Is auto-mode not a good choice in Australia?

[ricktas]

This is going to get a bit deep, so bear with me.

When we look at camera manufacturers, they are all in the Northern hemisphere. When their programmers sit in the offices and use the algorithms to create the software to install in your camera, they use benchmarks. Most of these benchmarks relate to light and the quality of it, as photography is all about capturing light. So chances are that the algorithms used are taken from data obtained in the northern hemisphere.

Is this data relevant to the southern hemisphere? If not, then should we not be using auto mode in Australia (and other countries south of the equator)?

A study done in 2002 found that there was around a 5% discrepancy in the light quality between the hemispheres. Mostly this discrepancy related to the amount of pollution surrounding the more densely populated northern hemisphere.

There is also a significant difference in IR (infra red) light between the hemispheres. In the northern hemisphere the boundary for IR light is between 88 and 89 kelvin, in the southern Hemisphere it is around 91 kelvin. The hole that appears in the ozone layer over Antarctica each year also impacts this, when it is estimated that a variation of up to 15% can occur in the amount of UV light hitting the surface of the Earth around the ozone hole impact area.

Now if the camera manufacturers are programming our cameras using the same algorithms that they use for the northern hemisphere, based on data collected in the northern hemisphere. there is a good chance that Auto-Mode is not going to be as accurate in Australia as it would be say in the USA.

Food for thought, should we not be using Auto-Mode, based on living in Australia?

[old dog]

hmmmm...interesting thoughts here Rick. I for one refuse to use auto mode only out of a thirst for improving my skills but I can see a need for it on ocassion. You would think there should be a firmware update ....as I`m assuming this is a widely known glitch....for us southerners.

[ricktas]

I recalled reading something about it many years ago during a discussion this evening that brought it back to the fore for me.

A person I know here in Hobart has recently taken up photography, using a consumer model DSLR, but on auto, it is over-exposing ever so slightly. Dialed in a bit of exposure compensation and it is much better. This reminded me of seeing an article, I reckon about 10 years ago, on this issue and how the light is different in the southern hemisphere. So I did a bit of research tonight to get the info I included in my first post, to show that there is a difference, and that it could possibly affect auto-mode use in Aus, and other southern hemisphere countries.

[fess67]

Sorry if this is dumb question but I just need to clarify your position here.

When you say auto mode, do you mean AWB or do you mean setting the camera on auto?

[ricktas]

setting the camera on Auto, or one of the 'picture modes' that consumer level DSLR offer. Not white balance!

[ameerat42]

(Auto mode! There, I said it! And I don't usually square on forums.)

Having rinsed my mouth out with soap and water, I will now opine that this part of the argument (as cited):

So chances are that the algorithms used are taken from data obtained in the northern hemisphere.

is the wobbly bit. I would further hazard a guess that the developers would be aware of a southern hemisphere and its luminary effects.

It has been known for NH denizens to venture southward in droves betimes, many with auto-moded cameras in tow, and it might be politic to
afford them the means to capture the southern light like as to their own.

To be fair, I have occasionally ventured north of the equator, and have not used auto mode in my wanderings there.

As a wise owl said: "Auto mode! Whooo needs it?"
Am.

[fess67]

setting the camera on Auto, or one of the 'picture modes' that consumer level DSLR offer. Not white balance!

ok. I do see the point and I suppose one might argue that there is an opportunity for camera producers to come to the party and provide a setting for 'southern hemisphere' and some guidlines as to when it may be applied. Is there a market force to make something like this happen? What is the market (current) in the southern hemisphere like? Europe and North America are well developed economies with lots of discretionary spend, I suspect China falls in there as well now. Numbers of clients = billions. The southern hemisphere has people but not discretionary buying power at the moment so why modify the algorithms?

Having said that, how hard would it be to offset an algorithm to include the southern hemisphere. Dunno - I see economics at play more than a love for photographic accuracy.

Does any of it matter with post processing? Agreed the consumer level user may not post process so maybe that is a mute point.


(Auto mode! There, I said it! And I don't usually square on forums.)

Having rinsed my mouth out with soap and water, I will now opine that this part of the argument (as cited):


is the wobbly bit. I would further hazard a guess that the developers would be aware of a southern hemisphere and its luminary effects.

