The Fallacy of Auto

Auto, meaning automatic, on digital SLRs can make everyone a professional photographer. With Auto focus, Auto ISO and Auto Aperture/Shutter combined with huge megapixels on our modern day Digital SLR's you can simply point the camera and shoot; crop and ask questions later in photoshop.


Huge megapixels on a DSLR allows us to pluck a bird from the photo sky with amazing clarity; that is if all your other auto settings syncs with your endeavors such as a fast shutter speed to freeze the bird in flight.


However with all these wonderful auto functions on your DSLR, it creates havoc with the professional photographer as we fight to re-gain control of our camera.


In the old days, there were only four controls that we had to worry about and once you had selected the film with a fixed ISO, you are left with only three controls; focus, shutter speed and aperture.


With digital SLRs, you wrestle with a plethora of new controls ranging from white balance, Dynamic Range, saturation, noise reduction, auto iso and so much more. With everything set on Auto, you would think that you would get a perfect photo everytime, and it should, that is if we would just stop fiddling with the settings on the menu.

Like an airplane pilot performing flight check on all the dials, a photographer must run through all the settings before his assignment starts; testing with a few photos ensuring that the settings are performing as expected.

Auto-Focus

You really don't have much of a choice these days on focusing. Gone are the split prisms that aided the photographer in the old days. When an image converges in the focus area on a split prism, you know that you are in focus. However, with todays DSLR, manual focusing is more of a guessing game especially when you attempt to view your subject on the lcd panel in bright sunlight. Although there is usually a LED indicator, it is nothing more then the auto-focus at work, making you become the focus motor; so why not let the camera do all the work.

So it is a given that you have to use auto-focus.

Now the problem with auto-focus is "just what is it auto-focusing on?"

For most, it is usually the nearest object which means that it would be focused on the boquet of flowers in front of the bride, rather then on the face of the bride.

Even if you were to focus on the bride using selective area focusing, will the in-built camera predictive focusing compensate for the bride moving toward or away from you; ie will the bride still be in focus if she walks down the isle? or is your focus locked at her last position since you had your finger on the shutter.

If someone moves between you and the bride, momentarily, does your camera re-focuses on the new subject or will it track the bride before and after the interruption?

With the Nikon, continuous focusing will continually focus and track the bride as she saunters down the isle; focus tracking with lock-on will track the bride for 3 seconds (default) if someone dashes across the isle.

Combined this with an aperture of F11 giving you a deeper DOF, (depth of field) ,it should give you a fairly sharp photo of both her boquet and her face; regardless of whether your auto-focus focuses on the boquet or the bride's face.

If you don't have a firm understanding of how your auto-focus system works, even the most sharpest lens will not save your photos from a blurry grave. Getting to know your auto-focus and how it behaves is a very important aspect of todays cameras and will ensure that all your photos are as sharp as razors.

Auto-ISO

It is a wonderful feature, provided you use it correctly.

With Nikon, auto-iso, you can selected the minimum shutter speed such as 1/400 for soccer and with almost any setting including Manual, the camera will adjust your ISO for the light, matching your shutter and aperture selection.

This sounds like a wonderful auto feature, but it causes havoc with your studio lights. Since there are no pre-flashes with studio strobes, your camera thinks that there isn't enough light and therefore selects your highest iso to compensate. Thus with high ISO, your noise reduction algorithm will kick in, making all your photos just a bit blurry.

I shot a whole family photo session with auto-iso on, since I shot a soccer game the night before, and every photo ended up being shot at 6400 iso causing all the photos to be slightly soft due to the noise reduction that was applied.

Auto-iso also plays havoc with flashes. If the flash is not completely charged, the pre-flashes will tell the camera to bump the iso up since there isn't enough light. Your photo may end up being overexposed and again slightly blurry due to the noise reduction kicking in with the high iso.

Just remember to turn off auto-iso with flashes and studio strobes and turning it on when shooting in a variety of outdoor lighting situations.

Compensation with Auto-iso.

Compensation is used to overexpose a photo when the sun is behind the subject, or to underexpose a photo when too much light is being reflected causing the photo to be washed out. Compensation usually works with most auto settings by controlling your shutter or aperture speeds.

You would think that Manual mode is Manual (you have all the controls) and that compensation should only work with the other auto-modes. However Nikon and their think tank, says that if you decided to turn Auto-ISO on, then compensation will work even in manual mode by compensating with the ISO.

