>>4297696
With phones and ai, pretty much anyone can create great photos. By shunning the "easy" modes on their camera, the modern photog distinguishes themselves as an artist from the masses, a distinction that matter less and less as time goes on and technology develops. Manual or aperture priority says "I created this art", a lie photogs have been trying to convince others of since the concept of a photog existed.

>>4297696
who frowns upon it? no one cares, it's not like you can see exif data on instagram

ITT: we make up scenarios then get mad at them

Because controlling certain aspects of the process can result in better photos. The processor inside the camera may be able to figure it out and get it right but often it won't. For the most part it doesn't know how much depth of field I want, how much motion blur (if any) is acceptable, how much noise I'm willing to make a compromise on to get that shutter speed, what aperture gives me the best sharpness with a particular lens. I'm not one of these pretend elitists that has to shoot in manual all the time (I rarely do) to make myself feel like a real photographer, but I've spent the time to learn about these aspects of photography and my gear so that I can take better photos, even if in a technical aspect.

>>4297696
Because it constantly fucks up. A lot of the reason phone photos are known to be blurry (when the phone is actually capable of sharper photos) is because of auto mode introducing hand shake or subject motion blur that someone with finer control would have avoided at the cost of raising the ISO which softens the photo less than motion blur. On large cameras the breadth of fuckups is expanded so auto mode can also stick you with insufficient DOF or surprise deep focus and crazy amounts of diffraction. And insufficient SS fuckups are more visible due to the higher resolution, while excessive ISO is basically never a fuckup, you just need an extra processing step or to just accept the grain as an artistic decision.

>>4297696
On many cameras, even if you wanted to keep everything automatic, green-box can still sometimes lock you out of certain simple settings you might actually want to change. Camera often doesn't know what exactly you want out of an image, but you might not know either. Sometimes cameras get things wrong, and more direct control modes are a good way to override that.

At the end of the day, it's all just different ways to solve for the same formula. Having an image properly exposed, properly in focus, with proper amount of motion is really just the bare minimum, and absolute easiest part of making good photos.

>>4297701
What does shutter priority say?

>>4297696
It occupies a space where another custom mode could have gone.

Because using a mirrorless camera in P (professional) mode and controlling exp. compensation (and white balance if you wish) gives you absolute control while still being an automatic exposure mode. If you need a little more control use Av or Tv and M if in a studio with controlled lighting.

Green mode Auto is for people who don't know about what I previously said, I don't even think high end cameras have full auto mode.

Note for Nikons: You must also go into Picture Controls and change the various parameters (contrast, saturation, etc) to A(uto) as well for max inconsistency between shots.

>>4297812
>shooting jpeg
Now you’ve added manual white balance to the new exposure square or your photos will look like they were taken on a phone

>>4297696
Because fiddling with settings is far easier than getting an interesting subject mindfully composed in frame and pressing shutter button at just right time?

>>4297817
This is why i always dislike fuji photos. They all fuck around with camera color settings all day and it impacts them because checking their colors takes a lot more time than setting the SS to 1/1000 and turning on auto ISO… of course the average slug also shoots full manual on top of it.

>>4297826
Have you used a camera? It works like this
>know what you are going to shoot
>if it doesnt move super fast or light is constant decide on a set aperture and ISO and let shutter float (also see: sony’s ISOASS setting, for auto iso, goes on its own custom button for easy SS setting, only raises the ISO to maintain your line in the sand SS)
>if conditions/subjects are changing, ie: adding and removing models, moving sets, control aperture and SS and let ISO float automatically because everything between base ISO and 3200 looks the same
Total auto mode/P mode (auto mode with a shift thing that lets you scroll through possible combos) doesnt know what the fuck is going on and comes up with retarded shit that doesnt fit the situation. It only consistently works for awful photography: “say cheese” snapshits. Possibly p-core building corner, sleeping cat, and flower garbage.

