Shooting Without A Meter

[qbking]

I'm curious & wanted to throw this question out there. How many meterless Leica owners out there shoot without a meter at all.

I just shot my first roll & about 90% of the shots where within the right range (don't get me wrong, I still have a ways to go though). I plan on getting a meter soon but my goal is to be able to go anywhere with my M4 and just shot & just intuitively know where I should be. I definitely believe this is attainable.

Is there anyone out there doing this? If so, how did you get to that level? Did you take notes to start & then begin to learn? Any tips?

I know there are those that are going to say that having a meter is always a good idea. I understand that. I'm just curious how many people are shooting straight off the brain.

 

[Austerby]

Is there anyone out there doing this? If so, how did you get to that level? Did you take notes to start & then begin to learn? Any tips?

Yes, lots of us. We're getting there by trial and error and the graces of film exposure latitude that covers many sins.

I have not taken notes but a useful starting point I found was to take the exposure meter with me but attempt to estimate the exposure before measuring it. If my estimate was different, I found thinking about why I had guessed different and understanding what the exposure meter was telling me to be most instructive. Once I found I didn't need the meter then I'd go without, but with some bracketing of exposures when not sure.

One thing though, it's a skill you need to practice at and can lose. It can also be a distraction from the important subjects of composition and timing.

 

[MCTuomey]

i carry a meter but often shoot without using it, adjusting as my brain indicates, within the range of my ability to judge exposure confidently. in light that's tough for me to judge, i'll meter just to get a baseline and then adjust from there, either s/s or aperture.

it feels free not to be tied to a meter, i'll admit.

i don't mind the errors, actually am learning from them now that i'm back to basics with an M2. i have this notion that my former reliance on auto exposure led to mediocre exposures anyway (that's why they call 'em "average," i guess).

 

[Nokton48]

I'm doing this with my M2, I find I'm a bit sharper and speedier due to the liberation. And it's more fun for me. When I go inside, I often switch to my M5, which is also been very gratifying to use.

If it's an important shot, and I can repeat it, I'll drop the shutter speed one click, and make a second exposure, to give myself a choice. I like lots of shadow detail.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Yes, that's how I shoot with my M2, as well. If I'm shooting Tri-X/Arista 400, I'm pretty good, but I still get confused at other ISOs.

 

[moonwire]

i have done it (not with a leica, as mine has a meter) but i was shooting neopan and tri-x which both have great latitude. a stop or 2 under or even over is not a big deal. personally, i wouldn't attempt it with slide.

 

[feenej]

I do it a lot, but I don't own a Leica. I shot four un-metered rolls of film this past two weeks.

 

[Ken Ford]

I used to do it all the time, but not anymore. I don't chase the meter, though.

 

[cjm]

I always shoot my M2 without a meter, mainly because I just don't have one. I find that with in camera meters I tend to get hung up on what the "perfect" exposure is and I end up missing the shot. Meter-less cameras just fit my shooting style better.

Most of my shooting is in low light. After much practice, I've gotten decent at guessing at most indoor lighting. When preparing for a shot I usually visualize the lighting required to properly expose 400iso film at f/2 and 1/30 sec (EV5). Then I decide how many stops under or over the current subject is and adjust accordingly. If I have faster film (800, 1600, etc.) I still use the aforementioned system, but I increase the shutter speed or stop down, depending on the situation. With slower film I do the same but open up to a larger aperture or reduce the shutter speed.

I hope this makes sense. It seems to work for me and I get 30-32 acceptably exposed pictures from a roll.

Ideally, I'd like to have an external meter to take initial readings, put it away, and then go from there.

 

[hans voralberg]

Most of the time I guess, after ~200 rolls you can estimate exposure for a hell lot of circumstances. When it gets really tricky I got out my meter, get a baseline and adjust on the fly from there.

 

[Nh3]

I just shot my first roll & about 90% of the shots where within the right range (don't get me wrong, I still have a ways to go though). I plan on getting a meter soon but my goal is to be able to go anywhere with my M4 and just shot & just intuitively know where I should be. I definitely believe this is attainable.

... But why?

You could also use a pinhole camera, shoot one handed or shoot with your eyes closed. There are many ways to make photography difficult, but why?

If you watch the famous recent documentary on James Nachtwey, a 20-yr plus veteran photographer, he uses a light meter in the middle of action despite having SLRs with inbuilt meters. Why he does that? After all these years he should know "his light" right?

If something is worth photographing then it should be photographed well. This is an old maxim and I stick to it.

 

[RF_newbie]

i have also been trying this with my M2. although i have not developed any rolls yet to check my incontinence. I carried around a light meter for awhile, without a camera (doh) just to check out random spots when ever i remembered i had it with me. i read on a thread somewhere in RFF about this ancient secret photog technique. it really got me to noticing the shadowing and lighting of my surroundings more than i ever have before. Its kinda cool, because it is so very nice to be able to not have to squint or hold my Canon 7 at arms length to check the meter. :smile:
But Nh3 makes a great point i believe, if you do not have the chance to get "that"photo use the meter if you got it, or put your digi on record mode hehe.

