Does photographing in Manual mode make you a better photographer?

Now that’s a question worth pondering, because the answer will be unique to who you are and what your desired outcome is from the act of making a photograph.

Some folks will say it is down to the equipment and that great photographs can only be made with fully manual cameras. No autofocus, no autoexposure and no computationally defined image capture.

For example, I understand that mobile phones are used as much for picture taking as for anything else they do. Are they “real” cameras? That answer depends on the person of course. To me, they are awesome computational photography tools that can assure of a decent looking picture, but they still don’t find a subject, perform the mental act of composition or have the creator in full control. But two billion new pictures every day tell us that for the majority, good enough is good enough.

Those who state that only fully manual is real photography have their space as well. For myself, when I force myself to use an older camera without autofocus and even without a built in light meter, that perhaps doesn’t allow for a hundred or a thousand shots in a single period, what I end up with is a much smaller number in quantity but a much higher percentage in quality. Works for me, not for everyone.

On my Canon R5, there are an incredible set of tools that can assist me in creating a more successful (to me, the only judge that matters to me). I find them wonderfully useful, but the images will still be shit no matter how good the camera is if the mind controlling the camera abdicates my responsibility. Subject, story, composition, timing, goals all matter more than the camera to the success of the image. Or its failure, because even with all the great tools, I still have a very high percentage of “well that’s crap, what the F was I thinking?” Not optimal but surviveable.

But if I shoot film on my 4x5, one sheet of film per image, plus the time to process it, or a maximum of 12 shots per roll on my 6x6 or 10 shots per roll on my 6x7s, the total cost of crap goes up significantly. It’s even true if I go back to my late 1950s Minolta SLRs that don’t have any automation at all, not even light meters. Each unacceptable (to me) image is a waste of money and my time.

So for me, forcing myself to take more time, to use only manual mode, IS a benefit. When I step away from photography as I have often done, when I come back, I can only really come back with success and integrity of purpose when I go full manual. Automation makes me lazy and sloppy and a day shooting can easily result in a bucket of shit. This turns me off photography and it’s my own fault. I also don’t spend any time each day looking at Instagram or whatever, because at the end of an hour, I want to forget photography entirely because of my recent exposure to an endless stream of what I call utter garbage. I find my inspiration almost entirely in the work of now dead film photographers, and rarely do I get inspired or enthusiastic of current digital stuff. It happens but rarely and then more about the technique or steps to get to the photograph than the photograph itself. If a great photo is worth ten thousand words, then sadly most images that I encounter are more akin to a politician’s endless verbal diarrhea than a great story. When I find one, it’s utterly magical however.

So does this mean that all should shoot only in manual? To each his or her own. I don’t care what you choose to do because you are you and you should do what works for YOU, not anyone else. For me, if I want to really focus on (pun intended) my work, then manual serves me best.

Take care of yourselves