I don't need a meter!

[Sparrow]

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

it gets speled wrong all the time 🙂 i started in 1964 with a Yashica J, four years later i got a meter and my photos improved. I would give that information/advise to anyone starting in this game

regards

 

[Sparrow]

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.

Roger I am sorry but your original contention was accuracy of exposure, you have the opportunity to demonstrate that, as I did, here and now, do you accept or do you decline?

regards

 

[ZebGoesZeiss]

There was an interesting post in this thread, but - alas - I can't seem to find it inbetween the bitching. Roger posted three actual photographs, Stewart posted five test photos of a grey card and one of a keyboard. Roger wins.

 

[Sparrow]

Roger I am sorry but your original contention was accuracy of exposure, you have the opportunity to demonstrate that, as I did, here and now, do you accept or do you decline?

regards

PS please read again the title of this thread with regard to the use of a meter, your original contention was that exposure was more accurately determined without a meter; no?

 

[merlin]

the one with the 500w lamp behind the subject demonstrates the effect of tones in combination, the card is perceptually much darker than the others I will check the actual density tomorrow

I have to apologies to Alice, my daughter, I usually remove blemishes in PS but didn't think it would be appropriate here.

Blemishes-Shmemishes ... that is one great daughter and partner-in-crime you've got there. Love the fifth one down, her eyes, her impish grin hiding behind some weird, technical-looking gray thing that her dad has forced her to hold.

And could that be he in the window glass?

Bruce

 

[Sparrow]

Too much ouzo and retsina Roger?

that's me I'm afraid 😱

 

[Keith]

There has been a bit of bitching but not too severe and I'm still finding this a fascinating thread. Anyone who would prefer the protagonists to knock it off because it bothers them ... go elsewhere! It hasn't become verbaly violent and it hasn't leaned towards politcs or religion yet ... it's still about photography so let it go! 😛

It's definitely encouraging me to get out without a meter in the next few days and free myself temporarily from the Ikon's AE sophistication. I used to shoot without a meter quite a lot ... it was fun and extremely satisfying when it turned out right. 🙂

 

[Sparrow]

Blemishes-Shmemishes ... that is one great daughter and partner-in-crime you've got there. Love the fifth one down, her eyes, her impish grin hiding behind some weird, technical-looking gray thing that her dad has forced her to hold.

And could that be he in the window glass?

Bruce

It's a love-hate thing I love her and she.......................🙄

P.S. that's me on film Garrrrrrrrrrrr I DON'T DO PHOTOS

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger I am sorry but your original contention was accuracy of exposure, you have the opportunity to demonstrate that, as I did, here and now, do you accept or do you decline?

regards

No, my original contention (post 3) was that you can surprisingly often judge exposure quite accurately. I even gave an example of the sort of accuracy to expect -- which was NOT more accurate than a meter.

Bill and I then argued about the semantics of 'judge'; post 40 onwards, where again, I said I would often guess a reading and check it with a meter.

Re-read post 72, where I said, "Anyone who says that guessing will give better exposures, more often, is clearly deluding himself."

Things went badly downhill in post 75 onwards, where you made some incorrect observations about grey cards, film speeds and metering: the THEORY, as I have repeatedly stressed, that you apparently do not understand.

But I kept on trying. Try post 107, "I do not maintain you can measure the light intensity by eye, nor would I dream of doing so . . . I do maintain that you can very often [bold italics added] judge exposure by eye..."

There are 100 more posts since then. But I think made it clear from the very start what my position was -- and it is nothing like what you are suggesting above.

As I said, this is not a debate. You are not reading what I said. Why, I do not know. But really, there is not much point in either of us wasting any more time on this.

 

[BillP]

Stewart, it's a common problem, let me introduce you to my Son...

Regards,

Bill

 

[Roger Hicks]

It hasn't leaned towards . . . religion

Dear Keith,

Aaaargh! Don't bring the Zone System in to it...

A lot of this stuff is discussed a lot more coherently on the site (below).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

No, my original contention (post 3) was that you can surprisingly often judge exposure quite accurately. I even gave an example of the sort of accuracy to expect -- which was NOT more accurate than a meter.

Bill and I then argued about the semantics of 'judge'; post 40 onwards, where again, I said I would often guess a reading and check it with a meter.

