I don't need a meter!

[Joop van Heijgen]

I always use a meter. I've learned over the years how to compensate in difficult light. But I always meter the scene. If for no other reason than it would make my life easier in the darkroom, I've tried to make consistent exposures across a roll of film. The latitude of b&w film will cover a lot of bad guesses, but I never really considered metering so onerous to not do it.

Obviously there must be people who can get it right by guess every time, but I certainly don't have the gift...nor would I want to take the chance of getting it wrong with an important photo.

....but than you can be too late for the photo...:bang:

 

[bmattock]

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

Absolutely true. Most people don't know how to use a light meter correctly.

 

[oldgearhead]

...I still say it's the film. Sunny 16 works for me with color negative film, but not
with digital or E-6 process films. The +- 2.5 stop latitude of color negative and
some b&w films is quite forgiving. Try it with Velvia 100.

I guess I'll load up the old Retina with some Sensia 200, and give it another try.
....

 

[bmattock]

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

Whomever said one should? I argue that the eye is a poor light measuring device. I have not said that one cannot get a reasonable exposure without a meter, or that a meter always renders the 'correct' exposure.

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

In the situation you mention, one is not judging exposure with one's brain, one is remembering similar situations and dredging up the memory of the exposure used in that situation, which is not at all the same.

One can also meter with a - gasp - meter and judge exposure with their brain. Which I would suggest is a reasonable way to apply years of experience and logic in many situations.

Correct exposure, after all, being that exposure that the photographer desires in a given situation. One controls focus - to achieve the effect one desires. Why would one not choose to control exposure for the same reason?

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.

I disagree. They may get an acceptable exposure - and if it is the exposure they desire, then it is of course 'correct'. However, as I have said, the eyes lie and the brain swears to it - and most of us have had situations where we were certain we knew what the correct exposure ought to be, only to discover from our wonky exposures later that we were incorrect.

Relying on a meter is using a tool - like focusing, setting shutter speed, or selecting a film speed and emulsion. One bases one's choice on experience, but all are arrows in the quiver of the expert. I fail to grasp why a person would obsess over a lens design or a type of developer and then cast exposure to the Gods of personal experience.

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

I have not argued that one should do otherwise. I have not argued that anyone should be slavishly attached to a meter. I take issue with statements such as the one that kicked off this thread - "I don't need a meter."

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.

Not only can I not judge exposure without a meter, neither can you or anyone else on the face of this planet.

That is far from a sweeping generalized statement. It is a fact.

You cannot stick your finger in a pot of water and tell me what the temperature is.

You cannot listen to a sound and tell me what the decibel level is.

You cannot taste a hot pepper and tell me what the Scoville rating for it is.

No one can. That's why we have measuring instruments.

What you CAN do - and what experts with experience have trained themselves to do, is exactly what you posited previously - to apply their remembrance of situations past to their current situation, and apply their memory of a correct exposure to it.

Will it be 'correct'? If they are correct in their recollection - yes. And quite often, the conditions are the same, or close enough that errors will be covered by the film or sensor latitude. That's exactly why 'Sunny-16' works.

As you also said - and I agree - if the conditions are unfamiliar, then this system does not work. The reason it does not work is because it is a 'memory game' - not a 'judging exposure' game. We remember what we knew was a correct exposure from times past and reapply it. No memory, no application. If we were in fact judging exposure with our eyes, we'd be able to do so in any given situation.

To conclude:

"Proper exposure" is the exposure one desires. It is an aspect of photography that is, to a large extent, under the control of the photographer if they wish to take control of it. Like focus, lens choice, focal length, shutter speed, aperture, framing and composition, and film choice, it is an aspect of creative control that we can either choose to control, or choose to let be. This is all for the photographer to decide - I can scarcely argue with their choices, since it is they who must decide what they wish to do.

However, judging exposure by eye is a guess, based on previous experience and similar (one hopes) conditions. It may well be a good guess - but it is certainly casting one's lot to the Imp of the Perverse as to whether or not it will work out as the photographer envisions.

I seldom see anyone advocating using a non-technical method to focus their camera - just give that lens a twirl and that will be good enough, eh? I seldom see anyone advocate just slamming any old film into their camera without any consideration for the effect it will give or its sensitivity to light or appropriateness for a given situation. We're all very particular about what we do in most cases. We even spend incredible amounts on special cleaning devices for our digital sensors to avoid the slightest damage.

