Light meter - yes or no?

[varjag]

Bill, we might be putting different meaning into concept of choice. When I find myself in uncomfortable weather (and it's most of the time here in Bergen) and in known light, I might be hesitant say, taking a glove off to fumble with meter, just to confirm the lighting I already know. Or when I carry a shopping bag in one hand and camera in another. Or when I find myself in middle of action.

I do have meter with me most of the time, and do verify with the reading on occasions. Thing is, in daylight me and incident reading usually agree within 1/2 or 1/3 of a stop, which also means that for such situations my judgment (or guesswork, if you prefer) is better than center-weighted reflected reading. It simply makes no sense wasting time checking every scene.

For indoors lighting, in 90% of situations it's the places I've been before many times, metered before on many occasions, and they don't change lighting there all that often.

Of course I meter when indoors in unfamiliar venue, or travel to different geographic latitude, etc. Knowing your limits, being able to recognize challenging or deceptive lighting helps. Just saying that a bit of common sense with experience can go a long way.

 

[VinceC]

I had no idea that RF photography was all about total technical control. I thought it had more to do with catching the moment.

 

[blacknoise]

I have a little sekonic meter that I use for most cameras, except toys like the holga with no exposure control or with some submini stuff I use, where the meter seems silly because its bigger than the camera!

 

[MarkoKovacevic]

I don't use one with the Zorki, mainly because I don't want to carry one around, but the Nikon has a built in one.

 

[russianRF]

I tend to agree with bmattock here (though maybe not as zealously). I was shooting just this weekend, my onboard FSU meter guiding me. I was glad it did. I was shooting outside and it was overcast. I got inside to a restaurant. I would have SWORN it was only a couple of stops darker (there were lots of big, bright windows). My meter said something like FOUR stops darker. I'm glad I bothered metering -- most of my pictures were underexposed, making some nice chiaroscuro shots. If I had trusted my eyes, I would have had perfectly clear negatives!

I agree that once you meter in a session, it's often unecessary to meter again; I also agree that once metered, you can often correctly guess the changing light BASED UPON WHAT WAS ALREADY METERED. Finally, sunlight is sunlight; if you shoot outdoors at sunny 16 a lot, I can imagine you'd eventually get the nack for doing it automatically. But still, just a little bit of overcast can radically change the actual lighting conditions.

Remember that your eyes are a precise visual system designed to deliver clear images in as many lighting conditions as possible. It's better to SEE the predator bearing down on you than to see a fetching chiaroscuro of teeth moments before your death. Your eyes are designed for wide-ranging performance, not mechanically consistant accuracy.

 

[40oz]

Your eyes are designed for wide-ranging performance, not mechanically consistant accuracy.

That's why it's not a good idea to use your eyes as a light meter. Use your brain. I'm not sure anyone suggested using pupil dilation as an exposure index tool, but whatever works

 

[40oz]

Perhaps it is just me - I tend to go where I have never been before to photograph. I don't generally return to the same place over and over - that's boring to me.

I don't go to boring places over and over.

 

[Sparrow]

the human optical system cannot measure a light value, it can however judge one from experience.

In my opinion one is better able to make that judgement if it is informed by a meter

but ultimately we are judged by our photos, not our opinions I suppose

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

I thought you might.





...

...mmm....he must be getting RSI ( repetitive strain injury ) to the fingers by now!

 

[40oz]

I took aerobics in high school. It wasn't intentional, it was called "Lifetime Fitness" on the sing-up sheet and sounded like an easy A for an athlete, but talk about a happy accident for a high school boy lol.

Anyway, when I step out of the theater into bright sun, I can tell what the exposure will be just by knowing where the sun is. The fact that I'm mostly blind doesn't stop me from being able to figure out what the exposure should be, using my brain with only minimal input from my eyes. You can argue all you want that it isn't possible, but that's not what my negatives say. And not what the films of many, many photographers say.

 

[VinceC]

There was a well-known interview with Cartier-Bresson for a photography magazine in the late 1970s in which the interviewer asked Cartier-Bresson to estimate exposures for various scenes indoors and out. The interviewer then used a light meter to verify the estimate, and Cartier-Bresson was unfailingly accurate.

Ansel Adams reported that he started changing his exposures by about a full stop after he began using a light meter. I submit that his earlier unmetered exposures (the bulk of his well known work) is also worth viewing.

Of course, bmattock's enjoys being inflexible on this subject. He reminds us that he's not talking about slavishly using the meter but learning and knowing how to use it and evaluate its results. In my opinion, that too is extremely subjective ... deciding on what to meter, what metering method to use, and how to compensate for the results shown on the meter compared to the actual scene. Many variables. Many potential results.

 

[richard_l]

While I like using a handheld meter, built-in meters can be a bother. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO METER EVERY SHOT! However, if a built-in meter has its display in the viewfinder, one may feel compelled to fiddle with the exposure, even when it is totally unnecessary. Built-in meters should have their display in the top plate, where it is easy to ignore.