It has been known for NH denizens to venture southward in droves betimes, many with auto-moded cameras in tow, and it might be politic to
afford them the means to capture the southern light like as to their own.

To be fair, I have occasionally ventured north of the equator, and have not used auto mode in my wanderings there.

As a wise owl said: "Auto mode! Whooo needs it?"
Am.

understood a couple of bits :p

[swifty]

I've heard certain films were developed for the northern hemisphere, namely Japan and US and doesn't suit Australian conditions well.
I'm no film expert and have not shot in quantities adequate to make a call. But definitely a possibility.
But does UV significantly affect digital sensors? I seem to recall the D2h and/or M8 may have had a problem with it. Or wassit to IR?

[norwest]

Also, would those whom use auto settings only, be the majority of buyers? I hazard a guess and say yes and likely by a country mile. 99.9% od those i see at at any sporting event, for example, use auto modes.

[Kym]

To me movies made in Australia always have better blue skies than Hollywood and the UK, but that maybe just pollution levels and weather :D

[WhoDo]

Is it only full Auto mode that could be affected? After all, Av and Tv modes (Nikon) also use, or partly use, the same algorithms to calculate the remaining settings. Maybe semi-auto modes are also "at risk", and the only reliable mode is full Manual? Even so, it is my understanding (limited though that may be) that some of the same algorithms also play a part in even Manual mode output, as manufacturer's strive to show their output is clearer, sharper, brighter, or whatever. Just a thought. :confused013

[norwest]

Is it only full Auto mode that could be affected? After all, Av and Tv modes (Nikon) also use, or partly use, the same algorithms to calculate the remaining settings. Maybe semi-auto modes are also "at risk", and the only reliable mode is full Manual? Even so, it is my understanding (limited though that may be) that some of the same algorithms also play a part in even Manual mode output, as manufacturer's strive to show their output is clearer, sharper, brighter, or whatever. Just a thought. :confused013

Though, wouldn't most of those using Av, Tv or manual be likely to vary EC according to conditions and individual shot requirements?

[Kym]

I guess it gets down to these questions:

Is there a quantitative difference in SH vs NH light ? (it appears so)
Is this difference significant?
Is the calibration and software algorithms used by manufactures sensitive to the difference?
I.e. do they set it (the camera software etc.) up in a lab or is it more subjective due to field tests?

[WhoDo]

Though, wouldn't most of those using Av, Tv or manual be likely to vary EC according to conditions and individual shot requirements?

Perhaps so, John, although most people migrating from full Auto wouldn't go straight to Manual but would rather start in Av (like me), and the niceties of EC are another step further on. Most of the time I'll let the camera make the choices beyond aperture, unless I get an obviously crook result. I'm only now starting to watch my histogram to judge exposure, too. I occasionally use EC, when I think I know what I'm doing :p, but still learning the mechanics while I concentrate on composition and focus. I know, I know ... a slow learner ... but I don't get as much practice as I'd like, so that's my excuse. ;)

[mikec]

But even when they write these algorythmins for the NH, they are averaging a lot of data for that hemisphere.

Surely somehwere like Iceland has vastly different light amounts than say Thailand or perhaps Alaska and China even thought they are all in the NH. Same would go for Australia and Brazil (the SH part) They would be made for SH but would be exposing for different light conditions. It's all a bit of a moot point if you ask me.

Most people who religiously use Auto probably won't tell the slight difference. Those who might, might learn to use P mode and dial in EC. Those who really care would be shooting manual, Av or Tv etc....

[swifty]

Not 100% sure how the metering works for other camera manufacturers.
But in matrix metering on a Nikon, the metered scene is compared to a large internal database of images, as well as further info like distance, skin tones if it exists etc. So if that database contains a selection of scenes from the southern hemisphere then perhaps the cameras are smart enough to adjust?

[junqbox]

I recall on a trip to Tassie a few years ago, in winter, how the sun often seemed to have that late afternoon glow for most of the day. Much less harsh than being at the northen end of the country in the same time frame. I'm sure this is not taken into account either.
Perhaps the soultion will be firmware which is GPS based to provide the best settings for the location.

[I @ M]

Now, realistically, with so many new models of cameras coming thick and fast the inclusion of an inbuilt GPS module integrated with the processor should solve any such ( real or imaginary :D ) problems cos the camera would know exactly where in the world it was and instruct the processor to set WB and EC automagically.

