No meter, no big deal

[CMur12]

These two slides are very well exposed. Thanks for posting them and the others.

I'm assuming that when you say you took these with "meterless cameras" you mean that you used no separate meter, either.

- Murray

Every photo I've posted in this thread so far was made on slide film using meterless cameras (Exa and Edixa Prismaflex).

Here's yet another:

safe for a rainy day by Berang Berang, on Flickr

One more for fun:

Untitled by Berang Berang, on Flickr

 

[SebastienMark]

And vice versa.

Impossible.

 

[SebastienMark]

A few people here have made reference to slide/transparency/chrome film making a difference when choosing to use or not use a meter.

I think subject matter also makes a difference in the need for accurate metering. Street shooters seem to emphasize content over perfect exposure. For landscape and abstract, I find that content depends on rendition (perfect exposure for the desired effect) and vice versa. Add to that that I shoot slides, and it is just convenient to use a meter and to know how to use it for the desired effect.

My question would be, how many slide shooters use no meter and what are you photographing?

- Murray

I photograph a lot with Rolleiflex K4A using Provia 100f. No meter. But mainly family trips or family in motion, friends etc. Approx. 15 rolls / 10 days trip.

 

[Arbitrarium]

I see it as the difference between "making a picture" and "taking a picture".

Never been a fan of the term "making pictures". To me, making would involve physically arranging the subjects for a photo. Like a studio shoot. Shooting out in the real world will always be taking photos. Framing the world and taking a piece of it as your own (regardless of process). Purely an opinion on the grammar of the words than anything else.

Bloody impressed with these meterless slide shots. Hopefully I can learn such an instinct eventually. But honestly, I started shooting meterless only very recently and it's about 12,000% easier than I thought it would be and I'm getting more accurate every day.

 

[SebastienMark]

Hasselblad w/ Velvia 50 - no meter. 7:30 p.m. - print scan

Rolleiflex w/Provia 100f - no meter. 9 a.m. - print scan

 

[ptpdprinter]

Impossible.

Lomo, Holga, Diana. Some young photographers think anything coming out of these bareboned cameras is art.

 

[SebastienMark]

Lomography, Holga, Diana - some young photographers think anything coming out of these bareboned cameras is art.

Too many people can afford to photograph these days.

 

[CMur12]

My hat's off to Tunalegs and SebastienMark.

Any other slide shooters who expose without a meter?

- Murray

 

[pyeh]

When i was younger and quite unknowing, I used to rely on the Sunny 16 type pictograms on the Kodachrome and Ektachrome boxes, when using my Rollei 35, because I wouldn't trust the accuracy of its meter. They mostly came out all right (landscapes, buildings, people).
Now, after many years of TTL meters, and the cost of slide film, I'm not so confident.

 

[jsrockit]

Too many people can afford to photograph these days.

Can you elaborate on this?

 

[kshapero]

You answer focuses on exposure results, something the OP doesn't address. It is OP's position that not using a meter puts you more fully in the creative process many times over, which is preposterous. Use a meter or don't use a meter selon votre gout, just don't rationalize your choice with the creative process argument.

Not saying one way is better than another, just pointing out the type of creative process that goes into knowing (not always) the exposures by eyesight, experience and memory. And the particular joy that goes with it. The beauty of photography is that there are many doors to the Creative "castle". Each to their own.

 

[tunalegs]

My hat's off to Tunalegs and SebastienMark.
- Murray

Thank you.

But it's not as hard as one might imagine i think.

 

[Deklari]

My hat's off to Tunalegs and SebastienMark.

Any other slide shooters who expose without a meter?

- Murray

How about this statement:
I use light meter to make my own decision on exposure.

I only use spot light meter and the zone system in LF, but not for MF or 35mm. There is no way you can used Sunny 16 on 8x10 format.

I agree with topic "No meter, no BIG deal", but it really depend from situation.

 

[froyd]

Akiva, I don't think your position is preposterous, as mentioned above.

As you say, "to each their own", and for me, the addition of a few meterless cameras to my bag, has had a positive impact on the quality of the images I've produced, both in terms of technological execution and of content. Having said that, I also get an adrenaline rush, high "fun factor", and decent pics from wrapping my fingers around an F4s' grip an firing off a few frames with the motordrive, matrix metering, and AF.

 

[tunalegs]

There is no way you can used Sunny 16 on 8x10 format.

May I ask, why not?

 

[Deklari]

May I ask, why not?

So, Of course it is not true 😉
You can use sunny 16, but this will be a really creative process. You will never know the results. It will also depend from subject. Landscape, street, architecture.. sure no problem

 

[Deklari]

May I ask, why not?

But I have also question. Why should I not use a meter?
For example if we go to some gallery and look at art photo ..did you able to recognize a different who used a meter and who don't?
What is BIG deal from, "no big deal" problem? 🙄

 

[tunalegs]

I'm just interested in what the technical reasoning would be behind going by sunny 16 for smaller formats, but not for large format?

Particularly because exposure becomes more critical the smaller the negative is. Assuming the same size print is going to be made whatever the negative size is, the larger negative allows a larger margin of error than a smaller one.

I'm not sure why not using a meter upsets those who do so much. Again, the OP was not suggesting anybody is less creative for using a meter. Simply that not using one makes one more involved in process. Several seem to be twisting his words just to antagonize themselves.

 

[Deklari]

I'm just interested in what the technical reasoning would be behind going by sunny 16 for smaller formats, but not for large format?

Particularly because exposure becomes more critical the smaller the negative is. Assuming the same size print is going to be made whatever the negative size is, the larger negative allows a larger margin of error than a smaller one.

I'm not sure why not using a meter upsets those who do so much. Again, the OP was not suggesting anybody is less creative for using a meter. Simply that not using one makes one more involved in process. Several seem to be twisting his words just to antagonize themselves.

I never thing about metering and size. I just work with the zone system. If I need shift my subject from zone 5 to zone 8, I need to know what is exposure in Zone 5. Sunny 16 don't give me detail information as spot meter, or it will be too much calculation for me.
Again I use meter only in 10% of my MF or 35mm. Not using a meter didn't upset me at all. But I open for both. 😉

 

[ptpdprinter]

I'm just interested in what the technical reasoning would be behind going by sunny 16 for smaller formats, but not for large format?

Probably because most large format photographers use some variation of the zone system, and are interested not only in exposure but the contrast range for the purposes of development. LF photographers need accuracy to determine whether to use N-2, N-1, N, N+1, N+2 development times.

Particularly because exposure becomes more critical the smaller the negative is. Assuming the same size print is going to be made whatever the negative size is, the larger negative allows a larger margin of error than a smaller one.

I'm not sure what exposure accuracy has to do with enlargement size.[/quote]

I'm not sure why not using a meter upsets those who do so much. Again, the OP was not suggesting anybody is less creative for using a meter. Simply that not using one makes one more involved in process. Several seem to be twisting his words just to antagonize themselves.

Because the OP didn't say he is more involved in the process as you suggested, but more involved in the creative process.