by a Michelin star chef. My Hass 503 didn't have a metered prism - and the batteries in my light meter had gone. I used 12 different exposures for 1 shot thinking well 1 of them must be right. and it was just that. I used to put my rolls of film back in any silver foil I had available, once I put all my E6 into C41 foils and they got crossed processed by my assistant in my lab - the client was overjoyed - now you can press a button in LR to do the same. Stay safe - thanks for the videos
@@nelsonclub7722 More great stories! Thanks. All would make great scenes in a video.
As always very delightful and interesting video. Thanks again.
So nice of you to comment, your kind words are appreciated.
I love your ideas. When I started learning about photography (almost three years ago), it really didn’t take long to understand the formal/traditional terminology. I was shooting in manual mode on day two of owning my first dslr. RUclips videos taught me so much. Maybe simplified terminology would attract more people to photography???
Thanks for your kind words. I think that the cameras in phones (with their lack of traditional photo terms) have already dramatically increased the number of photographers in our midst.
@@MaartenHeilbron I agree.
I watched Tony's video and if ever there was a way to confuse photography it was explained within that video. I glazed over and switched off almost immediately. A camera is a tool, and becoming proficient with a tool takes time and effort. Whatever nomenclature camera makers put on their cameras it will still take time and effort to understand and apply to practical use.
I tend to take practical approach based on what I learnt when shooting film. I look through the lens and either zoom or walk backwards and forwards to compose, as you say in your video. When composed adjust aperture using the preview function to adjust depth of field to what I want, seeing the expected result in the viewfinder. An easy guide for shutter is for 200mm lens then I need 1/200 second, 1/20s for 20mm, 1/35s for 35mm, etc, obviously this can be pushed somewhat with VR, but as a guide I still find it a useful place to start. Adjust the iso to make the shutter speed suitable based on the above guide for shutter. Now we are digital I look at the shot and if it is not what I want then I take another with different settings (cannot do this with film of course). This is what I did when cameras were less smart.
These days I let the computer do some of the work. Generally I stick to aperture priority (as this is the setting with the smallest scale), and let the cameras set the shutter speed. I set the auto iso between a band that I am happy with from a noise perspective. Two of the variables are set by the computer and I override if necessary.
Personally I think there is no substitute for talking the time to learn. This may sound a bit harsh, but if people cannot be bothered to take the time to learn how to interact with what is essentially three settings, then they don't deserve to understand.
I'd suggest you go back and give it a fair audition, he makes interesting and valid suggestions. Granted, they're not for everyone, however its straightforward simplicity is very appealing. Please ask a non-photographer to read your second paragraph. As my family likes to say, "When are you going to do videos in English?".
The skills a photographer needs to learn are composition and timing. The rest is mundane clerical skill and I'm happy to let the camera/computer do that work.
@@MaartenHeilbron Hello, to be clear, I did watch the whole video from Tony. I would say that for experienced photographers the suggested system is irrelevant since they are used to the current nomenclature and for the inexperienced photographer it takes just the same amount of learning than the existing system, so I find it a bit pointless.
@@markwith140 Thanks for being clear. When you said "I glazed over and switched off", I thought you hadn't watched it. While that's certainly true for experienced photographers, think of the generations of photographers yet to come.
Hi Maarten, great topic a very well put it.
I sometime feel when I try to explain cameras and camera setting to someone new to this that it is hard for both of us - it is like explaining how to boil an egg to someone that does not understand what an egg is, or a chicken or fire or water.
I confess I still love to use manual settings on film cameras that's why I relate so well to the Fuji XT series. But for those that had their first contact with photography on a smartphone, understanding camera settings is complicated.
It's complicated for everyone, however there are some who grasp the relationships between the terminology and the results more easily. Thanks for your kind words.
I hope Tony sees how much further you are taking this, and I certainly agree with you.
But I know plenty of people who would find choosing between (dialing) both 'blur background' vs 'everything sharp' AND 'motion-stop' vs 'motion-blur' still way too complicated. The Auto setting of modern cameras pretty much does that for them, and will probably get much better in the future.
Tony mentions how the photography community revels in technical complexity. Surely we don't want to spoil ALL our fun.
I don't want to spoil anyone's fun - I certainly didn't advocate removing the existing complications we all love - just to add another system (or two) to help those who find it frustrating. Auto setting rarely gets a defocussed background portrait, a quickly moving object or a milky waterfall.
A very thoughtful variation on the Northrop nerd-a-drama. One major reason that the smartphone camera is so successful is that little technical thought is required. Remember that half the population have IQs south of 100 and the ability to multitask and engage in analytical processing diminishes as one heads toward the equator, unless you are living in the Southern Hemisphere." This, combined with most Americans dread of anything "math" or "numbers," supports your contention to focus on only the results. And in this context, understand that only a small percentage of folks care about results that are any degree above passible. Northrop speaks to the 1-percenters out there that care, understand and are motivated. The rest of his viewers just come along for the ride. Remember, he prospers if you agree or not, for it is the click that counts.
Do you have any scientific basis for these ridiculous claims? "diminish as you approach the equator"? What nonsense.
@@MaartenHeilbron The analogy, if you read carefully, is a play off of south of 100 and not suggesting a correlation with ones geographical location. Sorry for the sloppiness. The point is, the more complex or abstract technology becomes the fewer people are adept and/or interested in engaging such.
@@lcador9 I did read carefully. You were the one who admits to sloppiness. Be careful.
Excellent video, as usual. Thank you!
Always my pleasure, thanks for the kind words.
I find your results-oriented system interesting. In programming there are the notions of imperative and declarative commands. Imperative is a style in which you tell the system how to do something with an order of steps. In declarative style, you're more or less *describing* what you want the output to be, which I think of as the analogue to what you're talking about.
I think eventually AI will play a role here. "Siri (or Alexa, or Google), I want Steve (which your device recognizes from his Contacts photo) to be in focus with the blurriest background possible." Until then, I like the idea of figuring out how to get a camera to understand intent and be proactive rather than waiting to take a series of orders.
Yes! Exactly that. Thanks for your contribution and kind words.
That’s why on my camera (Olympus e m1ii) I shoot auto iso with manual aperture and shutter. One dial at my thumb and one dial under my shutter finger. Super easy compose and shoot.
Excellent. Always nice to hear from a photographer who's happy with his kit.
Well done. I studied photography at NAIT in Edmonton. Wish you had been an instructor there
I'm glad to hear that you appreciate my videos, thanks for your kind words.
Maarten, I think one of these big camera manufacturers need to use you as their lead consultant in designing the next generation camera. I'd preorder it now :-)
You are very kind, thanks so much for your comments.
Thank you for another interesting topic. I enjoy the learning experience in photography. You are my favorite teacher.