Btw if you dont know what you’re going to shoot before you pick up the camera you’re not an artist and you’re taking snapshits not making art

>>4297826
The entire point is fiddling with settings less instead of wrestling with a camera's arcane decision making process.
>oh no P mode did a dumb *shift shift shift*
Auto mode doesn't even let you try, just accept your photos with wrong DOF or too slow shutter speed or whatever. I've heard it called "girlfriend mode".

Also see: shooting raw. It's actually to spend less time fiddling with settings while shooting. And then you have the ken rockwells who unironically change white balance on camera if a cloud moves.

>>4297696
It's good enough if the lighting conditions are good, the subject close and isolated.
Even if those conditions are not met the pictures are passable in most cases but never something I would look at withour noticing the flaws.

Phones on the other hand do a fantastic job aside from the oversharpening and synthetic bokeh.

File: 1707955523654.jpg (311 KB, 1200x1047)

311 KB JPG

>>4297830
>if you dont know what you’re going to shoot before you pick up the camera you’re not an artist and you’re taking snapshits not making art

shit take

all photos are art, some art just isn't as good as other art

also some of the most famous, award winning photos were taken in unexpected/unforseen situations

>>4297904
>all photos are art, some art just isn't as good as other art
wrong.

>>4297904
Don't you know the story behind that photo?

Every other photographer in the audience went SNAP the moment that guy ran on stage for the first stab, but the guy who took this one thought "wait, something is going to happen, i'm going to photograph that instead" (he only had one shot)
When the assailant pulled out for the second stab, after everyone else already burned their flashbulbs, then he was ready and took the shot

Even as a journalist, he knew what he was going to shoot.

>All photos are art
Nope.

>>4297913
What you described is the process of someone experienced taking a photo, not someone who knew before they picked up the camera what they were going to shoot.

To me this is by definition a spur of the moment photo, and this guy distinguished himself by taking it better than other people. His art was better than their art, which is why it was his photo of this that got famous.

>>4297924
Anon he was just there. He planned it in advance anyways. Photographers plan and anticipate. Auto mode just wildly guesses.

>planning an assassination to get a good shot
Woah

I dont like it because sometimes the flash pops up automatically and it startles me every time.
None of my cameras since my 600d have a mechanical flash because of this reason.

My latest digicam purchase doesn't even have P mode or manual focus.

>>4297696
It doesn’t exist on 75% of my cameras
On the ones where it does, it’s just hectic and unpredictable
Why would I shoot auto when I have even the vaguest idea of what I want my depth of field to be? Just shoot aperture priority and be done with it, it’s just auto but less fucky and squirrely

Shooting auto is just inefficient laziness because either your pictures aren’t worth even looking at, or you’re gonna have a shit time in Lightroom making anything look consistent

>>4297769
“i pee sitting down”

>>4298337
it's cause my hands are too shaky to not paint the floor yellow

>>4298365
put your hands on a tripod when you pee
boom
stable

>>4297708
>ITT
that's literally this entire website though

>>4297696
I don't really care and sometimes use it.

But I generally do prefer to manual in an ISO and shutter speed and aperture. Just a personal preference. When I want to head empty I'll go auto no problem

>>4298880
Except when I do it, then what I say is actually happening but everyone else is schizo

>>4297696
If I use it with my tele lens it's shit.

If lighting is good and it's regular photos of like my dog or kid at a birthday party it's OK.

It's much better than it was in the past tho. I juat use manual with auto ISO most of the time anyway.

>>4297701
I wish people would stop making posts like this it's really fucking stupid

the camera settings don't matter just get the shot and stop talking about it

>>4298989
i wish people would stop making posts like this its really stupid

camera settings matter. no one fucking wants to look at a blurry crushed shadows silhouette against a sky. fujifilm users in particular have been posting that exact photo over and over again for years thinking they stumbled upon some punk rock shit where breaking "the rules" makes something good, no one likes it.
>I-i gawt teh shawt
>CANT TELL WHATS IN IT
periodical reminder garry winogrand did the film era equivalent of shooting underexposed raws and clicking the auto button in lightroom (shot fixed settings such as 1/500 f/11 and used stand development until he had a photo, checked with safelights) because he would accept grain but not blurred out content

shutter speed and aperture matter
white balance is meaningless these days
iso is meaningless these days
pay attention, shoot raw, and you will always get the shot. be like garry winogrand. he made history for a reason
>because he's jewish?
his family was poor as fuck and he struggled making ends meet between a navy job and the newspaper.