[Steve Axford]

Am I missing something? Why should auto mode have anything to do with "quality of light"? Sometimes the dynamic range is too great with oz light, but auto can do nothing about that.

[Xenedis]

Food for thought, should we not be using Auto-Mode, based on living in Australia?

My view is that we should not be using auto-mode, based not on living in Australia, but based on a desire to be a better photographer by taking creative control over what the camera does.

[Mark L]

Can you use RAW in Auto modes? Probably not.
Anyway, this would be an issue if using JPEG in any mode, not RAW, I think.

[old dog]

My view is that we should not be using auto-mode, based not on living in Australia, but based on a desire to be a better photographer by taking creative control over what the camera does.


......my view exactly.

Just been to Alaska and didn`t find any difference really with ...anything. Pics looked no different.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Just wondering, aren't the algorithms all based on the light that's available ? So if the light is 5% brigher in the SH , won't the existing algorithm adapt to that?
I don't know how auto mode works and so I don't understand how if light is 5% better or worse, how that would result in over or underexposure for a given hemisphere. For instance how would the camera tell if a certain light condition is because there's a touch of cloud in the sky while shooting in the SH, or whether the photographer took a holiday to the NH where its just naturally a little dimmer?

[Xenedis]

Can you use RAW in Auto modes? Probably not.

With Canon DSLRs, selection of image mode (ie, raw, JPG or both) is in the camera's menus, and isn't related to the exposure mode dial.

If you have selected raw mode in the camera's menus, you'll get raw images no matter which exposure mode you select on the dial.

[arthurking83]

Just wondering, aren't the algorithms all based on the light that's available ? So if the light is 5% brigher in the SH , won't the existing algorithm adapt to that?
I don't know how auto mode works and so I don't understand how if light is 5% better or worse, how that would result in over or underexposure for a given hemisphere. For instance how would the camera tell if a certain light condition is because there's a touch of cloud in the sky while shooting in the SH, or whether the photographer took a holiday to the NH where its just naturally a little dimmer?

This is why I don't buy it too.
I've refrained from making comments, although my initial reaction was more like Xenedis's in that why is anyone using an Auto(scene) mode on a DSLR in the first place.
In the one or two times I've used it to see what it is that they do, they were the most infuriating experiences, less so on the D70 as I could at least have some form of input, but on the D7000 I once tried a long time back, all it did was to confuse me even more!
I remember trying the landscape scene mode once and trying to figure out how to preset an aperture value, or an exposure level or something ... anything! ... and nada! .. got no response other than it simply chose it's values and that was that! and to top it all off, on a beautiful day, the exposure settings on the D7K were something idiotic like 1/400s f/11 and ISO 600 or 800 or something goofy like that! .. for a landscape shot :scrtch:

So irrespective of whether you are in the NH or SH, 1° north of the equator is considered northern hemisphere and 89° south of the equator is southern hemisphere those two latitudes will produce different light quality, no matter whether they are both northern based, or from opposing poles.
The quality of the light is more dependent on the latitude and time of year, so that opposing latitudes at a constant season should produce the same quality of light if the atmospheric conditions remain a constant.

The atmospheric conditions, cloud cover, prevailing weather on a given day etc .. make more of a difference to a cameras image database/metering systems, than would any slight differences between two similar(but opposing) latitudes on either half of the equator.
That is, if the camera manufacturers have programmed the camera to operate in full bore harsh summer sunlight at midday, and also still distinguish that from a solemn wintery cloud covered day and it all works similarly for any northern dwelling photog, then surely the slight difference between a NH summers day and a SH summers day will not be a hard task to differentiate between for a well programmed system :confused013

Don't make sense to me.

I'm not so sure that you can make qualitative assessments of light levels and quality between two disparate geographic locations, as the important aspects of the locations(weather conditions) would be close to impossible to scientifically duplicate. They could be the same or similar, but I doubt they could ever find exact duplication of atmospheric conditions in two different locations to make their claims.

