Converting in RAW vs Exposure compensation

william_cpa wrote: I appreciate your even handed approach to the subject. I don't quite understand why you mention auto ISO which has no connection to EC, AP or SP and I am sure you have a reason.

This discussion is very likely more than academic to thousands of new photographers who come to PT to learn. If they can learn the benefits or otherwise of the different available modes then they can make their own personal choice about what works for them rather than be told that AP or SP are crap.

Technical differences between modes cannot be described as a personal preference. Either there are differences or there are not. I am struggling to see how that could be an opinion rather than a simple technical fact. I am asking about technical differences only.

I want to know of a single scenario in ambient light where using MM is technically superior to AP or SP without the use of an incident meter. I think that is an important piece of information for any photographer, beginner or otherwise. In what scenario can I take a better picture in MM? If it is possible, technically, then great! Awesome! Everybody learns something huge. If it is not possible then great! Awesome! Everybody learns something huge. Win Win! There can be no losers in this discussion.

BTW you can catch me chatting with Alex, the founder of PT, over on the 'learn and explore' section discussing getting started in photography:

Learn and Explore

Aperture priority mode is what I shoot 102 percent of the time.  Only time I see manual being used is in a strobe enviroment.

I want to know of a single scenario in ambient light where using MM is technically superior to AP or SP without the use of an incident meter.

Since you asked . . . 
Please let me preface this by noting that I RARELY use Manual outside of technical studies.  I am about as far from a Manual fanboy as you will ever hope to find.  But with my Canon it is Manual that is the safe route when I want to repeat the exact same exposure across several shots.  In theory I could also do this with an AE lock and a non-manual mode, but that feature has bit me in the arse a few too many times, so I do resort to Manual when I want to repeat a certain exposure.  Maybe AE lock works better for other brands, or for more advanced Canons than my 50D, dunno.  But this is a practical choice, not purely a technically superior choice.

I don't teach anybody, but I have been hacking away at this silliness for over a half century.  And I do have a very technical professional background.

kellyinthebunker

KCook wrote:

I want to know of a single scenario in ambient light where using MM is technically superior to AP or SP without the use of an incident meter.

Since you asked . . . 
Please let me preface this by noting that I RARELY use Manual outside of technical studies.  I am about as far from a Manual fanboy as you will ever hope to find.  But with my Canon it is Manual that is the safe route when I want to repeat the exact same exposure across several shots.  In theory I could also do this with an AE lock and a non-manual mode, but that feature has bit me in the arse a few too many times, so I do resort to Manual when I want to repeat a certain exposure.  Maybe AE lock works better for other brands, or for more advanced Canons than my 50D, dunno.  But this is a practical choice, not purely a technically superior choice.

I don't teach anybody, but I have been hacking away at this silliness for over a half century.  And I do have a very technical professional background.

kellyinthebunker

That opens up something interesting. This is the one use of MM that I encourage students to engage in but only after they have used AP to first get the right exposure then transfer the settings to MM. If there are several shots to take, as in natural light portrait shoots, all in the same lighting, it makes for very easy editing later. So I am with you on the repeatability front, however, not for the original shot. Unless you are claiming that there are technical benefits to using MM for the original shot, we have to say close, very close, but no teddy bear.

william_cpa wrote: ...This is the one use of MM that I encourage students to engage in but only after they have used AP to first get the right exposure then transfer the settings to MM. If there are several shots to take, as in natural light portrait shoots, all in the same lighting, it makes for very easy editing later. So I am with you on the repeatability front, however, not for the original shot. Unless you are claiming that there are technical benefits to using MM for the original shot, we have to say close, very close, but no teddy bear.

Why are you requiring them to use AP to first get the right exposure?  Why not use MM and avoid the need to transfer the settings?  Are you asserting that AP is technically superior to MM?  Seems to me that using the camera's meter to determine exposure will return identical results in both modes, assuming that you're using the same metering mode and measuring the same area of the scene.  Anyway, scenario ...

