Shooting Without A Meter

[Time Freeze]

When I'm walking around with a meterless camera I take my Gossen Pilot lightmeter. It's smaller than a cell phone (without the clam shell) and you really don't feel weighted down at all. I'll take a reading and then adjust for different lighting conditions as I shoot, checking myself with the meter occaisionally. Forcing yourself to observe the changing light can help your photography.

John

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

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!

Right! For me, it's either no meter at all, or full AE. To be honest, I'm perfectly satisfied with AE almost all the time. I only shoot Sunny-16 at all because I want to use the M2. But what's important is not having to fiddle with the meter, built-in or not. If I think I'm going to have any trouble figuring out exposure, I just grab my Bessa or SLR.

 

[bmattock]

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.

'off the brain' is a good phrase. Humans are not a good judge of light levels. Those who claim to be are incorrect.

http://www.newbuildings.org/downloads/ALG_2-LightingAndHumanPerformance.pdf

That is not to say that 'Sunny 16' doesn't work - it does, often enough to make it somewhat reliable. But it works because of relative consistency of guesswork over time. A sunny day is generally within certain parameters that also fall within the margin of error provided by the latitude of most film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16

Given this, if one is to consistently shoot without a meter, one must also expect to be wrong from time to time, and to be more tolerant of relatively poor exposure.

I look at exposure-guessing in the same manner as if it were focus-guessing. Like guessing exposure, you can probably set a focus distance based on a good guess as to distance from the subject and f-stop, and let DoF coverage hide any errors. If I have to do it or miss the shot entirely, I'll do it. But I'd rather focus, just as I'd rather take a light measurement.

People tend to think of the act of making a photograph as involving framing and focus as if it were all there was to composition. Occasionally, the advanced amateur may discover that shutter speed and f-stop play a part in composition, too. Depth-of-Field is also a tool that can be used by a photographer for creative effect, and so too is control over exposure. None of these elements need be used if one does not want to - but they are tools and they are available for those who will take the time to understand and master them.

Since I wish to control as much of my photographs as I can in some cases, I tend to rely heavily on light metering in those situations.

 

[johnwnyc]

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.

I shoot off the brain as often as I can.

I often use the built-in VF lightmeter but I've tried to avoid using Auto Exposure unless I have the time to AE Lock on an item in the frame with the proper gray surface and reflectance -- and that takes time. It's quicker to just meter every few frames to make sure I'm in the ballpark of my film's lattitude and whatever development I plan on using (N, N-1, N+1), and then otherwise extrapolate from there for the frames in between (hence, enter... the brain).

 

[bmattock]

I shoot off the brain as often as I can.

How do you calibrate it?

 

[raydm6]

I'm not brave enough to yet. I have a Gossen Luna Pro SBC but when using the IIIf, I like using an old GE DW-58 selenium cell meter I picked it up at a flea market for small money. Works well and it is still accurate + it has a calibration screw on the front. Does both reflected and incident. Weighs almost as much as the IIIf though... .

 

[noah b]

When I go outside I'll check the light off my hand or point it to the ground and get that reading, then guess from there depending on the lighting situation.

 

[Fraser]

I have a gossen sixtino tiny meter that you dont even notice in your pocket I always shoot plus x or trix in my M2 so no need to be very accurate on the exposure.

 

[John Lawrence]

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I often wonder how many of the people shooting without a meter are using their experience rather than actually judging the quality of the light?

 

[40oz]

How do you calibrate it?

I calibrate my brain-meter by developing my own film. I've shot in a number of locations where my meter doesn't register a reading anyway. You and most other people would put the camera away, but I can take pictures because I've been there before and taken shots in the same lighting and observed during processing to arrive at proper exposure.

Sunny 16 works really well, and honestly there is no substitute for practice. It's pretty easy to get good negatives when you are paying attention when you develop them. Look at them and see if you have a tendency to under-expose or what. The idea that someone has taken thousands of shots and still cannot take a group shot of their family on a sunny day outside without a meter is mind-boggling to me. "They must be a 'pro'," I say to myself when I see it.

