Calculating light by eye (without a light meter) indoors

[Redseele]

Hi everyone,

I've been shooting with a Leica M3 for a couple of years now. Without a meter I resort to the Sunny 16 rule to shoot in the sun under different conditions (cloudy, hazy, no shadows, etc.) and I've got a hold of it relatively well. However, I ended up giving when I realized that I also shot pretty often indoors (which sort of justified getting an M6 in addition to my M3 😉 ).

So here's my question: how do you calculate light without a meter indoors?

I realize there are other practical ways of doing this (handheld meter, using the M6's light meter, etc.). That's what I'm doing right now. However, I met a guy (a photographer with a few decades of experience) a few days ago who could very quickly calculate aperture and shutter speed almost perfectly without using a meter. I was amazed by this ability and I want to learn more about it. Unfortunately I won't be seeing him very often, so I was wondering if the community could help me out with some pointers of how to go about learning to do this.

As an example, how to go about doing this by looking at how much light come through windows, how far away something is from a window, the type of artificial light used (incandescent vs. artificial day light), etc.

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.)

I know that's a lot of information I need but I love being able to do things manually and relying the least possible on technology. I am sure other people in the forum could also benefit from this information.

Thank you!

 

[Sparrow]

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

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

It amazes me how some people insist on making life as hard as possible. Go buy a good handheld meter. You can buy a very good one used for $100. Guessing exposure is hard enough in daylight, which is relatively predictable and constant. Indoors with artificial light? Forget it.

I know this post will be followed by a hundred posts by guys claiming that they never use a meter, that it is a 'crutch' used by the talentless. Like a bull**** dick measuring contest. The fact is, no one gives a damn how hard you made the process; they care about the image. I prefer working with properly exposed film, it makes printing easier and the quality will be better, no matter what anyone tries to tell you.

 

[bence8810]

I have gotten used to the situations I am often in and therefore can usually just guess. Daylight is easier like you say.

Anytime I have to second guess myself, I just pull the LuMu meter out - plug it into the iPhone and meter away. Once done, I can deal with the little changes off top of my head.

Am I accurate? No, don't think so. But for BnW film I do okay.
Oh and I always shoot 400 which helps staying consistent.

Ben

 

[CMur12]

I would say that it all comes down to repeated experience. Buy the meter, as Chris advised, and use it over and over again, observing attentively the lighting and the readings you are getting, until it becomes second nature to you, too.

Personally, I use handheld meters a lot.

- Murray

 

[RichC]

What Chris C said. Not using a light meter makes a photographer a fool, not a cool back-to-basics dude as some seem to think...!

There's no good reason not to carry a meter. Humans are physiologically unsuited to gauging absolute light levels. Outdoors, where the light typically changes little and slowly, you can sometimes get away without metering by recalling camera settings from similar situations - but then you're not being intelligent but aping a trained monkey. Indoors, metering is essential because it's often humanly impossible to estimate the brightness.

 

[Pherdinand]

It amazes me how some people insist on making life as hard as possible. Go buy a good handheld meter. You can buy a very good one used for $100. Guessing exposure is hard enough in daylight, which is relatively predictable and constant. Indoors with artificial light? Forget it.

and here we go, a post of Chris where i agree with him completely 🙂 (well, at least with this half on-topic).

You can't guesstimate indoors. You just can't.
You can remember the values if it's your home and you metered it several times in the same condition, but you cannot guesstimate it otherwise.

You might get lucky or you might get "close enough" on half the shots e.g. in Diafine but that's not gonna be consistent nor easy to print/use.

