Calculating light by eye (without a light meter) indoors

[Ranchu]

Nice. I don't always shoot indoors, but when I do - I just try to get as much exposure as I can. I'd much rather use flash. Meters, especially CDS are not accurate with incandescents, and I don't know about CFLs, but selenium meters are definately off with them.

 

[Keith]

I've never understood why these metering threads tend to get fractious at times! We all have our own methods of doing things and as long as it suits us it should be no bother for anyone else.

It reminds me of the story by Jonathan Swift (Gulliver's Travels) where two small countries went to war over which end of a hard boiled egg should be cracked ... small or large! 😀

 

[FrozenInTime]

Having a feel for the expected exposure in any situation is valuable:

e.g. if indoors, away from exterior windows, your in-camera meter with ISO 400 film says 1/250s at f/2.8, perhaps it's caught a strong light source ; so you need to reassess where you point the meter or how you want the scene to look.
For digital, it's also valuable to catch the occasions where you've left the camera at ISO 1600 outside in bright sunshine.

 

[taskoni]

This seems to really have struck a nerve with you. Why do you care what other people do? The original poster posed the question as to how to calculate exposure indoors w/o a light meter, and you have gone on a rant ridiculing the notion and quite frankly mocking those who do. As can be seen above. Don't you think your tag line "real men shoot film" is a touch ironic given your comments complaining about real men? What are you saying about those who shoot digital? You don't think you are pounding your chest at them, the way supposedly the meter-less men are apparently pounding their chests at you? Maybe it's time to step back, take a deep breath and relax.

^ this ^

And Chris, who the **** are you to judge people's photos in general, why do you think your photography is extraordinary? You are calling yourself a pro 😀 but hey, your pictures are among the most boring in the forum, and even if you think you are capturing in unique way the spirit of that village of yours, those walls you are photographing will need more than your "masterful" metering to go as fine art...

I apologize to OP and all the guys who read this tread for the out of topic post.

However, there's nothing wrong to say honestly what you think, right?

Regards,

Boris

 

[taskoni]

I've never understood why these metering threads tend to get fractious at times! We all have our own methods of doing things and as long as it suits us it should be no bother for anyone else.

They always get fractious because of the same guy as he keep lancing his meter fetish even when OT. I am actually glad he does it, so one understand when looking at his photos for whatever reason that in photography many times other things are more important than carry a meter.

Regards,

Boris

 

[Sparrow]

I've shot indoors without a meter on many occasions where the end result wasn't really that important but in situations where the end result is important it's foolish to take the risk IMO ... digital or film.

There seems to be this whole 'badge of honour' thing going on with shooting unmetered at times ... if that's what floats your boat, OK!

I don't see it as a 'badge of honor' thing at all, and aside from the fact the OP asked the question and specifically said 'without a meter' with these old film cameras its just easier and more consistent to not use a meter as a default practice, and only resort to the meter in exceptional circumstance. I've watched folk in constant light change exposure settings between every shot blindly following the cameras' ttl reading without thought

A modern DSLR, or an F6 will normally cope whatever one points it at ... a OM1 or F3 will simply measure the light .. blindly, use the meter on those and if you have a meter reading, then you'll use it, people stop thinking about it and simply chase the needle. Like those pilots that fly into the ground looking at a faulty altimeter. There is a name for it that I can never remember ... Michael usually reminds me

I do agree that is it's paid work I'd have your d700 every time though

 

[sevo]

There is a certain snag in that the original question can only be answered with a plain NO - there is no way to calculate the exposure for arbitrary indoor settings, with any even remotely reasonable effort, as there is no universal constant (like the intensity of solar radiation at the distance of the earth orbit) indoors - not even the wattage of the light bulbs or window size good enough indicators, as light yield and transmission will vary by several EV.

Cine productions actually do or used to calculate exposure from the illumination - but for that, you have to have a accurate (pre-measured) list of the true light output of each lamp and reflectivity and transmission of all used lamp shades/optics, plus a "open ceiling, open front wall" studio setting where reflected light is a negligible entity.

Experienced photographers will know enough similar situations to guess a exposure by mental reference - but that will work best in settings subject to required public or workspace illumination levels or very traditional concepts of home illumination, as our sense of vision is strictly relative (so that a indoor setting will, within a few minutes of accommodation, be perceived as bright as outdoors even though there are six or eight EV between them). And even in guessable environments you'll hardly be accurate to more than one or two stops from the metered value, unless you photograph a location you have metered a gazillion times before (for example, I can photograph meterless all around my home, and only used the meter once per light change when I did studio tabletop work).

