I don't need a meter!

[tripod]

Some people find it a revelation that they can take a picture at all without a meter. It is liberating to realize that using some guidelines like sunny-16 and the film box recommendations that it is indeed possible. That's all what this is about. No need for the high school debating club here.

 

[Sparrow]

However should a novice read these joyful sunny 16 threads he would be likely to be mislead into thinking it was in some way better and it’s not, it’s just one way, and shouldn’t be presented as being “better”
I use it in good light but I also admit to carrying a grey-card and in incident meter, it needs balance

 

[shadowfox]

However should a novice read these joyful sunny 16 threads he would be likely to be mislead into thinking it was in some way better and it’s not, it’s just one way, and shouldn’t be presented as being “better”
I use it in good light but I also admit to carrying a grey-card and in incident meter, it needs balance

Now Stewart, that's rather cold (or cloudy )

No one who likes to use the rule says it's "better", I don't recall anybody in this thread said that.

It's liberating, it's fun, it's cool, it's perplexing sometimes at how well it works. It's not "better" than the spotmeter on an expensive Minolta lightmeter, if we categorize "better" as in "accurate".

Although I submit that it will make a beginner a "better" photographer in the end. Why? because it educates him about the interplay between his camera with the existing light. Which in the end will help him to use whatever meter he had at hand more efficiently.

Like some asked early in the thread (and I paraphrase) "if you had five glasses of beer, would you still be accurate?"

to that I say, when I had five beer, I'd be reaching for the designated camera with AE usually an Olympus OM-4.

... that is if I still can pick up anything after I picked up myself from the floor (not a beer drinker)

 

[Sparrow]

Now Stewart, that's rather cold (or cloudy )

No one who likes to use the rule says it's "better", I don't recall anybody in this thread said that.

It's liberating, it's fun, it's cool, it's perplexing sometimes at how well it works. It's not "better" than the spotmeter on an expensive Minolta lightmeter, if we categorize "better" as in "accurate".

Although I submit that it will make a beginner a "better" photographer in the end. Why? because it educates him about the interplay between his camera with the existing light. Which in the end will help him to use whatever meter he had at hand more efficiently.

Like some asked early in the thread (and I paraphrase) "if you had five glasses of beer, would you still be accurate?"

to that I say, when I had five beer, I'd be reaching for the designated camera with AE usually an Olympus OM-4.

... that is if I still can pick up anything after I picked up myself from the floor (not a beer drinker)

Sorry Will I just think there’s a tendency in these threads to exaggerate what’s possible, and glorifies the method, I use it when I can and meter the rest of the time and that’s the advise I would give, that’s not what comes out of these threads is it?

Try practicing more with the beer thing :angel:

 

[Roger Hicks]

... a statement which is untrue - that one can judge exposure without a meter. One cannot.

For the same reason I disagree with people who say they can . . . control the weather with a dance. They cannot, and I say so.

Close is not accurate. Close is close. What is it the military likes to say? "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades."

The first para is blind repetition of your opinion, or perhaps of your definition. Either way, it is clearly disputable, or you wouldn't have as many people disputing it.

Funnily enough, I have seen Tibetan weather controllers at work. But that is another story.

The basic misconception lies in the third para. There is no such thing as 'accurate' exposure. There is only the exposure that gives the effect you want -- and in that respect, exposure is a lot closer to a hand grenade than a sniper's bullet. What 'accuracy' to you demand, after all? 1 stop? 1/3 stop? 1/10 stop? 1/100 stop?

With most modern films, you can record a far greater range than can be reproduced half-way naturally in a print. If it were not so, you could not over-expose by two stops (sometimes more) and still get a printable image of a sunny day with a brightness range of well over 256:1. Very rarely, without special development, do you get up onto the shoulder of the material.

My reference to my book was not self-aggrandizement. It was merely to reinforce that yes, often meters are very useful. If I believed you could always guess with perfect accuracy, I should hardly have written it.

But I also believe -- nay, I KNOW, with the same conviction as you swear to KNOW the opposite -- that I (and many others) can judge exposure.

Finally, simple memorization (like 7x6) won't wash. I can go somewhere I have never been; shoot a subject I have never seen; and still judge the exposure to give the same reading as a meter. Yes, I am using memories of similar situations -- but I am sythesizing quite a lot of memories, and if you choose to say that this is not judgement, I am somewhat at a loss as to what you might define as judgement.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[ferider]

Come on, guys, it is clearly a matter of what and how you photograph:

• if you are in the streets, with a super wide angle around noon on a sunny day, shooting kissing couples from behind, and not caring where in the zone system you land - you don't need a meter.
• indoors, for steady light, I need to measure once or twice, sometimes more when the light changes, or to get ratios and/or color.
• in the golden hours, when the sun adds/removes stops by the minute, you care for where you end up wrt zone system, you possibly use less tolerant film -> you need a meter. Heck, even with a meter I often bracket. And yes, you can use rangefinders then.