I only take photos during my vacations and special occasions but I want all of my photo to look good enough to be on a postcard. For me, the camera apps on the phone have what I need. How blurry is the background? How bright? What scene? I like what Fujifilm offers in X-T200. I wish more technology from smartphones are transfered to mirrorless cameras.
Thanks for the kind words. Of course, we're all learning and thinking. I think phones have shown many of us the value in simple interfaces for photography.
I like your soft and very diplomatic approach that unfortunately is missing in too many “ you tube “ videos.
Thank you very much 👏 👋
I appreciate your kind words. Canadians are like that - soft-spoken and diplomatic.
Have an easy mode to have those sliders on a touch screen but have physical dials so the user can choose how they want to control the camera. If anyone has played with a smart phone in manual mode they would know all the sliders, focus, shutter, ISO and exposure comp, start at auto. Most smart phone cameras don't have aperture settings so many people may not understand how this affects shutter speed. Between a simple way of illustrating what the the effects are and the option of having something familiar such as computational digital bokeh could really draw someone in to a mirrorless system.
Yes, that would be an interesting addition. Physical controls are always preferred, but not always provided.
You could call it the Settings Wizard. In software, a "wizard" walls you through a complicated set of settings by asking you "results oriented" questions. This is the same. Then, the camera could show you what settings it arrived at, based on your novice-mode choices. This way, you could eventually learn the numeric systems as well, whether you choose the standard or Northrup systems.
Yes, exactly that. I'm just not following why, after the wizard did what I wanted, I'd have to be told what it did.
When I indicate to my car that I want to go at 60km/hr, it doesn't tell me what rpms are required so the next time I can adjust that setting.
@@MaartenHeilbron But you don't indicate to your car that you want to go 60 kph. You indicate that you want to go a little faster by pushing the pedal a little more down. You indicate that you want to go a LOT faster by mashing the pedal all the way down. Physics "calculates" the results of all that, based on the mass of the car, the efficiency of the engine, and wind resistance. Then the car shows you a numeric value to indicate the result. In this case, you need that numeric value for several reasons:
A) There are laws about how high that numeric value can be. The laws don't tell you how far down your pedal can be. This is analogous to bumping up against the limits of the capabilities of your equipment. Contrary to your claim, there are many times when I do not attempt to take a photo because I know the results will be disappointing. After getting a lot of disappointing pictures in a specific situation, I learned not to waste my time until I could afford better equipment.
B) You may want to compare your speed today with your speed yesterday. People are notoriously terrible at estimating their speed just from looking out the windshield. Ask any cop. This is analogous to just seeing how much bokeh is in your picture. It is very difficult to examine a picture and specify the exact "degree of bokeh" is in it for comparison. That is why people use vague terms like "beautiful bokeh" or "smooth bokeh" or "buttery smooth bokeh." Novices may not care about the exact degree of bokeh but, as one advances in skill, one may desire to replicate the amount of bokeh that was in a previous photo. Knowing the numbers allows one to replicate that better than moving some vague sliders until things "look about the same."
C) You may want to compare your speed with that of your friend, who is also traveling to the same destination to ensure you will both get there at about the same time. You don't call each other and say, "I have my pedal half way down." Nor do you say, "The telephone poles are going by really fast." No. You report the numbers on the speedometer. (OK, these days you just report the time Google says you will arrive. But that is still a number calculated based on your speed and other factors. But Google calculates based on average speeds of everyone on that road. So, if you want a real estimate of your arrival time you have to calculate it yourself. This is analogous to your friend looking at your picture and wanting to replicate the bokeh. You tell them all the numbers, including the size of your sensor, then they can calculate what settings will give them the same bokeh. Then they can choose what equipment and settings they will need to replicate your bokeh.
So, no, a complete novice with no desire to improve their skills would not need to see the numbers. But if someone wanted to advance their skills, they would eventually need those numbers. Yes, composition, timing, and storytelling are important. But, at a certain point, one learns that controlling things like bokeh and exposure and dynamic range helps with those first three. For a while, simply adjusting vague sliders will help with that. But all those sliders will be interdependent. Adjusting one will sometimes, but not always, move all the others. If a person does not understand why that is happening, they will get frustrated. My decades of experience supporting computer users tells me they will invent all kinds of incorrect theories and outright mythologies as to why things are happening. So, people will eventually need to know the actual numbers and how all those numbers affect their final result if they want to be able to replicate previous results, especially with different equipment.
A fascinating and interesting read. I appreciate that you are not willing to understand my view, have misinterpreted, jumped to conclusions and gone reductio ad absurdum on this. That said, I do always enjoy my interactions with my viewers - thanks very much for taking the time to chat, it is appreciated.
Great topic! i agree, it's more about the resulting image, rather than which settings did you use. What are your thoughts about just leaving cameras in full auto mode, perhaps with a scene adjustment (which is practically standard on every camera)? Are your thoughts closely related to a more 'enhanced' auto/scene mode?
My view is that those settings are fine until you realize that the camera doesn't understand what you want. If you just need to adjust the brightness, there's EV, otherwise you are lost.
I think Fuji has already implemented a user friendly system in the X-A7. I was watching a review of it and noticed you can switch the degree of "blurness", and the scenes mode allows you to do light trails (as an example).. But I don't own one so can't be sure. However you do raise a very valid point. Just like most cars are now automatic or use some sort of paddle shifters with dual transmissions.. no one is driving manual anymore.. is it about time photographic controls move to a more user friendly based system?
Yes, that's true - both Fujifilm and Sony have, on some models anyway, implemented a version of the depth of field slider. Thanks for joining this conversation.
Agree with your approach - and particularly with making use of AI to balance ISO with the other requirements.
Getting the manufacturers to agree on a common understanding or naming convention might be the most difficult thing to achieve!
True that. Thanks for commenting and your kind words.
First, let me say that I am an amateur in the nth degree. Fortunately this late in life I'm able to afford the really nice equipment, far beyond my capabilities. I do however enjoy the process of trying to get the cameras with all their thousands of iterations of settings to create a pleasing photo "in camera" instead of altering it to the point that it looks nothing like the original shot in a post editor. Anyway, I really appreciate your videos, I find them very informative.
Thanks for your kind words, always nice to hear from my viewers.
With regards to focal length, the human body more or less has the same relative sizes. I find that when I stretch my arm and hold my thumb and finger apart, this roughly comparws to an 135mm lens full frame. 85 mm is roughly my "center vision", or suitable for people a few metres away. We can think of similar measurements for other common focal lengths and give them names.
I'm going to have to try that.