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

^ this ^

And Chris, who the **** are you to judge people's photos in general, why do you think your photography is extraordinary? You are calling yourself a pro 😀 but hey, your pictures are among the most boring in the forum, and even if you think you are capturing in unique way the spirit of that village of yours, those walls you are photographing will need more than your "masterful" metering to go as fine art...

I apologize to OP and all the guys who read this tread for the out of topic post.

However, there's nothing wrong to say honestly what you think, right?

Regards,

Boris

Who am I? I'm a professional artist with a long record of exhibitions, publications, and teaching. My work has sold to people all around the world. Unlike you, my work is available for anyone to see. Some people like it, some don't. That's the nature of art. At least I'm not afraid to show what I do, and how I do it.

I get emails every day from photographers who admire my work. Some just write to tell me that, others write asking for advice. I always answer honestly, completely, and simply so that they can achieve what they want without wasting time and costly materials. As many RFF members can attest, I have spent a lot of time with some, writing back and forth to help them solve a problem.

I don't charge anyone for this, though it takes a lot of my time. It is my way of giving back now that I am doing well. When I was younger, a lot of more experienced photographers freely shared advice, technical info, and even equipment with me because they liked my work and wanted to help me succeed. Several years ago, when I had dropped everything and moved back to my hometown to be with my son as his mothers mental problems became worse, I found myself unable to buy my son anything for Christmas that year. A couple of RFF members organized a collection to help my son and I. A huge number of you donated to that collection, which bought my son a very nice laptop computer, which he still uses. We are still amazed at the generosity of all of you here.

Some of you think I'm too blunt and outspoken. I don't believe in giving advice that is technically incorrect, because that just frustrates the person in need when they find that the what works for you won't work for them. What I said about needing a meter is based on solid science. Numerous studies of human vision have confirmed that the human eye is a very poor judge of the brightness of light. Some of you might be blessed with superhuman abilities, but most of the photos I see where people tried that technique are not well exposed. In any case, its not something most photographers can realistically do, even if you can, so advising it is not really helping the aspiring photographer.

Photography is an art medium that requires a lot of tech knowledge, and unfortunately there are a lot of myths and half-truths floating around because people try to mysticize it. Technical knowledge is just a set of tools, means to an end. Learn it correctly, and you will be able to produce anything your imagination can envision. Mysticizing technique just frustrates and discourages those we're helping.

I'm a 7th grade English teacher. If I let a student think something is hard or complex, I've lost him. Kids shut down if they think they "can't" do something. I've failed when that happens. Nothing I teach is beyond my kids' abilities, but it has to be presented in a way that they can understand quickly. Photography and adults learning it are the same. I answer a question precisely and with an answer that they can use to improve their work so they don't get frustrated and give up. If that makes me an asshole, so be it.

 

[alistair.o]

I come here to visit because I have been helped so much through the years by many, many people. Like Stewart, and I am certain many others here, I have been given another chance at life and it pains me to the bone to visit and find contention after contention.

Is it too much to answer the question that has been asked in any thread with a straight answer? If one wishes to add something why you don't preface that with "If I might suggest..." or just start another thread.

We are all going to be in that place soon - life is short

 

[Sparrow]

There is a certain snag in that the original question can only be answered with a plain NO - there is no way to calculate the exposure for arbitrary indoor settings, with any even remotely reasonable effort, as there is no universal constant (like the intensity of solar radiation at the distance of the earth orbit) indoors - not even the wattage of the light bulbs or window size good enough indicators, as light yield and transmission will vary by several EV.

Cine productions actually do or used to calculate exposure from the illumination - but for that, you have to have a accurate (pre-measured) list of the true light output of each lamp and reflectivity and transmission of all used lamp shades/optics, plus a "open ceiling, open front wall" studio setting where reflected light is a negligible entity.

Experienced photographers will know enough similar situations to guess a exposure by mental reference - but that will work best in settings subject to required public or workspace illumination levels or very traditional concepts of home illumination. And even there, you'll hardly be accurate to more than one or two stops from the metered value. Unless you photograph a location you have metered a gazillion times before (for example, I can photograph meterless all around my home, and only used the meter once per light change when I did studio tabletop work).