Scenario .. an actual shoot 2 weeks ago

Football game
Shooting position — sideline, all of it, usually low POV (kneeling)
Gear — 28-300mm on D600.  Hand held.
Exposure Mode — Manual
Release Mode — Continuous
Focus Mode — AF - Continuous (back button)

Lighting — bright mid-afternoon sun.  The field was uniformly lit and the players generally front-lit.  The background on the opposite side of the field was dense trees, with areas of deep shade.

The shade in the background was the problem.  Sometimes it’d be in the frame, sometimes not.  Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.  If I shot in Shutter Priority auto mode, then to the extent that the background came into the frame it would influence the meter and the camera would want to increase aperture, causing over-exposure of the field and players as well as screwing up my DOF.  Not good!  I didn’t care about exposure of the background; the players were the subject, the only important element.  Then there was the question of workload.  Following the fast action, composing, and maintaining focus was work enough without dealing with exposure too.

So I shot manual mode with an old-school technique from way back … metered the grass, manually set a -2/3 exposure, and left it unchanged for the duration.  Worked great, just as I knew it would.

Technically superior?  I don't know what you mean by that.  But I do know that the technique enabled me to get the job done, successfully.  That's all that matters to me.

I've only read about 2/3 of this discussion, but one thing that keeps coming to mind on the "why shoot MM" front is this:

Why do people drive stick?  Automatic cars are easy, they're less distracting, and they get you from point A to point B almost flawlessly by making all the transmission-related decisions on its own.  Sure, maybe on the occasional hill your car gets confused and works the engine a bit differently than you would, but automatic transmission is pretty solid.

Answer: it's fun.

I shoot MM only, but not because I'm trying to be snobby.  I've used Aperture priority mode and SS priority mode and I much prefer MM because I'm in control.
But this is old news, that's what everyone else here keeps saying.  And I much agree.  But the auto/manual car analogy came to mind while reading.

I also shoot manual for one other reason previously mentioned:  sometimes the camera's decision is not the vision I had in mind, so I would rather tell it everything by setting my shutter speed, then my aperture, then adjusting my ISO, than by fiddling with exposure compensation.

But to each their own.

hghlndr6 wrote:

william_cpa wrote: ...This is the one use of MM that I encourage students to engage in but only after they have used AP to first get the right exposure then transfer the settings to MM. If there are several shots to take, as in natural light portrait shoots, all in the same lighting, it makes for very easy editing later. So I am with you on the repeatability front, however, not for the original shot. Unless you are claiming that there are technical benefits to using MM for the original shot, we have to say close, very close, but no teddy bear.

Why are you requiring them to use AP to first get the right exposure?  Why not use MM and avoid the need to transfer the settings?  Are you asserting that AP is technically superior to MM?  Seems to me that using the camera's meter to determine exposure will return identical results in both modes, assuming that you're using the same metering mode and measuring the same area of the scene.  Anyway, scenario ...

Scenario .. an actual shoot 2 weeks ago

Football game
Shooting position — sideline, all of it, usually low POV (kneeling)
Gear — 28-300mm on D600.  Hand held.
Exposure Mode — Manual
Release Mode — Continuous
Focus Mode — AF - Continuous (back button)

Lighting — bright mid-afternoon sun.  The field was uniformly lit and the players generally front-lit.  The background on the opposite side of the field was dense trees, with areas of deep shade.

The shade in the background was the problem.  Sometimes it’d be in the frame, sometimes not.  Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.  If I shot in Shutter Priority auto mode, then to the extent that the background came into the frame it would influence the meter and the camera would want to increase aperture, causing over-exposure of the field and players as well as screwing up my DOF.  Not good!  I didn’t care about exposure of the background; the players were the subject, the only important element.  Then there was the question of workload.  Following the fast action, composing, and maintaining focus was work enough without dealing with exposure too.

So I shot manual mode with an old-school technique from way back … metered the grass, manually set a -2/3 exposure, and left it unchanged for the duration.  Worked great, just as I knew it would.

Technically superior?  I don't know what you mean by that.  But I do know that the technique enabled me to get the job done, successfully.  That's all that matters to me.