I remember in the '80s a Nikon lens brochure listing angle of view diagram, for beginners today with the different sensors sizes it really adds to the confusion when picking a lens in mm. Just having the angle of view for the lens on the sensor size would be a little simpler. ISO, light sensitivity is the way I've discribed it. We who know photography, take for granted a lot of simple things that we learned and became second nature to us - like the sunny 16 rule. I have been answering questions from a beginner in my photo group and have been coming across just this. She was complaining that her images she edited were not that sharp. I asked if the file she was editing was jpeg, she responded Yes, I got her to edit the raw files. She didn't edit the raw files because she couldn't see them in Windows, but could see the image thumbnail of the jpegs. There are just so many variables for a beginner to unpack the knowledge of.
Brochures like that are useful, insofar as they help you make a selection.
And you're very right, those of us who've managed to get ourselves up to this level of understanding don't remember the struggles we've been through.
@@MaartenHeilbron I don't know about you Maarten but when I was learning ( on slide film ) there was an added encouragement to figure things out ( and quickly! ) after you had spent some good cash on quality film and developing only to pick up your long awaited slides from a guy who looked at you with pity in his eyes as he rang up your bill...;-) !
@@MrKikoboy As always, thanks for joining in - nice to see my friends. Added encouragement, but you had to remember what you'd done while you were on holiday. These days you can see your mistakes and fix them while you're still in France.
@@MaartenHeilbron I actually used to keep a small notebook when I shot for that very reason - especially when I wasn't sure what I was doing...later on I got much better at predicting and visualizing...every shot would turn out exposed the way I wanted and 5-7 keepers ( compositionaly )from a roll of 36 seemed to be a good average...the delete button on digital cameras sometimes seems a bit of a crutch to me - I'm not an "action" shooter so it seemed like you should learn to recognize what you are looking for before clicking the shutter - although happy accidents have their places as well...;-)
@@MrKikoboy I had the notebook, but never remembered to write in it. Too caught up in taking pictures and enjoying the experience.
Interesting as always. I didn't watch Tony's as the title page just looked confusing from the start. I'm all for simplicity and I think after 3 years of shooting I have a basic feel for what I want. Earlier this year a fellow birder set me up in Manual with auto ISO and I find it great.
Thanks for the kind words. Sounds like a good approach - sounds similar to mine.
I like it a lot. especially because as you say it could co-exist with the traditional number based system based on software. this could be done now. there is a huge market I am guessing. although some still would prefer the flower mode for close ups etc. Your sytem would be a great middle ground for a novice and that is probably the bell curve holding most of the people who own a camera.
Yes, exactly, thanks for the kind words.
Very well said and discussed sir!
Thanks for your kind words.
I am one of those who has changed my mind in taking some photos because the result was going to be noisier than I was willing to accept. My Nikon D800 didn't do so well at ISO 6400 and above. A simpler system probably would help a lot of new photographers. Better ways of explaining the old terms would also help. Personally, I think of bigger aperture numbers as "greater depth of focus", and also understand that they are inverse numbers like shutter speeds. 1/2.8, 1/4, 1/5.6, etc. The only time I set ISO manually is when using off-camera flash. Otherwise, I let the camera do it automatically, and just look at the number to gauge how much noise is likely to be in the image, and decide whether I can live with less depth of focus, or more movement to get a cleaner image.
A interesting approach, but I'm happy to know that it works for you.
I think it is a brilliant idea and cameras definitely should have an easy to understand mode like that. Some entry level or consumer oriented cameras already do have "scene" modes for portraits, sports etc. which kinda work in that direction. However there is also no way in hell I would use such a system regularly, I'm to old school and to be honest fiddling with the settings and getting it right is at least half the fun of taking a photo for me personally.
Most scene modes are pretty primitive, but can be useful. Of course settings are fun, but for many who have a valid use for photography as a means of expression, they're just frustrating and because they don't understand them they feel they're missing out.
2:53 "When you use manual mode, the camera is taking advantage of you" - Love this!
7:42 "I'd like to meet the photographer who says I'm not taking this shot because the image will be noisy and grainy" ... "interesting content is more important that photo quality". I'm not sure that this belief is as commonly held as you think! Taking the Fuji system as an example, I often see people stating that their AUTO ISO MAX settings is set considerably lower than the allowable maximum.. which indicates that once a particular level of ISO is reached, they would prefer to have a blurred image over a noisy one. Doesn't make sense to me, but this is my observation.
8:40 We don't need to revolutionise camera settings to achieve this, IMO. Again using Fuji as an example, capturing the scene "without blur, and with the highest quality possible" is not possible without needing to either adjust ISO manually (depending on lighting conditions) or dig into menus to customise minimum shutter speeds.
With regards to focal length, the most user-friendly way of representing this, in my opinion, is the distance that you would need to be from a given universally-recognised subject to have it fill a particular percentage of the frame. For example, for an average-height adult human to fill 80% of the frame, how many meters away would you need to be. Obviously US-based photographers might find this usage of metric offensive, and average adult human height varies, but this is just an example.
Excellent video as per usual and very thought-provoking. As much as I'd like to see the camera industry move towards a more contemporary and well-designed UX, I really can't see it happening for market reasons. It seems to me that the clunky, confusing, technical interfaces of cameras and the high barrier to entry is what makes some people proud to call themselves "photographers". Otherwise, they'd just be like everyone else taking photos with their iPhones.
Thanks for your kind words and insight into my comments.
8:40 - that's exactly why I want the camera to take over here
I don't think that citizens of the US find the metric system offensive, just mysterious.
I don't think the photo industry has any interest in limiting their market to elite photographers. They'd like to appeal to everyone.
Thanks again.
@@MaartenHeilbron yes you're right, I don't think they find it offensive per se, but nonetheless it makes my idea quite a hard one to implement!
But another point you brought up is probably a more important one: the ability to have different firmware versions depending on your needs/preference. If Fuji's firmware were somewhat open, I could have gone in an tweaked the features that I saw as deficient and shared that with other users. Then interfaces like the Northup system and the excellent Heilbron system could be a reality!
@@MrJed_s Yes, good suggestion. Open source camera firmware. It's interesting to note that Sony tried that when their cameras had downloadable apps. They provided a limited set of the APIs, but although some developers (me included) had a look at it, the limitations meant that nothing interesting was possible.
Very interesting subject, definitely food for thought. Stay safe Maarten.
Thanks for the kind words and wishes.
I don’t want photographic terminology to be made simple, if it does become easily understandable any Tom, Dick and Harry would walk in and start making masterpieces! Understanding aperture, ISO and shutter is in itself a reward! I am just being snobbishly silly. I thought once I understood the exposure triangle I would start making masterpiece, sadly that is not the case . I do enjoy and look forward to your videos, thanks MH.