>>4297696
The white man's mode.

>>4299014
>the neo nazi chud mode
seeing as rightoids are tranny animal rapists and pedos who drink bleach and chug horse dewormer because trump told them to, i just removed the auto mode contact from under the dial to retard proof my camera

>>4298990
damn that's a shitload of text I didn't read just now

>>4299021
>butthurt
If you didn't read it, you wouldn't have even replied.

What part made you angry? Fujislugs being shitty photographers or garry winogrand being good? Or was it just the part where you were wrong about settings not mattering and more effort resulting in better work (the faux-artists bane)...

Save face and go cry in silence now

>>4297696
>Why people frown upon it?

Because most of the time it's more convenient to fix iso, manually control aperture or speed and then adjust exposure with the proper dial.
Auto is great, but more often than not it just result in a snapshot with everything in focus. It really depends by the subject btw.

>>4299091
My auto mode randomly decides to go full bokeh or shoot landscapes at f4 and accidentally the foreground

We use auto once or twice to complain about it. Its a mode that belongs on small sensor, low resolution cameras but not the opposite.

>>4299024
>butthurt
sorry i was taking photos of hot naked girls vaginas what is it that you wanted to say about my camera settings

>>4299254
oof pathetic larp. why are americans so scared of knowledge and doing things right?

just shoot aperture priority like everyone else

File: 1711724334988.jpg (64 KB, 900x535)

64 KB JPG

>>4299271
in the studio or with flash it's always full manual for me. street without flash im usually on full auto.

who the fuck cares? this has nothing to do with photography

>>4299279
>Street
>Photography
Lul

>>4297696
You might as well go with A or S. I never use P.

>>4299015
Meds.

I was so dedicated to manual mode but now when I do things on the move the lighting and focus changes a hundred times. Cant do that in manual man

P for Professionals
A for Autists
S for Sluts
M for Maniacs
Auto for Autodidacts

>>4297696
I use the auto mode for shooting automobiles like God intended

>>4297696
The photographer is supposed to control two things.
Motion (Shutter speed)
Appearance (Aperture, DOF)

Letting your camera fuck with these is just asking for thiings to go wrong.
AutoISO and a general understanding of shutter speed and aperture should be all the automation you need or want.

What brand has the BEST auto mode???

>>4300878
>The photographer is supposed to control two things.
While I agree in a way, it depends on what kind of photography you do. In my case I completely automate everything with P (professional) mode and just adjust exposure compensation and zoom for a better composition.

A combo of crop sensors with slowish lenses just makes DOF irrelevant. Using less or more exposure compensation will bring the shutter speed up or down according to your needs so what's the point of trying to manually control some parameters that are less useful than composition and exposure? No amount of DOF will make a difference if it's under exposed and motion can be appropriately captured if you use an ample range of autoISO.

>>4297701
ai doesn't compensate for lack of composition lol

>>4302034
DoF aside, aperture still plays a huge role in how the image looks. Sharpness, CA, coma, vignetting, bokeh rendering (even if minimal), sunstars, diffraction, etc, can all change a lot based on aperture. If you use mediocre lenses, probably don't care about that stuff anyways I guess.

>>4302058

In my field, which is social media (for portraiture it's M mode all the way), most people are more than fine with iphone photos, but a phone isn't ergonomic enough for hundreds of photos and not made for tethering in real time for my art director to monitor. I can't be fiddling around in changing conditions anyways.

This talk is meaningless anyways as it seems we don't work on the same industry but I still advocate for P mode unless you are in a studio with fixed lighting but for everything else it will help you to actually create a better composition and nail the very best exposure, again, in changing conditions.

There's no single solution for everyone but there's the constant that most clients value work ethics, good delivery times and pleasing compositions way more than extreme sharpness or bokeh.