But when it comes to exposure - well, that's a doddle. Just do whatever seems like it might have worked the last time.

It is naught but an additional element of creative control, which one may choose to seize and bend to one's advantage or not - and I would not gainsay anyone who decided not to. But to pretend that it actually is not a precise control that one can use creatively - because they can simply eyeball their exposure (they claim) seems a bit strange to me.

 

[Roger Hicks]

... not judging exposure with one's brain, one is remembering similar situations and dredging up the memory of the exposure used in that situation, which is not at all the same.

. . .

Not only can I not judge exposure without a meter, neither can you or anyone else on the face of this planet.

That is far from a sweeping generalized statement. It is a fact.

You cannot stick your finger in a pot of water and tell me what the temperature is.

So: judgement is never based on memory?

You seem to be using a highly specialized and personalized definition of the word 'judge'.

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.

Also, why are you so excited about it? No-one is stopping you using a meter. All we're saying -- a lot of us, probably with combined experience that runs into several centuries -- is that we can judge exposure without a meter.

Yes, it's a creative tool. It is also, in many cases, not that critical. Some exposures benefit greatly from being within +/- 1/3 stop. I reckon I judge to that accuracy around half the time. With B+W, +1 stop, -1/2 is more than adequate in the vast majority of cases. I reckon I can do that 90% of the time, or better -- and with the remainder, bracketing +2 stops takes care of the problem.

I have lots of meters, and use them: spot, incident, broad-area reflected, TTL. I have made something of a study of the subject. With my wife Frances Schultz I wrote an entire book on exposure (Perfect Exposure, David & Charles/Amphoto). I'd never decry meters. I'd just say that a lot of people, a lot of the time, can judge exposures. I am not alone, I am sure, in wondering why you have such a problem with those of us who say this.

And actually, I'm pretty good at judging temperatures with my finger, too. If I'm mixing water to 20C, I'll test it with my finger before I use a thermometer. Surprising how often, after 40+ years' experience, I'm close to 20C.

Cheers,

R.

 

[BillP]

Show me a meter that can measure beauty.
Show me a meter that can measure love.
Show me a meter that can measure trust.
Show me a meter that can measure happiness.

No?

I'll just go on my judgment and experience then...

Regards,

Bill

 

[varjag]

Bill (Mattock, qualifying as other Bills chimed in , that is a lot of word play. From functional perspective, it doesn't matter if you derive exposure from measuring photons per square cm. or fetch data from your memory. If you have enough samples in memory (and 30 years of shooting is a lot of samples), you can extrapolate in-between situations trivially.

There are borderline situations when human light estimation will fail, but so is for instrumental metering. Sensors have their limits too, with minimum/maximum EV or uneven spectral sensitivity. Knowing your limits helps, and in either case you have to engage your brain for meaningful exposure.

And yes, one can measure decibels and water temperature. I can even measure battery voltage by licking the contacts. It is a matter of error magnitude, same as with instruments really. A lab thermometer is much more precise than a human can be, but if you just check if water in your bath is OK, +/- 8 centigrades is totally sufficient.

 

[feenej]

There was a time when I thought I was a crack-shot with a gun; then I missed a few big bucks. LOL, but true. I'll probably screw up some exposures by going meter-less, but I bet I would screw some up too if I always used a meter.

 

[wintoid]

I take issue with statements such as the one that kicked off this thread - "I don't need a meter."

I can make toast without a toaster too

 

[Sparrow]

What Bill said, if it were otherwise it would get darker when I close one eye, and it clearly doesn’t

 

[Alex Kinnan]

I have, in the past, gone through prolonged bouts of using Sunny-16. However, these days, I tend to avoid it, mostly for the shameful reason that it makes my head hurt and I get that anxious feeling I tend to get when I attempt something good for me, like exercise or Sudoku. As I try to keep on with it, it builds, until, rather than pushing through to glory, I put it aside "just for a moment" and slink back to the crossword or pull out my Spectra...

As there is no longer any place near me where I can get half-decent cheap prints from negative film, I am made yet more timid regarding such experiments.

 

[bmattock]

So: judgement is never based on memory?

You seem to be using a highly specialized and personalized definition of the word 'judge'.

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.

Because it is memory. I do not judge that 9 times 7 is 63, I remember it. I also remember "I before E except after C."

By the same token, I remember that a photograph taken outdoors on a sunny summer day with 100 speed film will probably not suffer unduly if I use 1/125 @ f/16 as my exposure, because it has worked to my satisfaction before.

If you wish to call that 'judgment', I cannot stop you. But your verdict is quite clearly subject to error and misinterpretation, as you have agreed.

Also, why are you so excited about it? No-one is stopping you using a meter. All we're saying -- a lot of us, probably with combined experience that runs into several centuries -- is that we can judge exposure without a meter.

I do not know why people continue to ascribe emotions to me that I do not feel. I am neither angry nor excited. I am disagreeing with your assertion that you can judge exposure without a meter - for the simple reason that you cannot.

I probably go without metering as often as any of you - I have stated - repeatedly now - that I am not advocating slavish attachment to a meter before taking a photograph. I am taking exception to a statement which is untrue - that one can judge exposure without a meter. One cannot.

Yes, it's a creative tool. It is also, in many cases, not that critical. Some exposures benefit greatly from being within +/- 1/3 stop. I reckon I judge to that accuracy around half the time. With B+W, +1 stop, -1/2 is more than adequate in the vast majority of cases. I reckon I can do that 90% of the time, or better -- and with the remainder, bracketing +2 stops takes care of the problem.

I should not have to explain this to you, as I am sure you know it already (a nod to your experience, not a snide remark). Many scenes exceed the latitude of any given recording media and thus will not be recorded with precision no matter what one does. It is not a matter of fractions of an f-stop for a photographer to wish to control to which side of the spectrum they wish to lose detail - and how much.

I believe Archer and his side-kick had much to say on this subject. What did they call it...?

Bracketing is a very useful method to achieve this result, in the same manner that shotguns are useful when aiming at a flock of game birds instead of a rifle. It has its utility.

I have lots of meters, and use them: spot, incident, broad-area reflected, TTL. I have made something of a study of the subject. With my wife Frances Schultz I wrote an entire book on exposure (Perfect Exposure, David & Charles/Amphoto). I'd never decry meters. I'd just say that a lot of people, a lot of the time, can judge exposures. I am not alone, I am sure, in wondering why you have such a problem with those of us who say this.

For the same reason I disagree with people who say they can read tea leaves or control the weather with a dance. They cannot, and I say so.

And actually, I'm pretty good at judging temperatures with my finger, too. If I'm mixing water to 20C, I'll test it with my finger before I use a thermometer. Surprising how often, after 40+ years' experience, I'm close to 20C.

Close is not accurate. Close is close. What is it the military likes to say? "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades."

Again, many choose 'close' an acceptable criteria - and if so, I have no objection. My objection is to an illogical and incorrect statement.

And I have read your book - actually many of them - with great enjoyment. I am quite aware of who you are, and I once subscribed at great cost to AP (postage to the USA became outrageous) just to read your column at the end each month (well, that and Ivor Mantanle). People write books of many kinds, and they often contradict each other. Writing a book is no indicator of being correct. I respect your abilities and I enjoy your books - that does not translate to a belief in the accuracy of your statements.

Of all the books on exposure I have read, the one which comes closest to my beliefs about what proper exposure is remains "How to Be Positive About the Negative," by R.W. Behan. A self-published little chapbook that explains in great detail exactly how to take creative control over one's exposure - assuming one wishes to do so.

 

[bmattock]

Show me a meter that can measure beauty.
Show me a meter that can measure love.
Show me a meter that can measure trust.
Show me a meter that can measure happiness.

No?

I'll just go on my judgment and experience then...

Regards,

Bill

All of those things are subjective. Exposure is not - it is objective and can be measured. You of course can go on whatever method you wish. Believing it to be accurate is not correct.

 

[bmattock]

What is correct exposure?

That is an excellent question. Correct exposure is the exposure you desire. That implies that you can control the exposure you desire. If you cannot control it - or choose not to - then it is liable to be an incorrect exposure - if it happens to conform to your desire, one can attribute that to luck and memory.

Unless one is photographing a blank wall that is evenly lit and uniformly painted, I doubt that there is any one 'correct' exposure for any given scene one could photograph.

However, imagine a photograph like the bicycles in the rack that the O/P has provided us with in this thread. Notice that there are elements of the scene that are very black, and detail is lost. There are also elements of the scene that are very bright, and detail is likewise lost.

This is normal - many scenes contain more of a brightness range than any film or digital sensor can encompass.

To your question - what is correct exposure - one must apply one's desires to the exposure in question.

Perhaps one wishes to give a different interpretation to the scene - and to preserve all bright detail, letting more of the shadows fade into obscurity. Perhaps one wishes to do the opposite.