Meters are great, but I only use them for a sanity check occasionally. I have metered cameras that constantly under-expose the subject if I let it. Meters don't know that my subject is in the shade. They don't know that sometimes the composition has very bright sky and quite dark shadows, rather than being an evenly lit scene. They don't know that my subject is wearing a white shirt rather than a gray one. They don't know that it is snowy outside. They don't know I'm at the beach. They are no different than a thermometer, just a tool giving a number with no context. You still need to use your head to interpret the reading and get what you want on film.

Meters are not a substitute for using your head.

 

[kemal_mumcu]

Here's a different style: go around with just the meter (no camera) and experiment and study the light that's flowing around. Learn.

Then I go around with no camera and just look for cool shots and consider how I would frame it - this is particularly good when you're on your way to work or during your normal day to day life.

Then grab the camera without the meter and just go out and shoot. Let it flow and forget about the little technical details.

I'm a beginner for sure but I find this fun and very educational. Slowly I'm getting better with the frames. Having to think about too much at the moment makes me miss the moment.

Just my two cents.

 

[Fraser]

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I often wonder how many of the people shooting without a meter are using their experience rather than actually judging the quality of the light?

I have to agree I think after a few years of taking pictures this is what you are doing.

 

[bmattock]

I calibrate my brain-meter by developing my own film.

Experience is a great teacher, presuming your brain doesn't lie to you.

I've shot in a number of locations where my meter doesn't register a reading anyway.

Have you considered getting a good meter?

You and most other people would put the camera away, but I can take pictures because I've been there before and taken shots in the same lighting and observed during processing to arrive at proper exposure.

As long as the lighting has not changed appreciably, I'm sure you're right. But in this case, I presume you mean to say that your memory of what a correct exposure is for this particular location happens to be, and not your (calibrated) eyeballs.

Sunny 16 works really well, and honestly there is no substitute for practice.

It works pretty well if the environment cooperates and the film's latitude is generous.

It's pretty easy to get good negatives when you are paying attention when you develop them.

For those who develop by inspection. I don't, but I suppose some people do.

Look at them and see if you have a tendency to under-expose or what.

I have a tendency to use my meter. No tendency to over or under-expose, probably due to that.

The idea that someone has taken thousands of shots and still cannot take a group shot of their family on a sunny day outside without a meter is mind-boggling to me. "They must be a 'pro'," I say to myself when I see it.

There is the question of 'can' versus 'why would I do that'? I'd not take a family photo without metering, but then, I never am without a meter, so this seems not to be a show-stopper for me.

Meters are great, but I only use them for a sanity check occasionally. I have metered cameras that constantly under-expose the subject if I let it.

Meters give readings. Humans decide what that means. If you are using auto-exposure and the camera consistently underexposes, then the meter is wrong. I try to use meters that are not wrong.

Meters don't know that my subject is in the shade. They don't know that sometimes the composition has very bright sky and quite dark shadows, rather than being an evenly lit scene. They don't know that my subject is wearing a white shirt rather than a gray one. They don't know that it is snowy outside. They don't know I'm at the beach. They are no different than a thermometer, just a tool giving a number with no context. You still need to use your head to interpret the reading and get what you want on film.

I absolutely agree. A meter is a stupid tool. So is a ruler. But it can tell how long an inch is - that's a useful measurement to me, and I can cut a board to the correct length with it. My eye is not a good indicator of what a 'foot' is, so if I guess, I'll cut the board wrong every time.

I don't ask my meter to think for me - only to provide an accurate measurement of the light falling on what I aim it at. It does that, I do the rest.

Meters are not a substitute for using your head.

And eyeballs are not good measuring instruments. Use the one, then the other, would be my advice.

 

[RichardB]

Reading this Thread is like being in the 'Twilight Zone' or falling down the rabbit hole into Wonderland!
Your iris contracts and enlarges depending on the current lighting. Your eye is in no way an instrument for determining exposure.
I started off with a handheld meter and when the Nikon FTn came along it was a joy! The M2 meter on my M3 was a pain to use and I would use the Nikon for metering. Now I have M6 and M7's which are so much easier to use.
I mostly shoot K64 but even with Tmax 400 I meter no matter what the condition. I certainly understand all the rules and all the Zone Systems and that is all taken into account for final exposure determination but shooting without metering,no.-Dick

 

[januaryman]

If you just blindly let your camera automatically decide the exposure and pay no attention to the reading/results you will never learn. Period. I used a Luna Pro for a while and walking about would try to guess the exposure before shooting, then double check. At first I was off quite a bit. After a month or so, there was no reason to check the meter. At worst, I was one stop off.

