shayallen
Established
Thanks Maddoc that is great advice I will start doing that. I don't want to be a tool that doesn't know how to use my camera like Chris Weeks said! I really enjoyed his street photography book could not stop reading it!
How do I learn to use my M7 without lightmeter?
- Thread starter shayallen
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 48
- Views 4K
maddoc
... likes film again.
Your other idea, getting a second all-manual Leica, isn't bad either. A nice, not to beaten up, M4-2 or M4-P would make sense for this and is not to expensive. 🙂
shayallen
Established
Yep trying to decide this now to buy a new imac or buy a leica body and a 35mm Leica lens???? Ugh!
ZeissFan
Veteran
The easy part of the "Sunny 16" rule is when it's sunny. The tricky part is when you're in the shade. Dark shade? Light shade? Cloudy? Overcast? Dark shade with a bright subject? Light shade with a dark subject? Dusk? Dawn? Night? Night with street lights? Etc., etc.
The only thing that I can offer is to use the same type of film for a month and religiously see what the meter suggests in different conditions and then see how the photos turn out.
Print film is more forgiving than transparency film. You'll be surprised that after a while, you'll be right more than you're wrong.
Someone once said that they were more accurate than a light meter, which is of course preposterous. However, experience can help you interpret a scene better than a meter.
The only thing that I can offer is to use the same type of film for a month and religiously see what the meter suggests in different conditions and then see how the photos turn out.
Print film is more forgiving than transparency film. You'll be surprised that after a while, you'll be right more than you're wrong.
Someone once said that they were more accurate than a light meter, which is of course preposterous. However, experience can help you interpret a scene better than a meter.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Why? What are you trying to prove? : )
Really, i never understood this. Shouldn't we be trying to get CLOSER to accurate exposures? Sunny 16 only 'sorta' works. And, it limits you to negative films. Do you really get more satisfaction with an image if you didn't use a meter? Personally, if my technical results were 'substandard' even on one 'important' frame, i'd be very disturbed. I don't like relying on a film's latitude to get a "printable" neg. But, i started out in fashion, and we did clip tests and pushed/pulled each roll by as little as a third of a stop to get it right....
I guess some will say it teaches you to see light. But, my thought is that you only need to know how to use/interpret a meter: same thing, no? It's surely not only a matter of battery-dependence, is it? In 30 years, i've only had one battery-related issue: a defective camera drained them.... So, i lost one day's 'picture opportunities' while traveling. But, i shudder to think of how many missed/slightly off exposures i would have had in those 20 years if i had been guessing. Frankly, i'm majorly peeved about one of my most recent shots, where my exposure was off probably by only a stop.... There's a significant loss of quality, and i'll never get that opportunity back:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/3463824969/
Out of four frames, only this one was 'on.' The others were slightly off, and they're grainier and don't have the same tonality....
@ZeissFan -
Not to be (overly) argumentative, but how can anyone ever "interpret a scene better than a meter?" The meter doesn't really interpret anything. It just does what it's told to do, and the user has to know what it's doing, and how to get it to see what it needs to see. Perhaps i'm misunderstanding....
And, then, yes - there's the other bit of the advice: use only one film for a long period of time, so that the 'calculations' become simpler. But, that often means using a film that's inappropriate for the situation. Tri-X, for example.... If you have to use that because it's a good compromise for both low light and daylight, you're getting more grain than you need to get if you're shooting outdoors during the day. And, unless you use neutral density filters, you're stuck with small apertures if you're using a Leica with a 1/1000 top speed.... So, what advantages outweigh the limitations?
For the OP:
Is it that you feel you're relying too much on the camera's interpretation of a scene, because you're just aiming at accepting the reading? You can use the M7 like an M6: meter on the appropriate zone, set it to manual, and then shoot until conditions dictate a change. Doesn't that get you where you want to go?
Really, i never understood this. Shouldn't we be trying to get CLOSER to accurate exposures? Sunny 16 only 'sorta' works. And, it limits you to negative films. Do you really get more satisfaction with an image if you didn't use a meter? Personally, if my technical results were 'substandard' even on one 'important' frame, i'd be very disturbed. I don't like relying on a film's latitude to get a "printable" neg. But, i started out in fashion, and we did clip tests and pushed/pulled each roll by as little as a third of a stop to get it right....
