Aperture Priority or Manual?

[William Michael]

<p >Metering doesn't expose the shot, the Photographer exposes the shot. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Choosing any one Metering Mode, (such as spot metering as an example) doesn't exempt the Photographer from using their Brain Box and taking responsibility for managing where the Spot Reading(s) are taken and then adjusting the exposure for the particular scene, or set of shoots in the same lighting conditions.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Similarly (as another example) using Pattern Metering does not exempt the Photographer from using the Brain and understanding that with certain cameras the Pattern Metering Matrix can be fooled with strong Backlight, or a wide bright scene and a relatively small side-lit or back lit Subject, off centre. In both these examples the Photographer will most likely need to make adjustments to the exposure the camera is suggesting they use.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In both these examples of Metering Mode (Spot or Pattern), there will always be shooting scenarios which will require both thought and intervention to adjust the final exposure selection. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >IMO, choosing one Metering Mode over another as a “normal working” or “default” is very personal and goes somewhat to defining the style of Photographer and the Photographer Style: much of which is based on the Photographer’s <em >mechanical technique, at the time of shutter release.</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Using Spot Metering is akin to using only the Centre AF point and employing Focus and Recompose. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Obviously, after taking the Spot Meter Reading, and then recomposing the shot, the subsequent meter reading in camera (when the centre spot is moved) likely will bear no resemblance to the exposure parameters which the Photographer will use. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >But, by the same token, after using Centre Point Focus and recomposing . . . the centre of the frame might not be in focus, either.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >It's my opinion that one is never best off, sticking to any one Metering Pattern, nor to any one Camera Mode, just because that is what someone else uses. On the contrary, it is best to <strong ><em >understand</em></strong> all the Camera Modes and all the Metering Modes and then decide what the advantages and disadvantages are for one's own style and shooting techniques. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >It is very important to first understand what each Metering Mode does and how it does it. </p>

<p ></p>

<p >Knowing these things <strong ><em >(and making lots of practice with each)</em></strong> will allow the Photographer to then choose when a particular mode will likely give an erroneous reading (such as the Pattern Metering) or how another Metering Mode needs a particular technique (such as the Spot Metering) so that using it doesn't result in erroneous exposures.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also it is erroneous to believe that any particular Camera Mode (such as Manual Mode for one example) will save anyone's bacon.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Similarly, it is trite to suggest that any particular Camera Mode (such as Programme Mode) is to be reserved for the horribly challenged, unstable or incompetent Practitioner of the Craft. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >IMO, broad sweeping and emotional sentiments which allocate getting the correct exposure to the CAMERA, or one of its SHOOTING MODES, are just silly. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The Camera is only a tool, many folk just never learn all of it. </p>

<p ></p>

<p >Then again . . . nor do many learn <em >the knowledge of light,</em> either . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[rt_jones]

<p><strong><em>Obviously, after taking the Spot Meter Reading, and then recomposing the shot, the subsequent meter reading in camera (when the centre spot is moved) likely will bear no resemblance to the exposure parameters which the Photographer will use.</em></strong></p>

<p>Before you move the, "spot" just crank the exposure dial to the middle. Then recompose and shoot.</p>

 

[stevenseelig]

<p>I shoot manually most of the time. Only in very rapidly changing lighting will I use one of the automatic settings and I would guess it is less than 1% of the time. Anticipation of lighting will remarkably speed up your manual shooting. In the studio I use my external meter. Nearly everywhere else I use the camera metering.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>It is interesting how automation has confused the issue of measuring the light for any given scene. For many that grew up with strictly manual cameras, and often printed their own negatives, it became second nature.</p>

<p>One thing that made it crystal clear for me while gaining experience, was learning the Zone System (invented by Ansel Adams), since it breaks it down into simple math ... Zone 1 (black) through Zone 10 (White). While invented for primarily B&W film, and includes more advanced and complex notions, the Zone breakdown portion is still completely valid. </p>

<p>Take a quick peek here:</p>

<p>www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html</p>

<p>Note that Zone 5 is the middle grey (18% reflectance). The light meters in ALL cameras are standardized to Zone 5, and try to average out any scene to this middle tone.</p>