I don't do "street" so I need a meter, at least on occasion

Cheers,

Roland.

PS: and no, even the most experienced electrician can not measure voltage with his/her tongue, at least not above 100 V or so.

 

[Sparrow]

You should do a recipe for split hairs Roger

 

[sirius]

Erring on the side of one stop overexposure because most films respond well to that (finer grain) and keep a lot of information in their highlights, here are two guidelines that I've found useful when shooting indoors:

ISO 400
subject well lit by incandescent light: f2 1/30
flourescent light (and diffused window light): f2.8 1/60

Try it! I hope that' useful!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry Will I just think there’s a tendency in these threads to exaggerate what’s possible, and glorifies the method

Dear Stewart,

Possibly. I hadn't seen it that way. But a lot depends on words such as 'possible' and 'better'. A surprising amount is possible; and sometimes, yes, it is 'better' to go out with an old Retina in your pocket and guess exposures. You can enjoy yourself, and you can get some good pictures. How much better does it get? (At least in photography).

Anyone who says that guessing will give better exposures, more often, is clearly deluding himself. But that's not what I was intending to say. All I'm saying -- and I stick by it -- is that a lot of the time, you can get the exposure you want, without using a meter, and that if you don't regard this as 'judging' exposure, you are using rather strange definitions of 'judgement'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Erring on the side of one stop overexposure because most films respond well to that (finer grain) and keep a lot of information in their highlights, here are two guidelines that I've found useful when shooting indoors:

ISO 400
subject well lit by incandescent light: f2 1/30
flourescent light (and diffused window light): f2.8 1/60

Try it! I hope that' useful!

Finer grain only with colour or chromogenics; coarser grain with conventional B+W. And ALWAYS lower sharpness with increased exposure, regardless of film type.

But these effects are often trivial compared with getting the picture, so I heartily agree with your advice to err on the side of generous exposure.

Cheers,

R.

 

[varjag]

I don't do "street" so I need a meter, at least on occasion

I do street but need a meter on occasions

PS: and no, even the most experienced electrician can not measure voltage with his/her tongue, at least not above 100 V or so.

Well, didn't I specifically talk about batteries? Household cells, not submarine accumulators of course.

There are only a handful of voltage levels available, and yes you can recognize them by "bite". Over 9 volt it gets uncomfortable quickly. No sane electrician would ever do it, I learned it when I was a kid Still can use it to test if a cell is fresh or near-dead though.

Last year at one production facility we had a problem with seemingly flawless devices failing erratically during QA procedure. I found the problem because my hand, wearing anti-static collar, itched slightly. Turned out it was ungrounded power supply and we had 50V on unit casings.

So don't discard good old human senses

 

[ferider]

Last year at one production facility we had a problem with seemingly flawless devices failing erratically during QA procedure. I found the problem because my hand, wearing anti-static collar, itched slightly. Turned out it was ungrounded power supply and we had 50V on unit casings.

So don't discard good old human senses

Phrased like this, you are right, of course. And you were lucky !!!

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Stewart,

Possibly. I hadn't seen it that way. But a lot depends on words such as 'possible' and 'better'. A surprising amount is possible; and sometimes, yes, it is 'better' to go out with an old Retina in your pocket and guess exposures. You can enjoy yourself, and you can get some good pictures. How much better does it get? (At least in photography).

Anyone who says that guessing will give better exposures, more often, is clearly deluding himself. But that's not what I was intending to say. All I'm saying -- and I stick by it -- is that a lot of the time, you can get the exposure you want, without using a meter, and that if you don't regard this as 'judging' exposure, you are using rather strange definitions of 'judgement'.

Cheers,

R.

Meter something in the scene you’re photographing that you want to be 18% grey in the finished image, and then process the print to do the same. That’s accurate in my book.

Judgment is an informed guess, however well informed there remains an element of guesswork, yes?

 

[merlin]

I have recently bought an M4, so this has been an ideal opportunity to work on my sunny 16. I had no idea it was going to be so easy. I've been carrying a meter to double check my guesses, but really it's not necessary, at least outdoors. I can't believe how easy it is!

For anyone else who is considering a meterless body but put off by fear of being unable to expose correctly, give it a try. It's very liberating!