We like to think of ourselves as a pretty smart group of people down here .. being so far removed and disconnected from the rest of the rabble and rat race that make up NH friends.
So yes! we shouldn't be using auto scene modes in our DSLRs, but for the reasons Xenedis points out

[Analog6]

This is interesting Rick, as I have found Av mode comsistently, over all the cameras I have used, over exposes for Aussie conditions. I'd never thought about it before in the light of waht you've said. Explains 'why it is so'! I always dial in an adjustment if using Aperture or shutter priority, depending on the conditions. I never use full Auto or P mode.

[ricktas]

Just wondering, aren't the algorithms all based on the light that's available ? So if the light is 5% brigher in the SH , won't the existing algorithm adapt to that?


But that is what we do not know. We have no idea if the algorithms are correct for the different light in the southern hemisphere. If you or I created an algorithm for a set of circumstances, what happens when it encounters something outside its scope of calculation?

[Steve Axford]

Mmm. Doesn't auto mode simply measure the amount of light and then decide what aperture, shutter and ISO to use? It's not a very complex algorithm and I still don't see why there should be any difference between northern and southern hemispheres. Why would our light be outside its scope?

[ricktas]

Mmm. Doesn't auto mode simply measure the amount of light and then decide what aperture, shutter and ISO to use? It's not a very complex algorithm and I still don't see why there should be any difference between northern and southern hemispheres. Why would our light be outside its scope?

If we can have up to 15% more UV than the northern hemisphere, then are the meters designed to cope with that? If not, could it not be feasible that the meters in our cameras are not able to correctly apply camera settings in auto mode, cause they are not programmed to deal with the differing light extremes we have in the Southern Hemisphere.

I am not saying there IS an issue, I am saying their MIGHT be.

[WhoDo]

Mmm. Doesn't auto mode simply measure the amount of light and then decide what aperture, shutter and ISO to use? It's not a very complex algorithm and I still don't see why there should be any difference between northern and southern hemispheres. Why would our light be outside its scope?

It's the "measuring" part that's at issue, Steve. Digital electronic devices make algorithmic decisions based on embedded programming. Does that programming account for only light intensity, or does it also include the level of UV and IR light? I know, for example, that my old Pentax Kx had a devil of a job focussing when the subject was under red light, as in IR heat lamps for wildlife for example. I can only conclude that the ability to focus was related to the degree of contrast the camera was able to detect electronically in such conditions. :confused013

Bottom line: If the algorithms are tested for accuracy of results using a quality of light that includes more or less UV, or more or less IR, then they may make decisions for the system that aren't accurate. Of course I don't know ANYTHING about the electronics and programming behind these things, so it's pure speculation on my part. :o

[ricktas]

... I don't know ANYTHING about the electronics and programming behind these things, so it's pure speculation on my part. :o

And that is it. We do not know, so the speculation in this thread is at least making for an interesting discussion and getting people talking about it, and thinking about their use of Auto mode.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I do have a use for auto mode ! ( ok I admit it)
when I'm shooting manual at a landscape often with long exposures, I set a custom mode that's kind of auto for say, if a bird flies past and I want to capture it -
It's on more or less auto with auto iso, auto aperture, just minimum shutter set at 1/400 - I'm not heading to the northern hemisphere any time soon, but for interest, I might take a look and see if we took any shots in auto in Iceland and Scotland back in 2010

[Kym]

If the balance of visible and invisible (UV,IR) light is different and the metering 'sees' the invisible spectrum then there is (maybe) an issue.

But! That would hold true on cloudy days, fog, night etc.

So the more I consider this I doubt is is a practical issue.

[Steve Axford]

If we can have up to 15% more UV than the northern hemisphere, then are the meters designed to cope with that? If not, could it not be feasible that the meters in our cameras are not able to correctly apply camera settings in auto mode, cause they are not programmed to deal with the differing light extremes we have in the Southern Hemisphere.

I am not saying there IS an issue, I am saying their MIGHT be.

Are, but that's nothing to do with auto mode. That is the metering hardware and would apply to any mode of operation. But, there are UV filters built in, so it shouldn't really be an issue. I have not noticed any major failures in light metering that would be greater here than in mistier conditions.

[mithrandir]

What about the the coriolis effect?

[fillum]

That is the metering hardware and would apply to any mode of operation.I think Steve is correct - if there is an issue it is with the metering, not with the exposure mode. If I'm in auto and the camera gives say 1/400 and f/8 at ISO 200 and that gives me a slightly over-exposed image, then surely if I go to manual and dial in those same values I'll get the same over-exposed image? (Assuming of course no other "funky business" happening in auto).