<p>If you spot metered a black card it would indicate shutter/aperture settings to make it Zone 5. If you spot metered a white card, completely different settings would also result in a Zone 5 rendering. Properly printed the Black card and the White card would be Zone 5 ... middle grey, not white or black.</p>

<p>Average Caucasian skin is the lighter Zone 6 not Zone 5 ... and pale skin is Zone 7 ... a straight spot metering off skin will always result in an underexposed image. A wedding dress would be Zone 8.</p>

<p>When in a rush, I often meter off grass in full sun which is pretty close to Zone 5 and tweak based on how the sun is hitting the subject. You do learn what things are generally a Zone 5 tone.</p>

<p>Once you become familiar with what constitutes a Zone 5 tone, or something close to that, it doesn't matter what metering mode you use in the camera ... in AV you can lock it in ... (that's what the AE button on the camera is for), or you can use manual ... the result is the same.</p>

<p>The one concept that always threw me when learning this was that to get something white to render as white not grey, you had to let in more light not less ... it seemed counter intuitive, and I had a heck of a time remembering that simple notion ... LOL!</p>

[cjogo]

<p>P mode means POST --- :-) a hand meter and manual exposure( & what Ansel taught me ) will keep you away from the dreaded post work ...</p>

[cjogo]

<p>Ansel taught us to learn to see those Zones in B&W -- we all carried around a Wratten #90 dark amber filter -- you learned to spot Zone V --- Chimping took about a day back then :-)</p>

<p>Like Marc says :: you just get used to middle grey and what to meter.... once you know that all cameras meter the same ,,, no wild exposures.</p>

[pete_s.]

<blockquote>

<p>The Camera is only a tool</p>

</blockquote>

<p>William, I somewhat disagree. I think the camera is (should be) an extension of the photographers body and mind. And it should be operated at a unconscious level.</p>

<p>That's what I strive for at least and I find using different modes of exposure and metering disruptive to that process. So while it is good to know how everything works I think there is also benefit in sticking to one option. Even thought that option may actually be suboptimal in certain cases. Those cases would then be mitigated by increased skill, knowledge and practice.</p>

<p> </p>

[anner]

<p>Apologies if my post was written with too much generalization. I was trying to stay brief and I also naturally speak in big picture terms rather than detailed technicalities. I shared the ways in which I think and what works best for me throughout a wedding day based on the original question posed for the thread, but I would expect that everyone makes their own decisions based on their knowledge and experience. That's what this is all about, right? Not determining that there is any best way, but rather, how many different ways there are of accomplishing similar goals. Everyone thinks differently, perceive the world differently, and takes action differently. There are many ways of thinking and doing - none is right or wrong, but something can always be learned from the ways that others accomplish the same goal through different means. ;-)</p>

[fionndruinne]

<p>For me, it depends much on whether I'm encountering a lot of movement in the scene. I generally do not photograph scenes involving fast motion, and personally I prefer aperture mode. In this setting, creative control over aperture is easiest, and I find it easy to adjust exposure with the EV/exposure comp button. Thinking in terms of +/- EV is the way I operate when it comes to exposure. I realize that this gives me little control over shutter speed without going out of my way to adjust other settings, but in the majority of situations where I do not need to think too much about shutter speed, it's a very simple and usable system.</p>

[jonj]

<p>Nadine,<br>

I didn't just devise this way of determining my exposure on my own I wanted to reference an article by (David Parris) which does a better job explaining how to determine exposure when photographing a bride. Basically if I followed your direction and opened up one additional stop after metering her face I would be close to overexposure. If you note what David says you can meter the dress then add 1.5 - 2 stops. This would work, but I prefer to meter the brides face then re-compose the shot and yes I do go for a higher key image, but this is more the norm in today's wedding photography.<br>