While it's nice to see your avatar, and I suspect your being ironic - even a master of the settings is not going to take great photos. That requires a creative impulse to recognize good composition and timing to wait for the right moment. But you know that - as always, thanks for taking the time to comment and for your kind words.
@@MaartenHeilbron Which contemporary photographers do you find inspirational? Just want to expand my Instagram following list.
Here are a few I'd recommend:
My friend Paul's bird feed: @birds_onthebrain
Arienne Parzei - who can turn a most mundane shot into a spectacular image @seeusoontravel
Neil Ever Osborne - my favourite eco warrior @neileverosoborne
Kael Rebick's most interesting take on things @punkodelish
Travel photography (mostly sponsored, but) with amazing colour and flair @zorymory
Lois Greenfield's amazing dance photos @loisgreenfield
Hopefully that's enough for now.
Please do return the favour - who are your favs?
@@MaartenHeilbron A short list of my favorite photographers are
English-Canadian, Adam Gibbs,
Scotsman, Alister Ben,
Dutch Photographer,Theo Bosboom
Daniel Kordan, not sure where he is from
German traveling writer Photographer Photography Viola.
Adam Gibbs is my fav because he creates masterpieces from almost all scenes and subjects. Theo Bosboom is more of an abstract nature photographer however, his ability to spot engaging composition from nature is magical! Hope you can look-up and enjoy my list. Enjoy your summer, MH!
@@RickMentore Thanks, I'll have to review their posts.
Another great video Maarten !! What camera/lens/video quality did you shoot it with? The picture is excellent 😀
Thanks and thanks. I shot this with the Nikon Z with the 24-70F2.8. You'd expect great results from this combination - but I have spent the last two weeks configuring the set and the lighting. I've also spent some time adjusting all of the picture control settings to my taste. Nice to read that those efforts paid off.
@@MaartenHeilbron Every video you make involve a great deal of effort, thus the worthy results. This one made somehow a difference. I would be very interested of knowing this Maarten Custom Z P Profile !! Sharing is Caring after all !! 😊
@@CaminoDidjeridu Neutral (not flat), turn down all the sharpening settings and colour saturation.
@@MaartenHeilbron Thank you for sharing the settings !! I appreciate all of you videos, even when I do not comment. As a matter of fact, every time I want to learn about a new camera, I go to your channel, because I know I will find a review that will be complete, accurate and fun to watch. Thank you again !
@@CaminoDidjeridu I'm happy to share just about anything - I have no secrets. Thanks so much for your very kind words, always appreciated.
I agree with you, there should be an easier way to take pictures and manage a camera's possibilities but it should be noted that standardization is key. Imagine if cars controlled differently from one another. Now for the way itself i'd stick with the sliders of some sort.
Good point. Thanks for commenting.
I went to the link for Tony's presentation on reinventing the wheel. My conclusion is that he has been in lock-down too long and is having some sort of break-down. Maybe we all are :o -Loren
I thought it was interesting and would be a positive step.
@@MaartenHeilbron One small step for Tony, but one giant leap for mankind & the camera industry. :))
@@lorenschwiderski I thought it might be worthwhile to have a positive conversation about this, not just make snide remarks.
I feel the most important aspect of photography are the two creative ones: composition and moment. In my opinion that's more important than technical expertise. It's nice to understand the technical details, but a missed moment or a bad position / frame is worse than the wrong shutter speed, aperture or, heaven forbid, ISO.
Yes, absolutely right. Thanks for commenting.
I'm pleased to listen you... bless you! by the way what film simulation did you use for this clip pls?
Thanks for the kind words. This video was recorded with a Nikon Z7 using the Neutral profile with reductions in sharpening and saturation and a custom white balance that was tweaked in editing.
Very nice ideas and I subscribe to them. I think eventually that will happen. I find myself when using the phone to take a picture that I care little or not at all of the ”technicalities”. :) Probably is the same with the most, I think that is pretty close to what you are saying. Then, once the ISO performance is getting to a good-enough level even for smaller sensors and the AI will start to be implemented deeper into the cameras (so far, very little I'd say) again we are close to the cameras themselves doing all the math reliably and we only take care of composition.
But I am afraid for right now this might be a little bit too avangarde... I'd also like to see you on the canoe soon! :) That fills very... refreshing!
Thanks for the kind words. Yes, phones seem to be getting there faster than cameras.
You're speaking my language! 👍🏿
Which would be English? Thanks for the kind words, appreciated.
I remember (it wasn't that long ago) that I was really trying to learn settings. Even though I kinda knew what the terms meant, I had trouble remembering what settings to use to in certain situations. I would just spin the dial to see what happened, and of course with disastrous results since I just shot at whatever the default settings were. I don't know how much simpler you can get that the little icons for settings like macro, sports, landscape, night shot, etc. I suppose that regardless how simple we try to make it, people will still be confused; it takes practice, like most things.
While that's true, in reality most of those icons aren't as helpful as they should be.
Part of the fun is to discover all the weird settings. But iAuto can take that fun away when I just need the shot.
No need to think any more about it. No need for new numbers, that will complicate further.
Good advice for all is not to take Toneh too seriously.
I'm not seeking to destroy your fun. I'm trying to suggest how some techniques might be easier. However, I am intrigued. Which settings would you describe as weird?
Also note that neither Tony or I are seeking to impose this on you. We are both suggesting that this be an alternate, exactly so that you can continue to play with the weird settings.
I like the manual stuff and imo learning that makes you to see the pictures in a different way. Maybe even makes one improve his knowledge and abilities. I agree on making this simpler for new photographers but I hope it will also help them to learn the manual settings. The automatic modes will never take 100% what you want...
As I said, I wasn't advocating for this to be the only way to use the camera. I agree, there's lots of fun to be add playing with settings but it's a limited number of people who will want to explore the way you do.
@@MaartenHeilbron because lots of people don't want the hurdles to learn and give up early. I think that's one of the things that can separate the ones that make the effort and try to be better from who don't care enough... There's a book called "the dip" by seth godin that talks just about that
@@DiogoFilipeR Why do you need to judge? The vast variety of human experience on this planet means that there are very few people who share our interests and enjoy the things we enjoy. They spend their time and energy understanding and pursuing their own interests and passions.