If meters are taking into consideration non-visible light such as UV it might make a difference, but I would think manufacturers would try to avoid that happening. Maybe it happens more on cheaper cameras with less sophisticated meters? If the meter is measuring visible light I can't see how it would make any difference based on location. Although having said that, maybe the metering mode has an effect. If you're shooting evaluative/matrix the dynamic range between the subject and the surrounds may be greater in some locations than others, so by applying the correct exposure to the subject, the surrounds may be pushed into clipping?

Also, if Australia is actually brighter, wouldn't that lead to under-exposure (the "grey snow" effect)?



Cheers.

[ricktas]

What about the the coriolis effect?

the coriolis effect as it relates to Earth as a whole is more about the direction of the prevailing winds, water currents, etc and can easily be demonstrated as it is responsible for the rotation of water as it goes down a plug hole, being in opposite directions in the NH and the SH.

I am not sure it plays a part in the quality of the light we see in the SH compared to the NH. But until we know what algorithms are used in programming the metering in our cameras, we cannot be sure that any atmospheric variances that are different between the hemispheres is not included in those algorithms, and thus impacting the accuracy of any metering.

[ricktas]

I think Steve is correct - if there is an issue it is with the metering, not with the exposure mode. If I'm in auto and the camera gives say 1/400 and f/8 at ISO 200 and that gives me a slightly over-exposed image, then surely if I go to manual and dial in those same values I'll get the same over-exposed image? (Assuming of course no other "funky business" happening in auto).

If meters are taking into consideration non-visible light such as UV it might make a difference, but I would think manufacturers would try to avoid that happening. Maybe it happens more on cheaper cameras with less sophisticated meters? If the meter is measuring visible light I can't see how it would make any difference based on location. Although having said that, maybe the metering mode has an effect. If you're shooting evaluative/matrix the dynamic range between the subject and the surrounds may be greater in some locations than others, so by applying the correct exposure to the subject, the surrounds may be pushed into clipping?

Also, if Australia is actually brighter, wouldn't that lead to under-exposure (the "grey snow" effect)?



Cheers.

but IF the metering system is inaccurate for the SH then auto mode is affected as it is the metering system that determines what settings the camera selects in Auto mode. The initial post asked should we not be using auto-mode in Australia? IF the metering system is off, for the light in the SH, then the answer is probably that auto-mode should not be used.

Note that I am not saying the metering system and its algorithms are off, just that there is the chance they could be.

[ApolloLXII]

Auto mode also stands for "Idiot Mode", ie: to be used by those who know how to pick up a camera, turn it on and not much else. I had an experience at a social function where a woman was having trouble with her compact digital and not getting very good results. My partner piped up and said that I had some experience with digital cameras so I was called upon to fix her problem. I just set the camera to Auto and handed it back to her. After a few shots, the woman pronounced me to be a photographic expert (:lol:) and was very happy with the pictures she was taking. Yes, auto mode has its' uses for the technically challenged but I can't see any serious photographer having to rely on it.

[achee]

Most people who religiously use Auto probably won't tell the slight difference.

X2!

[swifty]

but IF the metering system is inaccurate for the SH then auto mode is affected as it is the metering system that determines what settings the camera selects in Auto mode. The initial post asked should we not be using auto-mode in Australia? IF the metering system is off, for the light in the SH, then the answer is probably that auto-mode should not be used.


But we still rely on the meter, even in manual mode as an indicator of where we are exposure wise. Just that we change the settings ourselves to vary the exposure, instead of dialing in exposure compensation in the auto and semi-auto modes.
I agree that 'IF' its an issue, it's the metering that's affected and wil affect all modes, not just auto.

[ricktas]

But we still rely on the meter, even in manual mode as an indicator of where we are exposure wise. Just that we change the settings ourselves to vary the exposure, instead of dialing in exposure compensation in the auto and semi-auto modes.
I agree that 'IF' its an issue, it's the metering that's affected and wil affect all modes, not just auto.

True, but in manual mode or semi-auto modes the photographer is taking control of their camera and making adjustments to get the result they want. In Auto-mode, the photographer is relying fully on the tech in the camera to get the photo the camera 'thinks' the photographer wants. This thread was/is about auto-mode!