David's Article<br>

Example #1. Imagine taking a portrait photo of someone with the sun shining behind them. Automatic metering is going to take an average reading, take the brighter background into account, and underexpose your subject.<br />Instead of relying on auto, take a manual reading from your subject. Move in closer, or use the spot meter setting if you have one, so there is no bright background in the frame, and take your exposure reading. Set the aperture and shutter speed manually, then move back, re-compose and take your shot. Now your subject will be correctly exposed, while the background may be overexposed and lose some detail.<br />Using the same scene you might want to change the look of this image and expose for the background instead of the subject. Take your reading from the background, excluding the subject, and reset the aperture and shutter speed. This time the background will be correctly exposed and, depending on the range of brightness, your original subject may be underexposed or be silhouetted against the light.<br />In either case you have decided on the look that you want, instead of waiting to see what the automatic settings gave you.<br /><br />Example #2. Ever tried taking a close up photo of a bride in a white dress? If you did this with your camera on automatic you would probably find that the whole picture came out much darker than the original scene. This is because your camera was assuming that the white dress was an 18% grey. It underexposed the shot and made the whites look grey.<br />If you set the camera manually you can compensate for the white dress or any other large area of white or light tone in the picture. You could do this in a couple of ways; either take a reading from another area, near the subject, with the same lighting conditions but a more average range of tones, or, if that's not possible, take a reading from the dress and make an adjustment to allow for the lighter tones. In this case I would probably open up another 1.5 to 2 stops to get a good result.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Jonathan--David P.'s instructions are your typical instructions for spot metering or even, center weighted averaging metering or reflected metering, using a reference value. Almost everyone who talked about how a meter works in this thread has said the same thing. Read about it by researching the zone system. Your claim that if you metered the skin and opened up one stop, the subject would be overexposed goes against this typical set of instructions. White dress--open up 1.5 to 2 stops, yes, very typical. Caucasian skin--open up 1 stop, again, very typical. Realize that skin tone varies, of course, so 1 stop is a 'more or less' kind of measure, just as 1.5 to 2 stops is a 'more or less' kind of measure.</p>

<p>Your description of how you metered your shot doesn't follow these typical instructions. From what I read, you metered the skin and used that exposure. This is why I questioned it. Your image, which I am not criticizing for being bright for artistic reasons, is not a good illustration for your metering technique, as a lot of the highlights are gone and the general value of the skin is at a much lighter value than is probably 'for real'.</p>

<p>Now, it could be that what you spot metered wasn't a clear section of skin. Perhaps it had features in it--eyes, nose shadow, red lips??? If so, you don't have a 'clean' section of Caucasian skin, and you might have had overexposure in this case, had you opened up 1 stop--I don't know.</p>

[digimage]

<p>90% I do manualy now . I'm not do wedding photo yet but I belived it's two part for them portait sutdio ceremony & social party . 90% manual for ceremony part it right but social party maybe not realy need just IMO . manualy is very powerful & realy taseting photography otherwise you're just enjoy 50% feeling how to love shooting picture</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Anyway, Jonathan, not sure posting the image or examining your metering technique will add to answering your initial questions.</p>

<p>As I said, most people who talked about how metering works, talked about using a reference value of some kind, because the meter (any meter) uses a reference value, which is middle gray. There are many methods of metering, and no one, single way is necessarily better than the other, but each must make sense, when it comes to how that middle gray figures in the arrival of the suggested settings. For one to use that information, one must understand how the meter makes this comparison and also how to apply the information to your scene.</p>

<p>Now, if you consistently meter the same way and get the same results, even if your method does not follow convention, you most certainly can continue to do so, but if you do, understand why and how your method differs, so that on the day that you get inconsistent results, you might know why.</p>

<p>Also, you might switch to using your palm to meter off. You can figure out exactly how many stops your palm differs from middle gray, and since your palm is always with you, you have it handy... :^) Plus you're always close enough to get a clear patch of skin.</p>

[William Michael]

