Teach me how to get rid of the light meter

[mhv]

Using a meter or not, AE or not, should not be about purity or any other kind of romantic notion of harder=better. You use AE when it's useful and reliable; you use a meter when you need accuracy of light reading; and you don't use a meter when you have a good reason for using a meterless camera and you don't feel like carrying extra gear.

To me that's the extent at which various exposure determination strategies are decided. Yes, there is the learning aspect, and that is important, but only for a certain time. Knowing how to use AE properly is as valuable (and somehow equivalent) as using guesstimation or interpreting a light meter's reading.

 

[Rico]

I estimated exposure in the '70s because I had no meter. Then I got a Nikon FM2, and got hooked on das blinkenlights. On returning to a meterless camera in 2003, I wanted to regain the old skill, so... I bought a meter! Carried it around for weeks, guessing the EV and checking against incident readings. It's mildly entertaining, plus you start to see things in a new light (ha, ha).

With or without a meter, I think in EV @ 100 ASA. If I forget to bring it (or am lazy), I have the following gross guidelines:

EV 15 - daylight
EV 12 - open shade
EV 9 - skylight at dawn
EV 6 - office lighting
EV 3 - living room in a dark corner
EV 0 - I can't see my camera settings

Of course, there are endless modifiers. Outdoors, the sky dome is a major light source, and the degree to which it is obstructed (by trees, walls, etc) must be calculated.

I agree with Stephanie that slides require a meter, or well-known conditions like broad daylight.

 

[PetarDima]

Hello Ruben, thank's for starting this topic.
About 3 years ago I started to
:bang: with exposure problem ... film or digital, good exposure is start for good prints or post-processing in photo software. I've started with exposure guide on Konica films ... and if I remember correct, I have problems(from start) with 1/250 sec. speed at 5.6 at shadows ... many photos was underexposed.
Than, with great interest for low - light photography, I was very, very cofused... new beginning, again. In general, I have about 100 rolls of film behind( maybe less ) and I don't have corect exposure on shots 🙁
I will share with you thoughts of one master of photography - he said:
take 20 rolls of same ISO film & shoot in all light conditions ... take a paper and pencil to have details about every shot and soon you will learn how to take photos with good exposure.
My main problem now is diference between areas with strong light( sunny day on street - f:11 exp: 1/250 for ISO 100 - is it O.K.?)- and deep shadows:
which setting is right: f:5.6, f:4 or stop down at 1/250 ???

 

[Xmas]

Ruben

If you arn't going to post the meter to me for safe keeping, then keep it in your pocket, shoot, then get the meter out and see your mistake...

Of course you dont need to waste a frame.

Using a meter is more difficult than guessing, finding an average tone etc.

Noel

 

[nightfly]

I have to disagree with Bill's saying that not using a meter involves some kind of perverse pride or lack of control.

Once you get it, it becomes second nature and you gain control over your exposure and it mirrors what you are seeing or what you are trying to bring out, not some abstract reading of 18% gray.

I would say to the contrary that slavish devotion to a meter takes away your control. I'm sure people who really know how to use a meter can overcome this and bring creativity to it, but I would contend that people who know how to go meterless have this same level of control.

I think in this case the problem is the concept of accuracy. It presupposes that there is a "right" exposure and that you are trying to get to this.

There are probably styles of shooting where it could be a hindrance but for things like street shooting which an RF's other quirks are uniquely suited, metering by eye totally makes sense.

I found for example that when I was shooting with a Mamiya 6 on aperture priority, that my film didn't quite look like what I was used to, because the meter in the camera was making choices differently than I would have resulting in exposures that were often not what I expected. Granted I'm certainly not an expert with metered cameras and the tricks of using one on aperture priority, but in tricky lighting conditions (Patagonia with lots of refelction, glaciers etc) I got some surprises using the P mode which weren't pleasant.

I'm really surprised that people think this is such a big deal one way or another. Just do it and learn. Or don't.

 

[bmattock]

I have to disagree with Bill's saying that not using a meter involves some kind of perverse pride or lack of control.

That is precisely what it is.

Once you get it, it becomes second nature and you gain control over your exposure and it mirrors what you are seeing or what you are trying to bring out, not some abstract reading of 18% gray.

No. You become a more experienced guesser, not unlike the guy at the carnival who guesses your weight for a buck.