I guess some will say it teaches you to see light. But, my thought is that you only need to know how to use/interpret a meter: same thing, no? It's surely not only a matter of battery-dependence, is it? In 30 years, i've only had one battery-related issue: a defective camera drained them.... So, i lost one day's 'picture opportunities' while traveling. But, i shudder to think of how many missed/slightly off exposures i would have had in those 20 years if i had been guessing. Frankly, i'm majorly peeved about one of my most recent shots, where my exposure was off probably by only a stop.... There's a significant loss of quality, and i'll never get that opportunity back:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/3463824969/
Out of four frames, only this one was 'on.' The others were slightly off, and they're grainier and don't have the same tonality....
@ZeissFan -
Not to be (overly) argumentative, but how can anyone ever "interpret a scene better than a meter?" The meter doesn't really interpret anything. It just does what it's told to do, and the user has to know what it's doing, and how to get it to see what it needs to see. Perhaps i'm misunderstanding....
And, then, yes - there's the other bit of the advice: use only one film for a long period of time, so that the 'calculations' become simpler. But, that often means using a film that's inappropriate for the situation. Tri-X, for example.... If you have to use that because it's a good compromise for both low light and daylight, you're getting more grain than you need to get if you're shooting outdoors during the day. And, unless you use neutral density filters, you're stuck with small apertures if you're using a Leica with a 1/1000 top speed.... So, what advantages outweigh the limitations?
For the OP:
Is it that you feel you're relying too much on the camera's interpretation of a scene, because you're just aiming at accepting the reading? You can use the M7 like an M6: meter on the appropriate zone, set it to manual, and then shoot until conditions dictate a change. Doesn't that get you where you want to go?
thomasw_
Well-known
The M2 and a summilux 35/1,4 pre-asph and trix and a little hand held meter. Oooooh yea baby, that's pure... Seriously, you will get very good at reading different types of light and knowing how you want it for printing with a hardcore combo like that.
mackigator
Well-known
Pull the battery out and shoot with the shutter speeds you have left?
sepiareverb
genius and moron
It's part of the game for me.
That's why I always check after I guess.
I'm with you, the meter is giving reliable information that I'm happy to use- that 1/3 of a stop is sometimes enough to ruin a slide, and with neg film a properly exposed neg is easier enough to print that I'm happy to set aside any ego and go with a meter reading.
novum
Well-known
Meters can be useful, but I love relying on my own senses and judgment. Like so many other things in life, do it often enough and you will know. It really is easy, like developing your own film. My acquaintances can't believe I develop film. Other photographers can't believe I don't usually rely on a meter. Neither skill is all that difficult to master (though with film development there can be that unending urge for experimentation).
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I agree with the earlier suggestion of going to Fred Parker's site and read what he has to say and look at his charts!
When I was all misty eyed about using sunny sixteen I gleaned all my info from there but to be honest I now use a hand held meter for specific reasons. I generally use it in preference to an in camera meter because parameters are consistent with it which is not necessarily so with in camera meters which all seem to have their own bias. Yes sure black and white film is flexible exposure wise but why be near enough if you can be dead right? Taking a guestimated exposure with an M7, which has a brillliant in camera meter, then having to jigger around in post because you were a stop and a half out seems like folly to me!
Sunny sixteeen is good when shooting on the fly with a manual camera in a street situation or similar but why not aim for perfect exposure when time allows and negate the error factor?
When I was all misty eyed about using sunny sixteen I gleaned all my info from there but to be honest I now use a hand held meter for specific reasons. I generally use it in preference to an in camera meter because parameters are consistent with it which is not necessarily so with in camera meters which all seem to have their own bias. Yes sure black and white film is flexible exposure wise but why be near enough if you can be dead right? Taking a guestimated exposure with an M7, which has a brillliant in camera meter, then having to jigger around in post because you were a stop and a half out seems like folly to me!
Sunny sixteeen is good when shooting on the fly with a manual camera in a street situation or similar but why not aim for perfect exposure when time allows and negate the error factor?
novum
Well-known
I use a meter when I'm going slow, like with LF. I'm just stating my druthers.