Thus if you have your settings in manual with a compensation of +2, auto-iso will bump up the ISO to overexpose your photo at your fixed shutter and aperture settings.

Definitely not what you would expect when shooting in manual.

Trusting your camera

Auto is a fallacy when you start to rely on it to compensate such as leaving it on Auto-iso to adjust to higher ISO for varying lighting conditions during an outside photo shoot. It is too easy to forget that you have left your aperture at F11 from an outside sunny day and suddenly shoot at 6400 iso indoors with a flash.

Some things are better set manually forcing you to go through the checklist everytime the environment changes rather then being surprised at the results after the wedding is done and gone.

Here are just some rule of thumb on using some of the auto modes.

- when using auto-iso, don't set the max iso to the highest iso of 25,000 unless you plan to under extreme lighting condition. Set it so that it peaks at an ISO that you would chosen under that kind of lighting condition, such as 800 ISO for an indoor shoot.

- choose wide area focusing for general event photography, but use the selective cursor focusing for portraits and position it exactly on the eye to get extremely sharp and detail photos (it is all in the eyes).

- auto WB is usually acceptable but a better method is to use the method described by Ken Rockwell on setting the WB.

Last words

In this day and age of Automatic settings, do a lot of test photos to see what the auto settings will choose for you; if it coincides with what you would have chosen then you are in luck as the camera thinks like you do; however if completely surprises you with its selection, like auto iso with studio lights, learn to take control of your settings. Don't let auto control you; be a professional and fight.

Saving money on Lenses

In the days of film, much of the work was done before the image hits the negative. Thus if you wanted a soft focus effect, you can put petrolium jelly on your UV filter or even a humungous lens shade that has a small hole cutout on a semi transparent plastic. This softens the edges and blends the sharper image of the center with a softer whitish or blackish outter edge; we create the vignetting effect (darker, whiter edges) before it hits the film.

Of course one of the main reason we get a SLR was to limit the DOF (depth of field); this is where the main subject remains in focus and the background blends in with a flurry of colors. The faster the lens, usually f1.4 on a 50mm, the more limited the DOF as well as the ability to shoot in a much lower light. The difference can be as much as 1/30th of a second difference which meant you can hand hold the camera without camera shake.

Fast Lens
Fast lens are, of course, very expensive since they are created to let more light in and thus cost more to manufacture. As an example, the Nikon 50mm F1.8 lens is only $150 and the Nikon 50mm F1.4 lens is a whooping $570. Yet both lenses are razor sharp and deliver the same photo except the photographer that buys the F1.4 won't be eating steak for a few months.

In the old days, since we had no other control over the photo other then the three controls we had on the camera, it was important that we had a low light lens.

With todays technology, we pay for the digital camera bodies that can do amazing things; such as the ability to shoot at ISO up to 25,000 iso or Photoshop that can create digital effects that is beyond what we could do with film. With more controls on the camera and more controls over the post production, there is very little reason why anyone should be spending the money on a fast lens!

Thus to shoot faster on a F1.8 lens all you need to do is bump the iso up from 200 ISO to 400 ISO and you get the same low light lens for $400 cheaper.

In the same line of thought, the fast 80-200 F2.8 VR II zoom is a wonderful lens, but this lens is selling at most camera stores for over $2500. Granted you get a very nice fast lens that can shoot at low light and VR (vibration reduction) too, but remember that you can get a lens to be fast, by simply by pushing your ISO by one (i.e. 200 change to 400 ISO).

Is it worth the money? absolutely not! Although it is stated as a professional lens, many of us Professionals will not use it; simply because it expensive, heavy and the professionals that actually do earn their living at photography cannot afford it; a real professional is not defined by the expensive equipment they own.

The best buy for a short range telephoto lens for nikon would be the 70-300 F4.5-5.6 VR zoom for around $500. It is small and compact unlike the 4lbs bulky 80-200 F2.8 lens.

Now granted, there is nothing like the thrill of a natural DOF (blurry background) from a nice portrait lens at a fast aperture of F2.8 at 135mm but this is the only time that you should consider a fast lens.

Sports
Many photographers think that a fast lens would be great for sports! however if you shoot at 200mm F2.8, your focus is only on the nose to the ear of a single player. Great effect, but very little control over what you get during a game.

Two problems exists during a real world sports photography, first is the fast pace action that pushes your auto-focus camera to its limits on focusing especially in low light situations, second is the your shutter speeds which controls whether you can stop-motion capture the action.