@@MaartenHeilbron sorry if I sound judging, I read what I wrote and I didn't mean to sound like that! I meant to say that I don't want to lose the manual abilities because in a long future no one would be using them... For example smartphones, they are all super big now and people that like smaller phones (not me actually) don't have much offer to choose. The economy works in mysterious ways and can make the markets change direction to where the money is. Of course it's not possible to please everyone! Mirrorless cameras are changing the camera industry, let's see how it continues 😄
I watched the video as I was intrigued by the title.... didn’t expect being a response to Tony”s one, I left a long comment there, however in a nutshell my opinion is: why do you want to reinvent the wheel? Photography isn’t rocket science, it can easily be thought without having to understand the numbers, but, can you teach? This is the actual question, I have been to several photography exhibitions and the vast majority of tutorials, speeches, workshops are utterly rubbish simply because the speaker/trainer hasn’t got any training/teaching skills. A good teacher doesn’t give you the answers, makes you find the answers, stimulates your curiosity; a good teacher knows how to make you understand a concept. A good teacher can teach anything because understands what’s involved in the process of learning, not because knows a subject or is good at doing something.
Back to your argument, I can see the logic behind it and agree that simplicity is always the best, not so sure about the technology part on its own, it is a bit like WYSIWYG where the main issue is that you don’t have a clue of what you aren’t seeing.
Good comments, thanks. While I agree that all learning styles are different and require teachers who are sensitive to that, for photography some of the settings have an unnecessarily obscure and arcane basis that could do with some rationalization. Tony's comparison to the metric system is spot on - for many people imperial measure remains incomprehensible, and that's not the fault of teachers.
Maarten Heilbron Love this conversation/argument.... I agree that the imperial system is the most absurd ever, specially when compared to the decimal system; it only makes sense from an historical perspective, foot from the Egyptian cubit, pounds (lb) from the peculiarity of quasi-constant wight of wheat grains etc., however there is a deeper level to it, the use of fractions, you can teach a 5 years old in minutes what 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 is the concept of breaking something into to equals is primeval, good luck trying to introduce 0.5, 0.25, 0.125.... fractions had been used for millennia before the concept of “zero” was even introduced, at least in the western culture.
The decimal system is brilliant cause makes computation easy from an intuitive perspective, except between zero and one, where it becomes counterintuitive, in this case fractions are way more intuitive, a bit like doing calculations on an abacus in a certain way, where unknowingly, for the vast majority of people, you are actually using a binary system.
Back to the main topic, photography, multiplay or divide by 2 is most intuitive with the decimal system for whole numbers and with fractions between one and zero, that’s shutter speed, a kid wants 4 cookies instead of 2 and prefers 1/2 a cookie versus 1/4; ISO is just a number, ISO 100 could be ISO 10 or whatever, as long as you don’t have to use numbers between one and zero if you want to avoid fractions,. When it comes to aperture values I agree that at first sight it looks completely nonsensical, however all you have to do is say that “f” means “1/“ so that f3.5 is bigger, gives you more light than f13, 1/3.5 is bigger than 1/13, unfortunately f2 doesn’t gives you double than f4, but you can’t change how light behave and it’s quadratic function, you will always have to introduce the idea of multiply a number by itself, going from 2,4,8,16.... to 2,4,16,256 which I still believe a lot more intuitive than 0,5,0.25,0.125,0.625... to 0.5,0.25,0.0625,0.0039.
T stops are definitely more accurate and a superior quality of data, but more difficult to explain and understand compared to f stops, a second stage in the learning process, on the other hand it’s so easy to explain that f2 means that the size of the hole is 1/2 the length of the lens.
The human being has used fractions for millennia way before basic numeracy has become a normal, last 100 years or so, it’s easy to understand and use for anyone on a daily basis.
I sincerely hope that haven’t bored you to death...
@@nilofido411 Not bored, just confused. There is no historical basis to claim that fractions were used for millennia. And while half a cookie might make sense to a five year old, the same reasoning does not apply to photographic terms, particularly aperture. If you want half the light (a concept that's certainly a difficult one to grasp, as it's not something that we ever consider outside of photography) you do not have a dial that allows you to set the aperture to one half. Instead you have a dial that you have a turn from 5.6 to 11. How did you explain to the five year old that 11 is one-half of 5.6?
What seems counterintuitive to you, makes perfect sense to me.
How are T stops more difficult to explain? They relate to the amount of light, not the size of the aperture. The amount of light is what matters - no-one cares what size of opening is required .
Please, let's end this conversation here.
Maarten Heilbron my Apologies, it wasn’t my intention to upset you, just an attempt to engage in an epistolary conversation and I will refrain to go any further; just a couple of points for clarification, it’s documented that the Egyptians were using fractions 2000 BC circa, the Greeks, Babylonians, Romans, Indians etc., you tell a kid that f5.6 it’s actually f 1/5.6 and it’s bigger than f1/11, T stops are the actual correspondent measured values of the f stops, that varies for each item coming out of the production line, they are accurate but they have the same theoretical math behind: ratio between focal length and physical size of aperture minus dispersions.
@@nilofido411 Thanks, a wonderful reinforcement to my original thesis.
Honestly I believe shutterspeed measured in seconds (or fractions of seconds) is as intuitive as it gets. We are all familiar with seconds as measure of time, so I don't really see the point in changing it! Also "frozen" and "blurry" do not really apply in all situations, so I do think it could be kinda misleading.
Aperture? Different story. It could definitely be simplified, at least so that the numbers go the same way with the actual size of the opening. Or how blurry the out of focus area becomes, though that too is not set-in-stone. E.g. I can shoot a distant object with an aperture of 1.8 on a wide angle lens and not get any blur whatsoever. So I believe just measuring the radius of the aperture in cms would be enough.
ISO actually should stop being called ISO. It's basically signal gain, so we could use some term like "brightness gain" and measure it in dBs? Or some similar scale or even an arbitrary one that goes from 1 to 10 or 15 or whatever.
How further should photography be simplified is a subject that can better be discussed over the course of an entire afternoon. Or two. Or plenty.
Thanks for making those points. Yes, a discussion should follow. With an appropriate beverage to lubricate the thinking.
I think one issue that could arise if we use all of the different methodologies at once would be communication among the different methodologies. I suppose the potential for miscommunication comes from methodology change in any subject, but I'm just imagining standing next to a lake trying to capture the scene with mountains in the background and a random person is doing the same next to me. We get talking about how we're capturing the scene and our cameras and such. Then we start talking about camera settings and one or both of us is extremely confused and unsure how to translate the methodology that one of us uses with the methodology the other one uses. That's also not even going near the "internet debates" that would inevitably come up with something like this. Also, if people would begin to only learn the "new" methodology, then what about photo-editing software? Would that also need to have options for which methodology you're using? Or would that be reserved for the "pros" who know the "traditional" methodology? I think there are certainly better ways to think about how to take a picture than the "traditional" methodology, but changing an entire industry is much easier said than done; however, change always has to start somewhere, regardless how daunting it may seem.
The need to exchange settings would be an advantage of Tony's solution. However, I don't really see this as a requirement. Cameras are different, lenses are different - knowing my settings does not make it possible for you to recreate the photo I just took.