 

[Tom A]

I find that a metered camera slows me down - the diodes in a M6/MP draws the eye from the scene in the finder. I get better exposed negatives with my M6/MP/Bessa/ZI - but there is a feeling of being 1/10 sec too late!
With the M2's or M4P's (and my Nikon Rf's) I mainly shoot without a meter (handheld or camera mounted). There are not that many variables when you think about it. logic tells you what is close (bright sun is pretty much f11/f16 and deep shadows f2.8 and 1/60).
The trick is to stick to one film/one developer as that will tell you what the film and your judgement can do.
I don't keep tab of exposures, but I can usually look at a negative and see what I was shooting at.
My "mentor" was a veteran photo journalist. This was in 1957 and there were really no reliable meters freely available. His "meter" was based on 10's of thousands of rolls and he wrote down on a small piece of cardbord what he "thought" the exposures should be with that newfangled film from Kodak called TriX and taped it to the back of my M3. It worked - not all exposures were perfect, but I could always get a print out of them.
It is not a bad idea, even today. Look around you and try to estimate what the reading should be and check it. If it is within 1/2 stop - you are fine. Outdoor is easy - it is all those "energy" saving bulbs used today that screws you up! When in doubt - bracket too - if the situation allows for it.
One way to simplify the process is to use only a couple of shutter speeds initially and bracket with aperture! All my cameras with film in them are set at infinity, f8 and 1/250. This means when i grab one - i know in which direction to turn the dial, lens and aperture ring for most every situation.
Best training is to set aside a brick of film (the old style - 20 rolls) and "force' yourself to shoot it over a relatively short period of time (say, a week) and experiment within a known area, your house, your neighborhood, works space if possible. Try to finish 1-3 rolls per day and process them quickly and look at them. Where did I screw up? More exposure or less, what is the slowest speed i can handheld safely. That will teach you more about exposure, framing and your own style than even this much hallowed forum and instruction books.
It is fun too, and you will meet some interesting people in the process. Just explain that you are doing this experiment and most everybody will co-operate with you. BUT the first rule of Photography applies here "IF you promise a print - please deliver - be it good or bad. This will open doors for you and if it is a bad exposure/pose - most people are willing to take the reshoot too. So, the family will have their worst suspicions confirmed - You are nuts, but that will help later when you keep shooting and after a while they will ignore you.

 

[zenlibra]

I use the "sunny 16" rule as a base and double check with my hand held incident light meter. I've been learning lots about the subtleties of light. I don't shoot much action but if I shoot on the street I just check every few minutes or so until I get carried away and forget.

 

[waileong]

It's not a recipe for quality negs. And definitely not for chromes.

Though I own an M3 and M4, I don't recommend this. You'll find the darkroom work more enjoyable with good negs.

Meters nowadays are so small and unobtrusive there's no reason to go without one.

The idea of an M is to be able to take one light reading and commit to it for a while, until the light changes. Not to jump thru hoops when shooting.

I'm curious & wanted to throw this question out there. How many meterless Leica owners out there shoot without a meter at all.

I just shot my first roll & about 90% of the shots where within the right range (don't get me wrong, I still have a ways to go though). I plan on getting a meter soon but my goal is to be able to go anywhere with my M4 and just shot & just intuitively know where I should be. I definitely believe this is attainable.

Is there anyone out there doing this? If so, how did you get to that level? Did you take notes to start & then begin to learn? Any tips?

I know there are those that are going to say that having a meter is always a good idea. I understand that. I'm just curious how many people are shooting straight off the brain.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I rarely use a meter. The lighting is about the same as it was the last time I was in the same place. With my two non working (at the SAME TIME!) Weston Master V's out recuperating on the work bench of Qualty Light Metric in Hollywood, CA I've really had little choice. Then I remembered my Minolta Autometer, which hadn't seen use in years. It's a great studio meter, or to keep with a Hasselblad kit, but it's too big for a pocket. Later I'll head over to Radio Shack and pick up a battery. Even if I don't end up using it I want that comforting feeling of knowing that it's there.

 

[John Lawrence]

I tried shooting without a meter, but found that it just wasn't for me. I also tried some of the exposure charts on the web, such as the one here:

http://expomat.tripod.com/

I didn't get on with these charts either, so in the end I went back to using my meter.

 

[Svitantti]

I shoot a lot of my photos in dark and often it is very hard to get sensible readings from a meter. Then I just use full aperture and the slowest speed that I think can be used (or suits the situation) handheld.
When I am in constant conditions, for example in the streets, I just meter a reading or a couple and put those settings to my camera. Then I only change them when I think I want different kind of exposure than the "normal" would be or if I have to take a fast shot from something that has different conditions.

I think it is very nice to either use a handheld meter or no meter at all for street shooting. I think you can get pretty good at knowing the exposure without a meter. These ways of "measuring" mean, that you dont have to take the camera up to your eye, until you are actually taking the photo.

Recently there was a couple times I simply forgot my meter home. The situation was quite easy, because there was not much light, so I just set my camera to f2 and 1/60 or 1/30 or so and if it came even darker, I used longer times. All or at least huge majority of those couple rolls were well exposed, or as good as they can get with that much light.

I see no problem using this method even for slides, but surely needs more practice first than for negatives. Color negs are probably easiest, at least for overexposure.

 

[thawkins]

I always carry a meter, but on sunny "16" days I'll leave the meter in the car. It produces a great feeling of freedom and the prints always turn out fine.

 

[Graybeard]

Indoor artificial lighting can be surprisingly consistent, I imagine because people select a light level with which they are comfortable. With ASA400 film, f4 at 1/60th gives good results in quite a variety of commercial lighting situations - supermarkets, fast food restaurants, schools. For residential lighting, f2.8 at 1/30th will generally produce a useful result except in the darkest corners of a room.

Outdoors, Sunny-11 (Sunny-16 now that snow is on the ground) works just fine for me and it isn't too difficult to estimate exposure for overcast or cloudy situations; f11 in full sun, f2.8 in deep shade and use an educated guess as to where you are between those limits.