Yes that is true. While the human eye is an excellent comparator of lighting it is hopeless at measuring absolute values in the way you suggest. What I suggested was simply a compromise aperture between speed and enough DOF (f2.8) and the slowest speed I can hand-hold a camera (1/30sec) ... it is in fact simply making the best of a bad job ... knowing absolute values below those that the system is capable of producing is futile

 

[taskoni]

Who am I? I'm a professional artist with a long record of exhibitions, publications, and teaching. My work has sold to people all around the world. Unlike you, my work is available for anyone to see. Some people like it, some don't. That's the nature of art. At least I'm not afraid to show what I do, and how I do it.

I get emails every day from photographers who admire my work. Some just write to tell me that, others write asking for advice. I always answer honestly, completely, and simply so that they can achieve what they want without wasting time and costly materials. As many RFF members can attest, I have spent a lot of time with some, writing back and forth to help them solve a problem.

I don't charge anyone for this, though it takes a lot of my time. It is my way of giving back now that I am doing well. When I was younger, a lot of more experienced photographers freely shared advice, technical info, and even equipment with me because they liked my work and wanted to help me succeed. Several years ago, when I had dropped everything and moved back to my hometown to be with my son as his mothers mental problems became worse, I found myself unable to buy my son anything for Christmas that year. A couple of RFF members organized a collection to help my son and I. A huge number of you donated to that collection, which bought my son a very nice laptop computer, which he still uses. We are still amazed at the generosity of all of you here.

Some of you think I'm too blunt and outspoken. I don't believe in giving advice that is technically incorrect, because that just frustrates the person in need when they find that the what works for you won't work for them. What I said about needing a meter is based on solid science. Numerous studies of human vision have confirmed that the human eye is a very poor judge of the brightness of light. Some of you might be blessed with superhuman abilities, but most of the photos I see where people tried that technique are not well exposed. In any case, its not something most photographers can realistically do, even if you can, so advising it is not really helping the aspiring photographer.

Photography is an art medium that requires a lot of tech knowledge, and unfortunately there are a lot of myths and half-truths floating around because people try to mysticize it. Technical knowledge is just a set of tools, means to an end. Learn it correctly, and you will be able to produce anything your imagination can envision. Mysticizing technique just frustrates and discourages those we're helping.

I'm a 7th grade English teacher. If I let a student think something is hard or complex, I've lost him. Kids shut down if they think they "can't" do something. I've failed when that happens. Nothing I teach is beyond my kids' abilities, but it has to be presented in a way that they can understand quickly. Photography and adults learning it are the same. I answer a question precisely and with an answer that they can use to improve their work so they don't get frustrated and give up. If that makes me an asshole, so be it.

Selling work around the word doesn't make your opinion more valuable when it comes to judging other peoples work. I am very happy photographers call you for advise and I am happy you are always ready to help them out. However, would you agree with me that this is not the case we are discussing here? I am an amateur photographer and I have sold prints myself, I have also made a few personal exhibitions, my work is exposed in many group exhibitions, published in a few books, few museums owe my prints as well. It is nothing to do with using a light meter, right? You won't hear me saying that using light meter is wrong, I am saying it is possible to get around without one. You won't hear me saying the people who use light meters deliver crappy photos. You should be more respectful to your forum mates and colleagues here, that's all I wanted to say. You have your personal opinion and you can share it of course, but Art is subjective matter and I find stupid to generalize what's best and what's crap, even when your friends emailing you and admiring your work - I bet they speak for themselves, not for all the photo artists in the world. And to me, personally, as I don't find your work more than average, your opinion doesn't matter to me and you shouldn't be trying to evaluate people's work here. Have a great day,

Boris

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Some utterly wierd assumsions here about going meter less.
How about just having fun as part of the game with only mechanical cameras and b/w film, which is very forgiving, at least for overexposure.

 

[Sparrow]

... and at f2.8 for 1/30 sec one is very unlikely to overexpose 😀

 

[tunalegs]

There isn't one guy for me. RFF is full of guys who like to pound their chests about how they, real men with big balls, never need a lightmeter, a crutch used by wussy babies with no talent. Problem is, none of these guys are any good that I have seen. I wasn't talking about you, though. I don't remember ever seeing any of your work on RFF.