>>4302074
People are "fine" with iphone photos but deep down even the normies know iphone photos have a "look" and it's NOT as good let alone better than a real camera

Unless you're like ken rockwell, then you turn on auto mode and rape your photos until you can't tell your canon r5 from an iphone 15, after writing a tldr gear rant about how nikon isn't your friend any more

>>4302074
P mode is ok for "say cheese" style shooting depicting 1-2 people or a frappucino on a table following typical prosumer stylistic fashions. Maybe if you have a super dogshit camera like a snoy a6600 without full controls and a kit lens P mode is a bit easier and mostly does the same thing.

Basically everyone else is either using manual with auto ISO or aperture priority. Sports, weddings, events, higher end portraiture, product photography, real estate photography, hobby photography such as landscapes and street, none of these really get along well with P mode let alone auto unless you hate yourself and your client.

>>4302075
Why do you generalize so much? You should drop that r9k incel attitude because if SOME people are fine with iphone quality photos then it's just easy money right? You can easily do that, right anon? They still notice the difference between a real camera and a phone but they would rather work with an easy going guy than an opinionated gearfag.

You just have to use the correct tool for the job, people have different needs. Ken understood that pretty quickly and it seems he has made quite some money from it.

>>4297696
Gatekeepers

>>4302076
You said it yourself sport, for some jobs you might need the other modes. P mode works fine as you can program it in either direction for more DOF or shutter speed with a single dial. What camera you use is irrelevant.

>Basically everyone else is either using manual with auto ISO or aperture priority

Who is that group you are referring to? Your friends in the gearfag general? Is the general consensus on 4chan the absolute truth?

>P mode is ok for "say cheese" style shooting depicting 1-2 people or a frappucino on a table following typical prosumer stylistic fashions

A person who has this kind of opinions, apart from being an incel, definitely doesn't do photography for a living.

>>4302087
>Who is that group you are referring to? Your friends in the gearfag general? Is the general consensus on 4chan the absolute truth?
Every other wedding and portrait photographer, most sports photographers.

I've never wanted to or had to touch P mode. I've never seen anyone else even use it. Maybe it's because of the "quirky" controls on canons (if they never fixed them), but everyone I know shoots 80% sony 10% nikon 10% fuji.

>>4302081
>he doesnt know
What people say rudely on 4chan is barely even visible through their actions - "everyone knows phones look a bit shit" on 4chan just translates to not using a phone for photography. What kind of a retard thinks people saying faggot retard fucker here are really saying the same thing in real life? As far as you know I'm ghandi's cousin.

>ken made quite some money
Last I heard he fabricated his entire photography career after a newspaper stint and what actually happened was he sold a condo for several million and retired early. He has no professional portfolio for prospective clients, nothing to back up claims of shooting for impressive sounding corporate clients, so if he did anything he shot a photo of mcnuggets for the drive thru menu.

>>4302089
Yeah I can see them needing those modes, different people value different things. In my humble opinion and with all due respect to you sir, one less dial or button to worry about the better I can compose my picture, but that's me. The world is big, and keeps getting bigger, social media and reels are huge now. P mode is not a big deal, it just saves you from adjusting one or two more variables, it can be useful in some other fields other than the ones you mentioned.

>>4302096
Well I read all his "how-to" posts, they make sense and are useful to a degree. Don't care about anything else and as you said, anything can be stated as fact on the internet but you can read between the lines and see who's real and who's not.

>>4302099
There are actually productivity issues with P mode.

It drifts in some direction or another without you knowing, and then you have to program shift. With a priority mode or manual+auto ISO, you can predict what the infernal machine spirit is going to do much better when you pick the camera up. Worst case scenario, shutter speed will be too slow if you're being a low ISO sperg, or the photo comes out a little noisy (means nothing these days). But in most cases it's 400 to 1600 or f/8 1/sync speed and forget it.

