Meter disagreements

[Roger Hicks]

This is prompted by a number of threads lately about metering techniques, meterless cameras, what meter to buy, etc.

I am indebted to Garry Coward-Williams, editor of Amateur Photographer, for the following question. It intrigues both him and me; we don't have any answer to it.

It is quite common for meters to disagree by a third of a stop, half a stop, even a stop. And if you give the same meter to two photographers and ask them to meter the same subject and write down their readings (so they don't influence each other) they will often differ as well.

And yet, we all get exposures we are happy with -- even if we don't re-set tyhe film speed.

How and why?

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- and puzzled authord of 'Perfect Exposure')

 

[taffer]

Interesting question 🙂

May it be that:

a) We use the advantadges in our side (film latitude, adjustments in developing / scanning / photoshoping / printing) to end with a final image which adjusts to our idea of what we like ?

b) We don't use to try small variations in exposure (bracketing) which could provide us with 3 or 4 or 5 different images to choose between them and therefore we tend to be happy with the only one we took ?

c) We're already so happy to have caught the 'decisive moment' that perfect exposure and focus are no longer that important ?

d) Our perception is not that detailed as to notice such small variations in the final image or how it could be improved by a slightly different exposure ?

e) 'Correct exposure' is a subjective term and overrated in first place ? 😉

Just some day off thoughts...

Oscar

 

[aizan]

It all balances out, somehow or another.

 

[rover]

I always say that photography is a simple art. People go out looking for a super sophisticated all the bells and whistles wiz-bang cameras to do the same thing that can be done with simple meterless mechanical body.

In the end I think that photography is a lot closer to horseshoes than darts.

 

[Kim Coxon]

For what it's worth, my 2c worth.

1. Some of it will depend on how we are "taught". This maybe from another person, a book or self taught.

2. Exposure latitude and printing techniques will tend to mask the results. As a result we are perhaps not as critcal of our results as we should be. How many times do you write down the exact conditions meter readings etc etc and then analyse the results afterwards?

3. What is the "correct" exposure? Very few subjects have an even tonal balance so do you expose for the highlights, shadows or miderange? As I understand it even the 18% grey card is not supposed to be exact. I have read that Ansel Adams was around at the time and influenced Kodak because 18% fitted better with his theories and the "zone system".

4. How do you hold the meter. Even a couple of degrees in vertical angle can make quite a difference to the reading.

5. Is the speed rating of the film accurate. Not many years ago the norm was 160ASA for pro neg stock but 100ASA for amatuer stock. I rather suspect that the films were much the same speed but an extra 2/3 stop increased colour saturation and the film is more tolerant to over- exposure, the film companies "fudge it".

I think in the end, it is down to understanding the kit you are using. I tried several meters before I found one I was happy with and then the instructions only told me how to press the buttons and not how to "use" it. That came with trial and error. It's the same with cameras. I sometimes need to use 2 or 3 (and even 4) SLR bodies (Sorry) for a job. I tend to use the same one to meter and transfer the readings to the others despite all having "accurate" meters. I do it this way because I can interpret the readings better.

Of well, time to get back in my box

Kim

 

[varjag]

Roger,

With print film we're likely to compensate for small imperfections at print stage. Once you get used to a given workflow (test strips + paper grades in darkroom, curves in digital) it is done without a second thought. Also the wider latitude of the modern negs helps.

With transparencies one probaby brackets anyway. Even if not, for many scenes the film latitude could be sufficient to accomodate for 1/2-1 stop error. The colors e.g. would have different saturation but generally it would be perceived as 'normal' quality. Only when the highlighs are blown or the shadows are dead the miss becomes clearly apparent at a quick glance.

I've seen a good example of that when reading an article on comparison of entry-level Canon and Nikon bodies. The difference in their metering systems have resulted in the sample slides with clearly distinct exposures but that was only noticeable when they were compared one to one, and none of them was objectionable per se.

(Now, I have a weird feeling telling you all that, as I picked most of the knowledge on exposure from your articles in 'Fotomagazin'.)

 

[wlewisiii]

One thing I have found is that it doesn't really matter what the meter says - as long as it says it consistantly. If I get the same reading in the same light, the what matter if it is a stop different from another meter? It's like everything else in photography. Use one meter, one body, specific lens or lenses, one film and one developer and get to know them. Then the others will be easier to use.

William

 

[Roger Hicks]

Cheers, everyone. Of course you're all right -- but it still is an interesting philosophical question, innit?

I think Varjag comes closest -- and not just because of Foto Magazin -- by pointing out that the differences that are perfectly apparent may not always be important unless directly compared, i.e. we all worry more than we need to, exactly as Rover says.

I'm not even sure about William's assertion about 'one meter' because I use several incident meters -- all right, all Gossen -- plus a couple of spot meters and a shoe-mount Voigtlander, to say nothing of through-lens meters on the MP and Voigtlanders -- and they all work for me. Then again, I tend to estimate the exposure, check the meter, and set what I think rather than what the meter says. I suspect that it all comes down to this to a greater or lesser extent.

As I say, neither Garry nor I have definitive answers, and the more you think about it, the more intriguing it gets.

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[rbiemer]

I have noticed that my keepers are not often appealing to me because the exposure was correct.
My totally subjective opinion about my own work is based on several different things and exposure is a part of that but not the whole.
I used for several years one of those "Black Cat Exposure Guides" and got pretty good results. Not especially worse than the handheld meter I use now or the sunny-16 rule that I'm starting to use more often.
Except for the PS cameras I've owned, shooting this way has made me think about and sometimes remember what speed/aperture works in what kind/amount of light.
I think that has made my photography better.
Rob

 

[phototone]

The first half of the history of photography occured before the development of electrical light meters. Look at all the wonderful, beautiful images taken in the 19th century, up through the 1920's. Not all those images were developed by inspection either. Autochromes come to mind, and this complex process had to be done by time and temperature.

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

I have a tool & die maker friend who has this saying, "Measure it with a micrometer, mark it with chalk, then cut it off with an axe." I think that what he means is people worry about unmeaningful details in the process of coming up with an end product.

In photography we tend to "Measure it with a micrometer", i.e. light meter to with in 0.1 of a stop, take the picture with a camera that has shutter speeds that are within 0.5 stops of being "right" ("Mark it with chalk"), then hand the film over to the new kid behind the counter at the local discount one hour photo lab and he uses processor settings that are with in 1.0 to 2.0 stops of being "right" ("Cut it off with an axe"). We get results that are acceptable, generally.

I have had proofs from the same negative printed at three different labs, the end results were all different. But show the proofs singly to people and they find them acceptable, but show all three proofs at the same time and there will be one that they like better, not always the same one that I would pick. 🙂

I guess I am saying that taking photos really isn't rocket science or 911. We really should just go out and shoot photos instead of worrying about stuff.

Wayne

 

[Roger Hicks]

Wayne: A superb maxim. Thanks.
Rob: Light awareness. Yes.
Phototone: Of course, there's plenty of latitude for OVERexposuree with B+W. I wonder what the success rate was with Autochromes? People certainly kept some pretty bad ones.

Cheers,

Roger