Auto focus?

Question

Warning not a question really.

Ok Im not against it. There are a few occasions I would use it:

1. when my eye sight fades and a diopter/glasses/contacts wont let me anymore

2. if i cant prefocus or do a "focus pull" - so in the event of shooting at speed where the subject wil take a direction unforseen - could be fashion or sports -

3. if i was drunk

4. if im lazy and dont really care about the image

People say why use manual when you have auto focus?

I answer if I spend 2 hours going somewhere, spend an hour setting up lights and maybe props or altering the scene, white balance, measure adjust the light, select the depth and shutter speed (taking into account flash etc) for the correct exposure - after all that why would I let the camera mess it up by using auto focus?

Why would i hand the control of the focus over to the camera?

Is it more artistic than people are?

Does anyone here me?

Thanks Doug well said as usual.

Thanks Kevin, you inspire me again, between the lines you have to think alot more than us i think?cause of you sight issue.

Many thanks for answering me, do you use the auto points to select the balance if your not shooting speed?

Answer 1

Well in my case since I have been wearing glasses since the age of 16 (now 49) and been looking through a camera even before that, over the years my eyes have gotten bad. I now wear tri-focal glasses (3 levels of distance). No!! I will not get surgery done to my eyes just in case something went wrong (it happened to my sister). Plus 95% of all the professional photographers I work with and know (about 20 of them) all wear glasses, contacts or had surgery done. I think it deals with over the years looking through the lens and then starring at computer screens (age does not help either).

So to answer you I use autofocus.

Hope that helps,
Kevin

Answer 2

I don't see the act of focusing to be a creative choice beyond deciding what to focus on. DOF is a creative choice, but it's not focus per se. I use Auto Focus whenever it works as well as I need it to work.

There are times when it won't focus as well as I would like, so I have a diagonal split prism range finder with micro prism collar. Under most situations, I just watch everything snap into place in the view finder. It's even fun to watch the image come together in the range finder and clarify in the micro prism.

In very low light, with low contrast subjects and subjects that lack clearly defined edges the auto focus doesn't work so well and I manual focus. I also manual focus for a lot of macro stuff.

Auto focus is a great convenience. Most of the time I have many other things to think about so the more I can lessen the load the better.

It's the same with exposure. I use the AV, TV, P and Manual exposure settings for the same reason. I can and, when it is needed, do manually meter as well as anyone else. If the camera's automated features do what I want them to do I use them. It's the same for any of the camera's automated features that I use.

I started photography when I was 15 and a professional photographer named Gage White mentored me and lent me one of his spare Leicas to use. No auto focus, no TTL exposure, no AV, no TV, no DOF preview and no SLR through the lens composing. In the beginning, I didn't even have a light meter to use. I had to learn how to get more or less correct exposures from a chart showing shutter speed and aperture combinations for certain lighting conditions and then apply corrections by understanding differing lighting conditions. I had to learn about depth of field from a chart, seeing the results and referring to my notes learning to use my imagination to select an aperture for the effect I wanted. I learned on that camera and what I learned has stayed with me.

If I get the results that I want with the camera's automated controls, I use them. I am not one of those that feel that doing something manually either demonstrates better craftsmanship or brings some undefinable sense of quality to an image. The key is knowing what you want to accomplish and using the appropriate tool or approach.

As you can probably tell, I have little or no loyalty to anything. I used to use filters, now I have some special effects filters, a polarizer and UV for some beach shots, high altitude and to keep crap off the lens where that is going to be a problem and several ND's. That's it. I modify the cameras spectral response using its controls to duplicate certain types of filtering and use photoshop, which give me much more control and precision, for the rest.

In my opinion, while doing something manually may demonstrate tremendous technical craftsmanship, you're just doing more work than you need to if you aren't using an automated feature that will do the same thing.

This has been a more rambling answer than the question would seem to warrant, but all questions of this type, manual v. automatic, seem to carry the implication that somehow doing something manually means that you are necessarily a better photographer, or that the image will be necessarilly better because you did. That is simply not true.

From one perspective, by shooting using an automated function, whatever it is, I am a lesser photographer. From another perspective, mine, if you're doing it manually when you can get the same result automatically, you're a very good photograher that isn't to bright (or elevates ritual above pragmatics).

Vance

Answer 3

I used manual focus for the first 20 years of doing "serious" photography. I have always worn glasses, (well, at least since age two) and didn't find it to be too much of a handicap. But my vision started to deteriorate, then came cataracts and cataract surgery on both eyes. Now I use auto focus, my vision is just not reliable enough to tell on its own.. Plus, AF has improved a vast amount since the early 90's. My F100 rarely misses, and if it does it was probably me. The D80 can see in the dark.

Answer 4

What can I say? I use a Nikon FM2n and focus using a matte screen!

But I do have auto-focus on other bodies and do use that as well at sports events and when I am taking pictures of my grandchildren, but I almost always check to see that I am happy with it, including checking depth of field if that is important.

I hear you. Autofocus is not about artistry, it is about technical correctness - provided you have chosen the right thing to be in focus.

Answer 5

Ara57, please write to me at [e-mail] about a new group you would be interested to know about.

I'm mixed... I grew up with a split prism and then microprism which I used and then "fine tuned" using that donut of relly bright ground glass around these other focusing aids

Now, it depends on the situation, as many have said. My lenses currently all allow manual over-ride in an autofocus mode, so I am "at the ready" to make corrections if I am not happy with what the camera suggested.

Answer 6

For product, macro, landscape, studio portrait, or architectural photography I use manual focus.

For weddings or sports, or anything where I've got to get a shot with split-second timing, I use autofocus. I do a lot of shallow DOF work on weddings particularly... and even though AF isn't perfect, used carefully with manually selected focus points, it produces quality results in situations where one just couldn't manually focus fast enough.

Cheers Antoni!

Answer 7

I use autofocus as well.

A lot of my images are of sports, so running manual focus would slow me down.
I manual focus for macro shots, and I verify any landscape or "special effect" shots I might be doing by going manual.

Also, there are times when I need to re-adjust some settings and I don't want to lose my focus point, I'll switchover to manual.