I am new to cameras and i really cant understand whats the problem for newbies. The auto mode is their friend. Even mobile phone apps use the same terms. Maybe they should not change the terms but adopt an extra parameter to the menu. Something like newbie shooting settings where they will have options like blur, more blur, more artificial light (iso) etc. Anyway keep up the good work Maarten.
Thanks, yes, good suggestion and thanks for the kind words.
I think the crux of what yore getting at here is UX and UI ... which is a massive topic in the space of computers pioneered by apple in the early 2000's ... Smartphones are the best example of this....would people really have adapted so well to computers so quickly without the easy to use smartphone? probably not...look at older operating systems, theyre confusing and very technical (to the untrained) but that all changed with the Iphone, now anyone can use a computer with ease. I think you have a point. we need a camera that is the Iphone of cameras .....
It's an interesting point, but I'm not sure I completely agree. I don't think computers were hard to use before the smartphone arrived and while the capabilities of both computers and smartphones have advanced, there are still a large cohort who find smartphones and computers difficult to use and impossible to master.
Another great video Maarten. But while I do agree that the naming conventions around settings in photography can be confusing, I also enjoy the level of adjustment possible in the framework around these numerical settings.
But I'm sure a fully manual mode is entirely possible in your proposed system. It's all just software after all.
Thanks, a pleasure to read your kind words. I would never propose to remove the flexibilty that experienced practitioners bring to their craft.
In a digital camera ISO should be called gain.
Absolutely, you have my 100% support on that - primarily for video, but also for stills.
How about just 'S' for Sensitivity rating even, and rate it from 1-10 +.
1 being the least sensitive for each individual sensor (today's ISO 100 equivalent = S1) and 10 being the most sensitive ISO 56,200 = S10?
It would be like a decimalisation of the outdated ISO settings simplified by numerical sensitivity.
@@nowisthetime6093 I would not find that realistic. The lowest or base ISO just means no amplification to the signal coming from the sensor. I think I'd prefer gain, although I'll admit that sensitivity has some aesthetic appeal.
@@MaartenHeilbron defenetly gain. Like on my guitar. Input is normal signal from guitar and gain boosts that same signal but results in more noise (audio noise) more gain = more noise but more audible.
@@088Noir Thanks, however, in digital systems as the noise floor is very low, it takes a lot of gain before noise starts to be noticeable.
I agree that the camera system needs to be dumb down. Especially the aperture F stop. I would rather have the camera let me know how much depth-of-field (like in metric mm, cm) in focus rather than F stop that doesn't help in composing a shot.
Besides that, I don't see how the ISO value help in composing a shot, like how much grain/noise I need in the picture. Usually, people want a clean picture and then they can add grain in post if they want to. I hope manufacture can come with some AI tech to deal with the noise issue and turn ISO into how much detail/sharpness (super fine, fine, standard) to retain. In my opinion, it is bad to prioritize on ISO and let aperture/shutter speed suffer in a picture.
In the end, photographers can focus on composing, depth-of-field, area of focus and shutter speed to make better pictures.
Thanks for the comments.
The Noise value would be a reported number, not an adjustable setting in my view, to provide guidance for the photographer who might like to use a flash or possible change lenses.
My wife wants to be able to take control of her camera to create the images she sees in her mind but the math behind f-stop settings intimidates her. Cell phones have begun to implement slide controls and such, as you suggest, to make the picture-taking experience simple. It's a pity camera companies have not adapted as well.
Good comment, although some have made tentative steps, and Fujifilm is showing some leadership, there is a great deal more that can be done.
I spent years trying to get the current system down....I can't learn more ....even if it is simpler!
Understood.
@@MaartenHeilbron But please know that I do love your video's! Your input for me to better use my Nikon Z6 has been watched numerous times with each time being helpful!
@@petermalone7869 So glad I've been able to provide useful information, thanks for your kind words.
Another way to frame the issue is we need a better user interface (UI) for photographers who are not as nerdy as Tony and who have not learned all the complex numerology of the old system, which derives from the old school of film. My bet for an improved, 21st century, friendly UI is Apple -- not Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Fuji. Cheers, thanks, and stay safe.
Good suggestion - you can see examples of that on their phones, which certainly provide a more guided interface than cameras.
The history of popular photography has been to make things easier. From box cameras to autofocus point and shoots, it was all about making a sharp, well exposed photograph. If people want to go beyond that, and there's no reason they have to, the existing shutter, aperture and ISO dials are fairly straightforward.
Digital camera manufacturers attempted to bridge the easy and hard stuff, in one model, with mixed success. If the exposure triangle is beyond their grasp, how is anyone going to understand variable dynamic range settings, or a host of other controls that go beyond simple reciprocity? If you don't want to look under the bonnet, auto mode does a fine job in most circumstances.
They may be "fairly straightforward" to you, but that opinion is not shared by all who are intrigued by the possibilities of photography. The camera industry has pushed those people to use smartphones, which are much less reliant on arcane terms and settings but are result-driven as I suggest.
Thanks for commenting, an interesting read.
@@MaartenHeilbron I'm not sure substituting f5.6, 1/250 @ ISO 640 becomes any simpler by replacing it with equivalent clicks on an alternative metric. Before cameras grew multi-function interfaces, exposure variables had dedicated dials to avoid confusion. Sooner or later the user has to understand the consequence of moving a setting, the analogue of which is not the hardest part.
@@borderlands6606 Again, simply because you have come to terms with these terms and they now "make sense" to you, doesn't mean that it's equally simple for everyone. There are a wide variety of human beings with a wide variety of ways of understanding our world. Please don't assume that everyone is just like you. If someone finds it simpler to drive a car with an automatic transmission, while you have mastered the clutch and manual shift method doesn't make one better.
@@MaartenHeilbron Cameras do not lack automatic settings, they are festooned with incremental automation from point and shoot, via various program modes, to the abandonment of shutter speed and aperture size to the photo deities. You can shoot in manual and jpeg, adapting the camera menus to the precise look you want, or delve deep into the editing mines.
I am not uniquely gifted, pretty much everyone looking at this and every other RUclips photo channel will have learned exposure relationships, often without learning the English language or basic interpersonal skills. If they haven't they can learn, or ignore them with little detriment to the visual quality of their photographs. My reaction to Tony Northrop's video was a solution looking for a problem. The pressure of content providing can send people down rabbit holes when there's no rabbit and very little hole.
Simple and efficient
Thanks. Are you speaking of my presentation style or the idea I proposed?
Must admit as I am learning photography I am wondering why I am bypassing all the money and expertise Panasonic have put into my g85 to make it take great pictures in given situations. Don’t get me wrong I love manual, full or part, but am I wrong to pass up auto completely? I suppose raw/jpeg is a similar argument.
I think that's a valid thought - take advantage of the things your camera can do so that you can concentrate on the creativity and vision that only you can bring. Thanks for commenting.
A completely different class of RUclipsr.
Good? Bad?
Maarten Heilbron very very good. I have been creating face-to-fan videos for my business since 2013 and I know the effort that goes in to make presenting work. Your demeanour, your class, your knowledge, all exemplary, first rate. A doff of the hat to you sir 🎩
@@djessdee-uk What an extraordinarily kind comment, thanks very much - although I'll have to admit that my first reply was clearly fishing.
Maarten Heilbron oh I know that. The bait was too tasty not to snap at 🙌🏻
Of the opinion that current camera automation is coping for 80% of the pictures we are taking. In other cases some manual intervention is needed. How does the camera know what you want in focus? How much blurr you want? What type of backlit photograph you want? At some point you need some extra knowledge. As an old school formed photographer we had no choices in the past as you had to understand the intricacies of shutter speed, f stop, focussing and emulsion speed or you had a bad image. Humanity always wants to simplify, look at the early 20th century advert of Kodak "take the picture, we do the rest". These camera's were able to take decent pictures in daylight. Now we want more as we want to take pictures of black cats in a coalmine! Who remembers Minolta camera's with a variety of presets with the technology of the early nineties a precursor of the highly acclaimed AI...Who remembers a paritcular Canon camera who could follow your eye movement in the viewfinder and select the according AF point (sadly discontinued by Canon)
With the shift in technology (chemical vs digital photography),improved processing power into the camera's we are just tipping the top of the iceberg of what is coming to us in a couple of years.
In a very short time we'll just have to input the right parameters into the camera, and it will take photographs accordingly. Perhaps the next iteration will read our minds....
I am not against this evolution, but it has to be simple, not what we have now 500+ pages of camera manuals.
Perhaps a Leica M is not so bad at all, manual focus, centre weighted metering, the rest is the task of the photographer, unfortunately the system is out of reach for most of us. People do not want to learn, they want instant gratification.
Video and photography is getting closer and closer, just shoot video and take the pictures you want from the video stream. With 8K around the corner we will have enough resolution.
These are of course my ramblings and we do not have a crystal ball. Who had anticipated in the mid nineties we would play with 5 figure ISO values...
Who would be so cruel as to put cats in a coalmine? And please be careful when you start tipping icebergs, they are even more dangerous than cows. As for 500 page camera manuals, I think you'll find they're excellent sleep aids. Do you keep the Leica out of reach because your children might damage it? What happened to your crystal ball? And your ellipsis at the end left me wondering what was next?
However, I do agree that automation is terrific until it doesn't provide the results you want. Then, whether you use the current system because it makes sense, or Tony's or the sliders I've seen and suggested you should be able to easily achieve your vision, hopefully before you fall asleep reading.
I know it is not popular to say, but as much as you pay for new semi pro camera, I use the green or P mode, until doesn’t work for me, then go old school. Why work so hard unless you have to?
Please go to the front of the class! Exactly. "Until it doesn't work for me." If the camera can do the work while you concentrate on composition and timing, then you are taking full advantage of your camera.
Hallo Maarten, How many Cameras and Lenses you own?
I use three cameras regularly, and each has two or three lenses that I use.
Maarten Heilbron which are they?
@@Pankaj-rg6jf ruclips.net/video/1TIcruFD5Ho/видео.html
Good video. I would leave out the red card on the bookshelf in the background as it resembles a phallic symbol with a tuxedo.
Thanks for the kind words. Get your mind out of the gutter. It is a box of Droste cocoa powder with the image of a nurse, my small token to front line health care workers.
@@MaartenHeilbron It does not matter what it is, just like f-stops and ISOs. It matters if it is distracting, what its impact is. I want you to get the impact that you want to have.
@@peterhewitt7247 Those who want to find distracting visual content will always do so. I have no control over your perceptions.
@@MaartenHeilbron True, you do not. But we are not talking about me. I am just honest and caring. You have a viewership. Me: a retired MD who has made no prior mention of sexual content online in well over a year. My mind is likely far from where you seem to think that it usually is.
Talking of camera AI and auto functions, I'm amazed that camera manufacturers haven't yet come out with an adaptable bracketing option. I shoot motorsports, and would love to have the option of shutter speed bracketing. No not exposure bracketing but shutter speed, where I can have a number of shots with different shutter speeds but the same exposure. The idea is to have safe shots, where the image is caught with a higher shutter speed and consequently slower shutter speed shots for that blurred background look in conjunction with panning. Is this so hard to do?
While this sounds like a great idea, i think that technique and timing might not be in your favour in this application.
It would be great to be able to say which exposure variable (aperture, shutter, ISO) is adjusted for an exposure bracket - and I do wonder why this hasn't been implemented by any manufacturer.
@@MaartenHeilbron , yes exactly, having the power to choose what will vary would be great. I for instance know that when I chose exposure bracketing in Aperture priority mode on my D810, the camera changes only the shutterspeed. The ISO remains the same. That's what I'm using to a certain degree to simulate my idea of a Shutterspeed bracket option. Yes, I will have different exposures from my existing solution, but it's better than missing a shot. Most underexposed images are recoverable so I always underexpose my middle exposure for a well-exposed "overexposure" (I hope you are following my logic here lol).
Reply to "While this sounds like a great idea, i think that technique and timing might not be in your favour in this application"...
Most of us shooting action motorsports shoot in bursts, so that is the primary used technique. My idea is to have a burst mode with a variable shutterspeed duration of each consecutive shot. The timing in this technique is to decide the framing window you want to shoot in, so for instance if a car is going to go through a corner I will decide the entry and exit point for that move and shoot burst there with AF tracking on. If the distance from the camera to the vehicle is determined to be the same focal distance then I would prefocus and not use tracking at all.
@@stephenspiteri_zunkus Thanks for this insight - but it does make the challenges, as now you're combining burst and bracket, more clear.
Great presentations
Glad you like them! Thanks for the kind words.
I think the whole camera interface needs to be changed into a smart phone format where every setting can be configured and saved as custom settings. For example, on my Canon I was limited to there images for HDR. Now on my Olympus I have more options, but why can’t it be variable and let my choose the number of frames? I think there should be changes from the 1970s interface
While I could suggest that your memory of the 70's is faulty, I do agree, interfaces are somehow needlessly complex even though they do now offer a great deal more functionality.
Maarten Heilbron No, my memory is fine as I sold film cameras for five years in the late 70s and early 80s. I owned a Canon A-1 in high school so I understand the UI. Of course, it is just dreaming that all of the camera manufacturers are going change camera settings any time soon as it would be a major disruption in the industry. Based on sales it MAY be worth it?
@@DavidCrooksPhotos I'm sorry that you missed the humorous intent in my remark.
Your suggested changes in terminology is the way point and shoot and phone cameras have gone. Automobiles have taken advantage of technology too. For me the sad trade-off is that people won't understand how a photo is created than how their cars now detect the environment around them (radar lane detection etc.). But that's fine. I don't have to know how my computer does what it does, to be able to take advantage of it's capabilities. I am glad I learned photography on an old film camera my father bought back in the 1940s. I have switched to Fujifilm digital mirrorless cameras from DSLRs, mostly because I like the dials/controls that are similar to old film cameras.
I share many of those thoughts, including a preference for Fujifilm's physical controls. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I have only one serious objection to this whole idea: new photographers who learn to compose and shoot this way will still have to learn all the technical stuff if they want to use the cameras made over more than a century before there were microcontrollers to make all the technical decisions for them -- trading off aperture, shutter speed, and sensitivity. Perhaps the long, long term looks like this -- but being a photographer has never made oil painting harder. Learning photography with this level of radical simplification, essentially reducing the process to "I want to shoot that, this way. Do it, camera!" will make it FAR harder to learn the "technical art form" of exposing film, and making prints you can handle and hang on a wall from that film.
This is, in my opinion, the final admission that whatever people are doing with digital "cameras" is not "photography" -- writing with light -- but a different, albeit related art form and technical discipline, and like many disciplines that come to depend too much on computer assistance, digitography is in danger of forgetting how it got there, and thus forgetting what it's about.
I'm getting to be an old man; I probably won't live to see the day when you can connect the descendant of a digital camera to your neural implant, and record exactly the picture you want simply by liking what you're seeing. I occasionally wish it were possible -- like when I see the sunrise from my car, on the way to work, and can't pull over alongside the highway and take the shot. And it will be, probably before the end of the century -- but that's not photography, that's letting a computer be your memory. And what will happen when we've forgotten how to remember for ourselves, because we let the computers do it for us?
The technology of photography is hardly essential to the art. Think about how much more sophisticated any instrument of the last 50 years is than anything that Mozart or Bach or even Ravel would have known.
Do you think that they'd dismiss a digital keyboard, the electric bass, the amplifier or the precise sophistication of modern horns and strings? I think they would embrace them as wonderful tools to further enable their creativity.
I'm sure that applies to the great photographers of the previous millennium also. And they would quickly appreciate the advances that have been made to further enable them to fulfill their vision.
@@MaartenHeilbron I had a long, well-reasoned reply almost finished, and my browser crashed. Suffice to say, I disagree: learning photography your way would be like learning to paint in oils without understanding the color wheel and how pigment and dye paints mix and cover differently.
@@SilntObsvr My browser crashed too. Suffice it to say, that analogy does not hold up.
With the processing availability now and in the future, a camera could easily take a number of shots and the effects could be chosen later in editing.
Yes, that's certainly an option for those who enjoy that kind of thing.
IMO the confusion about shutter speed and aperture values being irrational has to do with the fact they they’re actually fractions, but mostly expressed as integers. 1/250 of a second is erroneously referred to as a shutter speed of 250 and f8 refers to 1/8. It doesn’t help that most people are naturally averse to fractions so an integer or graphically based system is perhaps a better solution?
While I'm happy to have the benefit of your scientific and rational explanation, there are many people who, even if you explain this slowly and carefully, will not appreciate this nuance as you understand. They need something simpler, which is what Tony (and I) are advocating.
It’s a good idea to make photography terms more simple!
Thanks, nice to have friends. I appreciate the kind words.
Maarten Heilbron I learn a lot from you!👍🏻
@@RyanWoo That's very kind, thanks.
I agree. I’m a new photographer. What does “wide open” mean? Does that mean a lower F-stop number or a higher number? Some of the terminology seems inverse. In this case when I hear wide, I think of more (higher number). But then in other cases, a higher number means less (as in quicker) like in the case of shutter speed. See what I mean? I guess it just takes time to get this ingrained into my mind. But in the end, I see how a combination of settings produce a certain end result. Then I start making the connections. All in due time, I guess.
@@_HMCB_ Agreed, every time I say "a smaller aperture, which is a larger F-stop" have feel the need to apologize. Next time I'm going to complain that dials nearly always turn the wrong way. Luckily many cameras can reverse the rotation.
Hi Maarten, I commented elsewhere on one of your vids that ISO is not actually part of the Exposure Value as there are only two things that create the Exposure Value (EV). These are the Aperture Value and the Time Value. The EV is only made up by the amount of light allowed to reach the film/sensor and this is controlled by the aperture and shutter speed. ISO only affects how sensitive the film/sensor is to the the EV.
Also it is a little misleading to say that the "larger" number (when referring to shutter speeds and apertures) is the shorter shutter speed or smaller aperture. This is because it is not actually true! These numbers are actually fractions and when I was at school, 1/1000th was a much smaller number that 1/5th or, in the aperture world, 1/16th is a much smaller number than 1/4th.
The whys and wherefores as to where these numbers come from does not matter when pressing the button but, if you are shooting in any manual way, how they affect your final image does.
When teaching photography, I quickly move on to refer to 'larger/smaller' apertures and 'shorter/faster and longer/slower' shutter speeds. All my students need to know is that the numbers are fractions, and then they know absolutely what is a shorter or what is larger etc.
It is all very simple indeed and nothing needs to change at all. A student only needs to know how changing things will affect their image when they put them into effect.
This is also why I only really refer to 'Stops of Light'. Each 'Stop' being equivalent to 1EV.
Anyway, I am pretty certain you know all of this but great vid none the less.
Thanks
First, I suggest you experiment with your camera(s) and determine what the EV dial is actually changing in the various modes. You may be surprised. Secondly, this is truly unnecessary information for the majority of photographers, who are simply trying to understand what the dials and settings do and they effect they have on their images.
Photography is complicated enough for the majority, and insisting on terminology that is misleading is counterproductive.
Incidentally, I'm surprised to see you use the term "shutter speed". It's correctly the "shutter duration".
@@MaartenHeilbron 🤣🤣 I didn't want to complicate things!
@@selianboy8508 Okay. Then let's get away from the scientific terms and use ones that might make more sense to photographers. In the days of digital photography, the term ISO is meaningless. Gain is the right term to describe what's happening.
@@MaartenHeilbron Happy with that so long as the sensitivity of a sensor is not considered part of the Exposure Value!
Then I am a happy chappie. BTW... this side of the pond I have never had a student who has not grasped the basics of what makes up the exposure value.