<p >Anne R,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I thought long and hard about the way I worded my comments. My comments too were meant to be quite general and answering a boarder question, which was not asked in the original post i.e. that of Metering Mode. (Camera Mode was the question originally asked.)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think I introduced the topic of Metering Mode in my first post, and I commented upon the importance of understanding the different Metering Modes, because the way I think, Metering Mode is important and its choice (for me) is often linked to the Camera Mode I will choose. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The reason I thought long and hard about the wording of my post was because, firstly it followed yours, and secondly I took examples from your thoughts to make some of my message. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >It was clear to me that I agreed with your comments. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Moreover, I understood that yours was a broad brush explaining how Pattern Metering can be used and used well. And, importantly, you made mention that when using Pattern Metering, one must make use of their knowledge of light and compensate.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >For absolute clarity, I was extending that thought and amplifying how it is necessary to use one's brain box and also the understanding of light <em><strong>no matter what Metering Mode one chooses to use.</strong></em> </p>

<p > </p>

<p >As to anyone's method being the best or not, I was always of the opinion that Anne R never meant that her method would be the best, only that it would be the best for her. Further, it was obvious to me why that would be so. Even within the brevity of her answer, the major advantages of Pattern Metering were clearly explained.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I took the opportunity to use Anne R's example of Pattern Metering and my previous example of Spot Metering, to expand on how various methods are useful to various Photographers. To be clear I was not arguing, but rather imploring the OP to learn each function and work out what is best for his situation by knowing all the strengths and weaknesses of each Metering Mode and not to just follow anyone’s suggestion, blindly, without understanding the “why”. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >. . . <br>

 

<p><br />I make particular mention of these points, because, in my experience, the written word is often a poor conduit for nuance, tone and feeling (emotion). </p>

<p>In this regard, if any of the "apology" was as a result of my comments, then such apology is not necessary as I was expanding your points and not arguing with them, nor attempting to “score points” from your comments: I was direct and literal with my comment and I did not imply. I appreciated your comments and your thoughts stimulated me to add to them.</p>

</p>

 

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p >RT J:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Yes. If using Spot Metering then that is the way I would meter and then recompose if I were only taking <strong ><em >one</em></strong> meter reading. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >One of the reasons I use Spot Metering is because (for me) it is useful in complex lighting scenes and I take more than one meter reading and then manually compute. This multi-metering technique might not be suitable (or required) for some Wedding situations, nor might it be suitable for many Wedding Photographers’ styles, but when using a TTL meter it is my preference. I also think whether or not one intends to use the JPEG file, with minimal PP, is a factor to consider. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Pete S:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I agree and extension and to be operated on an unconscious level and without thinking – just like my Piano Teacher wanted me to play Moonlight Sonata (still practicing, but alas not enough) . . . but the camera is still a tool. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >IMO the two thoughts can co-exist, happily – perhaps it is just semantics we are debating as I believe the meaning, we agree upon.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

[markonestudios]

I almost never use any other mode but manual. But as WW rightly points out, you need to understand what the other modes do in order ot make an informed decision... :)

[r_scott_adams]

<p>To the OP<br>

Why not set the camera's AE lock function so that the button "toggles."<br>

That's how I work. A mode always. Static light, measure and AE lock, and shoot away. Dynamic lighting, unlock AE lock and shoot away. Light static but has changed for some reason, AE lock off, remeasure, AE lock back on.<br>

Fast, easy, best of both worlds. </p>

[booray]

<p>I just want to mention that I may be the only photographer on the planet who uses Tv mode (on occasion). It seems I never see it mentioned in threads like this which means that I'm a person of limited intelligence or a genius (who am I kidding... I'm a frickin genius!)</p>

<p>(I just want to point out that this is the second time that this forum has censored my use of the word "idi*t" and both times I was using it to describe myself. :)</p>

<p>I shoot in manual mode almost all the time but if I must use another mode my first choice is Tv, not Av. The reason is that, in Tv I still control the aperture because it adjusts automatically to the shutter speed I set. The worst thing that can happen is that the camera can't set an aperture wide enough for the shutter speed I have selected, resulting in an under-exposed image. In Av mode, the worst thing that can happen is the camera selects a shutter speed that is too slow and you get camera shake. An image that is 1/2 a stop too dark can be saved in RAW but an image that is blurry is a loss. In Tv mode, if the camera can't get the right aperture, the aperture value will blink. In Av mode, if the camera selects a shutter speed that is too slow (say 1/5) it doesn't warn you at all. I know I should be paying attention to the values on every shot but I think the whole point of using the "auto" modes is to free you from scrutinizing the settings on every shot (as you would in manual).</p>

