Auto focus making people lazy?

Yes, it must indeed be getting late. No need to be tetchy fellas, it will all be OK in the morning....

The thing about your photograph is that it has nothing to do with manual as opposed to automatic focus.

The apparent sharpness in this image is down to a particular editing style, whose merits are down to whether you like that kind of look or not. I happen not to, because it looks unnatural to me. As John says, a bit oversharpened - but that's just my subjective view.

But I'm sure that a tutorial writer on a well known digital imaging magazine knows far more than me, so why should you care what I think?

I feel complimented that you should feel the need to rebuke me for my opinion - thank you.

Just my opinion - which you're free to agree or disagree with - there's no reason to react so violently to it.

The composition is very pleasing, apart from the slightly distracting top left hand corner.

If, all of a sudden, it's a requirement to post award-winning photographs before one may express an opinion on someone else's, then I'm the first to admit that I fall way short of whatever challenge you're referring to.

I've posted lots of photos. One or two of them aren't too bad, although most mark me out as the barely-beyond-beginner that I am.

Sorry if that precludes me from having an opinion.[/quote]lol "react so violently" - the response was desereved.
Have a look at JohnRileys response - its a polite way of getting his point of view across.

it's true a properly sharpened file for printing, does look a little overdone onscreen.
I think the point in posting the image was to demonstraight that your method works for you. Am I right?

one thing you'll see here is not everybody agrees. it's not only here.
I was working at a professional photogs of canada show, and watching some of the images tthat got rejected/accepted in various categories, had me schmoozzing around like a call girl trying to get invited to any parties after the show....I just wanted to see if the judges would share whatever halucenogens they were popping!
no need to get angry!

Hi Don,

yes you are right , she wasnt stationary - moving but not that quickly and with my 300mm lens on full stretch and shooting through a perspex glass while focusing manually challenged me but its a learning curve and it helped - trust me there were plenty of shots that got deleted!!!

John is a master of tact.

It's not one of my greatest skills, and I bow to him, as always, in that respect.

However, I would politely point out that it isn't the nicest thing to say, effectively, "your opinion is worthless because a magazine reviewer has told me that my picture is good".

If you disagree with my point that your tiger is oversharpened, why not just debate it? If you take exception to my referring to it as unnaturally spiky, why do you care enough to ram down my throat the opinion of someone else?

I think it is unnaturally spiky. I think a less-sharpened version would be better.

So?

Like i said my friend "eye for an eye" if you leave hardball comments what are you expecting to come back?!!

As for your opinion i cant judge whether its worthless or not because i havent seen your photos yet - please direct me to some and ill be in a better position then to comment on the validity of your views.

Then ill debate whether my tiger is oversharpened or not.

So?!>!>!

No worries, think it helps sometimes with me being a beginner to this photography lark as I just don't know any different with modern lenses, so this to me is natural, but for some who have been shooting for 20 years, I can see how even the idea of it can be alien!

The other thing not to worry about btw is that the focus ring keeps moving even when you have reached the focus limits of the lens. This is absolutely normal, as this is the clutch mechanism kicking in that allows the Quick Shift focus to work.

Why on earth should the validity of my opinion of your photo be influenced by your opinion of mine?

As I said, if one had to be Ansel Adams before being allowed to express a subjective opinion, almost no-one would dare to say what they like and don't like.

You can find my photos if you care to look. One or two of them you might like; all of them have room for improvement, and I'm grateful to any that take the trouble to express an opinion.

i only see one in your gallery please direct me to the others

Id still really enjoy seeing your pics ChrisA.............???

George

All I can say to your uncalled outburst is that unfortunately you appear to have missed the point of this topic completely

I was solely interested in who uses manual or auto focus, simple as that.
The term lazy is not meant as insult but used in a general term as you would jokingly say to someone who drives an automatic compared to a manual. It also is not intended to include those who unfortunately have poor eyesight and who may benefit from auto focus as I know glasses etc can be a hindrance when looking through view finders etc. I would then understand why autofocus would be used and as some of the replies already show this is the case.

No I have a very good understanding and have been using digital for many years.

Again not related to this topic but I will humor you, been using digital for many years, I want to go to DSLR because the SLR format is what I used to use over the past twenty plus years and now I want to retire a simple point and clink to something that is more versatile.


Again nothing new there and also absolutely nothing to do with the topic of manual vs auto.

That's something we all know already.

Ok you lost me on that one, how can you compare laziness to no being able to financially afford to keep paying for film and developing.

Golden rule of forums don't make things personal, keep things friendly and you get a good community that encourages people to stay and have fun.

Like they say if people think you are an idiot keep your mouth shut, otherwise open it and remove all doubt

I'd like to quote a couple of lines from the interview with Benjamin Kanarek in the latest Pentax user mag. Page 11, last paragraph.

"My advice to anyone is that when it comes to photography there is no right or wrong. If you want to totally blow out your highlights then do it, there is no-one who can tell you that your picture is overexposed if that was your artistic intention. If they tell you it's wron them I'm sure their work is very pedestrian and utterly boring. You can't hurt anyone by experimenting through photography. I wouldn't give the same advice to a brain surgeon though"

I believe that Bejamin Kanarek is absolutely right with the above, you have to take the pictures that YOU like and process them in the way that YOU think is right.

here here.

I don't always like Bens work but he has a superb outlook IMO.

As for me I use AF most of the time, but on centre point only so I have control over what the camera focuses on. I occasionally use select focus point on my K10D, but almost never full auto.

I find MF most useful for macro shots and fast moving long telephoto. If I'm trying to track a bird or plane through the air and the AF looses lock there's a good chance I'll loose the target completely. Using MF I may not always be in perfect focus but I'm always close enough to follow the subject, so I'll get another chance.

Couldnt Agree more - hopefully youve read this - you know who you are!!!

I do, and I don't know why you keep banging on about this.

I expressed an opinion of your picture. Less diplomatically than I might, perhaps, but nevertheless I expressed it.

I'm not interested in proving to you that I'm worthy to have an opinion, and I'm not suggesting that if you like to sharpen pictures beyond realism that it's wrong. Your HDR style is beyond realism too, which is perfectly fine, and as it happens, I quite like it - HDR when it tries to be natural but fails, is awful, I think, but HDR as impressionistic art can be very attractive, and I think some of yours is.

But let's remember where this started - and I'll try and explain why I reacted the way I did.

You posted your tiger picture in the context of using manual focus for creating "the desired result in the circumstances". I don't see how the picture illustrates your point, other than an example of how manual focus can achieve a sharp result.

Except that the sharpness of that result is nothing to do with manual or automatic focus - it was achieved on the computer, and I happen to think it's oversharpened. Just my preference, nothing more. Not wrong, not right, just my preference. And I think you'll find there's nothing in Ben Kanarek's comment that precludes people having preferences.

Hope this clarifies things.