Full Auto Parameters

[boojum]

OK, this may be an entirely foolish question.  But even if it is I sure would like an answer.  I often use "full auto" and have had good results with it. But for some reason "full auto" likes to run at f/2.5 which often sacrifices too much depth of field to suit me.  I have looked through the manual and found nothing about varying the "full auto" parameters.  Has anyone else dealt with this and if so what was their solution?

Thanks.

[man-overboard]

I did actually see this on the loaner X1DII I have presently. I just switched to Aperture priority chose the aperture I wanted and carried on.

However remembering back to GFX there I had AUTO ISO, AUTO aperture and then set the speed at 1/125 or 1/250.

So I want to see an AutoISO option on my X2D when I receive it!

[boojum]

I did actually see this on the loaner X1DII I have presently. I just switched to Aperture priority chose the aperture I wanted and carried on.

However remembering back to GFX there I had AUTO ISO, AUTO aperture and then set the speed at 1/125 or 1/250.

So I want to see an AutoISO option on my X2D when I receive it!

And so shall you receive.  Check page 80 of the manual, yes, RTFM.  I have tried what you outline but do not get the effect I seek.  So I want to be able to modify, say, lens opening within FULL AUTO.

[tenmangu81]

With the X1D II, "Full Auto" doesn't let you choose any parameter, and I don't understand why your camera shoots at f/2.5. Unless the light would be too low. I never use Full Auto, I used to select "Auto ISO", but with the lens control ring on the new "V" optics, I find it very convenient to select ISO value in such a way that the speed is what I want for a given aperture.

[MGrayson]

Is this what you want?

[boojum]

No, no, not quite.  I want to be able to operate entirely within FULL AUTO but somehow change how FULL AUTO operates by encouraging it to use smaller lens openings for slightly better depth of field.  I have tried what you suggest but lose some of the "magic" of the camera when I do.  I know this sounds crazy and lazy but in side by side shooting I like best what the FULL AUTO does.  Those gnomes, elves and wizards in Gothenburg are onto something.  And, yes, I know this kind of pushes me into the high-priced point-and-shoot corner but it is the results I am after and screw whatever labels are hung on me.  If I can some away with a good image that is all I care about.  And, yes, it is a struggle.  As good as the camera is it is still just the chisel it is not the sculptor.

[jwillson]

As pointed out, you can use the front control wheel to "shift" the exposure—trading a smaller aperture for a slower shutter and vice versa. It should not change the overall exposure at all.

I'm not aware of any way for you to change the default choices, though. You can pick a different minimum aperture speed, of course, if your minimum shutter isn't accounting for the fact that the camera now has IBIS. If, for example, your camera was trying to maintain a shutter speed of 1/f or higher you may be able to loosen that up a bit depending on your subject. Generally, though, that tends to drive when the ISO starts to get bumped more than when the lens starts to close down.

Honestly, though, you should be able to just put the camera in aperture priority rather than program, set the aperture you need for your depth of field, and get the exact same exposure value as if you had left it in program mode. The specific tool you are looking for, though, where you would shift the "curve" of when it starts to stop down is not available.

[boojum]

<SNIP>


Honestly, though, you should be able to just put the camera in aperture priority rather than program, set the aperture you need for your depth of field, and get the exact same exposure value as if you had left it in program mode. The specific tool you are looking for, though, where you would shift the "curve" of when it starts to stop down is not available.

We agree 100%.  But in successive side-by-side tests I get a less dense, less dramatic photo.  I like to think that somehow I can out-photo the engineers in Gothenburg but I have not yet been able to.  This throws cold water all over my fantasies of becoming not only the world's best H photographer but the best photographer of all time.  Pheh, fie, and baloney!   I will try some more, of course, to find a way to tune FULL AUTO or get AP to work as the better mode.

Perhaps this is just a gentle hint from Gothenburg that I must sharpen my skills.  Oh, my, the initial cost is quite steep but the electrons are free.   ;o)  Just another problem to be solved.  Thanks for the help, all of you.

[jwillson]

I think you may be mistaken. I get the exact same ISO, white balance, and shutter speed whether I choose program mode or aperture priority mode (as long as I set the same aperture as the camera was choosing in program mode). And while I am very happy with my X2D, I would definitely not have listed its metering as one of its strengths. It has neither evaluative metering nor a highlight protection mode. End result? I haven't noticed any wizardry in the exposure choices. The white balance is above average, and I really like the embedded color profile, but the light meter seems average at best, no matter which PASM mode.

[boojum]

I think you may be mistaken. I get the exact same ISO, white balance, and shutter speed whether I choose program mode or aperture priority mode (as long as I set the same aperture as the camera was choosing in program mode). And while I am very happy with my X2D, I would definitely not have listed its metering as one of its strengths. It has neither evaluative metering nor a highlight protection mode. End result? I haven't noticed any wizardry in the exposure choices. The white balance is above average, and I really like the embedded color profile, but the light meter seems average at best, no matter which PASM mode.

You think I may be mistaken?  Well, not for the first time.  That is why I post here, because I make mistakes I would like corrected.  I will tinker with the camera some more.  I am thrilled with it so far and find it has given me some really good images.  And now I am goaded to better those images.  ;o)

[madtxn]

Are you comparing raw files or jpegs? I'm also new to the camera but perhaps the jpegs created in auto mode have some "special sauce" that hasn't yet been achieved in Phocus? I'm just shooting in the dark here (see what I did there?)

[boojum]

I am comparing JPG's.  I keep the RAW's but they are more academic than useful.  Most boards do not post images the size of what the X2D creates as it is.  I print very little of what I shoot, I am a hobbyist.  And the quality of the X2D JPG is amazing, maybe even better than other camera's RAW's.