<p>Again, I rarely switch out of manual but when I do it's usually because I need to work fast in changing light and when that is the case I am much more concerned about the shutter speed than the aperture. If I am in a low-light situation I know that I can set my ISO to 1600 and my camera to Tv, then set the slowest shutter speed that I can hand-hold at, and I will be fine.</p>

<p>I should also point out that, if you are chimping, it's much easier to spot an image that is undexposed than one that is a little blurry.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Booray--I am like you. If and when I use an automated mode, it is usually TV. I think there has been (and it has gotten bigger) a big emphasis on aperture priority due to the popularity of selective focus and shallow DOF, for good reasons and not so good reasons. For me, the use of an automated mode usually means I'm trying to follow action, where selective focus and shallow DOF are not all that important, relative to getting the action. I would think that selective focus and shallow DOF are more important to consider for static shots where one has time to use manual mode (but that's me).</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I also bring up another issue that some of us have discussed before--it is ironic that to fully utilize an automated mode like aperture priority or shutter priority still means the photographer has to be more than just casually knowledgeable about exposure. What I mean is, if you don't already have a feel for what ISO a certain light level will 'need', given the kind of shutter speeds you would need to stop action or to use flash outdoors, etc., you can run into the kinds of problems described by Booray pretty quick--'running out of' f stops or shutter speeds to go with the desired setting. True auto ISO kind of helps, but then one could end up using some extremely high ISO (with it's resulting narrower dynamic range, etc.) when it isn't necessary.</p>

<p>This whole thing goes against the idea of it being easy to just plug an automated mode into the camera and let it rip. Even Program will run out of options for successful images at some point. I know that aperture priority still seems to be the popular choice for intermediate photographers. When I've trained wedding photographers in the past, the first thing every one of them does is to put the camera in aperture priority and expect to shoot that way all day. When I ask them why, they say, 'to control depth of field' (probably what the instructor said in the last photo course). Now, it is 'for shallow depth of field', or something similar.</p>

<p>Manual camera mode seems to be something frightening, and I know why, because I went through this myself. It takes a while before one realizes that there is no one, correct exposure for a subject. That the photographer can control how the subject appears and one of the controls is exposure. Also, that the camera isn't somehow coming up with the magical, one perfect exposure for each shot--in reality, it is coming up with differing exposures when one, single one would have been more consistent, shot to shot.</p>

<p>It is puzzling to me that photo schools don't teach photographers (or online information) to pull back a little before diving into f stops and shutter speeds, and look at the big picture--light levels, whether expressed as EV or not. I never really studied EV, and I probably should. Instead, I just have, in the back of my mind, a set of 'known' settings for lighting situations that I run into over and over. I believe it was C Jo that said there are about 4 settings for all the situations one runs into. While I would be nervous to just use 4 settings for everything, I understand what he is saying when he says this.</p>

<p>Looking at Pete S.'s advice above re the recessional to limo run, EV is mentioned, and the method is a good method for supporting an all manual camera mode exposure system--one knows from experience what light levels are like, and can anticipate and be prepared for them, taking very little time, the prize being--consistent and on target exposure.</p>

<p>Anyway, I, for one, am going to read up on EV and light levels more, and take my meter outside and experiment.</p>

[g.e._masana]

<p>Just about every shot is manual with me. There are some circumstances where I'll shoot AV or TV, but for a good part of the day it's all manual.<br /> <br /> Look, if you were a race car driver, an expert driver handling a high performance machine going 200 something miles an hour around a tight bend, you wouldn't have an automatic transmission. Why not? <br /> <br /> Same thing.</p>

[booray]

<p>I just want to point out something that is being overlooked in this discussion and I, for one, am woefully disappointed that no one has brought it up:</p>

