I don't need a meter!

[kipkeston]

Yep, experience. You have a huge collection of light scenarios stored in your head with combined EVs and all you have to do is judge the scene and match it to something in your head. You're like one of those stupid matrix meters but potentially better.

 

[sirius]

bmattock, your comment about how people see is correct but sunny16 is not about just using your eyes...It's more about using your brain. You're arguing the equivalent of a semantics debate here and those are just frustrating and boring. Everyone knows that an experienced shooter can judge exposure, the great photographers of history have proved that to be a fact.

It does feel liberating to learn to use sunny16. It has a zen quality and makes me feel like I own the process more than when I let the camera think for me. It's also very fast!

 

[bmattock]

Bill, I hear you, but by the same token, an automatic camera doesn't know the difference between black, white or grey, and exposes each of these the same without intervention. Any intervention (exposure compensation) is also an approximation based on experience and judgement. I suppose spot and incident metering can be considered to be accurate if done properly.

I advocate spot metering for accurate exposure. It is time-consuming, so it of course depends on the circumstances and what your needs for the shot happen to be.

Anyway, as an approximation, it's good enough for me. Part of the joy of it is the fact I'm attempting incident metering, whereas my experience with cameras is all reflected metering. I'm quite sure that in tricky lighting, I would rather be using an automatic camera. That's why I'll be keeping the Ikon when it comes back from Matsuiyastore.

"Good enough for me" is quite acceptable - you are the only judge of what you like. However, that is not the same as advocating that no one needs a meter, their eyes are good enough, as it appears some believe. And to pounce on a trifle, 'good enough' is not 'accurate'; it is 'good enough'.

 

[bmattock]

Tom Abrahamsson said:

"There is nothing boring per se with good exposures, but there are no surprises either! Sometimes I find that we are obsessed with correctly exposed shots and that achiving these takes to much time (fiddling with aperture rings and speed dials) rather than shoot "now". It sometimes is akin to "chimping" the digital. Far to often you see digital shooters staring at the back of the camera, whilst the really good shots are happening in front of them!"

It depends entirely on what your desires for the shot happen to be.

Some find focus to be a bit of a bother and why go through it?

Photography is a series of compromises, as nothing ever works just the way you'd prefer it to it seems. Film runs out of latitude just when things get interesting, you can push but then you get grain and oh, dear open up the aperture but then you lose DOF but you can slow down the shutter, damn there's that motion blur - so we balance and decide what it is most important to us and what is not.

If accurate exposure is something one prefers to leave to 'just about' or 'more or less accurate' then I have no complaint. If one sees exposure as a tool of photography, no less important than focus, aperture, choice of focal length, lens type, film emulsion (for those who partake of chemistry still) and composition of course, then it behooves one to use the proper tools to get the exposure one wants - not the *correct* exposure necessarily, but one under the firm control of the photographer and not just left to chance or guesswork.

It is another skill to spend a lifetime mastering or attempting same. Or not, depending on one's outlook.

But I confess I fail to understand the logic of those who obsess over the bokah of one lens versus another, one film emulsion versus another, and then ho-hum the exposure like it has no part to play in the final result.

 

[bmattock]

there are gaffers around the world cackling at the arrogance of this statement. Many, if not most of the gaffers that I have worked with over the age of 45 dont use meters for exposure.

I have no doubt that's true. I know a number of intelligent people who believe in luck and keep silly superstitions as well. Being old does not grant one wisdom. Being a good photographer does not mean one is a master of all aspects of it. Else, Andy Warhol? What the hell, eh? He barely knew which end of the bloody thing to point at stuff.

You'll see them using color temp meters frequently and often for ratios, but when you are a big league gaffer, you had better have big league skills and many of those guys can and do work without meters.

And how controlled are their conditions, I wonder?

you dont judge proper exposure by eye. you judge it by experience.

Absolutely untrue. And I am over the age of 45. My arrogance is exceeded only by the accuracy of my statement.

But let's say that gaffers on movie sets can accurately gauge exposure based on what their eyeballs tell them (and by the way, what the hell are they doing with all those Sekonics hanging on their waists, I wonder)?

Do you have that level of experience? Does the average - or even most professional photographers?

