Light meter - yes or no?

[ruben]

Now, after making my case on behalf of the lucky and wealthy born guessers, there is another side to the coin, on behalf of the light meters.

Once upon a time and not long ago, Bill wrote a fidelista-long argumentation on behalf of the "creative use of the light meter". Too far from me, I remind it for the record.

But those who guess exposures, at what accuracy they guess ? If you guess at high accuracy you are vacinated. But if you only guess at "accepable" rate you will sweat your blood quota at the hour of printing.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[varjag]

Memory is not measurement. You can have a memory that it was bright, and you used a certain exposure on your camera. How bright is today compared to that day? Memory can't address that, because your eye and brain are not measuring devices, there is nothing there to memorize.

Sun is a constant light source, and there is only a handful of weather and seasonal variations for any geographic latitude. There is a margin of error of course, but it is not more than with simple in-camera reflective meter.

 

[varjag]

It is nearly always a sunny and cloudless day where you live? All photos are taken outdoors in full sunlight on those days? The trees and buildings cast no shadows? Amazing.

Bill, it would be great if you can put a notch less sarcasm in your replies. Think I mentioned weather variation in my post?

I know what light is here in sunny, overcast, heavy overcast and downpour. I know it at dusk and at dawn, I know how it differs in winter and summer. That at sunny summer afternoon here in Bergen shadows are 2/3 stops darker than in Minsk or Warsaw. The exposure for interior of a bus in sunny and in overcast day, and when it passes through a tunnel. The light that is here in malls, at a few groceries, on IKEA demo floor, in road underpasses and in hospital reception.

Some values I know firmly: whole sets of them for different films and apertures. Some not so much, and I consult my light meter to confirm my memories if situation allows. But the more reference points you remember, the easier it to make estimates when you have so. I was once caught on offshore wind turbine in Baltics with a few rolls of Kodachrome, and meter was left on a service ship; when it picked me up and I checked exposure pair used, it was spot on and chromes turned out nicely.

Not sure why am writing all this, since I unlikely to persuade you anyway, and similarly your arguments don't hold my own empirical evidence. Oh well.

 

[russianRF]

32 and 49. In spite of all the people coming in here, arguing that they don't need light meters, over 86% of the people who bothered to vote say that they either always use a light meter, or try to use a light meter most of the time.

Yes, there are a few here who come shouting to the rooftops that a meter isn't necessary for "seasoned" photographers. But with 86% of those who voted -- the silent majority if you will -- recognizing the value of light meters, all I can say to the remaining group is "thou doth protest too much."

 

[40oz]

for a larger sample from a general population:
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67474

And please don't think people who don't feel they need a meter somehow also feel superior. Those of us not blessed with the financial wherewithal to simply buy the best meter for our type of shooting must make do with what we have. In some cases nothing. As has been said, until the 40's and 50's, nobody had a meter. So not only did people have slow film of perhaps un-reliable rating, they had no accurate and repeateable device to scientifically measure light.

Hell, how do people who don't rigorously test each film for "true" ISO ever manage to take a decent shot?

 

[varjag]

But with 86% of those who voted -- the silent majority if you will -- recognizing the value of light meters, all I can say to the remaining group is "thou doth protest too much."

It is easier to always rely on light meter. It is entirely possible to go by without light meter in many or even most situations. What part of that is unclear?

 

[clayne]

32 and 49. In spite of all the people coming in here, arguing that they don't need light meters, over 86% of the people who bothered to vote say that they either always use a light meter, or try to use a light meter most of the time.

Yes, there are a few here who come shouting to the rooftops that a meter isn't necessary for "seasoned" photographers. But with 86% of those who voted -- the silent majority if you will -- recognizing the value of light meters, all I can say to the remaining group is "thou doth protest too much."

That's also assuming that the 86% "majority" are also in tune with light and create good images. Do you believe that?

One reason I prefer not to use a meter is that it continually forces me to read light - which has other indirect benefits such as considering the angle and direction of light as a higher priority rather than relying on one's immediate angle (which may still yield a decent composition regardless).

It's an "in tune" thing. It doesn't take long to work things out (although I still have issues with overestimating light indoors) and much like other "blind" lessons (think: film, no lcd) the hard lessons teach you quickly.

 

[wolves3012]

Surely we can all agree that some of us want and need to meter, whilst others can and do manage without? Seems to me the main contention here is one side telling the other their approach is incorrect. If you get the result, does it matter?

I've tried estimating and then used a meter to discover that I am, invariably, lousy at estimating. I'm happily going to stick to using a meter but I admire the skill of those who don't.

 

[Keith]

I hadn't really been through this thread previously but now that I have it's hard reading. Bmattock has obviously removed all his posts for whatever reasons and it's now like a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces!

I did read along the way a comment that if we can 'make' a light meter it means we don't actually need one .... what type of logic is that? Mankind has learned to make ultra sensitive measuring equipment that can detect minute earth tremors indicating possible devastating earthquakes and subsequent tsunamis. I could clap my ear to the ground all day and not feel or hear one of these until it actually buried or drowned me.

 

[40oz]

Well if you are the kind of person that needs a rain gauge to know it's raining, I am not surprised you don't understand what I was trying to say

C'mon, you know what I meant. Humans had to calibrate the thing. Humans had to know such a thing was possible. Someone just thought it would be handy to have a device that could be relied on as a sanity check and for those without the experience to know how to tell light levels. It's a thermometer for light. I can give you a rough guess at the temperature outside, but a thermometer can tell you on a scale. It's more precise and consistent, but that doesn't mean *I'm* not accurate. I usually defer to the thermometer, but I can also tell when a thermometer is reading high or low. The same with light meters.

The main advantage of a light meter is precision. I can say that the light here right now is roughly PanF at 1/60 at f/11 in the sun. I would not be stunned if a meter suggested f/8 but I'd question f/16. I can say for sure that 1/500 at f/16 would not be enough, and 1/2 second exposure at f/1.5 would be way over-exposed. The more experience I get, the more precise I get. It's just using common sense and experience. A light meter can be a learning tool substituting for film as well as a sanity check to make sure you aren't just being dumb.

A light meter is not mandatory and doesn't improve the image at all. You still have to expose for your subject. If the subject is across the street in the shade, you need to know that you should open up the lens a bit compared to the light you are standing in. And you should know what the meter says at noon where you live. Here in the winter the sun never gets very high, so winter noon is like later afternoon in the summer. Use that as a starting point, and you can feel pretty comfortable shooting outdoors during the day. Expand from there.

I prefer a spot meter, but it still isn't sufficient by itself. You need to learn how to use it and how to interpret what it says before it "does the work for you." And I'd suggest that learning to effectively use an in-camera spot meter is no harder than predicting what it's going to say.

 

[Sparrow]

Well if you are the kind of person that needs a rain gauge to know it's raining, I am not surprised you don't understand what I was trying to say

so when you're processing a film you reject a thermometer and clock for counting elephants and sticking your fingers in the chemicals? or do you pick and choose where to make life more difficult?

 

[Sparrow]

Well if you are the kind of person that needs a rain gauge to know it's raining, I am not surprised you don't understand what I was trying to say

C'mon, you know what I meant. Humans had to calibrate the thing. Humans had to know such a thing was possible. Someone just thought it would be handy to have a device that could be relied on as a sanity check and for those without the experience to know how to tell light levels. It's a thermometer for light. I can give you a rough guess at the temperature outside, but a thermometer can tell you on a scale. It's more precise and consistent, but that doesn't mean *I'm* not accurate. I usually defer to the thermometer, but I can also tell when a thermometer is reading high or low. The same with light meters.

The main advantage of a light meter is precision. I can say that the light here right now is roughly PanF at 1/60 at f/11 in the sun. I would not be stunned if a meter suggested f/8 but I'd question f/16. I can say for sure that 1/500 at f/16 would not be enough, and 1/2 second exposure at f/1.5 would be way over-exposed. The more experience I get, the more precise I get. It's just using common sense and experience. A light meter can be a learning tool substituting for film as well as a sanity check to make sure you aren't just being dumb.

A light meter is not mandatory and doesn't improve the image at all. You still have to expose for your subject. If the subject is across the street in the shade, you need to know that you should open up the lens a bit compared to the light you are standing in. And you should know what the meter says at noon where you live. Here in the winter the sun never gets very high, so winter noon is like later afternoon in the summer. Use that as a starting point, and you can feel pretty comfortable shooting outdoors during the day. Expand from there.

I prefer a spot meter, but it still isn't sufficient by itself. You need to learn how to use it and how to interpret what it says before it "does the work for you." And I'd suggest that learning to effectively use an in-camera spot meter is no harder than predicting what it's going to say.

In light of your previously stated opinions why would you have bought a spot meter?

 

[Keith]

Well if you are the kind of person that needs a rain gauge to know it's raining, I am not surprised you don't understand what I was trying to say

C'mon, you know what I meant. Humans had to calibrate the thing. Humans had to know such a thing was possible. Someone just thought it would be handy to have a device that could be relied on as a sanity check and for those without the experience to know how to tell light levels. It's a thermometer for light. I can give you a rough guess at the temperature outside, but a thermometer can tell you on a scale. It's more precise and consistent, but that doesn't mean *I'm* not accurate. I usually defer to the thermometer, but I can also tell when a thermometer is reading high or low. The same with light meters.

The main advantage of a light meter is precision. I can say that the light here right now is roughly PanF at 1/60 at f/11 in the sun. I would not be stunned if a meter suggested f/8 but I'd question f/16. I can say for sure that 1/500 at f/16 would not be enough, and 1/2 second exposure at f/1.5 would be way over-exposed. The more experience I get, the more precise I get. It's just using common sense and experience. A light meter can be a learning tool substituting for film as well as a sanity check to make sure you aren't just being dumb.

A light meter is not mandatory and doesn't improve the image at all. You still have to expose for your subject. If the subject is across the street in the shade, you need to know that you should open up the lens a bit compared to the light you are standing in. And you should know what the meter says at noon where you live. Here in the winter the sun never gets very high, so winter noon is like later afternoon in the summer. Use that as a starting point, and you can feel pretty comfortable shooting outdoors during the day. Expand from there.

I prefer a spot meter, but it still isn't sufficient by itself. You need to learn how to use it and how to interpret what it says before it "does the work for you." And I'd suggest that learning to effectively use an in-camera spot meter is no harder than predicting what it's going to say.

Ahhh ... so it was you who made the comment!

Of course I know when it's raining ... the weather bureau tells me!

I understand where you're coming from though it's just that devices that measure anything need to be calibrated in some way and often are calibrated by a device made for calibrating ... if you know what I mean!

 

[40oz]

In light of your previously stated opinions why would you have bought a spot meter?

It came with the camera?

Using a meter occasionally when it's available is by no means a statement that one can't shoot without one. And the idea that one cannot possibly expose film properly without a meter is ludicrous. That is all.

 

[40oz]

so when you're processing a film you reject a thermometer and clock for counting elephants and sticking your fingers in the chemicals? or do you pick and choose where to make life more difficult?

Yes, that is exactly what I said. And you said rather than go to the bathroom on your own, you wait for an adult to change your diaper for you

I use my hand to tell me when the water coming out of the faucet is close to 68 degrees. And I prefer to count off the time when printing rather than set a timer for a few seconds. I have a watch, but I don't need it to know the sun is going down in a little bit. I don't need a calendar to know it's winter. I don't need a compass to tell me which way north is, especially when I can see the sun. I hardly think these are feats beyond the abilities of *anyone.*

 

[Sparrow]

It came with the camera?

Using a meter occasionally when it's available is by no means a statement that one can't shoot without one. And the idea that one cannot possibly expose film properly without a meter is ludicrous. That is all.

as ludicrous as the opinion that one can't shot accurately with a meter would you say?

 

[40oz]

as ludicrous as the opinion that one can't shot accurately with a meter would you say?

whatever you say.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I use a rangefinder or ground glass to help me focus because I can't always estimate distances accuratly enough, depending on conditions.
I sometimes use no meter out of doors because Sunny 22 works pretty reliably here in AZ. Overall though, I'm too anal to work without a net.

 

[Tom Rymour]

My newsreel cameraman brother Alex introduced me to his Norwood incident meter with a dome in 1957. Ever since, I've been faithful to Sekonic. I may take a chance with b/w if I'm in a hurry, but never with trannies. My venerable Studio Auto II lives close to hand in my left pocket; right hand is reserved for the M2 on a wrist strap. When I walk into a particular place, I take a quick check from various angles -- and I'm ready.

Tom

 

[martin s]

I want to live in a Sunny-22 Country one day. Here it's Sunny-8

martin