Call it calibrating your brain or judging light quality, the fact is that you CAN figure it out without a lot of trouble if you just pay attention. I shot an entire roll in a heavily wooded park last week; after I discovered my VC Meter II was not in the bag, shrugged and, nervously at first, just started shooting anywhere from f/2.8 to f/5.6, mostly at 1/125 using BW400CN film and only ONE frame was not properly exposed. And that was after I took the shot and saw I had moved my aperture ring accidentally. Needless to say I was surprised and kinda proud at the success.

If I can do it, anyone can. But as was noted by others above, I would probably not be comfortable trying this with slide film. Then again, I might just give it a try...

 

[Al Kaplan]

Januaryman knows the secret! I think that most people can learn to do the same thing. In a fast moving situation you're better off with a slightly wrong exposure than missing the shot completely. If you switch to slide film it becomes more important to use the meter but color negative is the most forgiving, especially the stuff marketed for amateurs such as Kodak Gold. If you're not sure then give a bit more exposure rather than less.

 

[dave lackey]

Yes, Al...

Last year I started out with the Nikon S3 2000 and my largish Sekonic light meter and learned over a month or so about what I should be doing but got very tired of carrying a meter in one hand and the camera in the other. So, I started using the chart Keith posted and using only one film, Tri-X.

My exposure rate was very good!

Now, with the M3, I am learning the little tips on actually using the camera:

Keep the aperture on f8 and the focus on infinity...judge the light without the meter or chart...and let the image come to you, you just have to be sensitive enough to know when the image presents itself. Thinking (and using the meter) gets in the way of shooting!

BTW, this is really a funny/odd thread...DID HCB USE A METER TO CAPTURE HIS HUNDREDS OF REMARKABLE IMAGES?

 

[Graybeard]

In the 1950's, many of us shot perfectly good color slides using only the exposure guide printed on the Kodak data sheet thet came with the film.

 

[bmattock]

Call it calibrating your brain or judging light quality, the facts are that you CAN figure it out without a lot of trouble if you just pay attention.

The human eye/brain combination are designed to set your 'exposure' if you will, using features similar to a camera lens - the iris, which expands and contracts to let more or less light in, as well as features that no camera lens has, but digital sensors are starting to have, which sets 'ISO' if you will, in terms of brightness level.

The human eye/brain combination are far superior to any camera ever made in terms of ability to record dynamic range or latitude.

But the brain does not report to the conscious mind what 'f-stop' the iris was set at, nor what 'ISO' the brain choose to impose in order that you not be overpowered by strong light or left in the dark by dim light.

In other words, the human brain is a very poor judge of absolute light levels.

Can you 'train' your memory to recognize similar situations of lighting, and to remember what settings were effective at that time? Yes, I'm sure, and I'm sure that's what you were doing. Did it work? Sure, I believe you when you say it did.

But it is a guess, and highly prone to error. If the day had not be pretty much just as you recalled, your guess would have failed. Perhaps the error would fall within the ability of the film or sensor to cover by exposure latitude, and perhaps not.

You cannot train your brain to recognize 'this is EV 14, this is EV 10' and so on. It just isn't possible.

So your eye cannot be a meter. You can only be a relatively good rememberer/guesser. If the scene you wish to photograph is outside your frame of reference, you have nothing to rely upon.

From the earliest days of photography, photographers knew this and strove to invent mechanisms to measure light.

We don't say 'I just guess at shutter speed, why actually set the speed?' We never guess at aperture or focus, we want control over those things.

Why would we not want control over exposure?

 

[40oz]

You are making things way too complicated. You use experience as a guide. A person uses their eyes to observe the environment, and their experience to determine the appropriate shutter speed and aperture. Do you carry a radar gun to figure out what shutter speed you need to stop motion? Would you suggest that it is not possible to tell with any accuracy whether a car is going 30 mph or 100 mph?

I fail to understand this "humans are incompetent" argument. If you yourself don't feel capable, don't try. But your limitations, whether self-imposed or not, are not universal.

In every thread on "meter or not?" people say over and over that they get by just fine without a meter. Yet some people continue to insist it isn't possible. Talk about denial.