They use AP firstly because it is faster and easier to get the right exposure. Metering off the grass and setting -2/3 is virtually instant using AP and EC or SP and EC if, as you say, you already know that you are going to do that. So MM offers no technical benefit or speed for the first shot it seems. We agree that MM offers the convenience of consistency in multiple shots in the same lighting and, as you have noted, I also promote this practice. Even in this case, we have not proved that MM is technically superior to AP or SP. If you were not using your rear button for focus you could have used it for exposure lock on the grass and shot all of the exact same shots in AP or SP.

Technically superior means that you can get a more accurate exposure in MM than you can get in AP or SP. My point is that, as you are using the meter in the camera in all three modes and you are always basing your exposure from that meter reading, they are technically identical and arguing that one is superior to the other has no foundation. If it has no foundation then the promotion of 'always shooting in MM' as a technical advantage has no substance.

Leilanee wrote: I've only read about 2/3 of this discussion, but one thing that keeps coming to mind on the "why shoot MM" front is this:

Why do people drive stick?  Automatic cars are easy, they're less distracting, and they get you from point A to point B almost flawlessly by making all the transmission-related decisions on its own.  Sure, maybe on the occasional hill your car gets confused and works the engine a bit differently than you would, but automatic transmission is pretty solid.

Answer: it's fun.

I shoot MM only, but not because I'm trying to be snobby.  I've used Aperture priority mode and SS priority mode and I much prefer MM because I'm in control.
But this is old news, that's what everyone else here keeps saying.  And I much agree.  But the auto/manual car analogy came to mind while reading.

I also shoot manual for one other reason previously mentioned:  sometimes the camera's decision is not the vision I had in mind, so I would rather tell it everything by setting my shutter speed, then my aperture, then adjusting my ISO, than by fiddling with exposure compensation.

But to each their own.

I do understand what you are saying about MM. I have a question about your reference to 'being in control'. are you able to say what control you have in MM that is absent from AP perhaps? That would represent a technical benefit.

william_cpa wrote:

Leilanee wrote: I've only read about 2/3 of this discussion, but one thing that keeps coming to mind on the "why shoot MM" front is this:

Why do people drive stick?  Automatic cars are easy, they're less distracting, and they get you from point A to point B almost flawlessly by making all the transmission-related decisions on its own.  Sure, maybe on the occasional hill your car gets confused and works the engine a bit differently than you would, but automatic transmission is pretty solid.

Answer: it's fun.

I shoot MM only, but not because I'm trying to be snobby.  I've used Aperture priority mode and SS priority mode and I much prefer MM because I'm in control.
But this is old news, that's what everyone else here keeps saying.  And I much agree.  But the auto/manual car analogy came to mind while reading.

I also shoot manual for one other reason previously mentioned:  sometimes the camera's decision is not the vision I had in mind, so I would rather tell it everything by setting my shutter speed, then my aperture, then adjusting my ISO, than by fiddling with exposure compensation.

But to each their own.

I do understand what you are saying about MM. I have a question about your reference to 'being in control'. are you able to say what control you have in MM that is absent from AP perhaps? That would represent a technical benefit.

I'm not acknowledging any technical benefit, simply that I prefer it.
I probably pay the least technical attention to my camera of anyone who has posted in this thread.  When I take a picture, I rarely pay attention to what my light meter tells me (unless I forget to adjust my settings and my picture is way out of tune then I'll use it once to get the gist).  I expose by feel, and if I think the outcome is good, I'll keep with it.  I don't spend too much time fiddling with my settings; I do my initial "What do I want my aperture to be" (usually pretty low as I shoot portraits almost exclusively), then "What do I want my consequent shutter speed to be" (I know AP does this, but sometimes I disagree with what my camera chooses and I personally find exposure compensation to be a drag.  Especially because my camera does not have a button to adjust exposure compensation, I need to go through a menu to do that.  Why would I play around in my menus when I can flick a dial and get my exposure the way I want it?)

Anyway, my point in all this is that I'm not always driven towards technicality when I use my camera, although I like being able to control it in the sense that I mentioned above with the car.  I make a quick and simple adjustment and if I like the outcome I keep with it.  I don't shoot Manual because I blindly follow someone else's misconceptions of superiority, and I don't do it because that's all I've ever tried; I've shot in aperture priority before and I just didn't like it as much.  I think personal preference is a justifiable reason for continuing to use it, and I wouldn't just keep using it because someone told me I should.  If I saw reason to shoot in a different mode, I would.  Which is how I believe many people here think as well.