If you really can't go on with a handheld meter, then just switch to a camera with a meter. (Reason no.2 i dropped the M2 in favor of the Bessa R3a)

 

[Pherdinand]

we have a lightmeter (eyes) built in, but it's designed like the Yashica electro35 series: It is auto exposure without telling you the measured values. You only notice when it's too dark or too bright, everything in between is automatically handled pretty well.
😀

 

[bobbyrab]

I don't think what I'm about to add conflicts with what's already been said, but just adding a little more info. Often with my M6 I like to set a value before I put my eye to the viewfinder, then I know my shutter/aperture as I adjust to the meter without taking my eye away again. Over the years I've gotten to the stage where my best guess when I set the camera will be within half a stop of the meter, not always but surprisingly often, but I always like the assurance the meter gives and wouldn't want to be meterless.
However, and particularly indoors with the cameras reflective meter, the reading it gives can be very easily fooled and it's important to try and learn how differing conditions affect metering. Dark walls, light walls, rim lighting, and windows will all pull and push your meters readings into inaccurate settings. So I would never blindly follow a reflective meters readings indoors. If you have the luxury of incident metering then that's generally a better option.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Well, I'm on the side of the meter users but I'll add that now and then you have to add a bit of guess to the reading. Or, as I should have said, adjust sometimes in the light of experience...

And meters are dirt cheap, I see them in the flea markets for two or three pounds now and then and the last one I bought like that (a Weston Euro-Master) was agreeing with the checked and calibrated and balanced ones at home.

Regards, David

 

[ray*j*gun]

Experience with various films over years of use is the only way to judge indoor light IMO, esp for color.

 

[john neal]

I'm with Stewart - as wide as your lens will go at 1/30 (or 1/15 if you are a steady hand) and hope 🙂

 

[goamules]

I'd wager some of the great 35mm photographs of the 1920s-1940s were taken without a meter. And most dryplates from the 1890s until film used no meter. And ALL wetplates from the 1850s until dryplate used no meter! I use a meter when I can with 35mm. But if you forgot one, do you just cancel photographing for that day? I don't.

 

[ray*j*gun]

Oh, hand held only shooting? If so I agree with John.

 

[Pherdinand]

I'd wager some of the great 35mm photographs of the 1920s-1940s were taken without a meter. And most dryplates from the 1890s until film used no meter. And ALL wetplates from the 1950s until dryplate used no meter! I use a meter when I can with 35mm. But if you forgot one, do you just cancel photographing for that day? I don't.

yea but you only see the frames that were succesful somewhat in their exposure. The lucky guesses.
You dont see the thousands that got dumped because of exposure mistakes. 😛
Plus if you use flash and you know what the flash does, we have a different story

and finally, the fact that 100 yrs ago it was more difficult and some people still did it, doesnt mean we should make it more difficult today... Do you often travel on horseback?

 

[Mablo]

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

This is what I do. Usually it works OK.

 

[bobbyrab]

Actually, it was by shooting a Leica and having to set aperture and shutter speed by hand and not having those values shown in the viewfinder that I began to learn to judge approximate exposure.
I never really learned when I was presented with the values in the finder, partly as it throws up so many variables with thirds of a stop, and partly as long as the shutter didn't go too low, I didn't pay as much attention as I do with a fully manual camera.
My stupidity I'm sure, but there was something about physically setting the values that made the connection that much clearer. Also always shooting 400iso film helps to keep a constant.

 

[zuiko85]

Since good meters are cheap and available, I picked up an older Luna Pro for $15, then by all means learn how to use a meter and use it. Even if you are looking for that grainy gritty chalk and soot look to indoor pictures you will learn how to expose for that effect.

Talking about meters I just picked up a pristine, fully working OM-4T at a second hand store for $30. The multi-spot reading feature is great so even if I only used it for a meter for my other cameras it is worth taking along in the bag.

 

[Dwig]

It amazes me how some people insist on making life as hard as possible. Go buy a good handheld meter. ...

+1

Otherwise:

• use one of the many "calculators" that offer approximate exposures for common conditions.
• shoot only sheet film, take two identical exposures using your best guess, process one normally and use that result to judge how much to push or pull the development of the other.
• get a cat and, as per the oft repeated story/legend, use the diameter of the cat's pupil to judge the amount of light in the scene.

 

[Roger Hicks]

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 wish 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.