I would say to the contrary that slavish devotion to a meter takes away your control. I'm sure people who really know how to use a meter can overcome this and bring creativity to it, but I would contend that people who know how to go meterless have this same level of control.

I agree that using a meter without understanding how a meter works does take away control. People who have learned to guess well, have learned to guess well. Since they can only aim for the middle - an 'acceptable' exposure with a margin of error, they have no control over their exposure in reality. It is a hand grenade effect - close works most of the time. If you're trying to get something specific accomplished, it probably is not the right way to go about it.

I think in this case the problem is the concept of accuracy. It presupposes that there is a "right" exposure and that you are trying to get to this.

Not at all. It presupposes that if you take the time to carefully adjust your focus and aperture to give precisely the focus and depth of field you choose, if you carefully frame and compose your scene, you may also wish to carefully adjust your exposure to give the exact exposure you wish to record. In that case, the 'right' exposure is the exposure you choose, instead of the exposure a meter stupidly selects for you, or that you spit-ball guess yourself.

There are probably styles of shooting where it could be a hindrance but for things like street shooting which an RF's other quirks are uniquely suited, metering by eye totally makes sense.

When I shoot 'street' style photography, I tend to either use AE or to meter every so often and set exposure based upon an average that is unlikely to be too far out of the latitude of the film as I pass from light into shadow - a condition often found in city canyons. So I'd agree.

But there is a time and place for everything. If I am, like Ansel, using my camera on a tripod, and I wish to carefully control every aspect of a photograph that I can, exposure is another means of gaining creative control. And fine-tune control cannot be done by eyeball, regardless of your experience. It is a unique human trait that we are not good guessers, but we universally think we are.

Guess if you feel it appropriate, and be grateful when your film's lattitude saves you from embarrassment and ruined photos. But don't let's pretend you're taking creative control over your photography. No more so that the guys who throw cameras in the air and sometimes have interesting results.

I found for example that when I was shooting with a Mamiya 6 on aperture priority, that my film didn't quite look like what I was used to, because the meter in the camera was making choices differently than I would have resulting in exposures that were often not what I expected. Granted I'm certainly not an expert with metered cameras and the tricks of using one on aperture priority, but in tricky lighting conditions (Patagonia with lots of refelction, glaciers etc) I got some surprises using the P mode which weren't pleasant.

That's because meters are stupid. They do one thing, and if they are functioning properly, they do that one thing reasonably well. The instrument between your ears is what must learn to work the one in your camera.

I'm really surprised that people think this is such a big deal one way or another. Just do it and learn. Or don't.

Everyone should do as they wish, that is true. However, if I am the lone voice of reason, crying out to the lemmings that there is a cliff over yonder and perhaps they should rethink their route, so be it. Otherwise, go lemmings, go.

 

[Xmas]

When did I have my asbestos suit dry cleaned?

Noel

 

[Finder]

You can acheive exposures using a meter, a relative scale (sunny 16), or by experience. None is "better" than another, some may be more efficient or effective than another, but which one would depend on many factors. None of the methods are any more creative than any other - creativity is in a person, not a method. (This is why I use all three methods.)

There was a comment about accuracy. There seems to be a confusion between precision and accuracy. Meters are the most precise method, but not necessarily the most accurate.

 

[ruben]

Ruben

If you arn't going to post the meter to me for safe keeping, then keep it in your pocket, shoot, then get the meter out and see your mistake...

Of course you dont need to waste a frame.

Using a meter is more difficult than guessing, finding an average tone etc.

Noel

As said above by me and another two members, if you reverse the order you will loose pics but not frames:

a) guess the light level and exposure

b) take out your meter and see your byass

c) if your subject is still there - shoot

d) repeat this proceeding until you learn or until you get tired and then post a question to RFF. 😀

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[bmattock]

You can acheive exposures using a meter, a relative scale (sunny 16), or by experience. None is "better" than another, some may be more efficient or effective than another, but which one would depend on many factors.

Well, that would be wrong. Guessing is by far the worst method, by any yardstick.

None of the methods are any more creative than any other - creativity is in a person, not a method. (This is why I use all three methods.)

Creativity is one thing. Creative control is another. Creativity is painting your skies purple instead of blue. Creative control is being able to select the precise shade of purple you wish to use.