I had to dig way back and find a shot I took for my photo 101 class ages ago...
Brau and Stahl by berangberang, on Flickr

This shot I remember clearly was taken at the extremes of what an Argus C3 had to offer, 1/10 of a second and f/3.5 on 100ASA film. No meter of course. It was not even a lucky guess, just putting the camera to the maximums and hoping for the best. It turned out, and consequently my balls grew 10X, but my photography became much worse.

A bit later I happened upon another scene that again required maxing out the Argus and hoping for the best:

Famous Pizza Mayhem by berangberang, on Flickr

The photograph is of course completely awful in every way, except for exposure. It came out well enough given the constraints of the camera and available light. Strangely though, my balls only grew a little this time. 😕

When I began to shoot slide film, I was sure that I would need a meter. How on earth would I be able to figure out a scene with lighting as tricky as this on slide film without a meter?

Untitled by berangberang, on Flickr

It still turned out, but of course it is also perfectly boring.

Then I began to use a meter, and oddly my photos never turned out either better exposed, or more interesting. :bang:

So obviously there must be more to this whole photo thing than whether or not one uses a meter. And I would suppose that anybody who knows anything at all about art realizes that as long as the artist's vision is realized it matters not at all whether or not they used a meter. 😉

Who am I? I'm a horrendous photographer with a long record of fine exposures made without light meters, and pretty big balls.

(on a serious note, I would not steer anybody away from using meters. But one has to remember that meters are simple tools and if you want to use them to make good exposures you still have to use your brain when figuring exposures)

 

[Sparrow]

^ I wouldn't bother, Chris made his first statement directly after my first post so this is probably aimed at me not at you or Boris ... and I'm not bothered by it anyway.

Best not to wreck the thread with personal enmity

 

[taskoni]

If I have measured I wouldn't go for this,

f/2 @ 1/8 sec. Tri-X @ 400

Regards,

Boris

 

[taskoni]

^ I wouldn't bother, Chris made his statement directly after my first post so its probably aimed at me not at you or Boris

Dear Steward,

It is not important who he has aimed at, I just find posts like this rude and disrespectful for all the people who put some love in what they do. After all, lets face it, the pictures we make are mostly for our own satisfaction, time will tell what is important for others to see - metered or not. What is pro?

Regards,

Boris

 

[taskoni]

I won't spend my time and energy cock fighting in this thread. Apology to the OP and all of you guys if I have brought bad energy to this discussion.

I wish you all a great day!

Regards,

Boris

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Steward,

It is not important who he has aimed at, I just find posts like this rude and disrespectful for all the people who put some love in what they do. After all, lets face it, the pictures we make are mostly for our own satisfaction, time will tell what is important for others to see - metered or not. What is pro?

Regards,

Boris

In one sense yes ... but speaking as an artist who has made a living from his ability the last forty plus years I learned early on its not worth bothering about a bit of negativity

 

[RichC]

And the flip side of using a meter... there's a happy medium between using a meter and judging exposure by eye.

I've watched folk in constant light change exposure settings between every shot blindly following the cameras' ttl reading without thought

A modern [camera] will simply measure the light .. blindly, use the meter on those and if you have a meter reading, then you'll use it, people stop thinking about it and simply chase the needle. Like those pilots that fly into the ground looking at a faulty altimeter. There is a name for it that I can never remember ... Michael usually reminds me

I honestly don't understand what some people have against meters, and the defensiveness when using one is suggested. There are no downsides to using a meter. A reading is fast, and can be done when it won't intrude on your photography - as Stewart pointed out, the ambient light (outdoors and in) can remain the same for a long time, so another reading may not be needed for perhaps hours. So, you can buy a cheap, small, light-weight device to measure light in seconds that typically needs infrequent use, and then only at a time convenient for you - or you could guess...

Finally, as pointed out several times, the only way for humans to "meter" light is to remember camera settings from a similar situation. Relatively straightforward for many situations such as sunny/overcast outdoors or in homes at night (humans prefer similar levels of artificial light), but even then it's guesswork and memory. Here in the UK, for me the sunny 16 rule fails - I think you'll find in northern climes it's "sunny 11"!

So, the answer to the OP about how to calculate exposure sufficiently accurately by eye in difficult situations like indoors or of shadows outdoors is: you can't. You can only guess - and trust that what you are perceiving the same light level as the situation you recall (which is impossible for our eyes - as Stewart and others point out).

Guess or use a meter is the only possible response.

And, of course, there's no such thing as correct exposure anyway - it's only wrong if the photo's not exposed how you want it!