dave lackey
Veteran
dave lackey
Veteran
Here's another with no meter, see? It's not so hard to do...
It's kind of like fishing...you can use all the charts, instruments, etc. that you want, or...you can just go do it. Practice, practice, practice...
It's kind of like fishing...you can use all the charts, instruments, etc. that you want, or...you can just go do it. Practice, practice, practice...
Hopscotch
Wannabe
This thread has mixed responses.
I carry my meter with me wherever I have a camera and whenever a lighting situation changes,(walk outside etc) i check it to get in the ballpark- but that doesn't mean i don't tweak when I feel necessary- it's not perfect. The fact is that with film, you're paying eight to twelve cents for every exposure you take, so why waste your pennies? A meter will get you a well exposed picture, but you need to use good judgment with it. A balance of the two will expose your images well.
I carry my meter with me wherever I have a camera and whenever a lighting situation changes,(walk outside etc) i check it to get in the ballpark- but that doesn't mean i don't tweak when I feel necessary- it's not perfect. The fact is that with film, you're paying eight to twelve cents for every exposure you take, so why waste your pennies? A meter will get you a well exposed picture, but you need to use good judgment with it. A balance of the two will expose your images well.
Bassism
Well-known
I can probably prove everybody's point with a few shots off my latest roll.
This one came out quite well in my opinion.
However, this was overexposed badly enough to lose lots of detail. I probably would have nailed it if I were using a meter.
Note that this is pushed FP4+, which is quite contrasty to begin with.
One thing that roll taught me is that even in the same room, you can find a fairly large range of light.
I don't mind losing the odd shot to exposure errors. To me, it's just another thing I can work on, just like my compositional skill. I get a real sense of satisfaction when I'm successful.
In this case, the girl saw I had my camera in hand and asked me to take some shots of her, so I did. If it were a more formal shoot, I would definitely have used a meter to avoid something like the second shot. As it is, I look at it as something I can learn from while having fun.
This one came out quite well in my opinion.
However, this was overexposed badly enough to lose lots of detail. I probably would have nailed it if I were using a meter.
Note that this is pushed FP4+, which is quite contrasty to begin with.
One thing that roll taught me is that even in the same room, you can find a fairly large range of light.
I don't mind losing the odd shot to exposure errors. To me, it's just another thing I can work on, just like my compositional skill. I get a real sense of satisfaction when I'm successful.
In this case, the girl saw I had my camera in hand and asked me to take some shots of her, so I did. If it were a more formal shoot, I would definitely have used a meter to avoid something like the second shot. As it is, I look at it as something I can learn from while having fun.
waileong
Well-known
This boils down to two questions
1. How well can you do without a meter?
2. How hard do you want to make it for yourself?
Those who shoot without meters, while conceding their exposures are not always perfect, feel it's good enough given the latitude of neg films.
However, they cannot deny the point that if their exposures are not perfect, a little or a lot more darkroom work will be necessary to get decent prints, depending on how far they're off.
This leads to the second question. Apart from having a hard time in the darkroom, do you want to have a hard time when shooting in different lighting situations?
I know sunny 16 and I've had to use it when I forgot to bring my meter. Most recently when I shot my kid at the playground during last light. I opened up 10 stops from sunny 16, f2@1/60 for ISO 800 film, it turned out fine.
My view is this:
Having the ability to shoot without a meter is good, one should know Sunny 16 and develop one's confidence so that one does not feel naked without a meter, and can still shoot with confidence meterless if necessary. But to deliberately go into every photographic situation without a meter smacks of ill-placed machismo. It's like saying one should not have matches in one's survival kit because one can always make fire using flint. This is making things unnecessarily difficult for oneself.
A good neg is essential input to the photographic chain of producing the expressive print. If one has the option of using a meter, one should use it. I'm pretty sure Ansel Adams (to quote the prev poster) used a meter for the large majority of his LF masterpieces.
1. How well can you do without a meter?
2. How hard do you want to make it for yourself?
Those who shoot without meters, while conceding their exposures are not always perfect, feel it's good enough given the latitude of neg films.
However, they cannot deny the point that if their exposures are not perfect, a little or a lot more darkroom work will be necessary to get decent prints, depending on how far they're off.
This leads to the second question. Apart from having a hard time in the darkroom, do you want to have a hard time when shooting in different lighting situations?