Lowering your aperture to F2.8 to gain a faster shutter speed is not the answer as now you have very little DOF. Combined this with a camera that doesn't focus quick enough on the action, all you get are blurry photos. Mind you, the few photos that you do get will be gorgeous.

The better method is to set your lens to an aperture of 4.5 or even F8 to give you a larger DOF and push the ISO as you can possibly comfortably go. It is better to get grainy sports photos, then to get all blurry ones. You are paid to capture the action and the players; not to create special blurry action photos. Thus a cheaper F4.5 zoom lens will do the job versus the expensive F2.8 80-200 zoom lens.

If you really want to save money, get the older nikon 80-200 F4.5-5.6 plastic lens that is selling on craigs list for about $75. This little lens is really small and compact but gives you the 80-200mm range when you need it.

VR Lenses
Now don't spend money on a faster lens but do spend money on VR(vibration reduction). VR has been toted as the ability to shoot at a few more stops lower then what you can normally. Thus most people confuse this ability as equivalent to a faster lens. However you really have to separate this technology from F-stops and shutter speeds as it really doesn't have anything to do with them even though it is toted as such.

VR reduce the amount of shake delivered by the lens to your final image. It is not a total elimination but it reduces the chances of getting a blurry photo from slow shutter speeds. Remember that the longer the lens, the faster the shutter speed must be. Thus VR is needed much more on long lens. VR is rarely needed on 50mm or less unless you shoot at extremely slow shutter speeds which I'll talk about later.

VR is simply another control that we can add to our photography. It increases the chance of a sharp photo by a large percentage. often created through hand shakiness and slow shutter speeds. Thus you can shoot at 1/200th of a second using a 300mm lens with a greater chance that most of your photos will be clear if not razor sharp.

It is a needed feature for all lens no matter what you buy as it allows you to hand hold a camera at sometimes impossible slow shutter speeds. I've shot photos at 1/4 of a second hand held and the photo was clear.

Although VR is not needed as much at 16mm, there are times when you need to shoot at very low shutter speed; it was for this reason that I changed from a non-vr 17-35mm lens to a 16-35mm VR lens.

Low light, small aperture for greater depth of field, low iso and slow shutter speeds are needed for real-estate photography. Most of the photos are done on a tripod to enusre noise free photos, however at the end of the photo session, I usually shoot a series of quick hand held high-iso photos for backup selection. Of course you don't want too high of an ISO value, but just enough to get a shutter speed of 1/15 or 1/30th of a second; just enough for hand-holding and low enough on the ISO to reduce noise. VR is essential to this type of photography.

Fast Portrait Lenses
Now arguementively, as I said above, there is nothing quite as enticing as a lens that can deliver a beautiful portrait photo with a natural blurred background. Very little post production work is needed; what you see and composed on your camera is what you see and get on the end photo; al naturale. This is about the only time that a great fast lens at approximately 85mm or 135mm would be a great investment.

However commercial photography such as fashion, jewelry photoshoots, demands that the product eg. jewelry or clothing be as sharp as possible with only a hint of blurriness that blends in with the photo. The client will be very disappointed if the earings are out of focus, which will happen if you are using an aperture of 2.8; the DOF is very shallow at 135mm.

With commercial photography, it is better to shoot at F8 or smaller just to ensure that the model and her accessories are in focus. Post production work will allow us to blur out the background as well as any other distractions within the photo. Thus again, a cheap 28-80mm F3.3 lens at $80 or the 50mm 1.8 at $150 is adequate for this type of work.

How many lenses do you need?
Just one for each type of photography and sometimes one for almost all types of photography.

With photoshop, as long as you have a clear and sharp image of your subject, we are able to do some amazing post production work. From transporting a subject into the clouds to making a subject thinner, photoshop is the defacto standard of our digital darkroom.

With one lens, 24-120mm, a whole wedding can be shot. This same lens was used for fashion, jewelry photoshoot as well as headshots, modeling and much more. If the photo isn't sharp enough, post production products like Nik can sharpen specific areas of the photos. If the background isn't blurry enough, photoshop can do that in seconds.

There are only two other lenses that may be needed for a working professional photographer and that would be the 16-35mm lens for architecture and real estate photography and the 80-400mm zoom lens for sports.

With just 3 lens, a camera and photoshop, you should be able to operate as a full working professional.