I daresay that if a person is a studio photographer and works under the same lights, shooting the same types of subjects, with the same equipment, they will soon get a very good feel for what exposure settings to use. That is not the same as accurately judging exposure by eye. Take them to a movie, walk them outside in broad daylight, and ask for that lux reading. Oh heck, to be sporting, give them ten minutes and ask again.

If you want an accurate reading of the light, you use a meter. The human eye is not a meter, and is a poor substitute for one.

 

[oftheherd]

There was a time when I thought I was pretty good at guessing exposure. I didn't have a meter, only the film fact sheet that came with the roll. I think when I didn't have the light the film sheet talked about I just guessed and although I didn't know about latitude, I probably benifited from it. I also went on experience of what had worked before, and how different the light was from those experiences. I was always pretty good at judging light. I think I learned to judge from shadows more than the light itself. Not sure though.

These days I feel lost without a meter, either in camera or hand held. The best hand held I ever had was the Sekonic L28c2. Next comes the Luna Pro/Luna Pro sbc. For reasons I am not sure of, I prefer the Luna Pro for reflected and the sbc for incident. Maybe its really the meters are different by a stop or more.

So I would say if you are doing without and getting the shots exposed the way you want, you are doing right. Otherwise, join me with the meter around my neck.

 

[Tom A]

As a pure experiment I have been shooting meterless for the last 6 weeks. M2's and Kodak's XX black/white movie emulsion. Great fun and a good "training" for street shooting.
For years I have used M6's/MP's and all that. Occasionally it is good to rethink how you shoot. I find that using diodes in the viewsinder slows me down. too much time is spent fiddling with aperture rings and getting the right diode to light up. The fact that they go on also draws the eye from the viewfinder and also slows you down.
No, I dont advocate doing it if someone is paying you to shoot. Thats when you want everything just right and guesswork is not a good idea.
I find that if I can shoot with a 75-80% rate of success without a meter, I also am less inclined to take the MP/M6 meter readout as gospel and know which direction to correct it!
The XX is amazingly tolerant of overexposure so I tend to err that way. IF perfect exposures were important to me, I would be using a spotmeter,a tripod and probably lug a 4x5 around - been there, done that and even got paid for it!

 

[WoolenMammoth]

bmattock, not really interested in debating you, just addressing the statement you made that exposure is impossible to judge by eye. You should have this discussion with 728 members who make six figure salaries doing exactly that, not some "street" photographer extolling the sunny 16 rule. In my experience, the meters on their waist (who carries a sekonic on a film set?), as I clearly stated, are for color temp and determining ratios. If you pull out a meter 11, 458 times 12 feet away from a light of known intensity, is there really a reason to pull it out for the 11,459th time if you are paying attention? I dont have that kind of experience but then again I also dont make my living telling operators what their stop should be. I do work in the movies however, and have seen it done enough times by enough different meterless professionals to know that your statement does not apply to all real world situations, sorry.

 

[tripod]

No sweeping generalized statement ever applies to all real world situations.

Except this one. 🙂

 

[bmattock]

bmattock, not really interested in debating you, just addressing the statement you made that exposure is impossible to judge by eye.

If you are not interested in debating me, then do not respond to this statement. What I usually find people mean when they say that is that they do not wish to be contradicted. Sorry to disappoint.

You should have this discussion with 728 members who make six figure salaries doing exactly that, not some "street" photographer extolling the sunny 16 rule. In my experience, the meters on their waist (who carries a sekonic on a film set?), as I clearly stated, are for color temp and determining ratios. If you pull out a meter 11, 458 times 12 feet away from a light of known intensity, is there really a reason to pull it out for the 11,459th time if you are paying attention?

You've just made my point for me. Under controlled conditions which are repeated ad nauseum, professionals know what the exposure should be. They are not judging exposure by eye - they are relying on their experience and memory of what the setting was 11,458 times in a row.

I dont have that kind of experience but then again I also dont make my living telling operators what their stop should be. I do work in the movies however, and have seen it done enough times by enough different meterless professionals to know that your statement does not apply to all real world situations, sorry.

Gaffers who meter movies are hardly 'real world', my friend. What percentage of the population would you say they represent? What percentage of all photographers?

