Calculating light by eye (without a light meter) indoors

[paulfish4570]

hallelujah, roger ... 🙂

 

[Sparrow]

... handheld it's f2.8 1/30 at 400asa and hope for the best

... just to clarify ... that was for indoors under artificial lighting, and not this bit ...

"Finally, another question: I can shoot very well outside on the sun, but how much should I compensate for shadows (for instance, shadows under a tree or next to a building in different light conditions, etc.)"

... for that it really depends if the subject is in shade or backlit, if it is then open up a couple of stops from the sunny-f16 reading ... you can open up one stop all the time if you like as a safety margin modern negative film is really forgiving to overexposure ... (I'm assuming you'er shooting negative film here, slide film and digital are different)

 

[zuiko85]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned 'bracketing', if you have time that is. Three or four shots, one stop over, one on and one stop under. Sometimes it works.

 

[Darshan]

Interesting question, one that crossed my mind 2-3 years ago.

I rely on my iPhone app meter for indoor photos, kind of a cheapo spot option. Before, I used to use the widest aperture that a lens allowed with 1/15 or 1/30, speeds that I have found I could hand hold comfortably. Even though I got usable photos with the guess work, I would not shoot without a meter nowadays, indoor lighting has surprised me many times. My success rate (with regards to metering) is close to 100% now, sadly, same thing cannot be said about other qualities of my photos. :bang:

 

[Sparrow]

Interesting question, one that crossed my mind 2-3 years ago.

I rely on my iPhone app meter for indoor photos, kind of a cheapo spot option. Before, I used to use the widest aperture that a lens allowed with 1/15 or 1/30, speeds that I have found I could hand hold comfortably. Even though I got usable photos with the guess work, I would not shoot without a meter nowadays, indoor lighting has surprised me many times. My success rate (with regards to metering) is close to 100% now, sadly, same thing cannot be said about other qualities of my photos.

What would you deduce from that? if asked to consider the statement

 

[Huss]

Refusing to accept that many people can learn to make excellent exposures without a meter is as stupid as pretending that a meter is the only realistic approach.

Cheers,

R.

Exactly. I don't have issues going meter less and if the speeds drop below 1/15 I'm not taking the shot as most times I do not have a tripod with me. Which would be the same result if I had a meter with me.

If you don't feel comfortable going meter less, then do what makes you feel comfortable.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I learned to guesstimate light by carrying a meter with me in my daily walks and doing light readings under all possible conditions. I'm not really good at it, but when it comes to shooting indoors, I am reasonably good, and if anything, within a stop... thanks to all that practice.

However, the important rule in my book is to bracket.

Now... have you seen prints by this mystical guy who can guess exposure correctly? That's where the real test is.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I learned to guesstimate light by carrying a meter with me in my daily walks and doing light readings under all possible conditions. I'm not really good at it, but when it comes to shooting indoors, I am reasonably good, and if anything, within a stop... thanks to all that practice.

However, the important rule in my book is to bracket.

Now... have you seen prints by this mystical guy who can guess exposure correctly? That's where the real test is.

I've seen them. They suck. I don't get people spending thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, on gear then using it in a wasteful halfassed way to produce garbage. Life's too short to waste time like that, and I'm not wealthy so I can't afford to waste film and other costs involved in my work like gas for my car to go out photographing.

 

[Timmyjoe]

... handheld it's f2.8 1/30 at 400asa and hope for the best

Yep, or with one of my meterless camera/lens combos where I rate Tri-X at 500, I go f2.8 for 1/60.

And if you've got daylight streaming in through a big window, adjust accordingly.

I've discovered that at least with Tri-X, exposure isn't hyper critical, and I can usually get close enough by eyeballing. Which lets me use some of my favorite old cameras (M3, F2) without having to carry around a light meter.

 

[Sparrow]

... but than it's the contact sheets that really matter ... and anyway I know folk who can consistently blowout sky with a meter

 

[daveleo]

... handheld it's f2.8 1/30 at 400asa and hope for the best

+1 for me (a hobbyist)
Back when, I always did 1/30 or 1/15 at f2.0 at ISO 400. Worked fine, things looked "natural", Tri-x is wonderfully forgiving.
f2.8 would work too.

If you career depends on it, and you can't move around taking meter readings, buy a shoe-mounted light meter.

EDIT: Much more of a challenge, indoors with color film is white balance, esp when there is a variety of light bulb types (and ages). Which is why The Gods invented Tri-X. 😀

 

[Darshan]

What would you deduce from that? if asked to consider the statement

fair enough..

As I said before, I used to guess exposure indoors and really sucked at it. Most of the shots came out underexposed, some, to my surprise, came out overexposed (in strong window light during the daytime). I used to spend quite a bit of time on the computer to get reasonable prints out of them, but results were not satisfactory. I have found reflective meters in the camera totally useless, incident metering works if the light is consistent but my best results have come from my iphone meter (this is not a plug for the iphone or an app). I have got prints from approx 8 rolls in front of me right now, and not a single photo has the intended subject under/overexposed. Granted, I am not as experienced as a lot of folks on this site, I only speak from my own experience.