Outdoors it IS easy, indoors much less so. I've been meterless in 35mmRF for decades because I enjoy the thought process of it all. Even with chromes back in the 70's and 80's I never missed the mark often enough to justify fussing with a meter outdoors. Not everybody's cup-o-tea and there are plenty of good arguments against this approach, but it works for non-professional me.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Meter something in the scene you’re photographing that you want to be 18% grey in the finished image, and then process the print to do the same. That’s accurate in my book.

Judgment is an informed guess, however well informed there remains an element of guesswork, yes?

Dear Stewart,

For the second, yes. But no matter how carefully metered, there is also an element of guesswork in determing a metered exposure: you use the same experience you need for 'guessing' exposures, after all.

For the former, you've been reading the wrong book.

Neg film speeds are based on shadow density i.e. the darkest area with texture and detail.

Reversal film speeds are based on highlight density, i.e. the brightest area with texture and detail.

An 'average' scene has a reflectivity of 12-14 per cent.

A Munsell mid-tone (the tone that most will pick as a 'mid grey' when shown a row of cards ranging from black to white) is 18 per cent but it is unclear where the totemic status of the grey card came from.

The first successful spot meters (SEI) didn't even give a 'mid-tone' reading, because it's all but useless. Later spot meters started to incorporate them for people who didn't understand neg, tranny and subject brightness range.

A grey card is a poor substitute for an incident light meter. It can be pressed into service to take exposure readings, but as no film speed is based on 18% grey, it's an approximation, and in many circumstances, not a very good one.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sirius]

Finer grain only with colour or chromogenics; coarser grain with conventional B+W. And ALWAYS lower sharpness with increased exposure, regardless of film type.

But these effects are often trivial compared with getting the picture, so I heartily agree with your advice to err on the side of generous exposure.

Cheers,

R.

Thanks Roger. I didn't know sharpness decreased with overexposure. I have noticed the grain is coarser on my really over-exposed tri-x. It's not that pretty! It's nice to know what that is all about. But, the slightly over-exposed shots just seem to have lots of nice detail in the shadows.

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Stewart,

For the second, yes. But no matter how carefully metered, there is also an element of guesswork in determing a metered exposure: you use the same experience you need for 'guessing' exposures, after all.

For the former, you've been reading the wrong book.

Neg film speeds are based on shadow density i.e. the darkest area with texture and detail.

Reversal film speeds are based on highlight density, i.e. the brightest area with texture and detail.

An 'average' scene has a reflectivity of 12-14 per cent.

A Munsell mid-tone (the tone that most will pick as a 'mid grey' when shown a row of cards ranging from black to white) is 18 per cent but it is unclear where the totemic status of the grey card came from.

The first successful spot meters (SEI) didn't even give a 'mid-tone' reading, because it's all but useless. Later spot meters started to incorporate them for people who didn't understand neg, tranny and subject brightness range.

A grey card is a poor substitute for an incident light meter. It can be pressed into service to take exposure readings, but as no film speed is based on 18% grey, it's an approximation, and in many circumstances, not a very good one.

Cheers,

R.

I disagree the subjective element is in the area selected, I can pick highlight or shadow dependant on film, conditions and artistic interpretation
From that point on everything is measurable and the meter is only being used as a comparator so need not be accurate itself it just needs to be consistent to maintain the systems integrity
I believe the 18% grey came out of the early movie industry’s need for consistency, Munsell’s theory when I did it 30 years ago made no mention of it

 

[polaski]

Sometimes, when walking down the street, I'll take a base reading with a meter, set my exposure, and adjust it without another reading if the light conditions change. After an hour, I'll take another reading to see if I am very far off.

I wonder which category I fall into.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks Roger. I didn't know sharpness decreased with overexposure. I have noticed the grain is coarser on my really over-exposed tri-x. It's not that pretty! It's nice to know what that is all about. But, the slightly over-exposed shots just seem to have lots of nice detail in the shadows.

And superb proof of that! Beautiful tonality!

Which is (of course) an excellent illustration of the fact that exposure is an endless series of trade-offs. The loss of sharpness, and increased grain, with extra exposure, is a far smaller price than the collapse of tonality with under-exposure. Where the trade-off is best is very much a question of personal taste, i.e. there is no such thing as 'accurate' exposure.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

Sometimes, when walking down the street, I'll take a base reading with a meter, set my exposure, and adjust it without another reading if the light conditions change. After an hour, I'll take another reading to see if I am very far off.

I wonder which category I fall into.

i suspect that falls into the common sense category, that's why they tarmac roads; so we can get a decent reading off them