Here you go. 


Shooting a landscape at f/11(to avoid diffraction) using a big stopper for long exposure.  Underexpose on purpose past the limits of your minimum shutter speed, and bringing the shadows back in post.

Leilanee wrote:

william_cpa wrote:

Leilanee wrote: I've only read about 2/3 of this discussion, but one thing that keeps coming to mind on the "why shoot MM" front is this:

Why do people drive stick?  Automatic cars are easy, they're less distracting, and they get you from point A to point B almost flawlessly by making all the transmission-related decisions on its own.  Sure, maybe on the occasional hill your car gets confused and works the engine a bit differently than you would, but automatic transmission is pretty solid.

Answer: it's fun.

I shoot MM only, but not because I'm trying to be snobby.  I've used Aperture priority mode and SS priority mode and I much prefer MM because I'm in control.
But this is old news, that's what everyone else here keeps saying.  And I much agree.  But the auto/manual car analogy came to mind while reading.

I also shoot manual for one other reason previously mentioned:  sometimes the camera's decision is not the vision I had in mind, so I would rather tell it everything by setting my shutter speed, then my aperture, then adjusting my ISO, than by fiddling with exposure compensation.

But to each their own.

I do understand what you are saying about MM. I have a question about your reference to 'being in control'. are you able to say what control you have in MM that is absent from AP perhaps? That would represent a technical benefit.

I'm not acknowledging any technical benefit, simply that I prefer it.
I probably pay the least technical attention to my camera of anyone who has posted in this thread.  When I take a picture, I rarely pay attention to what my light meter tells me (unless I forget to adjust my settings and my picture is way out of tune then I'll use it once to get the gist).  I expose by feel, and if I think the outcome is good, I'll keep with it.  I don't spend too much time fiddling with my settings; I do my initial "What do I want my aperture to be" (usually pretty low as I shoot portraits almost exclusively), then "What do I want my consequent shutter speed to be" (I know AP does this, but sometimes I disagree with what my camera chooses and I personally find exposure compensation to be a drag.  Especially because my camera does not have a button to adjust exposure compensation, I need to go through a menu to do that.  Why would I play around in my menus when I can flick a dial and get my exposure the way I want it?)

Anyway, my point in all this is that I'm not always driven towards technicality when I use my camera, although I like being able to control it in the sense that I mentioned above with the car.  I make a quick and simple adjustment and if I like the outcome I keep with it.  I don't shoot Manual because I blindly follow someone else's misconceptions of superiority, and I don't do it because that's all I've ever tried; I've shot in aperture priority before and I just didn't like it as much.  I think personal preference is a justifiable reason for continuing to use it, and I wouldn't just keep using it because someone told me I should.  If I saw reason to shoot in a different mode, I would.  Which is how I believe many people here think as well.

Your images show that you have been using a canon xti which has an AV+/- exposure comp button, a canon 7D which has EC constantly adjustable using the rear thumb wheel and a 6D which has the same thumb wheel. You can't adjust EC in the menu on these cameras.

william_cpa wrote:

Leilanee wrote:

william_cpa wrote:

Leilanee wrote: I've only read about 2/3 of this discussion, but one thing that keeps coming to mind on the "why shoot MM" front is this:

Why do people drive stick?  Automatic cars are easy, they're less distracting, and they get you from point A to point B almost flawlessly by making all the transmission-related decisions on its own.  Sure, maybe on the occasional hill your car gets confused and works the engine a bit differently than you would, but automatic transmission is pretty solid.

Answer: it's fun.

I shoot MM only, but not because I'm trying to be snobby.  I've used Aperture priority mode and SS priority mode and I much prefer MM because I'm in control.
But this is old news, that's what everyone else here keeps saying.  And I much agree.  But the auto/manual car analogy came to mind while reading.

I also shoot manual for one other reason previously mentioned:  sometimes the camera's decision is not the vision I had in mind, so I would rather tell it everything by setting my shutter speed, then my aperture, then adjusting my ISO, than by fiddling with exposure compensation.