In comparing the JPG to the 3FR the JPG has richer colors and is, forgive the description, more dramatic.  I am comparing both simultaneously, the 3FR in RawTherapee and the JPG in the Linux Image Viewer.  The image as posted on Flickr shows the same deeper colors and drama as does the image on my hard drive when viewed with Image Viewer.  The RAW image being compared to the JPG has less richness.  I will try some more shots as it may just be "cockpit error."  But in the instance comparing the RAW and JPG the JPG is the more pleasing image to me.  The folks in Gothenburg are working some serious sorcery.

You can see why it is so tempting to just go FULL AUTO.  I will experiment to see if I can outsmart those Gothenburg Swedes, though.  They are good, and that was a great question about whether the pics were JPG or 3FR.  Thanks.

I am uploading the images being discussed to Google Drive:

Raw file:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OTMR5HW5ktvkOUPCFulmNyiryuuXYyhx/view?usp=share_link

JPG file:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QfWo0ib_1sgZI_p7fb2cf41cXTSV3TkF/view?usp=share_link

I may just be the dumbest guy on this board, but I don't think so, and I may just have lousy taste in photos, that is possible, but I see the JPG as the better image.  As always, YMMV

[tenmangu81]

Yes, boojum, I understand your points.

But I am wondering if it would be necessary for me to use a camera such as the X2D if I just wanted to point and shoot and use the OOC JPEG's to post them on the social networks or forums.

I think, first, that there is much more flexibility in correcting shadows and highlights, white balance, for instance, when working the RAW's than with the JPEG's. With JPEG's, everything is fixed and you can't obtain much better results from a treatment than the one you get direct from your camera. I agree that, in the pictures that I thank you for having posted, the JPEG is not bad at all, a little bit more saturated than the RAW opened in Phocus. I prefer the RAW, which looks to me a little more "natural", but it is only a question of personal taste. And I know that I could obtain from a RAW exactly what I want when using Phocus. The interpretation of a picture is also a part, very important, of the result. As important as the shooting, in the same way as the development and enlarging with respect to the shooting by the times of analog films.

The other point you mention is the Full Auto. Here again, using a camera such as the Hasselblad X1 or X2 gives you the opportunity to control all the parameters of the shooting. In the Full Auto mode, it's the camera which decides for you, exactly in the same way as the JPEG's it provides. You don't control anything, except the light, the good timing, and the composition of the scene you want to shoot.

But to conclude, I agree with you that the most important is not the camera, but the photographer. A good photographer can make excellent pictures with any camera, and I know very good ones shooting just with their smartphones. Why not ?

[MGrayson]

The RAW is just that, raw. It is not baked. It is not finished. It is not meant to be consumed. It is meant to be cooked, processed, and converted for export. In order that the "chef" can see what is available, the RAW is often displayed as flat and unsaturated. Many RAW converters have default recipes, but they are often not as well-done as what comes out of the camera's own jpeg oven.

There is nothing wrong with liking the way the camera cooks the RAW file. Only if you want to do something *else* is there reason to cook it yourself.

[jwillson]

I am comparing JPG's.  I keep the RAW's but they are more academic than useful.  Most boards do not post images the size of what the X2D creates as it is.  I print very little of what I shoot, I am a hobbyist.  And the quality of the X2D JPG is amazing, maybe even better than other camera's RAW's.

In comparing the JPG to the 3FR the JPG has richer colors and is, forgive the description, more dramatic.  I am comparing both simultaneously, the 3FR in RawTherapee and the JPG in the Linux Image Viewer.  The image as posted on Flickr shows the same deeper colors and drama as does the image on my hard drive when viewed with Image Viewer.  The RAW image being compared to the JPG has less richness.  I will try some more shots as it may just be "cockpit error."  But in the instance comparing the RAW and JPG the JPG is the more pleasing image to me.  The folks in Gothenburg are working some serious sorcery.

You can see why it is so tempting to just go FULL AUTO.  I will experiment to see if I can outsmart those Gothenburg Swedes, though.  They are good, and that was a great question about whether the pics were JPG or 3FR.  Thanks.

I am uploading the images being discussed to Google Drive:

Raw file:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OTMR5HW5ktvkOUPCFulmNyiryuuXYyhx/view?usp=share_link

JPG file:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QfWo0ib_1sgZI_p7fb2cf41cXTSV3TkF/view?usp=share_link

I may just be the dumbest guy on this board, but I don't think so, and I may just have lousy taste in photos, that is possible, but I see the JPG as the better image.  As always, YMMV

Ahh. We may have been speaking at cross purposes, then. If by "FULL AUTO" you mean JPG rather than 3FR, then there absolutely will be large differences in the results. A JPG receives lots of processing from the camera--sharpening, color saturation, etc.--that doesn't happen in the raw file. I had thought when you said you saw things in FULL AUTO that you didn't see in other modes, that you meant you saw things in Full Auto mode that you didn't see in P/A/S/M modes, but still comparing like for like in terms of raw vs. JPG, that is, comparing a Full Auto Raw file vs., for example, an "A"perture priority Raw file. Any time you are comparing a raw image vs. a JPG you are comparing an unprocessed image vs. a processed image. In that situation--Raw vs. JPG--I would absolutely expect very different results.

If you don't intend to do any post processing, then JPG's are almost certainly the better way to go, no matter what the exposure mode. JPG files are intended to be used as-is (or with minimal processing). Raw files assume you will choose your own values for highlight recovery, shadow adjustments, contrast, noise reduction, sharpening, color saturation, and perhaps white balance and exposure compensation before you choose to share or print your images. They almost always look comparatively flat and dull straight out of camera.