smith@umn-cs.UUCP (03/04/85)
I've always used a 'manual' camera (read: one that doesn't automatically set itself according to the light; it used to mean a camera with NO meter at all). We can probably agree that there are two or more levels of taking pictures: there's snapshooting, and there's something more. With an automatic camera you can learn to snapshoot fairly quickly. Without it you take photos very slowly at first (metering every shot) and you learn lots about lighting as you try to speed things up (wasting lots of film as you learn). To do better than snapshooting you have to learn about lighting and how to recognize important facets of it as it changes. I think learning to use a camera without automation gives you a head start. Automation 'protects' you from having to learn about light, and thus builds a barrier against learning. When I'm seriously taking pictures I become PAINFULLY aware of subtle changes in light. I have to, since I need to take new meter readings when I aim into a differing lighting situation. To work seriously with an automatic camera you still need to see like this, PLUS you have to ask, "Will automation fail me here? Do I need to override?" Automation seems to me to be an unnecessary complication, another troublesome factor to understand and control. Rick.