But to each their own.

I do understand what you are saying about MM. I have a question about your reference to 'being in control'. are you able to say what control you have in MM that is absent from AP perhaps? That would represent a technical benefit.

I'm not acknowledging any technical benefit, simply that I prefer it.
I probably pay the least technical attention to my camera of anyone who has posted in this thread.  When I take a picture, I rarely pay attention to what my light meter tells me (unless I forget to adjust my settings and my picture is way out of tune then I'll use it once to get the gist).  I expose by feel, and if I think the outcome is good, I'll keep with it.  I don't spend too much time fiddling with my settings; I do my initial "What do I want my aperture to be" (usually pretty low as I shoot portraits almost exclusively), then "What do I want my consequent shutter speed to be" (I know AP does this, but sometimes I disagree with what my camera chooses and I personally find exposure compensation to be a drag.  Especially because my camera does not have a button to adjust exposure compensation, I need to go through a menu to do that.  Why would I play around in my menus when I can flick a dial and get my exposure the way I want it?)

Anyway, my point in all this is that I'm not always driven towards technicality when I use my camera, although I like being able to control it in the sense that I mentioned above with the car.  I make a quick and simple adjustment and if I like the outcome I keep with it.  I don't shoot Manual because I blindly follow someone else's misconceptions of superiority, and I don't do it because that's all I've ever tried; I've shot in aperture priority before and I just didn't like it as much.  I think personal preference is a justifiable reason for continuing to use it, and I wouldn't just keep using it because someone told me I should.  If I saw reason to shoot in a different mode, I would.  Which is how I believe many people here think as well.

Your images show that you have been using a canon xti which has an AV+/- exposure comp button, a canon 7D which has EC constantly adjustable using the rear thumb wheel and a 6D which has the same thumb wheel. You can't adjust EC in the menu on these cameras.

Ah, I was not aware that the back wheel did exposure comp.  There is a menu option to change it in, which is all I've known to do it yet.  Either way, it takes the same amount of effort to change exposure comp as it does shutter speed, so again I'm all for preferences, but I don't see how either is superior to the other.  That is, unless I came across a scenario where my corresponding shutter speed was undesirably slow, however that is rare for me.

william_cpa wrote:

Leilanee wrote:

william_cpa wrote:

Leilanee wrote: I've only read about 2/3 of this discussion, but one thing that keeps coming to mind on the "why shoot MM" front is this:

Why do people drive stick?  Automatic cars are easy, they're less distracting, and they get you from point A to point B almost flawlessly by making all the transmission-related decisions on its own.  Sure, maybe on the occasional hill your car gets confused and works the engine a bit differently than you would, but automatic transmission is pretty solid.

Answer: it's fun.

I shoot MM only, but not because I'm trying to be snobby.  I've used Aperture priority mode and SS priority mode and I much prefer MM because I'm in control.
But this is old news, that's what everyone else here keeps saying.  And I much agree.  But the auto/manual car analogy came to mind while reading.

I also shoot manual for one other reason previously mentioned:  sometimes the camera's decision is not the vision I had in mind, so I would rather tell it everything by setting my shutter speed, then my aperture, then adjusting my ISO, than by fiddling with exposure compensation.

But to each their own.

I do understand what you are saying about MM. I have a question about your reference to 'being in control'. are you able to say what control you have in MM that is absent from AP perhaps? That would represent a technical benefit.

I'm not acknowledging any technical benefit, simply that I prefer it.
I probably pay the least technical attention to my camera of anyone who has posted in this thread.  When I take a picture, I rarely pay attention to what my light meter tells me (unless I forget to adjust my settings and my picture is way out of tune then I'll use it once to get the gist).  I expose by feel, and if I think the outcome is good, I'll keep with it.  I don't spend too much time fiddling with my settings; I do my initial "What do I want my aperture to be" (usually pretty low as I shoot portraits almost exclusively), then "What do I want my consequent shutter speed to be" (I know AP does this, but sometimes I disagree with what my camera chooses and I personally find exposure compensation to be a drag.  Especially because my camera does not have a button to adjust exposure compensation, I need to go through a menu to do that.  Why would I play around in my menus when I can flick a dial and get my exposure the way I want it?)