I know sunny 16 and I've had to use it when I forgot to bring my meter. Most recently when I shot my kid at the playground during last light. I opened up 10 stops from sunny 16, f2@1/60 for ISO 800 film, it turned out fine.
My view is this:
Having the ability to shoot without a meter is good, one should know Sunny 16 and develop one's confidence so that one does not feel naked without a meter, and can still shoot with confidence meterless if necessary. But to deliberately go into every photographic situation without a meter smacks of ill-placed machismo. It's like saying one should not have matches in one's survival kit because one can always make fire using flint. This is making things unnecessarily difficult for oneself.
A good neg is essential input to the photographic chain of producing the expressive print. If one has the option of using a meter, one should use it. I'm pretty sure Ansel Adams (to quote the prev poster) used a meter for the large majority of his LF masterpieces.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Actually, Adams did not meter one of his most iconic images "Moonrise over Hernandez". He claimed that he only had a minute to set up the camera (8x10) and shoot two exposures - and in his opinion, only one worked out. I must admit I always wanted to see his missed one! He knew that the moon reflected 1/250th of the sun and extrapolated the exposure from that.
He also used a SEI spot meter for many years - and though it is very precise - it is slow to operate. There is a difference too with shooting sheet film or 120 film - you do not bracket as freely with that size and "short" rolls.
There is nothing wrong with using a meter - far from it - as long as you remember that the meter's ability to interpret light is based on a mechanical process - it wants to render everything a consistent quality of midtones (usually). Using the brain, you add or subtract exposure to get what you know will work FOR YOUR TYPE OR STYLE OF SHOOTING!
When the M6 came out, I was looking forward to use a metered M (I could never get along with the M5) and though my colorstuff improved from not guessing exposures - I found my Tri X stuff suffered a "blandness" and kept on shooting bl/w with non metered M's (Mainly M2's and M4P's). I do carry a meter, but rarely use it. Mainly it is used to disagree with - at least with 250/400 asa bl/w film.
He also used a SEI spot meter for many years - and though it is very precise - it is slow to operate. There is a difference too with shooting sheet film or 120 film - you do not bracket as freely with that size and "short" rolls.
There is nothing wrong with using a meter - far from it - as long as you remember that the meter's ability to interpret light is based on a mechanical process - it wants to render everything a consistent quality of midtones (usually). Using the brain, you add or subtract exposure to get what you know will work FOR YOUR TYPE OR STYLE OF SHOOTING!
When the M6 came out, I was looking forward to use a metered M (I could never get along with the M5) and though my colorstuff improved from not guessing exposures - I found my Tri X stuff suffered a "blandness" and kept on shooting bl/w with non metered M's (Mainly M2's and M4P's). I do carry a meter, but rarely use it. Mainly it is used to disagree with - at least with 250/400 asa bl/w film.
waileong
Well-known
Tom,
The exception proves the rule.
And of course it goes without saying that a meter is dumb, it's up to the user to interpret the reading.
The exception proves the rule.
And of course it goes without saying that a meter is dumb, it's up to the user to interpret the reading.
Last edited:
mhv
Registered User
So why do you even bother pointing out my "error" then? The powerful exhilaration of proper semantics? Man, that's some kind of rush I'd kill an old lady for.
Funny how the topic of exposure brings the deepest passions in amateurs.
Last edited:
mh2000
Well-known
>>Perhaps I am different than most who choose an all-mechanical camera. I choose to manually focus, set my aperture and film speed because I want more control over the final exposure. Since control is what I'm after, metering is (for me) essential. The control freak in me won't let me just abandon the process half-way through to luck and a good memory.
Unless you are using the zone system and a spot meter... or at least a gray card, you are only going half-way through and relying on luck and a good memory... you can guess on your exposure or use your camera or reflective meter and guess on your compensation... what's the difference?
It's funny, but I started out with SLRs and TTL metering... when I got my first primitive mechanical camera I was scared of what kind of exposures I would get, but after two rolls just using the Kodak table inside film boxes I realized that my exposures were actually *better* than what my fancy cameras were giving me.
If I have my incident meter with me I use it, but I go by my guesses over the meter more often than not...
Unless you are using the zone system and a spot meter... or at least a gray card, you are only going half-way through and relying on luck and a good memory... you can guess on your exposure or use your camera or reflective meter and guess on your compensation... what's the difference?