[geoffsta]

A person I know here in Hobart has recently taken up photography, using a consumer model DSLR, but on auto, it is over-exposing ever so slightly
If a tree falls over in the forest, and you didn't see it. Did the tree actually fall. :umm:


Had you not notice the ever so slight over exposure, would your friend have known any difference?
As newbies when we first venture into DSLR do we notice such things? Generally not. We are so blown away by the quality of the image compared to a point & shoot.
It's not until we find a great forum like this. (Generally because we want to get out of Auto mode) And we listen and take note of what our more experienced peers tells us. That we venture into the realm of other settings on the camera.


And if we respect our peers, and put full trust in what they tell us. The Auto mode becomes a thing of the past.

Now it's my belief that the smarty pantsers of the northern hemisphere would know this. And not give a rats wrinkle whether the camera over exposes in Aus, NZ, or deep South Africa. Because they believe that people buy DSLR's to get better at photography. Not to spend mega bucks, and use the thing as an oversized pocket camera.

My 2 bobs

[arthurking83]

I'm pretty sure that manufacturers will have UV and other wavelengths calculated into their algorithms when engineering their products.

More important than actual ambient light levels, is the transmissive efficiency of the lens in use, and as we're talking DSLRs here, there is a very high probability that the camera operator will have access to more than one lens.
As each lens is going to have a different impact on the amount of light reaching the sensor and metering system, then these variables will have been taken into account.

An old '59 model non coated lens is almost certainly going to allow more UV light transmission through to the camera's relevant light sensitive components, than a modern multicoated lens design will.
These will almost certainly have been accounted for by the manufacturer.
If you follow some of the UV/IR (ie. non vis light spectrum) photographers, they all tend to seek out very old lenses from the early days of SLR photography, prior to the widespread use of coatings on lenses.
They transmit more of the out of bounds wavelengths of light.

But even more important is that levels of light of all types, UV IR and vis, will all vary more wildly according to latitude not hemisphere.
A photographer located between the equator and either equinox is going to experience much higher levels of UV and IR light transmission, than they will at either pole .. angle of the sun on the horizon is the major factor involved here. The hemisphere they move into won't be as much of an impact as the actual latitude they will travel into.

If anyone is experiencing exposure anomalies using a particular exposure mode, it's more likely to be lens related rather than hemisphere or even latitude related light level differences.

Even if there was a slight difference between the light quality of two opposing latitudes in each hemisphere, the difference would be so slight and insignificant that it wouldn't register either on the meter nor on the sensor.
Lens, cameras sensor(relative to another), and other LOCAL environmental forces(such as suspended dust in the air, or pollution levels on a given day) would impact far more than any difference between the hemispheres.


This argument is like saying that the light differences between Lat 37° South is softer/more muted/harsher/brighter than it is at Lat 37° North.
It may well be! ... but you have to consider other location differences such as, are you in a desert, or are you in a major and massively polluted megalopolis at either latitude.

If you travel along the South 35 parallel, you will experience far more difference in light quality going from Sydney to Adelaide along that path, going from polluted Sydney though much less polluted desert country and onto to far less polluted Adelaide(relative to Sydney). It's just the quality of the light in the different regions due to the local environmental conditions for each location.

Travel up to Japan, tho and the difference between light quality in a major Japanese industrialised city and Sydney will be much less than those differences between Sydney and the desert country along that South 35 parallel.
And then there is the lenses used to capture the images too.

.. I think the light quality level differences are less important than the actual gear in use, and the gear used will have been accounted for.

Exposure anomalies are usually accounted for by sensor technology(the D70s and D300 are classic examples of this in my world) and lens related discrepancies ...... sticking apertures or ambitious aperture ratings by manufacturers ..... lens design( ie. T values!!) etc.

The wild differences that each bit of gear will make to exposures and metering accuracy, will far outweigh any differences between the hemispheres.

[Film Street]

I've found auto mode can produce minor over exposure on some models. Auto-ozone mode may appear in future.

[arthurking83]

I've found auto mode can produce minor over exposure on some models. Auto-ozone mode may appear in future.

Which auto mode tho??

full auto, semi auto(program auto) and compared to what other mode.