To demonstrate, I quickly scanned some 4x6 prints on my HP scanner, the scans appear a little over-exposed than the prints. All photos are taken with my Rollei 35 S on Superia 400 and metered using the iphone app. Flash was not used. First 5 are daytime photos.


I took a similar photo with my GA645 and it's totally unusable.




For me, guessing exposures in the following photos was impossible.

 

[Darshan]

Now some night time indoor shots..

First 3 were taken in a room illuminated with 4 bright white CFL bulbs, guess work could have worked here due to uniform and strong light, but I metered them anyways. SS must have been 1/15 to 1/30, aperture 2.8.

Again, the scans appear over-exposed than the actual prints, I have to change settings on my scanner.








Room in the following 2 was illuminated with 2 CFL bulbs, ss was 1/2 or 1/4.






I do bracket at times, but I don't believe in wasting film by guessing exposure if the solution is as easy as using a handheld meter.

 

[Huss]

Leica M3 DS, Planar 50, Portra 400 @ 200, no meter, no bracketing
f2.0, 1/8
Hammer Museum performance art installation, Los Angeles a few weeks ago.

Same location, but at an indoor stairwell.
1/60 @ f2.0

Want to use a meter? Fine. But I do w/o with my meterless cameras. I enjoy the experience and understanding the light.

Quick aside, I trusted the fancy 3D colour matrix metering on my first test roll with my Nikon F6, and it underexposed a strongly back lit subject. Something I would have easily got right w/o a meter.

 

[Livesteamer]

We are all different and there is no one right way. I like to carry my IIIc with the little 50mm Elmar and I don't want to carry a meter. After about 10 years of this I find better and more consistent exposures from my IIIc than from my M6 cameras. When I do meter I much prefer my Sekonic incident meter altho the meter in my Nikon N90s does very well. I just don't use the Nikon much. Also, I shoot mostly 400 asa color negative film. It's forgiving, I'm learning and it works for me. Joe

 

[taskoni]

Intelligent interpretation of a good meter is always best. "Intelligent interpretation" is important: don't just blindly follow the meter.

BUT

There's not always time

If you're carrying an old, un-metered camera, you may not wesh to be encumbered by a meter

Experience is a great teacher, and with experience, you can judge most exposures perfectly adequately

SO

Refusing to accept that many people can learn to make excellent exposures without a meter is as stupid as pretending that a meter is the only realistic approach.

Cheers,

R.

Rogers has put it really nicely.
Photography is making choices and nobody can tell you how to shoot or expose your film, even the meter can't. Nobody knows in what interiors you'll be measuring the light - there will be always a compromise as the contrast will be greater and it is up to you to choose what look you are going for. Many people here can guesstimate the exposure pretty damn accurate, and it is not a hard thing to do. This is nothing to do with talent or to show off. To use light meter creatively takes time and may not suit your style or concept of your OWN photography. Of course, if you shoot walls, car parts and benches you will find time to take ten meter readings, even if you live in a part of the world where you can shoot f8 @ 1/250 sec. till the cows come home through the whole year.

Regards,

Boris

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've seen them. They suck. I don't get people spending thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, on gear then using it in a wasteful halfassed way to produce garbage. Life's too short to waste time like that, and I'm not wealthy so I can't afford to waste film and other costs involved in my work like gas for my car to go out photographing.

Dear Chris,

Be fair, though. That's not necessarily anything to do with whether they use a meter or not.

And do you REALLY believe that there is no-one on earth who can take good pictures, far more often than not, without a meter?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

Now some night time indoor shots..

First 3 were taken in a room illuminated with 4 bright white CFL bulbs, guess work could have worked here due to uniform and strong light, but I metered them anyways. SS must have been 1/15 to 1/30, aperture 2.8.

Again, the scans appear over-exposed than the actual prints, I have to change settings on my scanner.


Room in the following 2 was illuminated with 2 CFL bulbs, ss was 1/2 or 1/4.


I do bracket at times, but I don't believe in wasting film by guessing exposure if the solution is as easy as using a handheld meter.

... to my eye both sets look way too bright, but it looks more like they were done by a lab and the scanner/printer simply tried to expose them to an average setting .. I expect the same negs could give a better print with a bit of work, thin negatives are not easy to print I admit but it can be done

 

[Darshan]

Like others in this thread, I personally know a few people who produce consistent exposures w/o the use of a meter, more power to them. I, however, am still learning and would prefer to use a meter. After using a hand held one for a couple of years, I can accurately guess exposures under 2 and 4 CFL bulbs. 😉

Advising someone (new to manual metering) never to use a meter because they have done it for years with good results is wrong IMO. Guessing can teach you a lot but so can using a hand held meter. And as Roger mentioned in an earlier post, it is not so easy to use a hand held meter, you have to understand light and be able to compensate when necessary.

 

[Darshan]

... to my eye both sets look way too bright, but it looks more like they were done by a lab and the scanner/printer simply tried to expose them to an average setting .. I expect the same negs could give a better print with a bit of work, thin negatives are not easy to print I admit but it can be done

They are bright because of my scanner (I mentioned this in my posts). I have never scanned prints before and used my HP all-in-one to make quick scans to illustrate. The prints are perfect, I wish there was a way to show you. Some scans even have color hues which are not seen on prints.