One can be creative with a Kodak Brownie, and in fact, I enjoy doing just that. My level of creative control is reduced to pointing and pressing the shutter release. I am often happy with results - but they are beyond my creative control.

There was a comment about accuracy. There seems to be a confusion between precision and accuracy. Meters are the most precise method, but not necessarily the most accurate.

That is because few people know how to use a meter. They attempt to use it as the directions and the sages say, they have problems, and they blame the meter or the metering system, if built into a camera.

If you understand a meter, and you understand exposure, you have precise control over the exposure of your photograph if you want it.

You cannot guess exposure and have that level of control. It is not possible. All the people who say they do, are mistaken. What they have is managed to guess their way into exposure that is acceptable to them (thus it is correct), but they do not have creative control over it. I can hit a pinata with a stick. But blindfold me, spin me around, and ask me to knock the ears off, that I cannot do. And neither can anyone else. No one has calibrated eyeballs.

 

[Xmas]

As said above by me and another two members, if you reverse the order you will loose pics but not frames:

a) guess the light level and exposure

b) take out your meter and see your byass

c) if your subject is still there - shoot

d) repeat this proceeding until you learn or until you get tired and then post a question to RFF. 😀

Cheers,
Ruben

Ok I accept and guess is bad I normally shoot, look at camera, groan, and either adjust & shoot or meter & shoot. Though metering tends to give away you might intend to take photos.

Noel

 

[sirius]

I don't really understand what you are arguing about, bmattock. We're talking about judging an 18% grey value without a meter. That's it. What you do to set your exposure after you have your benchmark is a different question.

I don't understand at all why you talk keep defining what is "creative" or not. As well, I don't understand why you even mention aperture priority.

I just read Ansel Adams book The Negative and is not all about slow contemplation. Rather, it is about training yourself to previsualize how the camera sees in order to use it as a tool to express how you FEEL about your subject. There's a whole chapter on hand-held photography where he uses Cartier-Bresson as an exemplar. Adams has a beautiful writing voice and many well considered ideas.

 

[Finder]

Well, that would be wrong. Guessing is by far the worst method, by any yardstick.



Creativity is one thing. Creative control is another. Creativity is painting your skies purple instead of blue. Creative control is being able to select the precise shade of purple you wish to use.

One can be creative with a Kodak Brownie, and in fact, I enjoy doing just that. My level of creative control is reduced to pointing and pressing the shutter release. I am often happy with results - but they are beyond my creative control.



That is because few people know how to use a meter. They attempt to use it as the directions and the sages say, they have problems, and they blame the meter or the metering system, if built into a camera.

If you understand a meter, and you understand exposure, you have precise control over the exposure of your photograph if you want it.

You cannot guess exposure and have that level of control. It is not possible. All the people who say they do, are mistaken. What they have is managed to guess their way into exposure that is acceptable to them (thus it is correct), but they do not have creative control over it. I can hit a pinata with a stick. But blindfold me, spin me around, and ask me to knock the ears off, that I cannot do. And neither can anyone else. No one has calibrated eyeballs.

Sorry, Bill, your "system" also requires "guessing" to use the meter "properly." And expereince does work. If I turn a hundred watt light bulb on in a room and make a correct exposure, then I can be sure that the exposure will be the same the next time I go there again. If I switch the bulb to 200 watt, I can adjust the exposure to compensate without the need for metering.

Your "guessing" argument is too simplistic as the estimate is based on experience not just random stabbing in the dark. The other problem is people do estimate exposure and are sucessful. Also people do use their meters "properly" and do not make good exposures. So your assertion that metering is the only method that works is not supported by reality.

 

[bmattock]

I don't really understand what you are arguing about, bmattock. We're talking about judging an 18% grey value without a meter. That's it. What you do to set your exposure after you have your benchmark is a different question.

I don't understand at all why you talk keep defining what is "creative" or not. As well, I don't understand why you even mention aperture priority.

I just read Ansel Adams book The Negative and is not all about slow contemplation. Rather, it is about training yourself to previsualize how the camera sees in order to use it as a tool to express how you FEEL about your subject. There's a whole chapter on hand-held photography where he uses Cartier-Bresson as an exemplar. Adams has a beautiful writing voice and many well considered ideas.

Ansel Adams is wrong, and the Zone System is a travesty.

 

[Finder]

Ansel Adams is wrong, and the Zone System is a travesty.