I repeat my statement - it is impossible to accurately judge exposure by eye, because the human eye is not a calibrated sensing device. Experience in a controlled situation hardly contradicts that, nor is it in any possible way a 'typical' photographic situation that most of us are ever liable to experience.

I've already acknowledged that 'Sunny 16' works quite often - due to film latitude and personal experience - but it is not accurate, it is luck and film latitude.

To say one has no need to use a meter remains a statement that makes no sense. One may be willing to accept a lucky guess and hope that film latitude and post-processing will cover any potential exposure errors, and that's fine, but it hardly replaces the need for a meter.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

bmattock, please dont confuse not wanting to be contradicted with not wanting to debate an issue which is so to the heart of banality that is, for my logic and experience, on par with debating wether water is wet. If you want to get into repeatability, take for instance, the sun. I believe we have a few planetary laws based around its repeatability. How many tims do you need to meter at 3pm in July at a given altitude and longititude in clear sunlight to know what it is? Four times? Six if you sat in the back of class? This is hardly rocket science we are discussing. And for good measure, wether professionals are in your opinion "real world" or not has absolutely no bearing on your original statement suggesting that people cant train their eyes to judge exposure.

Whats far more amusing to me is the idea that after 30 years of metering one wouldnt *expect* to be able to judge, let alone the insinuation that it is impossible to do. In the end, there are enough people out there that can and do do this consistently, and for VERY high stakes, I might add, that your opinion on the matter really has no impact on the reality of the situation at hand. Dont let that stop you from believing whatever you like. You might reconsider educating others on the matter though... I cant do it, but others can and I sure dont believe in magic.

There are also guys that, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOH, can judge distance to the inch by eye. Id love to hear you deconstruct that ability, lol.

 

[bmattock]

bmattock, please dont confuse not wanting to be contradicted with not wanting to debate an issue which is so to the heart of banality that is, for my logic and experience, on par with debating wether water is wet.

I'm sorry you seem to be getting angry - I assure you I am not. As to the 'banality' of my argument - I think you need to look that word up; it does not mean what you seem to think it means.

If you want to get into repeatability, take for instance, the sun. I believe we have a few planetary laws based around its repeatability. How many tims do you need to meter at 3pm in July at a given altitude and longititude in clear sunlight to know what it is? Four times? Six if you sat in the back of class?

Exactly my point. The sun, as steady and constant as it is, does not deliver the same amount of light in every clime and place. One might well know that Sunny-16 will work under situations one has faced before - as long as indeed, the conditions are as one expects.

The sun is repeatable. The light that reaches us is only occasionally repeatable, and even then - we can easily misjudge it. Fortunately, film latitude often conceals our failure from us.

I have a pretty good idea how fast I'm driving on a particular road. But it is just a guess, and I could be off by a lot, depending on local conditions I failed to take into account. My ass is a poor velocity measurement device - and your eyes are a poor light measurement device.

This is hardly rocket science we are discussing. And for good measure, wether professionals are in your opinion "real world" or not has absolutely no bearing on your original statement suggesting that people cant train their eyes to judge exposure.

People cannot train their eyes to judge exposure. They can learn through experience to recognize similar conditions - and if they are RIGHT, then their exposure will be right. If they are WRONG, then their exposure will be wrong. Your example was merely a set of conditions that - as you stated - were tightly controlled to BE repeatable. I repeat for emphasis that not many of us as photographers will be so fortunate as to be given the same controlled photographic situation over and over again.

Human eyes lie or are fooled - about many things. The eye-brain combination is fooled by optical illusions, by perspective, by distance, and most certainly by light levels. The human eye shares - as I said - only one attribute that film or digital image sensors have - they record light. They do not work in the same ways at all, and they adjust without bothering to tell you that they're doing so.

Whats far more amusing to me is the idea that after 30 years of metering one wouldnt *expect* to be able to judge, let alone the insinuation that it is impossible to do.

It is absolutely, 100% impossible to do. And it is because your eyes (and mine) are imprecise measuring devices.

In the end, there are enough people out there that can and do do this consistently, and for VERY high stakes, I might add, that your opinion on the matter really has no impact on the reality of the situation at hand.