It's funny, but I started out with SLRs and TTL metering... when I got my first primitive mechanical camera I was scared of what kind of exposures I would get, but after two rolls just using the Kodak table inside film boxes I realized that my exposures were actually *better* than what my fancy cameras were giving me.
If I have my incident meter with me I use it, but I go by my guesses over the meter more often than not...
bmattock
Veteran
You stated that you guessed at your exposure and managed to get a half-way decent result. I think that speaks for itself. Guessing yields a 'shrug, oh well' response. Why bother focusing? Why bother taking a photo at all, since you clearly don't care about the result?
My comment was that if the exposure you got was the exposure you intended, then no one can complain about it being right or wrong, because as the photographer, you decide what exposure is 'correct' for that photograph.
On the other hand, if your approach is "Well, blow me, I managed to get a decent exposure," then I guess you don't care how your photo looks. I'm not pointing out your 'error', you did it yourself.
I'm happy to be an amateur, but you use the word like it's an obscenity.
I've managed to keep personal insults out of the discussion, I think. If that's all you have left to hurl, I think we're through with this one.
mh2000
Well-known
I am completely with you here! I just can't do it... and I've only regretted it a few time. 
>>also i dont bracket, my ego prevents that
>>also i dont bracket, my ego prevents that
mh2000
Well-known
Often, indoors you are better off setting your camera manually for guessed ambient lighting instead of allowing your camera to meter the scene and get tricked by light sources within your frame... I find it easier to guess the ambient light than adjust for each shot... of course a gray card or ambient meter will be better... but how many people don't carry those and just rely on their cameras? Most I would say... both amateurs and pros alike.
mhv
Registered User
You are so utterly deaf to the meaning of my original post, it's not even funny.
You cast aspersions on my intentions and the point of my experiment with using logic to approximate exposure. You don't even bother reading what I write and see that I do not even have a generally lazy approach to exposure.
I made an experiment once and I was surprised that it gave decent results, as everybody can attest. Doesn't change much to my way of working, which is to use a light meter as intelligently as I can.
Finally you read everything I say as a slur.
And _you're_ the one feeling insulted here?
You cast aspersions on my intentions and the point of my experiment with using logic to approximate exposure. You don't even bother reading what I write and see that I do not even have a generally lazy approach to exposure.
I made an experiment once and I was surprised that it gave decent results, as everybody can attest. Doesn't change much to my way of working, which is to use a light meter as intelligently as I can.
Finally you read everything I say as a slur.
And _you're_ the one feeling insulted here?
bmattock
Veteran
If I misread the intent of your post, I apologize. It is late, and I'm tired, so perhaps I did, and I don't want to do that to people. Let's say it is me and I retract my statement, if you'll allow me to. In any case, I think perhaps it is time to move on from this particular thread. Again, my apologies for reading your words incorrectly.
mhv
Registered User
Apologies accepted, there's no point for any of us to get all worked up because of a forum thread! And good night, I'm going to bed too.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Sunny-16 is a blast. I like using meters also, but something about tackling the light on a scene with your intuition is just ... fun
Sorry for the scratch on the negatives, old expired film on dirty fixer...
Sorry for the scratch on the negatives, old expired film on dirty fixer...
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
I think the most important thing is to work consciously while you actually still use a meter or a metered camera. try to get a feeling for different amounts of light in the most varied situations...
I'm sometimes exercising myself by guessing first and then checking with the meter even when I'm not about to photograph anything.
I'm sometimes exercising myself by guessing first and then checking with the meter even when I'm not about to photograph anything.
MCTuomey
Veteran
+++1 that is how i like to work as well. in any case we're all light obsessed creatures
robinsonphotography
Established
Think of how much a meter costs. Then think of how many rolls of film you can get for that much $$. Chances are, if you spend the $150+ it costs for a nice meter (yes I know there are cheaper ones, but that's an average price for a new meter) on film instead I bet that those 70 or so roll so tri-x you bought instead of the meter will be plenty to teach you about metering in your head so that you're pretty damn good at it. I'm just starting myself, having gone form shooting a gripped D700 w/ many SLR lenses on a daily basis to a tiny M2 with CV 35/2.5 (for personal, D700 is still the go-to for paid work), and even though I could afford a meter if I really needed to, first I figure it's worth shooting a dozen rolls to try and figure out the exposures myself. So far, it seems to be working decently well.
arseniii
Well-known
meterless! +-1 stop mistake cannot even notice on B/W... 5 years with M3 uhhh