Stradibarrius
Established
When you do not have your hand held with you what are some methods to estimating exposure? I know the sunny 16 rule, are there others or is it just a guess?
How to estimate exposure?
- Thread starter Stradibarrius
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 39
- Views 15K
bmattock
Veteran
Despite what people are about to tell you, estimating exposure is just that - estimating. It only 'works' because of the latitude of color print film and the similarity of certain common scenes for the purposes of exposure.
These examples used to be printed on boxes of film.
Examples include sunny days, cloudy days, night time, full moon, and etc.
Get a meter and use it. That's what they are for.
These examples used to be printed on boxes of film.
Examples include sunny days, cloudy days, night time, full moon, and etc.
Get a meter and use it. That's what they are for.
eli griggs
Well-known
There are several printable guides to estimating exposure on-line and if you can find an old Kodak pocket guide (was it called "Professional Pocket Guide"?) it had a small slide calculator for estimating exposures.
A meter is really the way to go most of the time but you should guess and try if it is the only way to get a quick or discreet shot or go home without having made an exposure.
A few months back my Rozeann and I were dining in a relatively dim steakhouse one evening and I managed to grab several table-top shots of a little girl and her grandfather interacting at a family gathering a table over without a meter and without alerting anyone that they were being photographed.
I do this often as practice, even though I'm not really interested in what's going on or making prints of what I've shot, and after awhile you can quickly eliminate possible exposures and be relatively certain that you will have printable images. It doesn't always yield good results but it works often enough to make it worthwhile to try.
Of course, bracketing is always a good idea if you have the time and the action is not too fast, even with aid of a meter.
You should also practice estimating before taking a meter reading, you loose only a moment or two and it builds skill.
Cheers
A meter is really the way to go most of the time but you should guess and try if it is the only way to get a quick or discreet shot or go home without having made an exposure.
A few months back my Rozeann and I were dining in a relatively dim steakhouse one evening and I managed to grab several table-top shots of a little girl and her grandfather interacting at a family gathering a table over without a meter and without alerting anyone that they were being photographed.
I do this often as practice, even though I'm not really interested in what's going on or making prints of what I've shot, and after awhile you can quickly eliminate possible exposures and be relatively certain that you will have printable images. It doesn't always yield good results but it works often enough to make it worthwhile to try.
Of course, bracketing is always a good idea if you have the time and the action is not too fast, even with aid of a meter.
You should also practice estimating before taking a meter reading, you loose only a moment or two and it builds skill.
Cheers
Last edited:
JRG
Well-known
I sure wouldn't argue against using a meter, if you've got one handy. But I find it useful to be able to estimate what the meter is going to say before I pull it out.
Fred Parker's site has (probably) the most thorough extension of the Sunny 16 rule. But it isn't all that easy to use when you're in a hurry.
Some time back, I condensed the rules at the Fred Parker site so that they can be printed and then mounted on a 3x5 index card, which will fit nicely in a shirt pocket. There are eight such "cards" in total, each for a different ISO setting. I usually carry just one, matching the film I've got loaded. (I'm attaching a low res copy of the "cards" for ISO 400 and ISO 800), as a jpeg file.
The full set of "cards" along with explanation of how to use exists in a PDF document (quality much higher!), which I can't attach here. PM me if you'd like a copy.
Fred Parker's site has (probably) the most thorough extension of the Sunny 16 rule. But it isn't all that easy to use when you're in a hurry.
Some time back, I condensed the rules at the Fred Parker site so that they can be printed and then mounted on a 3x5 index card, which will fit nicely in a shirt pocket. There are eight such "cards" in total, each for a different ISO setting. I usually carry just one, matching the film I've got loaded. (I'm attaching a low res copy of the "cards" for ISO 400 and ISO 800), as a jpeg file.
The full set of "cards" along with explanation of how to use exists in a PDF document (quality much higher!), which I can't attach here. PM me if you'd like a copy.
Attachments
bmattock
Veteran
You cannot build skill estimating light by guessing. Your eyes are not calibrated to any standard. It simply is not possible. You can only become a good guesser based on memory of similar situations. That is not the same as estimating exposure settings.
bmattock
Veteran
If I put you into a semi-dark room and ask you to tell me the EV, you will be wrong. Five minutes later, you'll be wrong as well, although your eyes will have adjusted to the darkness and things will appear lighter. Take you outside into the bright sunlight and you will be wrong yet again, as it will seem far brighter out than usual until your eyes adjust. You can only rely on memories of past more-or-less correct exposures. It is not possible to be accurate by guessing.
Eyeballs are not calibrated light sensors. You can't measure how long a board is by looking at it - you can't measure the light by looking at it. You can only guess.
dmr
Registered Abuser
I had an interesting experience along this line a couple years ago when a battery died with no notice and I had to do things manually.
I thought back to similar situations when I had a good battery and remembered the approximate exposures for that type of scene. I was able to convert to the current film speed and salvage the session.
Here's the story with example photos:
http://omababe.blogspot.com/2007/10/cross-processing-bean.html
I thought back to similar situations when I had a good battery and remembered the approximate exposures for that type of scene. I was able to convert to the current film speed and salvage the session.
Here's the story with example photos:
http://omababe.blogspot.com/2007/10/cross-processing-bean.html
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Perhaps it would be helpful to learn how many stops away from sunny-16 the following states are:
Cloudy
Overcast
Shade
Cloudy
Overcast
Shade
David William White
Well-known
Not so difficult to estimate, especially with black and white negative film, and good practice.
The guidelines for Tri-X 400 were (from the box):
f/16 @ 1/250th -bright or hazy sun with distinct shadows
f/11 @ 1/250th -cloudy bright with no shadows
f/8 @ 1/250th -heavy overcast or open shade
In ordinary outdoor shooting, there is just a three stop spread here. I'm sure there would be no confusion between these three general lighting conditions.
A meter reading could make things a lot worse if your subject is backlit, for instance.
Remember that a hell of a lot of photography was done long before meters existed.
The guidelines for Tri-X 400 were (from the box):
f/16 @ 1/250th -bright or hazy sun with distinct shadows
f/11 @ 1/250th -cloudy bright with no shadows
f/8 @ 1/250th -heavy overcast or open shade
In ordinary outdoor shooting, there is just a three stop spread here. I'm sure there would be no confusion between these three general lighting conditions.
A meter reading could make things a lot worse if your subject is backlit, for instance.
Remember that a hell of a lot of photography was done long before meters existed.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
I second the Fred Parker recommendation (aka Ultimate Exposure Computer - google it). It was a liberating experience to me. I hadn't realized before that there are only so many lighting situations you are going to encounter.
As for "calibrated eyeballs," I find that's the wrong way to approach this. Nobody has those and nobody needs those. Try to train yourself to recognize the lighting. A ski slope in full sun is a ski slope in full sun is a ski slope in full sun. Your eyes have nothing to do with it.
When you have a meter, great, but that wasn't the OP's question. Also, knowing what's a likely reading for where you are, and what isn't, will prevent metering mistakes.
As for "calibrated eyeballs," I find that's the wrong way to approach this. Nobody has those and nobody needs those. Try to train yourself to recognize the lighting. A ski slope in full sun is a ski slope in full sun is a ski slope in full sun. Your eyes have nothing to do with it.
When you have a meter, great, but that wasn't the OP's question. Also, knowing what's a likely reading for where you are, and what isn't, will prevent metering mistakes.
bsdunek
Old Guy with a Corgi
The 'Sunny 16' rule, and then stepping down for each change works pretty well. Certainly the latitude of the film helps. That said, my Grandfather, back in the 40' & 50's took many properly exposed slides on Kodachrome. It was ASA 10 back then, and had very little latitude. He just used the chart on the film box and it worked great. Just shows it can be done.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I agree with bmattock totally that the human eye cannot read light levels accurately because that's not what it was made for. It's the brain storing situations and information giving you an historical log to draw from that allows meterless shooting. I can generally get pretty close and occasionally be dead on ... but a meter gets it right every time if you use it correctly.
