Calculating light by eye (without a light meter) indoors

I'm the original poster, the one who asked these questions. I just wanted to clarify that of course I know that I can use a handheld meter. In fact, I have a very good Lumu that has never failed me when I felt that I had to use it, especially with tricky situations (for instance when there's more than one light source).

I know that a lot of people have developed their techniques measuring light almost exclusively through years of trial and error. IN other words, experience is a great teacher. I was just wondering if some of the results of that experience could be shared around for those who don't have it yet. I appreciate that some people have taken their time to help us avid amateurs out in our own personal journeys in photography technique.

However, I find it quite disrespectful to assume that people who don't follow the "true" ways of calculating light with meters are either liars or fools. Obviously, it is a difficult ability to be acquired but most helpful without any doubts. As in everything else in life, information and curiosity are inherently part of what makes us humans, even when not immediately practical... and of course, this concerns me personally as my own everyday life (I am a PhD candidate in sociology and history) would have no meaning if I thought that "non-useful" information is stupid.
 
Get a nice hand-held light meter. Film and processing are expensive enough as it is. I prefer to get it right the first time. Less film wasted. Much less frustration.

Just my 2 kopecks.

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)
 
Jane Bown: "I have an exposure setting I like, 1/60 at f 2.8 and I just arrange the shot to work around that." And that's with film. Stewart alluded to an arbitrary setting earlier, indoors 1/30s at 2.8. I've been doing this recently photographing evening rowing practice. I use ISO 320 or 640 and I just have to have f5.6 and at least 1/500s and preferably 1/1000s. The exposure comes up well in Lightroom and I have my shots. There are film equivalents. You can only do stuff like this with confidence after experimentation and a long experience with a meter. The worst metering approach is a slavish adherence to the dictates of a camera's internal meter. You have to learn to use a meter, and you have to learn when to ignore it, adjust its read out or manage without sometimes. Experience. Exposing a photograph is not about an 'accurate' meter reading every time.
 
Richard G said:
Jane Bown: "I have an exposure setting I like, 1/60 at f 2.8 and I just arrange the shot to work around that." And that's with film. Stewart alluded to an arbitrary setting earlier, indoors 1/30s at 2.8. I've been doing this recently photographing evening rowing practice. I use ISO 320 or 640 and I just have to have f5.6 and at least 1/500s and preferably 1/1000s. The exposure comes up well in Lightroom and I have my shots. There are film equivalents. You can only do stuff like this with confidence after experimentation and a long experience with a meter. The worst metering approach is a slavish adherence to the dictates of a camera's internal meter. You have to learn to use a meter, and you have to learn when to ignore it, adjust its read out or manage without sometimes. Experience. Exposing a photograph is not about an 'accurate' meter reading every time.
Click to expand...

yep, true ... all the meter measures is the amount of light ... it's the photographer who decides on the correct exposure
 
Darshan said:
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.
Click to expand...

... well if your prints are perfect I would stick with your method, in much the same way as I shall stick to mine :)
 
Redseele said:
I'm the original poster, the one who asked these questions. I just wanted to clarify that of course I know that I can use a handheld meter. In fact, I have a very good Lumu that has never failed me when I felt that I had to use it, especially with tricky situations (for instance when there's more than one light source).

I know that a lot of people have developed their techniques measuring light almost exclusively through years of trial and error. IN other words, experience is a great teacher. I was just wondering if some of the results of that experience could be shared around for those who don't have it yet. I appreciate that some people have taken their time to help us avid amateurs out in our own personal journeys in photography technique.

However, I find it quite disrespectful to assume that people who don't follow the "true" ways of calculating light with meters are either liars or fools. Obviously, it is a difficult ability to be acquired but most helpful without any doubts. As in everything else in life, information and curiosity are inherently part of what makes us humans, even when not immediately practical... and of course, this concerns me personally as my own everyday life (I am a PhD candidate in sociology and history) would have no meaning if I thought that "non-useful" information is stupid.
Click to expand...

It didn't take me years, and shouldn't for you either! I first practiced just walking around with a light meter, taking exposure readings and paying attention to the intensity of the light. I made sure to do this indoors as well as outdoors, at all times of the day. You will be surprised as to how quickly you can start to estimate light values very accurately. I wouldn;t even say a matter of days, but hours.
Then, practice doing this ever so often and you'll be fine. It is easier if at first you stick to just one film speed. Once you get the hang of that, then it is no issue to take that experience and adjust it for different ISO values.
I find it a very helpful photographic exercise, because you really start to examine your scene and decide what inside it you want to base your exposure on. By extension it helps you compose your light as well as your subject.
 
