No meter, no big deal

[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.

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. I don't think it is an unreasonable inference that someone who is more involved in the creative process (many times over) will be more creative.

 

[tunalegs]

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.

Ok, but that doesn't necessarily mean that sunny 16 wouldn't be accurate so long as the photography understands what they're exposing.

I'm not sure what exposure accuracy has to do with enlargement size.

You have used an enlarger before right?
Here's an experiment for you: Take a photo of the same scene, with the same film, exposure, development, on 35mm and 4x5. Go into the darkroom and enlarge both to 11x14" using the same exposure settings for both again, and develop them the same. Watch what happens.
If you already know what will happen, then it shouldn't take you long to figure out from here why exposure accuracy is more important the smaller the negative is.

Because the OP didn't say he is more involved in the process as you suggested, but more involved in the creative process. I don't think it is an unreasonable inference that someone who is more involved in the creative process (many times over) will be more creative.

So you're saying that you believe the OP was suggesting not using a meter makes one more original or unique? Instead of the literal reading of one being more involved in the creative process - ie. the process of the creation of the photograph?

 

[ptpdprinter]

Ok, but that doesn't necessarily mean that sunny 16 wouldn't be accurate so long as the photography understands what they're exposing.

Sunny 16 won't give you an accurate reading of the contrast range of a scene for development purposes. Sunny 16 is more in the nature of an incident reading.

You have used an enlarger before right?
Here's an experiment for you: Take a photo of the same scene, with the same film, exposure, development, on 35mm and 4x5. Go into the darkroom and enlarge both to 11x14" using the same exposure settings for both again, and develop them the same. Watch what happens. If you already know what will happen, then it shouldn't take you long to figure out from here why exposure accuracy is more important the smaller the negative is.

I've done both. Poorly exposed 35mm negatives and poorly exposed 4x5 negatives are both difficult to print. In my experience, you don't get a free poor exposure get out of jail card with larger negatives. Underexpose and you lose shadow detail; overexpose and you lose highlight detail, regardless of negative size.

So you're saying that you believe the OP was suggesting not using a meter makes one more original or unique? Instead of the literal reading of one being more involved in the creative process - ie. the process of the creation of the photograph?

Unique and original are your terms. The words used by the OP were "more fully in the creative process" and "many times over". Why don't we let everyone decide for themselves what those words mean.

 

[tunalegs]

Poorly exposed 35mm negatives and poorly exposed 4x5 negatives are both difficult to print.

Guess which is easier to print though. I know. From experience.

No. Unique and original are your terms. The words used by the OP were "more fully in the creative process" and "many times over".

So what is your definition of "creativity" a word you used, but which the OP didn't?

 

[ptpdprinter]

So what is your definition of "creativity" a word you used, but which the OP didn't?

Rather than continue to argue semantics with you, I again suggest that we let each reader interpret the OP's words for themselves. I have explained my interpretation and you have explained your interpretation.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Guess which is easier to print though. I know. From experience.

I too have some experience. I developed and printed my first 35mm negative in 1973; I developed and printed my first 4x5 negative in 1976. I prefer to print from well exposed negatives. My exposures are more consistent when I use a meter than when I rely on Sunny 16, and I can tailor my development of large format negatives. I don't find using a meter an impediment to the creative process. In some cases, it is an aid in achieving a pre-visualized image.

 

[jsrockit]

I think most of the time people doing large format don't mind using a meter because they are taking their time anyway... and many make various notes about the exposure too. Additionally, it is expensive, so it is better to be safe than sorry.

With regards to enlargements, I had never thought about why a bad 35mm neg would be harder than a bad 8x10" neg....but I would imagine the larger the neg has to be magnified, the worse it'll look in general.

 

[SebastienMark]

My hat's off to Tunalegs and SebastienMark.

Any other slide shooters who expose without a meter?

- Murray

Thank You.

 

[SebastienMark]

I too have some experience. I developed and printed my first 35mm negative in 1973; I developed and printed my first 4x5 negative in 1976. I prefer to print from well exposed negatives. My exposures are more consistent when I use a meter than when I rely on Sunny 16, and I can tailor my development of large format negatives. I don't find using a meter an impediment to the creative process. In some cases, it is an aid in achieving a pre-visualized image.

Creative process must be done days before you press click.