As I have said - no they do not, and no they cannot. They can use their experience to judge conditions they have faced over and over again - and if they are incorrect about those conditions, their guesses will also be incorrect. They do not judge the light - they remember similar conditions and the chances are high - under their controlled conditions - that they are right.

Dont let that stop you from believing whatever you like. You might reconsider educating others on the matter though... I cant do it, but others can and I sure dont believe in magic.

Certainly you believe in magic. You have a light-sensing device - your eye - which cannot be calibrated to any known standard, and you think it will tell you anything that can be transliterated to a precise setting like a photographic exposure. It's like a speedometer with no numbers on it.

As to my qualifications to educate others - I can do so because, as I also said earlier, I'm very smart. Also good looking. I know what I'm talking about and you clearly do not - at least on this subject.

There are also guys that, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOH, can judge distance to the inch by eye. Id love to hear you deconstruct that ability, lol.

I have no idea why I would want to. Stick to the 'banal' point or retire from the field, if you please.

 

[Trius]

Within a certain range of light levels and experience, one can get acceptable (if not "proper") exposure without a meter. As has been stated, the extremes of illumination (very low, very high) make it harder for the eye/brain combination to reach a conclusion. The fact that a meter doesn't know Zone I from Zone III from Zone V, etc., is immaterial; I know where I want values placed in the negative/print. One type of tree bark, such as an old maple tree is, let's say, Zone III and in the same lighting a paper birch is Zone VI-1/2 or VII, sometimes depending on my mood. So if I am in clear daylight on a particular day of the year in a particular hemisphere, I can figure all this out in my head. But a meter can be an enormously helpful tool.

I use Sunny 16 a lot, sometimes I check my meter for confirmation. But being a Sunny 16 worshiper or addict to the exclusion of another good tool is a bit silly. But when you ain't got one, i.e. your Ikon is away in the hospital or you simply left your handheld meter in bag # 25 (no one here has too many bags, right?) and you headed out the door with bag # 13, well, Sunny 16 and experience is the tool you have, eh?

 

[WoolenMammoth]

bmattock-

the one thing I do know is the definition of banality, dictionary dot com brings up: devoid of freshness or originality; hackneyed; trite. This is hardly a rarely used word. Sorry to have rocked your almost 6000 post big fish routine, its pointless arguing with those types. Definitely not going to argue about symantics with you, the bottom line is most of the movies you watch, eh, not most, but many, have elements that were created without a light meter. Call it whatever you need to so you can be right in the end, which unquestionably you always are, silly of me to have challenged you.

 

[richard_l]

Anyone who thinks they can judge proper exposure by eye is fooling themselves. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

The same is true of anyone who believes that a lightmeter (or autoexposure) will automatically give the correct exposure. This also is a fact.

Richard

 

[wintoid]

My original point was to try to encourage others to give it a try because it's easy. Somehow this post has turned into a nitpicking over whether it can really be accurate to abandon your meter. That's a shame.

Here's a photo I took using sunny 16. I am happy with the exposure.



I have been out on my lunchbreak with my camera 4 times now using sunny 16 only, and each time I have produced shots which are as well exposed as this one. Maybe one day I will go out and get it wrong, but so far, in several hundred frames, it's been "good enough for me".

Don't be scared, or put off by the in-depth discussion going on around us, give it a try!

 

[itf]

What is correct exposure?

 

[pvdhaar]

What is correct exposure?

Correct exposure is what you get if you shoot according to the guide I taped on the back of my M4... 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

The human eye is not a meter, and is a poor substitute for one.

Yes, and blindly following a meter is is poor substitute for experience.

To paraphrase what someone else said, you don't meter with your eye, you judge exposure with your brain.

In countless familiar situations, many people can get exactly the right exposure 'by eye' = 'from experience'. Unfamiliar situations are another matter. But the longer you take pictures, and the more you practice, the more situations you can judge. Equally, the more you rely on a meter, the more that ability atrophies.

That's why, as I said earlier, I'll usually set an exposure first, and check it with the meter afterwards.

If you, personally, can't judge exposures without a meter, or if you aren't happy doing so, fine. But your sweeping generalization needs a lot of qualifying.

Cheers,

R.