Sparrow said:
... handheld it's f2.8 1/30 at 400asa and hope for the best
Click to expand...

well, at least I don't have to hope for the best..:)

I think everybody in this thread has been saying the same thing but with different variations. I am sure folks who don't use meters now have used them in the past and learned to gauge light. People who learned to read light without using a meter must have a few (or more) wasted rolls to thank.
 
As other posters have said, use your fastest lens (or as I wouold prefer to say a lens that opens wide). hold steady and manually shoot at a speed you feel comfortable with. Then scan the negetive and process in whatever software you prefer.

In days of old (film) we used to call this pushing.

Not hard really - its just that your lcd preview (being, probably dark) will no doubt confuse the easily confusable.

James
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Reading back through the thread It's not obvious who the mystical guy is, paranoia makes me think it's me as I think you can get in the ball park with experience. Come clean guys who are you referring to? Have the guts to say what you think.
 
It' s an old chart by interweb standards - but Fred Parker's Unlimited Exposure Computer - is pretty close to the money @ IS0 100.

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#Light%20Intensity%20Chart

For ISO 100 film - I find EV 5 to 6 to be common for a moderately well-lit room after dark. But who uses ISO 100 film indoors?

Add two stops to each:
For ISO 400 film to get a LV of 7 - 9

So, my starting point with ISO 400 film for indoor work is f/2 with a shutter speed of 1/30th of a second for LV 7.

Office lighting is usually LV 8 or 9. Either close the aperture 1 stop or change the shutter speed to 1/60th to get to LV 8.

*****************************

The lighting in your home will probably be worse than you think. Just remember the setting LV 7 and add exposure from there.

Keep in mind for the above starting point: the inverse square law is not your friend and that LV 7 is for someone sitting near a light source.

Go 6 to 8 feet away from moderately bright table lamp or ceiling light and you're in LV 6 territory.

LV 6 is troubling for a hand-held f/2 lens due to the use of a 1/15th of second shutter speed.

For you old-timers - if you are having trouble reading the printed word at night - such as a menu - welcome to LV 4 - 5 territory.
 
I'm dancing from same S16 rule, interpolating. B/W film not a problem for indoors with 100-400 ISO, as long as I'm not after black cat in the darkroom. I use 1/50, 5.6 and flash for it:)
If not confident, I measure it with cheap Seconic or iPhone app, it is accurate enough.
TTL isn't any better.
 
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!
 
Note: I still use the Light Value Scale to memorize indoor exposures. An LV scale can be seen on the bottom of the shutter speed ring in my avatar photo and I agree with Keith.

The LVS system was in use circa 1955 to 1960.
 
I like to go unmetered shooting time to time to keep myself sharp. I really like the challenge. I rarely (read: never) do it for anything serious, but it's definitely a helpful exercise for serious Street or PJ shooting... When the camera is at my hip, I like to set it for the settings at hand, so that if something happens, it's one less step to do when I bring it to my eye.
This is mostly outdoors. Indoors, as has been said, is much harder. But I still think its a good exercise. (Obviously, only if you're into that sort of thing. The whole bravado/pissing-contest way of looking at this is, simply, dumb)
 
bobbyrab said:
Reading back through the thread It's not obvious who the mystical guy is, paranoia makes me think it's me as I think you can get in the ball park with experience. Come clean guys who are you referring to? Have the guts to say what you think.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well i'm not looking to get into any argument with you, and i'm certainly not pounding my chest advocating not using metering, my point was simply that it is possible to get better at assessing light readings without a meter, not instead of a meter, but when you don't have a meter, or to better evaluate what a meter reading tells you.
Personally I decided to downsize my M cameras from an M7 & M6 to just the one film M, and I decided on the M6 precisely because it wasn't reliant on battery power to be fully functioning, all be it without metering {if the battery is flat], and from that it follows that paying attention to light levels and best guesstimate might be useful, and I believe if you pay attention you do get better at it. You on the other hand seem to think anyone trying to do so is an idiot. Which is your prerogative, I just happen not to agree.
 
A long time ago, I read a photo magazine article about Alfred Eisenstadt. He said there was one film he shot without a meter: Kodachrome. When the interviewer asked why, Eisie replied, modestly, "I have used the same film for so long."

As Roger pointed out, experience counts.
 
For indoors if I don't have a meter on me, I have been using the sunny 16 rule so 10 stops down for a "bright room" (EV6) where I can see defined shadows, and tend to follow the same rule as if outside, stop down a further 1-2 stops if the shadows are fuzzy, 4 stops if it's barely there, at 6 stops for no shadows (aka pitch black since it's EV0 anyway), hasn't served me too bad so far.
In low light on the street, I just go shoot either at the bright room or a stop higher at EV7.

Hasn't failed me too many times although I have misjudged the light at times.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom