bmattock
Veteran
No, wrong.
Shooting Without A Meter
- Thread starter qbking
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 114
- Views 9K
No, wrong.
bmattock
Veteran
Not even close. Not using a meter means you forgot to bring it. Doing so on purpose means you don't care about your photography. Why not buy a postcard?
maddoc
... likes film again.
Not always using a meter but estimating from experience can work quite well. I think especially with a Leica (or any other RF camera), it is less about "correct" exposure, "accurate" framing or focusing, the cameras are designed to help the photographer "catching the moment" when it happens. Or, better to get the shot somehow than watching a missed opportunity while fiddling with the meter ...🙂
On the other hand, for studio-work, everything mounted on a tripod and especially LF, a meter is quite a "must", IMHO.
On the other hand, for studio-work, everything mounted on a tripod and especially LF, a meter is quite a "must", IMHO.
los
Established
we don't need no stinkin' meter
we don't need no stinkin' meter
i don't use a meter 90% of the time. sunny 16 works outside, inside experience works. i tend towards over exposure, and can handhold down to 1/8 sec reliably.
the trick is to use one film, and try to settle on a normal f-stop or shutter (whichever priority your brain is). with color negative film, and using digital grading tools like lightroom, you can't go wrong.
also you know, motion picture camera assistants pull focus without seeing the image through the finder. measure once, then dance with the subject.
we don't need no stinkin' meter
i don't use a meter 90% of the time. sunny 16 works outside, inside experience works. i tend towards over exposure, and can handhold down to 1/8 sec reliably.
the trick is to use one film, and try to settle on a normal f-stop or shutter (whichever priority your brain is). with color negative film, and using digital grading tools like lightroom, you can't go wrong.
also you know, motion picture camera assistants pull focus without seeing the image through the finder. measure once, then dance with the subject.
Last edited:
los
Established
"they that do the thing, have the power"
ferider
Veteran
I agree with Bill.
One can get by without a meter, in many situations. That doesn't mean one shouldn't use one, as often as practical, to improve output quality. After all one can get by mostly with a P&S as well.
One can get by without a meter, in many situations. That doesn't mean one shouldn't use one, as often as practical, to improve output quality. After all one can get by mostly with a P&S as well.
David Hughes
David Hughes
No meter? You could always look for an old exposure calculator on ebay or get the little card from a 30's Leicas or even the inside of the box Fuji 120 film comes in.
Regards, David
Regards, David
TheHub
Well-known
I bought a VCII a few years ago for $200. Yes, it was expensive, but the results it gave were worth it for me. I mounted it on an M3, P, IIIf & Retina Ia and the resulting slides I had were killer.
I agree that meters can be expensive, however. I've seen a few for $400 or more, which personally I would never buy (cannot justify the expense as I'm not a pro and don't shoot slides that often anymore.)
As for B&W, I currently shoot 100% meterless and I am quite enjoying it. I do have minor exposure errors, but quick levels adjustments in PS and my photos come out nicely.
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
Some do not have the power.
They resent others that do.
They belittle the power by calling it "guessing."
Some cling to the automaton that measures increments light, like a suckling child to its mother.
Other, free, cast their minds into the loom and swim with a oneness of being with the luminous world.
Verily, they become the light.
They resent others that do.
They belittle the power by calling it "guessing."
Some cling to the automaton that measures increments light, like a suckling child to its mother.
Other, free, cast their minds into the loom and swim with a oneness of being with the luminous world.
Verily, they become the light.
bmattock
Veteran
When you can tell me the EV of any given lighting situation by eyeballing it, I will concede that your poetic guesstimate is accurate. Until then, it's hokum.
MCTuomey
Veteran
twitter: bill reps for sekonic
robinsonphotography
Established
True, I must say for slides I would definitely go the meter route--there isn't a whole ton of tolerance there. But in my case, I'm shooting B/W and developing everything myself, so there is a good bit of tolerance that makes me happy to guess most of the time. I actually did just buy a (relatively) cheap meter, $40 on ebay, to help me learn the approximate light levels in the places I often am indoors (outdoors it's really easy to guess) so I can "calibrate my brain" to be a better judge of approximate light levels based on past experiences, but so far my guessing hasn't been too much of a problem.
bmattock
Veteran
Not hardly.
Sparrow
Veteran
clearly hokum, no one can measure light value by eye! try closing one eye, the light level remains the same if the brain were measuring the ev then that wouldn't be the case
Mcary
Well-known
I look at it this way, If I've asked someone to get up at 0430 in the morning and then drive an hour to meet up with me and then walk another 30 minutes to get the actual shooting spot. I can certainly take a minute to take a few meter readings before we start shooting, as well when the light appears to be changing.
bmattock
Veteran
I agree.