 

[Sparrow]

While I like using a handheld meter, built-in meters can be a bother. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO METER EVERY SHOT! However, if a built-in meter has its display in the viewfinder, one may feel compelled to fiddle with the exposure, even when it is totally unnecessary. Built-in meters should have their display in the top plate, where it is easy to ignore.

I can agree with that, LEDs and TTL meters were not the answer, whatever the question was

 

[ruben]

Skills.

It is all about skills. True artists, and I mean really true artists, feel, think, view and create at a different and upper levels than most of us, with all due respect.

Be it clearly said that I am not saying they do everything better than the rest of us, but each of them has one or more advanced skill, most of us don't have.

There are small special skills for everything, including for metering light, or guessing light if you want. I don't have that skill. But the fact that I don't have it doesn't imply no one else have it. It just imply that for me and others it is harder to imagine how it is possible the other guy has a skill we are far from even conceive it.

But this is precisely the 'uniqueness' of having a built in skill and further developing with practice.

So I don't think there is much point for the unskilled folks to teach the light skilled ones how to use a meter, as there is no point for the light skilled folks to try to teach the rest of us how the meter is not necessary.

The fact, dear folks, is that artists, i,e, folks with multiple creative skills do existed and exist. Or what did you think - they all are idiots with a hat runing for money?

No need to say that for intelligently using a light meter, we also need some skill, yet of a different kind, and a lot of experience.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[40oz]

Upon reflection, I've got to say that Mr. bmattock has a very good point. His perspective differs from mine, and therefore I'm glad he shares his view. I don't entirely disagree with him. It feeds my own thoughts on what I do.

I feel that everyone can learn to use a camera without a meter.

I also feel that I rely too much on referring to parts lists and printed data at work. Given what I do and how long I've done it, I should be able to build a server entirely from scratch, regardless of model or vintage. But the fact is that as long as I have access to HP and IBM pats listings, I check first rather than just grabbing parts off a shelf and seeing if they work. But I know from experience that the best way to learn to build a server from scratch by memory is to just grab parts off the shelf.

The reason that works as a learning tool is because it's never a random grab. You are forced to choose based on what might work and why. Knowing the why behind it all makes future choices easier and more informed. You'll never consider the why if going by a manual.

Part of my insistence on shooting without a meter is to realize that part of the brain that never seems to come into play until forced. The part that trancends logical arguments and scientific proofs of inadequacy. The human brain is incredibly powerful and flexible. Before literacy was commonplace, the average person had to get by on a good memory alone. Imagine if no-one you knew could read or write. How many of us have jobs that would even be possible? Yet most of the world got by that way until the last hundred years. Purely on rote memory and clever figuring from other things they knew. My guess is they were much better at figuring than I am today.

Assuming flat out that the human brain cannot possibly match modern technology is tempting and believable. Yet obviously everything we assume to be better and more accurate than the human mind is quite obviously the product of such. Is it possible for a human to create somthing that surpasses our own ability? Honestly and absolutely?

I know a $5 calculator can do faster simple math than me on numbers under 8 digits, but I at least know how to add and multiply, etc. on numbers as large as you please. 250 digits multiplication? Not a problem, just give me some more paper please I build heavy-duty computers, and let me tell you, it takes a human brain to get them to work at times. I'm not ignorant - I have a college education and I can tell you that machines as smart as humans can make them are still dumb. I know a handful of computer languages, and can say with authority that things don't happen electronically without the human mind.

There is not a single circuit capable of processing information faster or more accurately than the brain that designed it.

Those that we call geniuses for developing technology we can't live without created mere pale reflections of but one of their abilities. For all the Einsteins in history, there are hundreds if not thousands or millions that never had the opportunity to share or exercise their own gift.

If man can *create* a light meter, man does not *need* a light meter. Light meters are conveniences and sanity checks. They are not better than man or woman exercising their skills. That I truly believe.

Mr. bmattocks has demonstrated through his many posts here that what he shares on this forum deserves at least consideration. I don't feel compelled to agree entirely, but I have to say that he makes very good points that deserve appreciation. I use a meter when it's available. It informs my shooting without a meter. A meter is not necessary IMHO, but I will not argue the confidence it inspires. The fact that I have one occasionally reinforces what I've learned about shooting in daylight. I can't say it doesn't help because I use them. I'd actually have an argument if I didn't own a metered camera.

But the fact is that neither my Canonet, my Kiev 4, not the Leica CL are really useful after sunset if you need a meter. And since all meters are suspect due to age, battery life, or accuracy, one needs to always be second-guessing the meter. It only takes so long at the second-guessing before one puts it to the test - "Who am I to judge the meter?"

 

[40oz]

Skills.

It is all about skills. True artists, and I mean really true artists, feel, think, view and create at a different and upper levels than most of us, with all due respect.

