The M3 - now I am really learning photography

[gb hill]

Way to go Akiva. Ya know I have realized, especially after getting the Bessa R that I've become so dependent on that red LED. It's a habit that is hard to break, especially when you want to be creative or try something different!

 

[richreidjr]

Some of my favorite shots were made when I wasnt even holding the camera.. This M3 is just a pleasure to use.

 

[tennis-joe]

I love that combo of the M3, Nikkor lens (1.4 or 2.0) and the I phone.
Joe

 

[Roger Hicks]

1966-69, I normally had the accessory meter installed on my first 'real' camera, a Pentax SV, and normally used it.

Then in 1969 I borrowed my girlfriend's Leica II, and when she wanted it back, bought a IIIa (which I still have). Go to http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/leicaphilia.html and the first picture shows the camera (now 75 years old), the second, the girlfriend (then 17 years old). Well, after all, I've still got the camera, and she married someone else (so did I).

As long as you're paying attention, you learn to guess most exposures remarkably accurately. No, the human eye can't measure light, but the human brain can do an impressive amount of analysis.

Nowadays, I still use a meter when there's time, but generally, I set the aperture and shutter speed and check them with the meter. When we disagree (surprisingly rarely), it's probably 50/50 who's right.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Stravinsky]

... So here I am, a photog buff of 35 years (started out with a Nikkormat FTN (still have it)) and I am learning the part of photography I pretty much skipped because I grew up on internal camera meters. Life is good and oh so unpredictable.😀

Funny Akiva, I started to photograph in the 80s with the Nikon FTn my father dropped for a new FE, and since Christmas I have my first meterless 35mm camera: a Leica M3!

No need to say I am enjoying until the last bit the learning curve... On top of that I started to develop my rolls..!

Have a nice light. Andrea

 

[robklurfield]

The brain is clearly the variable that, for most of us, can always be upgraded infinitely and at a low cost. Having to think about how to expose to get what you want is challenging, fun and great for learning. All the years that I let the camera do some or all of that for me, were a great step backward in many ways. Way to go Akiva! A beautiful mind is a terrible thing to waste. (On the flipside: going meterless will probably waste a few frames, but film is still relatively cheap and few things teach as well as making mistakes and figuring them out. Lord knows, I've wasted quite a few frames recently.)

 

[Ronny]

Yes, see with the eyes and calculate with the brain = Sunny 16.

 

[Keith]

I agree with all this and really enjoy going meterless because it does sharpen up the brain and you tend to appreciate the light that's there.

But when the shot really matters and I have the time I will always use an incident meter.

 

[cliffpov]

Cool thread.

I was wondering if anyone here has perfected this science (or art) to the point where they rarely screw up the shot by reading the light wrong. Or maybe I should ask if there are/were any famous photographers who could routinely meter by reading the light and not reading a meter?

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

I had a tricky situation this past week.

I had T-max 400 loaded in the Olympus 35SP and a Yellow Filter on.
I wanted available light shooting, so I chose 1600 ISO cut down to 800 by the filter. I didn't want to depend on the AE too much but it was hard moving in and out of f16 Sunlight into the f5.6 shadows.

In the end, i overcompensated on exposure, most of the shots were overexposed which isn't a bad thing, but several of them were severely overexposed.

"Choud" Bazaar, Kabul.
Tmax 400, ei of 800 with yellow filter, developed for 1600 with Tmax Developer. Olympus 35SP

 

[Roger Hicks]

Cool thread.

I was wondering if anyone here has perfected this science (or art) to the point where they rarely screw up the shot by reading the light wrong. Or maybe I should ask if there are/were any famous photographers who could routinely meter by reading the light and not reading a meter?

'Routinely', yes, 'invariably', no. You can get better and better at it, perhaps until you outperform an uninterpreted meter reading. But everyone gets it wrong sometimes. It's just a question of how often 'sometimes' is, and of whether 'wrong' can be recovered by a good enough printer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[paulfish4570]

"The brain is clearly the variable that, for most (of) us, can always be upgraded infinitely and at a low cost." - a beautifully turned phrase, Roger.

 

[robklurfield]

damn. although I write for a living, I can hardly avoid dropping words when I'm typing. terrible. thanks for catching my missing "of," Paul. Ooooops!

"The brain is clearly the variable that, for most (of) us, can always be upgraded infinitely and at a low cost." - a beautifully turned phrase, Roger.

 

[Pirate]

I would love to get an M3 one of these days to go along with my MP.

I'd love to get an MP one of these days to go with my M3.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

"The brain is clearly the variable that, for most (of) us, can always be upgraded infinitely and at a low cost." - a beautifully turned phrase, Roger.

^ +1, +2, +3 !!!

Cheers,

Juan