It is nice to know though, that if I'm out shooting and happen to drop my meter in a creek I will come home with something ... I always carry one of Fred Parker's charts with me! 😛
It is nice to know though, that if I'm out shooting and happen to drop my meter in a creek I will come home with something ... I always carry one of Fred Parker's charts with me! 😛
ruby.monkey
Veteran
A meter is the most reliable method of determining exposure, but it's not much use
I like to carry a Sekonic TwinMate in my pocket and an exposure guide in my head, but sometimes I forget the meter. It's nice to know that I can get close enough without it to bring home a few good shots.
now is it?
I like to carry a Sekonic TwinMate in my pocket and an exposure guide in my head, but sometimes I forget the meter. It's nice to know that I can get close enough without it to bring home a few good shots.
mh2000
Well-known
if you are using an in-camera meter or reflective handheld meter you have to estimate how far your subject is away from a neutral gray which makes it about as precise as using Sunny-16... in fact, I find Sunny-16 to mostly give better results on average than my modern cameras with evaluative metering... in my experience you need to use an incident meter or gray card to beat Sunny-16 outdoors. I can often estimate available light shots better than my Canon D/SLRs can too.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Experience. After surprisingly few years you will find that you can guess exposures with more than sufficient accuracy. Often, indeed, your estimate will be better than an unadjusted broad-area meter reading (eg backlighting, unusually bright or dark subjects, very large contrast ranges at night...)
Of course your eye is not measuring the light -- but on the other hand, your brain is a more powerful computer than anything ever built into any light meter, and you can remember other difficult situations, which the meter can't.
But it's 'use it or lose it'. Start relying blindly on a meter, and you soon lose the ability to estimate accurately. That's why I often set the aperture and shutter speed; take a reading; and see how far the meter and I agree. Often we're within 1/2 stop and my estimate is better, at in the kind of awkward situation described above. But if I'm seriously out, by 2-3 stops, then the odds are that I have been fooled, and the meter hasn't.
Oh: and neg films typically tolerate 2 or even 3 stops of over-exposure, but almost no under-exposure. I have a theory that the famed 'Leica glow' is often a result of overexposure resulting from guessed exposures.
Tashi delek,
R.
Of course your eye is not measuring the light -- but on the other hand, your brain is a more powerful computer than anything ever built into any light meter, and you can remember other difficult situations, which the meter can't.
But it's 'use it or lose it'. Start relying blindly on a meter, and you soon lose the ability to estimate accurately. That's why I often set the aperture and shutter speed; take a reading; and see how far the meter and I agree. Often we're within 1/2 stop and my estimate is better, at in the kind of awkward situation described above. But if I'm seriously out, by 2-3 stops, then the odds are that I have been fooled, and the meter hasn't.
Oh: and neg films typically tolerate 2 or even 3 stops of over-exposure, but almost no under-exposure. I have a theory that the famed 'Leica glow' is often a result of overexposure resulting from guessed exposures.
Tashi delek,
R.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Until you find yourself in a situation which you have not been in before. Indoors is also quite difficult, since there is no frame of reference for 'indoors'.
Because that's not proper metering. Only spot-metering is proper metering.
Your brain is easily fooled with optical situations and lies to you. Example - every 'optical illusion' ever created.
Why bother committing to memory those things which a proper meter handles far better? The solution is to HAVE A METER and USE IT. Those who complain about failing to bring a meter with them are not to be pitied - if they forgot their camera or film (or memory card), they'd be in a spot, wouldn't they? Don't forget your meter, or be a great thumping silly.
If one only cares about 'approximate' exposure, then I suppose it works.
I find it amusing that people obsess over lenses with incredible characteristics, lose sleep over scratches in lens coatings, cry over which camera body is the most awesome, and then throw caution to the winds and use "That looks about right" exposure settings. Anal in every detail until it comes to exposure, and then it's "Oh, the hell with it, I'll just take a guess." WTF?
If your photographs matter to you, learn to use a meter properly, carry one with you, and don't be a dolt. Not you Roger, this is advice to the hoi polloi.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
We are in substantial agreement (especially about selective obsession, and using a meter whenever it's remotely convenient, and spot metering) but because of years of using non-metered cameras (especially a Leica IIIa when I was at university) I find it's a skill I don't want to lose. Also, my Retina IIa is so tiny that I'd rather rely on memory than carry a meter when I have the Retina with me just for fun. Finally, even unknown situations can usually be judged surprsingly well, by analogy.