Program shift and DOF/SS priority work and are configured differently on different cameras, and the way P mode drifts and guesses scenes is different from camera to camera. A/S/M work the same on every camera so it's easy to rent or borrow up a loaner body or share gear and work like nothing ever changed (except the auto ISO feature in priority modes, which I avoid anyways, and the buttons on very customized snoys). I would prefer to rent two bodies and three zooms for a wedding, than have my personal camera be a wedding photography setup, locked in to the tech of today, for a premium that I paid rather than a client, so consistent workflows between random cameras is important.

>>4302074
There's just never a point where I don't care about aperture at all, because of everything I listed. If I'm going to be in P, and have to program shift to go to the aperture I want, I might as well be in A. I like the automation P offers, but I get the same through A, with better control and less error ("wrong" aperture).
Can we see some of your photos for a frame of reference?

>>4302099
ken cant keep his mcdonalds client stories straight and has nothing like a portfolio unless hes the worlds worst realestate photographer. he also has an entire page implicitly admitting that he makes literally everything up.

>aperture on manual
>shutter on auto, but set a min of 125
>iso on auto, but set a max of 3200
Kneel

File: robin-4.jpg (3.7 MB, 2560x2048)

3.7 MB JPG

>>4297696
most likely elitism and/or trying to help people actually learn exposure settings(probably the latter but coming off as assholes). Auto can cause a lot of issues and be frustrating to new users when it doesn't work or provide piss poor results. Understanding exposure helps a lot when actually editing the raws in general. But if you're completely new and don't want to tinker auto with jpeg out will suffice for the majority of people not trying to get the absolute best shot and just doing general photos of the family and videos not caring about peak IQ.

I'm new to cameras, but took all of 5 minutes to understand the histogram, manual settings, auto iso, I set my shutterspeed for the light I need and fstops for how much of a inclusion I want, it's obscenely simple.
>>4302119
>iso limits to 3200
homie even my cheapass canon r50 is fine at 6400(pushing above it starts getting iffy on my cheap rfs55-210 but is relatively okay on my rf50mm 1.8f. If you have a better quality camera(especially a ff) you should be fine bumping it up.
Pic rel at iso 6400

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R50
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 7.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:02 18:25:42
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	210.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4303412
Even with lightrooms notoriously strong color denoise and possible AI cope I can see the green haze in the birds feathers, and its face almost looks out of focus. Good enough to print sharpness wise, but the subtle greening in the feathers is bad. Above ISO 3200 shoot B&W or go max AI cope on it.

>elitism
Nah, auto mode is genuinely nonfunctional. Make your $1000 camera work like a phone mode (but its higher resolution so there's just motion blur here and there instead of copeutational copetography smears everywhere). Shutter speed is extremely important. Aperture is extremely important on aps-c and larger. ISO is either unimportant or very important depending on what you shoot (two different photographers evenings: 1/2000s f8 birds, 1/250s f5.6 backs of heads).

I started taking pics on a 100% mechanical film camera. I have since bought a "automatic" camera, and in my personal opinion the ease of capturing quick moments with the autotragic setting is great. Sure I CAN set it all up and frame it manually, and on a static subject thats fine, but the chance of missing the show if its not is so much higher.

File: dandylions.jpg (2.94 MB, 2048x1365)

2.94 MB JPG

>>4303421
>green haze in the birds feathers
NE american robins have green in their feathers, even white chested robins have a bit of green on their neck and chest specifically on the bristle plumes or whatever their called(I'm a fish and snake guy, don't know much about birds).
Face part I agree with, however I think that was due to the AF selection I made and messed up, used dot when I should have used point for the distance I was at. Think I had my camera for 2 weeks at this point so was still getting used to quick setting AF selections and using AF thumb drag(still am desu).

>above iso 3200 shoot b&w
lmfao, just lol.
Guess you should tell every award winning wildlife and wedding photographer that they're in the wrong for shooting above 3200 iso kek.
Like I mentioned, auto mode has a lot of issues, but for people not caring about IQ or the BEST image aren't going to really care. Dunno why they'd buy a standalone in the first place as most phones would suffice but their money their happiness.
We're on a niche board on a Mongolian throat singing blog, of course we're going to be enthusiasts and focus on improving but 90% of people aren't going that deep with it unless they treat it like a hobby.
Regardless of how we personally feel as long as they're happy with their results who gives a fuck, offer advice and if they want it.
>pic rel a 12800iso test I did of under a clay eroded hill with dramatic color changes,
Handled it surprisingly well for a bottom end body and lens, I limit mine to 6400 personally but if I had a FF I'd easily be able to go up another stop.
Most wildlife photgraphers on a full frame(hell even higher end high density crops) usually have 12800 as their end bracket if they use auto iso.