Funny thing about the Zone Sytem is it uses a relative scale that photographer uses to "guess" variation in illumination to determine scene contrast - a meter is not required for that.

 

[ruben]

Ok I accept and guess is bad I normally shoot, look at camera, groan, and either adjust & shoot or meter & shoot. Though metering tends to give away you might intend to take photos.

Noel

Hi Noel,
i am not saying you have to guess if you don't want to learn how to do without the meter. And more important i am not saying you have to learn it, if it isn't called for by your type of shooting.

In my type of shooting it is required to have a round idea of where you are in terms of light level, as usually with the meter I get the incident reading for the area, deserving the punishment of bill to its full extent.

Incident metering is quite crude metering, and so far it sounds me possible to do away with the meter for it, or using the meter just for comfirmation, or and tricky situations of mixing of light and shadow.

Now, it is not a bad approach to get used to loose pics when you cannot use your pocket meter, in the same way you loose pics for a myriad of reasons. But it sounds me a better idea to learn.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[bmattock]

Sorry, Bill, your "system" also requires "guessing" to use the meter "properly."

No, it doesn't, and you don't know what my system is.

And expereince does work. If I turn a hundred watt light bulb on in a room and make a correct exposure, then I can be sure that the exposure will be the same the next time I go there again. If I switch the bulb to 200 watt, I can adjust the exposure to compensate without the need for metering.

Only if you know the bulb is now 200 watts. But you won't, because it will seem the same relative brightness to you if you walk out of the room and walk back in a week later, or if the value of the bulb is gradually changed while you're in the room - that's how our minds work - we compensate.

Ask yourself this - why do we need white balance on digital cameras and color-correcting filters or special film for various kinds of 'white' light?

It is because the sensor (digital or film) is not fooled about what color the light it. Our eyes, on the other hand, are. We see light we expect to be white as if it were white. The only time we notice that the white light of an incandescent bulb is not white at all is when compare it to something that is shedding white light.

We say "Oh, the digital sensor in my camera was fooled about the white balance in the room." No, it wasn't. The camera did not agree with you about what 'white' is, because white to it is an objective standard, and to your eyes, white is whatever your mind expects it to be.

Eyes are easily fooled. It is not your fault, it is how we are made.

Your "guessing" argument is too simplistic as the estimate is based on experience not just random stabbing in the dark. The other problem is people do estimate exposure and are sucessful.

They often achieve an exposure that they find acceptable. This is fine if that is what they want. However, if one tries to describe that as taking creative control, it is incorrect. It is getting better at pitching horseshoes, is all.

Also people do use their meters "properly" and do not make good exposures. So your assertion that metering is the only method that works is not supported by reality.

Yes, it is. I can guarantee you that if I have a 1 degree spotmeter that is working properly, and you have your eyeballs, I can select the exposure I want to the edges of the ability of my film to reproduce - you cannot.

You can achieve (possibly) an acceptable expsure, in that the lights and darks may well be recorded faithfully in an average way. Or you may occasionally blow out highlights or lose detail in the darks - a scene's dynamic range often exceeds the latitude of the media we use to record it with.

And that is where I will prevail. Given that something will not be recorded, some detail will be lost, with a proper meter and my knowledge of how to use it, I can choose just what will be lost and what will be kept. You can only aim for the middle and hope, or bracket.

Anyone who guesses their exposure feels they can point at a photograph in which all the elements are exposed without detail being lost and say that this is proof they can do it. But give them a scene with EV values from 3 to 16, and let's see how they do. No matter what, some detail will be lost. How will the guesser decide what to lose and what to keep?

To measure anything, you first need a standard to compare it to. It does no good to measure a board of unknown length with another board of unknown length. One must first set a standard and then compare everything to that. Meters give known values that can be used as standards if they are working correctly and understood properly. Eyeballs do not.

 

[bmattock]

Funny thing about the Zone Sytem is it uses a relative scale that photographer uses to "guess" variation in illumination to determine scene contrast - a meter is not required for that.

That's why it is wrong. Look up 'travesty'.

 

[Xmas]

If you point your Weston at the zone (area) and meter and then set the zone on the meter scale then that zone (area) will be at that zone density on the negative.

You have to pick (guess) an area, that will be critical on the print.

Noel

 

[sirius]

bmattock, can you give me a link to your photo gallery?