Re-read post 72, where I said, "Anyone who says that guessing will give better exposures, more often, is clearly deluding himself."

Things went badly downhill in post 75 onwards, where you made some incorrect observations about grey cards, film speeds and metering: the THEORY, as I have repeatedly stressed, that you apparently do not understand.

But I kept on trying. Try post 107, "I do not maintain you can measure the light intensity by eye, nor would I dream of doing so . . . I do maintain that you can very often [bold italics added] judge exposure by eye..."

There are 100 more posts since then. But I think made it clear from the very start what my position was -- and it is nothing like what you are suggesting above.

As I said, this is not a debate. You are not reading what I said. Why, I do not know. But really, there is not much point in either of us wasting any more time on this.

so, Roger, at the conclusion of this thread would you agree I am clueless with regard to exposure theory, spiteful in my use of grammar, I have a short term memory problem between posts 75 and 107.............. and probably a drink problem (212), but i am able to expose six contemporaneous frames correctly and you are not? or will yaa give it a go????

goodnight and regards

 

[Sparrow]

Stuart, it's a common problem, let me introduce you to my Son...

Regards,

Bill

they're born with that ability, I don't mind but it's with a w not a u 🙂

 

[BillP]

I don't mind but it's with a w not a u 🙂

AARGH! Corrected again :bang: :bang: :bang:

It's past my bedtime!🙄

Regards,

Byll

 

[Sparrow]

goodnight

and regards

 

[Roger Hicks]

so, Roger, at the conclusion of this thread would you agree I am clueless with regard to exposure theory, spiteful in my use of grammar, I have a short term memory problem between posts 75 and 107.............. and probably a drink problem (212), but i am able to expose six contemporaneous frames correctly and you are not? or will yaa give it a go????

goodnight and regards

I have frequently exposed 6 consecutive frames correctly (I assume 'consecutive' was what you meant by 'contemporaneous'?), but I see little point in demonstrating such an unremarkable ability; an auto-exposure camera can do it more often than not.

Six in a row by guesswork? I'm sure I've done it in the past, but do you really think I am going to hunt out and print up six consecutive shots, some of them probably quite boring, just for you? Though I guess they'd be less boring than your tour de force (or farce) of grey cards.

Clueless about exposure theory? Dunno: you refuse to answer straight questions or admit errors. But it looks like it.

Spiteful in your use of grammar? Spiteful is not the word I would have used. Eccentric, perhaps, or incomprehensible. But not spiteful.

Short term memory? Again, I don't know. But on the evidence of what you posted in those threads, you seemed unaware of how ISO speeds are determined or how meters are calibrated.

Drink problem? Only you can answer that one.

As I've said above, READ WHAT I'VE WRITTEN elsewhere in the thread. I think it will answer all your questions.

 

[Keith]

Can't mesure light intensity, but can judge exposure?

Does one not infere the other?

I think you'd better get off to bed Roger before you lose all credibility..

I take issue here Pitxu ... if exposure is being judged historically as many things in life are by people in a lot of situations that require pinning down a variable ... then it's more to do with evaluating the conditons through experience than actually measuring the light by eye.

I see no problem in Roger's statement here! 🙂

 

[cmedin]

Are you saying that Roger can "evaluate the conditons" with his eyes closed..?...WOW!

Maybe I'm a simpleton, but Roger's statement seemed perfectly fine.

He says--as far as I can tell--that you can't judge light intensity by eye. I agree with that.

He also says--as far as I can tell--that you can judge the exposure. I agree with that.

I know that when I went to the park earlier some shots I made would be around f/16 1/400, and some f/4 1/400 based on experience; one being in bright sunlight and the other in open shade. Could I eyeball the actual light levels? No. Could I use my knowledge based on the conditions? Yes. Did I judge light intensity? No. Did I judge exposure based on conditions and experience? Yes.

 

[cmedin]

No, I didn't. Did Roger state that?

Though it somebody told me the conditions it'd lead to the same conclusion as looking at it myself... but that'd be a somewhat cumbersome way of arriving at exposure, I'd say.

 

[rover]

No more warnings. Get beyond your personal conquests and differences and get on track. If you can't, then take some time away to cool off and come back in a better way.