It is in the control of the overlap - the control of the compromise between the scene and the ability of our media to record the scene - that one chooses creative control - or not.

It is not wrong to simply take a known maxim that often works - "Sunny 16" and apply it, as the O/P has done. The results suit him, and that is fine - I can hardly find fault with that. I would say his exposure is 'correct' in the sense that he is satisfied with the results.

I would say, however, that his maxim is unable to give him the level of control to place the highlights or the shadows within the ability of the film to record - except by purest luck or, as Roger mentioned, by bracketing.

If one wishes to creatively control exposure - then one requires a properly functioning light meter and the ability to correctly interpret the results.

This is very different from saying "I do not need a meter."

 

[spyder2000]

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

You saying it over and over doesn't make it a fact to anyone - but you.

As for meters giving the proper exposure, they don't. Otherwise they'd all read exactly the sdame thing under exactly the same conidiotns. They don't. While a meter does offer an objective measurement of a particular brightness value, only the human and eye and brain combine to determine wht to do with that information. It matters not whether that meter is in your hand or in your camera.

The meter is simply a tool just as the eye and brain are tools. How the user employs them makes the difference.

 

[bmattock]

You saying it over and over doesn't make it a fact to anyone - but you.

When I say it, it has the force of fact. I'm amazing that way.

As for meters giving the proper exposure, they don't.

Of course not. I never said they did. They measure the light striking them and report on that value. It is up to a human to interpret the meaning behind that. But it is an objective reading, which a human eye is incapable of giving us.

Otherwise they'd all read exactly the sdame thing under exactly the same conidiotns. They don't. While a meter does offer an objective measurement of a particular brightness value, only the human and eye and brain combine to determine wht to do with that information.

I agree 100% with your statement above.

It matters not whether that meter is in your hand or in your camera.

I disagree. In the computer world, we use a term called 'GIGO'. Garbage in, garbage out. A meter, as we agree, provides an objective reading of the light striking it. We then engage our brains based upon that value. Our eyes do not provide us with an objective reading - so further processing is useless. Garbage in, garbage out.

The meter is simply a tool just as the eye and brain are tools. How the user employs them makes the difference.

I agree with that statement as well. I've never said any differently. I have said that the human eye is a poor light measurement device, and it is.

 

[tripod]

Why does this thread bring to mind: wrestling with a muddy pig?

 

[Sparrow]

You saying it over and over doesn't make it a fact to anyone - but you.

As for meters giving the proper exposure, they don't. Otherwise they'd all read exactly the sdame thing under exactly the same conidiotns. They don't. While a meter does offer an objective measurement of a particular brightness value, only the human and eye and brain combine to determine wht to do with that information. It matters not whether that meter is in your hand or in your camera.

The meter is simply a tool just as the eye and brain are tools. How the user employs them makes the difference.

That’s what Bill is saying

• brain+meter=objective system (a measurement)
• brain+eye=subjective system (a judgment)

why is this always so hard

 

[sirius]

Bill, I wish you would stop messing up these joyful sunny 16 threads. I've seen you do this before. I'm not sure what you are trying to proove.

It's a fact that the sunny 16 guidelines do work and can help a photographer estimate the best exposure for many lighting situations. No one claims it's better than using a meter for accuracy, but with the nature of film and the photographic process...it is often all you need, if you learn it and practice it.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Sunny 16 rules have helped make some of the most famous pictures in photographic history. Yes, an incident meter helps, and yes experience and heartfelt understanding are the best masters.

Give it a rest.

 

[bmattock]

Bill, I wish you would stop messing up these joyful sunny 16 threads. I've seen you do this before. I'm not sure what you are trying to proove.

It's a fact that the sunny 16 guidelines do work and can help a photographer estimate the best exposure for many lighting situations. No one claims it's better than using a meter for accuracy, but with the nature of film and the photographic process...it is often all you need, if you learn it and practice it.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Sunny 16 rules have helped make some of the most famous pictures in photographic history. Yes, an incident meter helps, and yes experience and heartfelt understanding are the best masters.

Give it a rest.

As you wish.

 

[wintoid]

This is very different from saying "I do not need a meter."

If I'd said "I can operate my M4 successfully without a meter" would you have objected? That's all I meant really.

My statement was borne of the complete joy of realising I didn't need to be shackled to the confounded thing. The word "need" is relative to what you're trying to achieve.