>>3463305Aperture is too small too. F/5.6-8 is fine for the vast majority of street in daylight when you want decent depth of field.
And above 800 ISO on a CCD camera that lets you set a maximum ISO for auto-iso?
You call it picking on, but those posts weren't intended in that manner. These settings tell me that the shooter wasn't thinking at all about their settings. That is, there was no intentional reason to select f/11 or 1/2000, so why shoot in manual? What is it actually accomplishing besides giving needlessly worse results than you could get otherwise?
This becomes even more true with using auto-iso which removes your ability to control the actual exposure (yes I'm aware exposure compensation is possible, but I sincerely doubt that's being leveraged to protect shadow or highlight detail).
So the benefits of manual mode, control of the amount of motion blur, depth of field, amount of noise, and overall exposure aren't being interacted with, so why shoot manual?
If there person has aspirations of art or high level craft photography, intentionality is necessary, and these are questions that a photographer should be asking themselves. More importantly, making these choices quickly is a skill that takes time and directed effort to develop, not just going around snapping shots without much thought
And to forestall "but composition is more", yes, yes, getting a perfectly exposed, perfectly optimal, perfectly focused shot of nothing is a pointless, boring shot. Yes, strongly using aesthetic compositions and interesting subjects is more important than technically perfect shots, but at the end of the day mastery of photography does require at least getting decent with the basic equipment of the medium. It's like a painter learning to mix colors or hold a brush.
Any way, I'm asking the photographer the question that it's pretty clear that they're not asking themselves. If you want to assume that's just me being mean, ok. That's your choice.
