I don't need a meter!

[cblkdog]

Give it a rest. BTW after 40 years of photography I use sunny 16 just to see how close I get to a meter, surprisingly close.

 

[cmedin]

There's only about a 5 stop range during daylight, and with the playroom you have with most films it's really not too hard to get it ok. 🙂

 

[VinceC]

John (emraphoto)

Bravo on the meterless results!

 

[emraphoto]

thank you vince
it was fun truth be told

 

[VinceC]

An anecdote I read once on Margaret Bourke White was that, because her technical skills were sketchy, LIFE lab techs used to joke her negatives were so dense they'd switch on the enlarger then go out for a cup of coffee.

 

[emraphoto]

Give it a rest. BTW after 40 years of photography I use sunny 16 just to see how close I get to a meter, surprisingly close.

i"m sorry, give what a rest?

 

[Sparrow]

after reading (admittedly only a portion of) this thread i thought hmmm... how good am i at guestimating in the toughest of conditions? i mean i've been shooting for 2 decades with 10-15 of those years on the street... how in tune are my eye's?
so off i went. no internal meter, no handheld (my weapon of choice) just my wee noggin'.
comment away!
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=20652&full=1
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=20653&full=1
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=20654&full=1
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=20655&full=1
http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=20656&full=1
cheers
john

those are very good, but could you do the same under the conditions I took my shots?




PS that is not a challenge, just rhetorical, I am not being aggressive in this conversation 🙂

 

[wintoid]

Well done John, they look great! That was all I originally intended with this post... to try to encourage people to go out and give it a try.

 

[BillP]

I was out doing it today, I shall be out doing it tomorrow. It works for me.

Nice shots, John!

Regards,

Bill

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Stewart,

You are doing it again. Where have I ever said that sunny 16 is superior?

Nor do I claim to be a better photographer than you. I have already said that I would have been proud to take that picture. I do however claim, with what I believe to be considerable justice, that I know a good deal more about exposure theory than you do.

The correlation between being a good photographer and understanding fundamental exposure theory is slender or non-existent, as I have repeatedly said, and as you appear to have demonstrated with the picture you posted. It is much like the correlation between being a scrupulous grammarian and a good writer. The two are quite different. As my wife said, "If you can take pictures like that, why worry about exposure theory? Just go out and take more pictures!"

If anyone wants to see some of our pictures, to confirm that actually, we quite often do get the exposure right, www.rogerandfrances.com has hundreds, possibly thousands. There are also modules in The Photo School about metering, bracketing, subject brightness ranges, and lots more.

Cheers,

Roger

sorry Roger

i hve already conceded that you know a good deal more about exposure theory than I do.

However must have misunderstood your earlier assertion that

“If I, and thousands of others, can look at a scene and by whatever means deliver an exposure recommendation, without using a meter, that is identical with an appropriately interpreted meter reading, I don't quite see how you can refuse to call that judgement.”

to mean that you could actually do it, perhaps one of the thousands of others could post six contemporaneous frames similar to mine without a merer?

regards

 

[BillP]

Stewart, follow the "my images" link in my signature. All the IIIc and IID shots are sans meter.

Regards,

Bill

 

[emraphoto]

forgive me stewart but i'n not entirely sure what the point of me taking said photograph's would be? you seem to have covered the photo of the keyboard and mouse and the grey card.
i have so little interest in the "test shot" it would be quite the exercise to arouse the energy to do so. i did however have a grand time on the street today sans the meter!
regards
john

 

[VinceC]

I spent the whole day meterless today. I have a new lens for my Nikon RFs. Took my girls on an hourlong hike through the woods with low winter sun (sunny 11 1/2!) and many different textures and shadows. Then visited a museum with low light, then just did some street shooting in and out of high-contrast sunlight. Probably won't have the shots developed for a week or more ... I'm heading out on a business trip tomorrow for a few days.

 

[Sparrow]

Stuart, follow the "my images" link in my signature. All the IIIc and IID shots are sans meter.

Regards,

Bill

Bill they are splendid and i often do the same, if less well focused 😱 , but you are not claiming your method and practice is superior to mine in the same way I would not claim mine to be better than yours. roger however is; and i am offering him the opportunity now to prove it.

thanks

 

[Roger Hicks]

Stuart, follow the "my images" link in my signature. All the IIIc and IID shots are sans meter.

Regards,

Bill

Thanks Bill.