As I have said before, in this thread and elsewhere, metering is one of the tools of photography. It behooves us to use those tools and use them properly if we care about the results we're creating.
I do not think any of us would advocate not composing a scene, but just randomly waving their camera about and pressing the shutter. None of us would focus by turning the focus ring randomly and guessing at what might be right without actually confirming through the viewfinder. None of us would pick a shutter speed or aperture at random, without caring what the result would be. These are all tools which allow us to creatively control our photographs, and we recognize them and use them.
Exposure is no different. Yes, a person can use general precepts to obtain an acceptable exposure in some circumstances - but why? Meters are built into cameras now, and external meters are cheap and accurate for use with cameras which do not have internal meters. And when the general precept fails, such as when "Sunny 16" turns out not to be your friend, you do not obtain the shot you hoped for. That some can claim this is OK because it does not negatively impact the 'purity' of their experience is beyond my ken. I can only conclude such people are truly idiots. If your goal is to take a photograph, and your photograph is ruined because you refused to meter, then I do not see the redemptive purity of the experience. One might as well randomly not load film into one's camera, for the purity of it all.
The human eye does not measure light. It interprets light, and it does it very well. By adjusting the iris and the sensitivity of the eye's "ISO," the eye presents us with usable images in all sorts of lighting situations. Ideal for vision - not ideal for objective measurements.
And still, after all this nonsense, I cannot grasp the concept of why anyone would intentionally want to refuse to meter, when it takes a second, increases creative control, and can result in a photograph saved from clueless guessing.
It's like insisting on wearing a blindfold whilst hamming nails in a plank. One might actually hammer in a few nails - one might also break one's fingers holding the nail - but oh well, it's the purity of the experience that matters, not actually hamming in the nail. Right? Why not take the blindfold off? Oh no, mustn't do that, much better to guess where the nail might be - experience will be our guide. If we miss and mash our hands, even better.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sometimes, I put an unmetered camera -- my old Retina II, say -- in my pocket, and don't pick up a meter. I don't want the extra weight or hassle. Or I may stick a meter in my pocket and consult it occasionally. Despite Bill's observations, metering takes more than 'a second'.
Forty years of experience mean that I can usually guess quite accurately, and that when the uninterpreted meter and I disagree, I'm quite often right.
No, of course I can't measure light with my eye, in any objective sense. But equally, I don't need to measure it, most of the time: sheer practice and experience mean that often I'll set the aperture and shutter speed, lift the camera to my eye, and find the meter agrees. It's not hard to acquire that degree of experience: a decade or less may well suffice, maybe a lot less if you really put your mind to it.
Certainly, I prefer to have a meter. But to suggest that if you don't use a meter, you don't care about your photography, is something of an overstatement.
Cheers,
Roger
Forty years of experience mean that I can usually guess quite accurately, and that when the uninterpreted meter and I disagree, I'm quite often right.
No, of course I can't measure light with my eye, in any objective sense. But equally, I don't need to measure it, most of the time: sheer practice and experience mean that often I'll set the aperture and shutter speed, lift the camera to my eye, and find the meter agrees. It's not hard to acquire that degree of experience: a decade or less may well suffice, maybe a lot less if you really put your mind to it.
Certainly, I prefer to have a meter. But to suggest that if you don't use a meter, you don't care about your photography, is something of an overstatement.
Cheers,
Roger
bmattock
Veteran
Depends on what type of metering one wishes to do, Roger. A general reflected-light reading does just take a moment. Spot-metering takes longer.
You know that when the meter and your guess disagree, and your guess is closer to the exposure you intended, it's because you're metering incorrectly. I mean, you have to know that, right? Meters do not lie, if they are functioning correctly. If they do not give the reading one thinks is accurate, they're being misused.
Nonsense. What you are saying is that you take a lot of photos that are functionally identical to other photos you have taken in the past, with regard to lighting, and you remember them. That's the whole basis for 'Sunny 16' type memes. Such things work only when the situation is as you remember it. As you mention, sometimes it does not work - which would seem to indicate that you lose that shot - and for what? - because you refused to use a meter.
What you're saying, basically, is that you'd rather guess right the majority of the time and blow a minority of your shots than use a meter and get them all correct. Why?
It is not an overstatement. One focuses, one selects f-stop and aperture, one composes. All because one cares about one's photographs. One meters, too; and for the same reason.
The only reason I can conceive of for not metering is if one does not have a meter with one. And to out without a meter - one might as well not bother with film. Chuck the whole thing and go out drinking instead.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
You don't get it, and you never will. If you want to think you've won the argument, you're welcome.
Cheers,
Roger
You don't get it, and you never will. If you want to think you've won the argument, you're welcome.
Cheers,
Roger
bmattock
Veteran
One of us doesn't get it, that's certain. Why does it have to be me who doesn't get it? 🙂
Last edited: