Bill, I agree that our eyes and brains are not the same as a calibrated meter.
Excellent.
But I don't agree that you *have* to use a meter otherwise photography doesn't really matter or you're just being a dolt.
Oh, I don't think I've ever said that. My 'dolt' remarks are intended for people who think they *can* meter with their eyeballs, if they really think that.
What matters in photography is the result - to the viewer. What matters in photography is intent - to the photographer.
I am glad when a person likes my photograph, and whether I metered or did not meter is hardly important to them. However, if I am intending to expose a scene in a particular way, then metering matters to me, because like focusing, it is a matter of intent. If I intend to expose it thusly, then I need to make use of the tools that permit that. Guessing might work, but it might not. To me, that is not productive.
One of the most important aspect of creativity is unpredictability. Without which, we won't learn or adapt to anything different.
One often gets results based on unpredictability which one likes. Supposing that it is an effect of random (or guessed) exposure, how does one reproduce that effect if one does not know how it was achieved?
Now, please don't turn around and thinking that I said "no creativity if you're using a meter."
I won't. Please don't infer that I said anyone who doesn't use a meter is a dolt, when I did not.
And sometimes I just like to pull out a negative from the tank and see crisp images despite me having not used a meter. Yeah, I'm shallow that way.
I think a lot of the misunderstanding between people like us with regard to metering has to do with our individual understanding of exposure. I have no argument with people who claim they can get 'good' exposures from guessing. Sure, no problem.
But is that exposure under your control? Not if you're guessing. If you guess, you get what you get. If it is within acceptable parameters for you, then that obviously works for you.
But would you do the same with, say, shallow DoF and focusing? Would you accept a lens that backfocused, for example? You intend to place the focus at the eyes of some portrait subject, and instead it is his ears that are in focus and the eyes blurry. Would that be OK? I would argue it would not be OK, because it is not what you intended. Now, you could stop down and let DoF cover any focusing error, but that is a compromise, isn't it? Fine if you're OK with compromise, but not if you want total control.
With regard to exposure, I posit that it is a creative tool like any other. You can accept 'good enough' exposures that are the result of memories and guestimates and if it works for you, it's no different from stopping down to cover the errors of a mis-calibrated lens. If, however, you intended to precisely place black at X and white at Y, then guessing just isn't going to cut it.
So for me, it is down to intent. Yes, I fully understand that one can get acceptable exposures by guessing. I do it myself all the time, or use cameras which can't be set anyway. I like the results. But I do not expect precise exposure control from those methods or cameras. And I do think that precise exposure is a creative tool that can be exploited if one wants to use it, and takes the time and effort to master that particular control.
You don't have to manually focus - AF works just fine most of the time, right? DoF will cover a multitude of focusing errors. But some of like to manually focus, for the control it gives us. Metering is the same.