Quite honestly, I don't recall where I do and don't use a meter. It is Stewart's fantasy, not mine, that I never use one. I'm pretty sure this is unmetered:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/images/hand/shoes outside temple fs.jpg (Bright sun)

This was guessed

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/images/india/ind c bazaar south 2b.jpg (twilight in a bazaar)

and so was this

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/images/france/g mono churches/st martin tombstone.jpg (inside a very dark 10th century church -- I chose this and the previous one to show that I can get the exposure I want, without metering, even without 'sunny 16', which I never use anyway).

But so what? I've thousands of pictures taken over the last 40+ years; I could lie. But why would I? Bill has 'put his money where his mouth is'. So, if I recall, did the original poster. So have many others. Few if any of us pretend we can get a perfect exposure every time, via judgement alone.

We just say we can do it surprisingly often.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Sparrow]

forgive me stewart but i'n not entirely sure what the point of me taking said photograph's would be? you seem to have covered the photo of the keyboard and mouse and the grey card.
i have so little interest in the "test shot" it would be quite the exercise to arouse the energy to do so. i did however have a grand time on the street today sans the meter!
regards
john

please feel free to ignore me, i realize I’m not to everyone’s taste
🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Bill they are splendid and i often do the same, if less well focused 😱 , but you are not claiming your method and practice is superior to mine in the same way I would not claim mine to be better than yours. roger however is; and i am offering him the opportunity now to prove it.

thanks

Stewart,

What size print do I need to get it through to you that I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT SUNNY 16 IS SUPERIOR TO METERING?

ALL I am claiming is a vastly superior grasp of THEORY, such as: how ISO speeds are determined, the difference in reflectance between 13 and 18 per cent, how meters are calibrated, etc.

Once again, I say: ALMOST ANY METHOD CAN BE MADE TO WORK. You have demonstrated this, but there was no need; I had agreed that from the very beginning. I apologize for the repeated use of capitals but you do not appear to have noticed the last few times I have said this.

As you apparently ceased some time ago to read what I am writing, this has ceased to be a debate. You may be getting something out of it. I'm not, and I'd be astonished if anyone else is either.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[BillP]

Bill they are splendid and i often do the same, if less well focused 😱 , but you are not claiming your method and practice is superior to mine in the same way I would not claim mine to be better than yours. roger however is; and i am offering him the opportunity now to prove it.

thanks

Stewart first of all my apologies for spelling your name wrong earlier :bang:

I would never claim to shoot meterless all the time. If the camera has a meter, I use it; the vast majority of the shots on my Flickr account were metered, using the in-camera facilities of whatever camera was used at the time. It is only in the past 14 months - since the day I bought my IIIc, that I discovered the joys of Sunny-16. I have made my life easy - I only shoot Kodak 400CN in my IIIc, M2 and IID (it didn't take me long to get hooked... 😀 ) - but I get a kick out of eyeing up the scene and doing the calculations in my head. I rely on my experience and the four fates - Light, Latitude, Luck and Leica - to deliver a result that pleases me.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Sparrow]

Thanks Bill.

Quite honestly, I don't recall where I do and don't use a meter. It is Stewart's fantasy, not mine, that I never use one. I'm pretty sure this is unmetered:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/images/hand/shoes outside temple fs.jpg (Bright sun)

This was guessed

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/images/india/ind c bazaar south 2b.jpg (twilight in a bazaar)

and so was this

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/images/france/g mono churches/st martin tombstone.jpg (inside a very dark 10th century church -- I chose this and the previous one to show that I can get the exposure I want, without metering, even without 'sunny 16', which I never use anyway).

But so what? I've thousands of pictures taken over the last 40+ years; I could lie. But why would I? Bill has 'put his money where his mouth is'. So, if I recall, did the original poster. So have many others. Few if any of us pretend we can get a perfect exposure every time, via judgement alone.

We just say we can do it surprisingly often.

Cheers,

Roger

those are challenging situation indeed Roger, perhaps you would care to take six in a row, as I did, and post them for the community to consider?
Or is it that we have a different understanding of the word accuracy?

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Or is it that we have a different understanding of the word accuracy?

No. The problem is that you have a different understanding of the words 'surprisingly often'.

You also appear to have a mental block against the idea that I do indeed use a meter, quite often, as I have repeatedly pointed out. Read the first para of post 202 and the last para of post 204.