My experience with my cameras, I've never seen any difference between an auto mode and the same exposure setting in manual mode.
..... D300 level cameras don't have any auto scene type modes, only the program auto modes(A S and P modes).
D70s is the only camera I have that uses scene modes, and I've never used them personally other than once, long ago to see what they actually do.
The kinds of stupid things they do is to pop up the on board flash when you select Portrait mode.
It's this kind of incompetent software engineering that puts me off scene auto modes ... not to mention the confounding landscape mode program the engineers concocted on the D7000!

[Film Street]

Which auto mode tho??

full auto, semi auto(program auto) and compared to what other mode.



P,S,A modes using matrix metering and full auto mode can give, in outdoor scenes, a slight over exposure in base models such as the D40. To get around this I use centre weighted metering.

[arthurking83]

P,S,A modes using matrix metering and full auto mode can give, in outdoor scenes, a slight over exposure in base models such as the D40. To get around this I use centre weighted metering.

D40 shares the same sensor as the D50 and D70/s, as well as the D100.
I'm not sure which metering components Nikon have used in the D40 and whether those components have anything in common with the D50 or D70(at least), but the only way to safely say that you're finding overexposure is to compare the results with another camera using the same sensor.

D70s consistently underexposes by about -2/3Ev compared to the same settings on the D300 .. and that's using manual mode.

Matrix metering in an outdoors environment has to take in so many variables and make so many compromises, that it's a difficult task to label the images as over exposed.
D70 sensor I know I noisy for any given ISO level .. even base(200) compared to other cameras.
As the D40 is a much later model, with the same old sensor tech, Nikon may have deliberately specified the D40 to maintain a higher degree of exposure(say by about 2/3) .. and this may appear as over exposure.

That is(after all that jibberish) .. I could just as easily head up into the NH, and use my D300 in matrix metering mode on any given day and produced slightly over exposed matrix metered outdoor images.

That I'm aware of in Nikon camera circles, there is no setting to protect highlights as there is in other cameras, such as the highlight tone priority feature on some Canons which specifically protects highlight levels at the expense of shadow detail.
(although newer Nikon cameras may have such a feature .. I just don't have any experience with it).

That sort of feature(highlight tone priority) is separate to what's currently discussed tho.

[sunny6teen]

the demographic for 'auto' wouldn't recognise a poor exposure in either hemisphere.

[pgbphotographytas]

the demographic for 'auto' wouldn't recognise a poor exposure in either hemisphere.

This is very true, if "Auto Mode" is all they have ever used then they will by default be happy with the results.

[Xenedis]

Auto modes are designed to produce an image which would be acceptable to the average person without requiring much (or any) input from the shooter. The idea is that by making some simple assumptions, a person can achieve a decent result without investing much effort.

Of course, serious and semi-serious photographers understand that a camera's CPU, for all the cleverness it has, simply cannot read minds and know what the photographer really wants; such photographers also understand that it's necessary to break the 'rules' to achieve certain creative or technical results.

To such people, sometimes the auto modes would work, but a lot of the time, such modes will not produce acceptable or desirable results.

Personally I prefer to tell the camera to do what I want it to do, such that I may achieve the result I want. I don't like being unable to alter the two main exposure controls (shutter speed and aperture) independently of each other. I will deliberately under- and over-expose images. Using the automatic or semi-automatic modes obstructs my ability to easily do that.

For the same reason I choose to use manual mode on my cameras, I also choose to drive cars with manual transmission. I've never liked autos, and get frustrated that they change gears when I don't want them to, or worse, don't change gears when I do want that. As far as cars and cameras, I cannot see a day when I will want to sacrifice the human intelligence I put into the decision-making process, in favour of the decisions someone else has made on my behalf and programmed into the equipment I am using.

While I prefer to exercise control over what I am doing, that's not to say I don't recognise that automation can sometimes be quite useful. In my case, for the sheer majority of the time, I don't desire that automation.

[Mark L]

Auto modes are designed to produce an image which would be acceptable to the average person without requiring much (or any) input from the shooter. The idea is that by making some simple assumptions, a person can achieve a decent result without investing much effort.

Of course, serious and semi-serious photographers understand ...........

And technology has allowed the average person to get what they consider to be acceptable results.
Of course, serious and semi-serious photographers probably make up a small proportion of photographers in this digital age (if only they know what they could do).