Anyway, my point in all this is that I'm not always driven towards technicality when I use my camera, although I like being able to control it in the sense that I mentioned above with the car.  I make a quick and simple adjustment and if I like the outcome I keep with it.  I don't shoot Manual because I blindly follow someone else's misconceptions of superiority, and I don't do it because that's all I've ever tried; I've shot in aperture priority before and I just didn't like it as much.  I think personal preference is a justifiable reason for continuing to use it, and I wouldn't just keep using it because someone told me I should.  If I saw reason to shoot in a different mode, I would.  Which is how I believe many people here think as well.

Your images show that you have been using a canon xti which has an AV+/- exposure comp button, a canon 7D which has EC constantly adjustable using the rear thumb wheel and a 6D which has the same thumb wheel. You can't adjust EC in the menu on these cameras.

That's assuming the dumb light meter is correctly working. A human can check the light meter and use it as a rough guide, then make adjustments (more than the EC can make) to achieve the perfect result for them. The human brain is superior and much more full of passion (the fuel of art) than a soulless machine.

So technically better? No perhaps not. Spiritually better? Infinitely so.

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

william_cpa wrote:

Leilanee wrote:

william_cpa wrote:

Leilanee wrote: I've only read about 2/3 of this discussion, but one thing that keeps coming to mind on the "why shoot MM" front is this:

Why do people drive stick?  Automatic cars are easy, they're less distracting, and they get you from point A to point B almost flawlessly by making all the transmission-related decisions on its own.  Sure, maybe on the occasional hill your car gets confused and works the engine a bit differently than you would, but automatic transmission is pretty solid.

Answer: it's fun.

I shoot MM only, but not because I'm trying to be snobby.  I've used Aperture priority mode and SS priority mode and I much prefer MM because I'm in control.
But this is old news, that's what everyone else here keeps saying.  And I much agree.  But the auto/manual car analogy came to mind while reading.

I also shoot manual for one other reason previously mentioned:  sometimes the camera's decision is not the vision I had in mind, so I would rather tell it everything by setting my shutter speed, then my aperture, then adjusting my ISO, than by fiddling with exposure compensation.

But to each their own.

I do understand what you are saying about MM. I have a question about your reference to 'being in control'. are you able to say what control you have in MM that is absent from AP perhaps? That would represent a technical benefit.

I'm not acknowledging any technical benefit, simply that I prefer it.
I probably pay the least technical attention to my camera of anyone who has posted in this thread.  When I take a picture, I rarely pay attention to what my light meter tells me (unless I forget to adjust my settings and my picture is way out of tune then I'll use it once to get the gist).  I expose by feel, and if I think the outcome is good, I'll keep with it.  I don't spend too much time fiddling with my settings; I do my initial "What do I want my aperture to be" (usually pretty low as I shoot portraits almost exclusively), then "What do I want my consequent shutter speed to be" (I know AP does this, but sometimes I disagree with what my camera chooses and I personally find exposure compensation to be a drag.  Especially because my camera does not have a button to adjust exposure compensation, I need to go through a menu to do that.  Why would I play around in my menus when I can flick a dial and get my exposure the way I want it?)

Anyway, my point in all this is that I'm not always driven towards technicality when I use my camera, although I like being able to control it in the sense that I mentioned above with the car.  I make a quick and simple adjustment and if I like the outcome I keep with it.  I don't shoot Manual because I blindly follow someone else's misconceptions of superiority, and I don't do it because that's all I've ever tried; I've shot in aperture priority before and I just didn't like it as much.  I think personal preference is a justifiable reason for continuing to use it, and I wouldn't just keep using it because someone told me I should.  If I saw reason to shoot in a different mode, I would.  Which is how I believe many people here think as well.

Your images show that you have been using a canon xti which has an AV+/- exposure comp button, a canon 7D which has EC constantly adjustable using the rear thumb wheel and a 6D which has the same thumb wheel. You can't adjust EC in the menu on these cameras.