Be it clearly said that I am not saying they do everything better than the rest of us, but each of them has one or more advanced skill, most of us don't have.

There are small special skills for everything, including for metering light, or guessing light if you want. I don't have that skill. But the fact that I don't have it doesn't imply no one else have it. It just imply that for me and others it is harder to imagine how it is possible the other guy has a skill we are far from even conceive it.

But this is precisely the 'uniqueness' of having a built in skill and further developing with practice.

So I don't think there is much point for the unskilled folks to teach the light skilled ones how to use a meter, as there is no point for the light skilled folks to try to teach the rest of us how the meter is not necessary.

The fact, dear folks, is that artists, i,e, folks with multiple creative skills do existed and exist. Or what did you think - they all are idiots with a hat runing for money?

No need to say that for intelligently using a light meter, we also need some skill, yet of a different kind, and a lot of experience.

Cheers,
Ruben

Good point, Ruben. I have no problems assuming other people have abilities I don't. It just seems pretentious to think what I do as routine is unattainable by others. I resist thinking it's a special ability denied to everyone else.

 

[VinceC]

Your point about writing and memory is closely related to this. Before reading and writing were common, many people specialized in highly training their memories for accurate recollection. It was part of a young person's education for a successful life. The native America leader Techumseh, 200-odd years ago, was well known for his diplomatic meetings in which he, an illiterate man, could recite from memory, for hours if necessary, the text of the many broken treaties with the United States. with accuracy, clarity of understanding and a lawyerly persuastiveness. Earlier, in medieval times, young students specifically were trained in the skills of memory; one technique was to spend days in a large building, visually locking its many spaces into their long-term memories. They would then place "facts" they wanted to remember into specific locations within that purpose-built sanctuary of the mind, and recall those facts by mentally wandering from place to place until they found and retrieved their fact.

Similarly, much of the Quran was transmitted by memory for several years until being written down.

Thus, accurate, highly complex memory is a learnable skill, but one that we don't really need in modern society, so its a skill very few of us have come close to dealing with. That doesn't mean it can't be done, only that technology has simplified it to the point that hardly anyone can do it because there no longer is a necessity.

I don't think really accurate meters were commonly available until the 1940s and '50s. One reason for the ubiquitous flash-bulb press camera of the '20s and '30s was that popping the bulb ensured proper exposure in any conditions.

 

[ruben]

....... I have no problems assuming other people have abilities I don't. It just seems pretentious to think what I do as routine is unattainable by others. I resist thinking it's a special ability denied to everyone else.

That's precisely the point, and also in reverse.

We all find hard to really accept some folks have skills we do not even imagine as possible.

And here is where illusionists find their sustain.

One day when my darkroom was giving services to other photographers, a French really good one arrived with a lot of proofs to print. Despite his great aesthetics, his negs were toilet technical level quality and at the same time the amount of single proofs was overwhelming.

So I started to run phones to much of the best local photographers to ask them how can I possible solve this issue. No one had the answer, but one good fellow offered me his enlarger light meter. As instructions for use were not attached, work continued to go slow, presure continued to build up.

Then, one day I decided to face head on my French geniuous and ask how can anyone possible do the impossible proofs at the speed he needed.

But my French folk, who eventually went to be a good and highly usefull friend tought me along his stay several unprecedented lessons. Several, not one.

The one concerning our present thread and this post is that he came out with a particular answer about how to speed the proofs, I would never imagined in my narrow minded mind. Never.

He, who uses to work with the best darkrooms in France, simply told me: start guessing the exposures. Raise the negative towards your general room red light and make a guess.

I thought the poor guy was crazy, or in its way. But out of my desperation I started to try his method. And to some extent it worked.

Of course within the miserable work influx of a levantine tiny city as Jerusalem, the proposed skill could not be exercised. But during that job I got the clear sense that in a big city like Paris, with its according work influx, guessing negatives exposure is more than possible - rather a necessity.

And of course, understanding where my darkroom was located, the small market potential, I also understood this interesting gueessing skill option was not open to me to practice.

Yesterday I also happened to visit a carpenter for the possibility to order some wooden frames. I was amazed by his ability to draw sketch straight lines. Just pencil straight sketch lines. But they were there - in front of my nose.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Bill58]

I have CRS disease (Can't Remember S***) and have to use a meter. My only fault using one is I'm so intent on getting/framing the shot that I frequently forget to stop down one notch for people's faces and they are too dark.

Bill

 

[Sparrow]

I have CRS disease (Can't Remember S***) and have to use a meter. My only fault using one is I'm so intent on getting/framing the shot that I frequently forget to stop down one notch for people's faces and they are too dark.

Bill

That may be the meter' fault, the manufactures seem to set reflective meters off a bit, whereas most incident meters and I would imagine all spot seem to be set to zone-5.

However if one checks reflective meters off a known value they’re all over the place.

BTW you would be opening up a stop