Eitherway, good luck mang and enjoy your process.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R50
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 7.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:03:30 20:16:26
Exposure Time	1/2500 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	12800
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	210.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4303440
forgot to add, I didn't edit out any of the color aberrations in editing for that image(you can see some greening on the dead leaves towards the outside of the lens), distance was about 15ish yards.
Was a fun little test and a cool contrast I saw while fishing for trout.

>>4303440
That's not natural feather green, that's the green/purple shit that's left over in finely detailed areas because noise reduction algorithms dont know what the fuck is going on there and bayer noise is predominantly green and purple (2 green 1 red 1 blue)

You can get rid of most of it by turning moire reduction up all the way, which is the same thing that happens when fuji files get demosaiced. Then transition between certain hues are reduced but that's also a fuji look.

>Guess you should tell every award winning wildlife and wedding photographer that they're in the wrong for shooting above 3200 iso kek.
A lot of these people have used multi-program workflows for denoise

All auto exposure modes are inherently dysfunctional on DSLRs, because you can't see how the exposure will turn out until you take the picture.

>>4303440
Those are not dandelions, anon.

>>4297797
They do.

>>4300462
lol

blows out ISO
no DoF control
no optimal aperture lens sharpness
no control over shutter speed on fast subjects
if you meter your shots you don't need it

>>4297696
>Why people frown upon it?
Because, while it will try to give you a relatively fast, adequately exposed frame, the outcome is commonly not what you set out to achieve.
Exposure too long, too short, too much or even too little grain, too much movement or not enough, etc...

>>4304345
I generally go manual and use the I AM SHOOTING system (IAS)

ISO first
Aperture
Speed

Once you have chosen an ISO and Aperture you think will suit your shot, you just have to play with the speed to get the exposure you need.

>>4304347
Why not just use aperture priority and exposure compensation? It's the same thing but faster

>>4304349
Pretty sure he's trolling

>>4304352
idk, maybe. But for a long time I actually did the thing he is suggesting because I didn't really understand the pasm modes.

>>4304353
Well the reason why has been answered many times in this thread. Doing anything manually makes people think they're really photographers and more skilled.

>>4304349
That works too. In fact that was how I shot for a long time, but full Manual just gives you a bit more control over varying the shot.

File: c8054b9b-098b-4f06-b757-e(...).gif (330 KB, 400x211)

330 KB GIF

>>4304360
>Doing anything manually makes people think they're really photographers and more skilled.

File: Nikon-FA-3-2223555333.jpg (75 KB, 1080x672)

75 KB JPG

>>4297696
Fuckin neeerds hate seeing SPASM on their cameras bc they want to think of making image as being some exercise in purity. I love it. I shoot on programmed automagic all the time, jpg never raw, and throw out every third image just for lulz bc I'm ken fuckin rockwell and I am a goddamn photo theory arsonist.

Just don't use P you dorks, A is useful, S for those instances (you know em), B when you really need to get jiggy wit it. M when you just need to set A & S & want to fuck up your shit with some crazy fucking iso and make a pointillist painting out of your image because why not.

This shit is sophisticated AF. Matrix metering, AIS, SPASM, this thing is practically magic.

>>4304376
If you don't know how to shoot manual, it's okay, you can just say that.

>>4297696
Because PASM is dogshit if you're not a subhuman wedding "photographer".
Auto is fine though.

>>4304600
>Has a retarded gear opinion and brings up a vitriolic hatred of wedding photographers
Lemme guess, "just put A settings on every dial and make the camera look like a pentax k1000"
-Fujislug
-Leica lolcow
-Nikon Zfool
Call it