<p>Nadine mentioned me by name <em>twice</em>.</p>

<p>:)</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Its such an interesting name, Booray... Am I being too serious again?</p>

<p>:^)</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Nadine,<br>

EV is not that hard. It's really just a combination of aperture and shutter speed rolled into one. When combined with an ISO it can be used to express light levels.</p>

<p>EV equals stops and are nowadays usually given at ISO 100 unless otherwise specified.<br>

For instance is sunny 16 the same as EV15 (at ISO100).</p>

<p>To go from EV to a specific exposure or back you can use these tables:</p>

<p>Shutter speed => Time Value<br>

1s => 0<br>

1/2s => 1<br>

1/4s => 2<br>

1/8s => 3<br>

1/15s => 4<br>

1/30s => 5<br>

1/60s => 6<br>

1/125s => 7<br>

1/250s => 8<br>

1/500s => 9<br>

1/1000s => 10<br>

1/2000s => 11<br>

1/4000s => 12<br>

1/8000s => 13</p>

<p>Aperture => Aperture Value<br>

f/1.0 => 0<br>

f/1.4 => 1<br>

f/2 => 2<br>

f/2.8 => 3<br>

f/4 => 4<br>

f/5.6 => 5<br>

f/8 => 6<br>

f/11 => 7<br>

f/16 => 8<br>

etc</p>

<p>ISO => Speed Value (based at ISO100)<br>

100 => 0<br>

200 => -1<br>

400 => -2<br>

800 => -3<br>

1600 => -4<br>

3200 => -5<br>

6400 => -6</p>

<p>To get an EV you just add the values together.<br>

So something shot at 1/30s, f/2.8, ISO800 is 5+3-3=EV 5</p>

<p>Good thing about EV is that as a wedding photographer you're really only concerned with what you can shoot and that will mostly fall in the EV3 to EV15 range.</p>

<p>EV4-5 will be typical reception night light levels or dark ceremonies. EV10-15 is the outside range you will work with.</p>

<p>Most (all?) incident light meters can read in EV (don't forget to set it to ISO100) so that is the easiest way to go around and learn a few EVs typical for your shooting. You could also have a look at the exif info from a few weddings you shot and calculate the EV from that.<br>

Actually some exif viewers show the EV without any work from your side. It's for instance called Light Value in exiftool.</p>

<p>You can also go the other way from EV to an exposure. For example let's say I know that sunsets hit about EV10 where I shoot. I want to expose the sunset properly and maybe hit the B&G with off camera flash. Let's say I want ISO100 for good image quality so that means I could for example shoot at 1/60s and f/4 (adding these together we get 0+6+4=10).<br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

<em>BTW, I've read that in 1960 there was actually an ASA standard that suggested that the aperture and shutter speed scales would be replaced with these number instead (the ISO scale started at ISO 3 though). This to aid in manual calculation of eposure values and estimation of exposure. As light meters started to get used it was never really put into widespread use. Supposedly the use of Tv and Av on Canon cameras comes from the standard that was called APEX. <br /> </em></p>

<p> </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Yikes, Pete--thanks for the lesson. I had no idea. Now, if my teachers covered EV in photo school, I must have been sleeping. It all sounds brand new to me. I'll have to print this out and think about it. I like to take this kind of system and distill things down to info I can either memorize or have a short enough cheat sheet that I can easily refer to--for just the situations I tend to run across. I <strong>have</strong> noticed the EV numbers on my meter and on the Hasselblad lens rings. Thanks again.</p>

[jonj]

<p>Nadine,</p>

<p>I guess it's based on how you get to your end result. I find the best results with the D80 and D200 is to meter the face of the individual then recompose and add fill flash. I do agree with one of the other posters who stated the camera is an extension of yourself. I have nerver been obsessed by theroy of photography rather I believe in picking a camera and learning how to use it.<br>

I would say I am product of Photo.net and prior to becoming a wedding photographer I used to post some really bad photos here. Now I do 20+ weddings a year and have learned a great deal from this forum.<br>

So if you are new to Photo.net stay with it becasue it's a great place to learn.</p>