I don't seem to be able to get quite as excited about this as you on the one side, or the 'Ya don't need a meter' brigade on the other.
Tashi delek,
R.
We are in substantial agreement (especially about selective obsession, and using a meter whenever it's remotely convenient, and spot metering) but because of years of using non-metered cameras (especially a Leica IIIa when I was at university) I find it's a skill I don't want to lose. Also, my Retina IIa is so tiny that I'd rather rely on memory than carry a meter when I have the Retina with me just for fun. Finally, even unknown situations can usually be judged surprsingly well, by analogy.
I don't seem to be able to get quite as excited about this as you on the one side, or the 'Ya don't need a meter' brigade on the other.
Tashi delek,
R.
Last edited:
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
I find it helps, at first, to limit yourself to one or two film speeds. Maybe 400 and 100. Once you get comfortable in different situations you can mix it up and do the conversions in your head for 50, 200, 800, 1600, etc.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Seems this bears repeating again -- first words of the OP:
Any discussion about meters and how to use them is irrelevant to the question at hand.
OK, so some of you feel strongly about this, but please discuss metering somewhere else. You're a lot like the guy at a soccer game who decides to pick up the ball and carry it into the goal.
Now, the reason that estimating can work very well is that even the best most precise major $$$ meter will only nail one of the factors that go into exposure. So your meter is dead-on, congratulations. Is your shutter, too? Not if you shoot vintage equipment; 20% off after a CLA is apparently not unusual. Do you know the precise speed of the particular batch of film that's loaded? (Not the nominal speed -- I don't know how much current emulsions vary but it's likely to get worse as production volumes go down.) Do you have a full understanding of how your subject reflects light and how you want it to appear?
Similar uncertainties exist on the developing side, of course.
The good thing is that these factors are very unlikely to conspire towards one side (over or under exposure). Chances are they'll cancel each other out instead.
So, get over it. IMO being about on target is the best you can hope for, meter or not.
Any discussion about meters and how to use them is irrelevant to the question at hand.
OK, so some of you feel strongly about this, but please discuss metering somewhere else. You're a lot like the guy at a soccer game who decides to pick up the ball and carry it into the goal.
Now, the reason that estimating can work very well is that even the best most precise major $$$ meter will only nail one of the factors that go into exposure. So your meter is dead-on, congratulations. Is your shutter, too? Not if you shoot vintage equipment; 20% off after a CLA is apparently not unusual. Do you know the precise speed of the particular batch of film that's loaded? (Not the nominal speed -- I don't know how much current emulsions vary but it's likely to get worse as production volumes go down.) Do you have a full understanding of how your subject reflects light and how you want it to appear?
Similar uncertainties exist on the developing side, of course.
The good thing is that these factors are very unlikely to conspire towards one side (over or under exposure). Chances are they'll cancel each other out instead.
So, get over it. IMO being about on target is the best you can hope for, meter or not.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Normally, broad-area meters are set up for tranny and will recommend underexposure of neg films; sluggish shutters add exposure, thereby compensating in the opposite direcyion, but rarely as much; true ISO speeds are far closer to nominal than they used to be, and there is no reason why this accuracy should decline; and of course true ISO of a B+W nominal ISO 400 film can easily range from 200 or less (fine grain dev such as Perceptol) to effectively 800 (Microphen, DD-X).
Individual metering technique of the same subject can easily give +/-1/2 stop variations, and of course, unless you are using a spot meter you have to be able to guess (or measure -- unlikely) the overall average reflectance of your subject.
Bill's absolutely right, for neg films: spot metering is the only totally reliable system, and even that relies on the photographer's deciding which is the darkest tone in which he wants texture and detail. For tranny/digi, you can spot meter highlights or (much easier) use an incident light meter.
And you're absolutely right. As long as you get an exposure you're happy with, consistently, how much does it matter exactly which metering technique you used -- including guesstimates?
Tashi delek,
R.
