How did HCB determine exposure?

[katgut@earthlink.net]

I never use a meter with B&W. It's just not necessary. And if you're working with one film and developer, it's not that much to memorize. If you consider that many B&W films have a huge latitude (I recently posted examples of TMYII exposed from 250-1600 on the same roll with good results) it's not rocket science. Just don't underexpose.

On another subject, many people claim that HCB only used a 50mm. On looking at many of his photos, such as the Picnic by the Marne, which looks like a 35, this seems impossible to me. Too many of his photos show different perspective and/or compression from 50mm.

 

[dshfoto]

The same way a violin player knows where to put their fingers to get the right notes -- practice.
When I first started shooting with a Argus C3 brick, there were no light meters. You just knew, after a few rolls how to set the camera.
I use the same technique now to shoot with my M3.
Somehow you just feel what settings work.
May the force be with you.

 

[graywolf]

This is a kind of interesting thread. I never used a light meter until after my first roll of Kodachrome. If you are plus/minus 2 stops with negative film you will get a printable negative. Off that much with Kodachrome 10, and you got a blank slide.

Film used to come with a handy data sheet that gave you the approximate exposure in most conditions for that film. Made it easy to determine exposure without a meter.

Now how I like to work is by taking an incident meter reading, then just keep an eye out for changes in the light, and adjust accordingly. Using an in camera meter without watching the light and subject closely, only gets you into that plus/minus 2 stop range. Meters need to be used intelligently to get the best results. That is why I hate auto exposure cameras, I wind up having to fight the camera. I have the same problem with autofocus, only more so; however that is not a problem for you RFF folks.

 

[special.foto]

Now how I like to work is by taking an incident meter reading, then just keep an eye out for changes in the light, and adjust accordingly. Using an in camera meter without watching the light and subject closely, only gets you into that plus/minus 2 stop range. Meters need to be used intelligently to get the best results. That is why I hate auto exposure cameras, I wind up having to fight the camera. I have the same problem with autofocus, only more so; however that is not a problem for you RFF folks.

Me too also, usualy i take a reading than put the meter back in my pocket and carry on. I watch the changes in lighting conditions, maybe going from 1/125 to 1/60 when the subject is, let's say, in the shadow of a building, and so on. Usually after an hour or two, close to dusk i take another reading if i'm not sure what the proper exposure could be. I get it right mostly, once or twice have i overexposed slightly.
off - have to agree with you on the autoexposure part, usually i have to fondle with the exposure compensation and i hate it because it makes me lose precious time i've been wanting to save by selecting that mode. Useless, dont you think?

 

[xxloverxx]

Fred, that is good to know.

What speed film was he likely using for those settings? It appears to be 100 iso. 🙂

I think he used Pan X (125) (I read somewhere he used to refer to it as "Pin X"), then switched to Tri-X when it came out and stuck with it for the rest of his life.

Also read somewhere (Photo.net I guess…it was a long time ago. But I don't have any books on him so any facts I have about him were found online) that he generally made pretty dense negatives. Not sure whether that was referring to his Tri-X or Pan X negs.

 

[Roger Hicks]

From all I've heard or read, guesswork, sometimes supplemented by the occasional meter reading. Not always very good guesswork, either.

The only person I know who met him socially and watched him take a picture (at a party) says he did not use a meter.

Cheers,

R.