Final words
Photography is very subjective and the most important thing is the happiness of your cliental. It doesn't matter if you use photoshop extensively with all the telltale markings of the glow filter that can be discerned by other photographers, what matters is that the photo is pleasing and that your client is happy with the final result of the photo.

The technical aspect of photography is how you got there and it doesn't matter how (whether you use an expensive lens or cropped and blurred with photoshop); what matters is that single edited photo expresses everything that you had wanted to capture and more; and that someone (hopefully your client) loves what you did.

Recently with my upgrade to the D700, I've been consumed with replacing all my lenses to full frame format.

Every decision was fraught with cost, as most lenses are sold at a price that would have definitely cause a divorce if I was still married. Ranging from six hundred to several thousands, these lenses are the heart and soul of my photography career.

Originally I was armed with only a few lenses for the D90; DX format is smaller and cheaper. Starting with my sigma 10-20mm that only cost $600 brand new, which was used mainly for real estate as well as some unique scenic wedding photography. Going full frame, this was the first lens that needed to be replaced.

Since the craigs list asking price of a 17-35 was affordable at a $1000 (retail value of $2k with tax), I sold my Sigma for $450 and bought the 17-35mm from a hobbyist that hid the fact that he was selling it from his wife; he would continuously sell and replace his arsenal of lenses . However, after using this lens for numerous real estate, one glaring fact kept cropping up. Although it was a fast lens at 2.8, in order to ensure that the whole room was in focus, I had to shoot at least at a aperture of F11 or more, thus the price for buying a F2.8 lens was lost in this method of usage. You generally pay more for the faster lens.

The second problem was that you could not hand hold this lens at shutter speeds of 1/30 or even 1/4 of a second. The probability of a blurry photo at these speeds without a tripod was basically 100%; VR was desperately needed.

My only other option was the new 16-35 VR lens, but this was retailing at $1500 before Tax. Luck was with me as I sold my 17-35mm for $1300, while purchasing the 16-35 from a suspicious young man for $1300, I was really out of pocket $550 so far; and the changeover from the 17-35 to the 15-35 was free.

Hand holding the 16-35 at shutter speeds of 1/4 of a second was exceptionally clear with no blurriness due to hand shake. This feature alone in real estate photography can mean that someday I might try shooting a whole house without a tripod, once I am confident that the photos will turn out; reducing the time from 2 hours to a mere 20 minutes.

Although the 70-300 lens is a full frame lens and was used for sports, I hated the fact that I basically lost my DX factor of 1.5x. Thus in order to regain that 1.5x zoom, I had to buy a 400mm zoom which is still a bit shorter then the 300mm in DX format of 450mm. However rather then buying the 400mm, I ended up buying a 80-200mm fixed f2.8 Pro lens that was four times the size of my tiny 70-300 for $625. I was thinking of buying a doubler 2x converter that would allow me to use this lens at 160mm to 400mm at F5.6 which is still fast. However with the nikon teleconverter 2x on, the lens could not autofocus. Another brand name teleconverter did allow the lens to work but it was also several hundred for a teleconverter. Thus it would be $625 for the lens plus a $400 for a teleconverter and the fact that you had to insert the teleconverter between the lens to get the additional zoom. I simply wanted a lens that would zoom from 70-450mm when needed.

Even though the 80-200 was a fast lens at f2.8, you will never shoot a soccer at f2.8. Minimum aperture for sport photography is at least 5.6 or even F8 to ensure that a few players would be in focus. The other factor was VR. With a lens of this length, shutter speeds would need to be at least 1/500 of a second to ensure blurry free photos; however soccer in night light would always drop the shutter speed down to 1/200th of a second thus reducing the effectiveness of a non-vr lens.

So I sold my 70-300 for $450, sold my 80-200mm for $800 and bought the 80-400 VR for $1200. The end result was that I was out of pocket of $575.

So in the end, upgrading my wide angle to a full frame lens was $550 and upgrading my 70-300mm to a 80-400mm was $575; the total upgrade costed a grand total of $1,125.

Now the fact that I had bought another D90 for $775 with battery grip several months ago as a backup (we won't include the money spent here as part of the fx lens upgrade), I ended up selling my older D90 with kit lens for $900 and the battery grip for another $125; thus I got back $1025 for my older D90.

Out of pocket for the complete fx lens upgrade? $100 :)

www.rtomstudios.com