Sparrow
Veteran
What Keith said!
and one of these, not a reflective meter, the sticker on the left is at f16 at 1/film-asa so one can see imediarly by how many stops the light is off.
sorry about the photo, it's a digicam and I don't know how it works
and one of these, not a reflective meter, the sticker on the left is at f16 at 1/film-asa so one can see imediarly by how many stops the light is off.
sorry about the photo, it's a digicam and I don't know how it works
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Hi Shavalen, could you provide a link to the Chris Weeks pdf on street photography? I'm interested in reading it!
robin a
Well-known
Follow the advice given to you by Roger and Maddoc,you'll be suprised...............Robin
Rogrund
Antti Sivén
Google chris + weeks + pdf.
RichardB
Well-known
Did you solve your problem with your M7?-Dick
shayallen
Established
Yes thanks for your help Dick... I just did not know what I was doing🙂
ZeissFan
Veteran
I agree with what you say in your post.
As for my comment, I'm referring to the simple center-weighted meters that are in most cameras. I think experience has taught us that meters can be overly influenced by sky, shadows, light backgrounds, dark backgrounds, etc.
So all that I'm saying is that we can interpret the scene before us and make adjustments to the suggested exposure as needed.
Right, all the meter does is read a light value and suggest an exposure, but it's up to the photographer to decide if further adjustment is needed.
By the way, I use an incident meter and rarely stray from its suggested readings, although there are times when I encounter a variable scene where you have bright sunlight and shadow and then have to figure out what's best. Of course, bracketing is best, but I'll admit that I don't always do that.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Thanks for the reply. And, for not taking offense to my questions....
I guess it also depends on what you shoot. If you're a 'street photographer,' there really isn't a single (zone) tone you absolutely have to 'nail' in an image. If you shoot people, you kinda have to get skin tones right.... Landscapers - well, i hope they're deliberate enough to use a spot meter, but most scenes are probably filled with so many values it's tough to get it completely 'wrong.'
@SepiaReverb: ["It's part of the game for me."]
Thanks for your candor! I can see similar attitudes in other responses. Like, when novum said, "My acquaintances can't believe I develop film. Other photographers can't believe I don't usually rely on a meter." I guess it's a point of pride with some photographers. Maybe my memory isn't good enough for that, though. When i (eventually) process a roll, i can never remember which frames were exposed using the meter 'straight,' versus those with compensation, etc. And, it doesn't matter to me. I just want the best possible image and how it gets there isn't really the concern. AF or manual or zone focus; spot meter or guestimate - whatever. I also just started developing film again, and while there was an initial twinge of pride when the first rolls came out so well, that has worn off. After a week, the negs go into the binder and mix in with the lab-processed stuff, and it's all the same again....
I guess it also depends on what you shoot. If you're a 'street photographer,' there really isn't a single (zone) tone you absolutely have to 'nail' in an image. If you shoot people, you kinda have to get skin tones right.... Landscapers - well, i hope they're deliberate enough to use a spot meter, but most scenes are probably filled with so many values it's tough to get it completely 'wrong.'
@SepiaReverb: ["It's part of the game for me."]
Thanks for your candor! I can see similar attitudes in other responses. Like, when novum said, "My acquaintances can't believe I develop film. Other photographers can't believe I don't usually rely on a meter." I guess it's a point of pride with some photographers. Maybe my memory isn't good enough for that, though. When i (eventually) process a roll, i can never remember which frames were exposed using the meter 'straight,' versus those with compensation, etc. And, it doesn't matter to me. I just want the best possible image and how it gets there isn't really the concern. AF or manual or zone focus; spot meter or guestimate - whatever. I also just started developing film again, and while there was an initial twinge of pride when the first rolls came out so well, that has worn off. After a week, the negs go into the binder and mix in with the lab-processed stuff, and it's all the same again....
MPerson
Established
You might find this useful:
The Exposure-Mat
my 10 year old son used it all last summer with an old CL with no meter. It helped him start seeing light and estimating what settings he needed.
The Exposure-Mat
my 10 year old son used it all last summer with an old CL with no meter. It helped him start seeing light and estimating what settings he needed.