That's assuming the dumb light meter is correctly working. A human can check the light meter and use it as a rough guide, then make adjustments (more than the EC can make) to achieve the perfect result for them. The human brain is superior and much more full of passion (the fuel of art) than a soulless machine.

So technically better? No perhaps not. Spiritually better? Infinitely so.

Histogram > meter.

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

william_cpa wrote:

Leilanee wrote:

william_cpa wrote:

Leilanee wrote: I've only read about 2/3 of this discussion, but one thing that keeps coming to mind on the "why shoot MM" front is this:

Why do people drive stick?  Automatic cars are easy, they're less distracting, and they get you from point A to point B almost flawlessly by making all the transmission-related decisions on its own.  Sure, maybe on the occasional hill your car gets confused and works the engine a bit differently than you would, but automatic transmission is pretty solid.

Answer: it's fun.

I shoot MM only, but not because I'm trying to be snobby.  I've used Aperture priority mode and SS priority mode and I much prefer MM because I'm in control.
But this is old news, that's what everyone else here keeps saying.  And I much agree.  But the auto/manual car analogy came to mind while reading.

I also shoot manual for one other reason previously mentioned:  sometimes the camera's decision is not the vision I had in mind, so I would rather tell it everything by setting my shutter speed, then my aperture, then adjusting my ISO, than by fiddling with exposure compensation.

But to each their own.

I do understand what you are saying about MM. I have a question about your reference to 'being in control'. are you able to say what control you have in MM that is absent from AP perhaps? That would represent a technical benefit.

I'm not acknowledging any technical benefit, simply that I prefer it.
I probably pay the least technical attention to my camera of anyone who has posted in this thread.  When I take a picture, I rarely pay attention to what my light meter tells me (unless I forget to adjust my settings and my picture is way out of tune then I'll use it once to get the gist).  I expose by feel, and if I think the outcome is good, I'll keep with it.  I don't spend too much time fiddling with my settings; I do my initial "What do I want my aperture to be" (usually pretty low as I shoot portraits almost exclusively), then "What do I want my consequent shutter speed to be" (I know AP does this, but sometimes I disagree with what my camera chooses and I personally find exposure compensation to be a drag.  Especially because my camera does not have a button to adjust exposure compensation, I need to go through a menu to do that.  Why would I play around in my menus when I can flick a dial and get my exposure the way I want it?)

Anyway, my point in all this is that I'm not always driven towards technicality when I use my camera, although I like being able to control it in the sense that I mentioned above with the car.  I make a quick and simple adjustment and if I like the outcome I keep with it.  I don't shoot Manual because I blindly follow someone else's misconceptions of superiority, and I don't do it because that's all I've ever tried; I've shot in aperture priority before and I just didn't like it as much.  I think personal preference is a justifiable reason for continuing to use it, and I wouldn't just keep using it because someone told me I should.  If I saw reason to shoot in a different mode, I would.  Which is how I believe many people here think as well.

Your images show that you have been using a canon xti which has an AV+/- exposure comp button, a canon 7D which has EC constantly adjustable using the rear thumb wheel and a 6D which has the same thumb wheel. You can't adjust EC in the menu on these cameras.

That's assuming the dumb light meter is correctly working. A human can check the light meter and use it as a rough guide, then make adjustments (more than the EC can make) to achieve the perfect result for them. The human brain is superior and much more full of passion (the fuel of art) than a soulless machine.

So technically better? No perhaps not. Spiritually better? Infinitely so.

Au Contraire M. Stealth. In AP my camera sings beautiful songs to me and combs my hair. MM total silence. Not even a cup of tea.

Given that the end result are exactly the same because any of the modes can achieve perfect exposure (all roads can lead to the exact same shutter speed, iso, aperture settings). Therefore the technical benefits of manual come out when the technical limits of the camera's meter and exposure compensation fall sort.

So my answer would be, manual is better when the camera gets confused and it's obvious your brain is better than the camera in whatever particular case. Then you adjust EC or go fully manual. Since EC is just another way to adjust shutter speed or aperture to your liking off a base set by the camera. I'd call this closer to manual than aperture priority or shutter priority et al. You're taking over when you use EC, how is this technically different to using full manual? In that case why not take over completely and use full manual?