Shooting Without A Meter

[mhv]

One day I made an experiment: I took a roll of ISO 200 slide film in my Kiev 4, and walked around town taking pictures. I did not take a meter reading, I just started with 1/250 and f/11 (appropriate for a sunny day at my latitude). Well blow me, but I managed to expose this scene decently:

It was an ah-ha moment: insofar as I have a starting point, I could make educated guesses at exposure.

In other words, I don't rely on my eyes to guess exposure, but rather I rely on logic: is it sunny or cloudy? do I want shadow details or highlight details? is that shaft of sunlight in the garage diffused by something or not? do I care if spots of light are blown out? is the light falling on the subject artificial or natural? Etc.

I use a meter most of the time, especially when I shoot slides, or when I do night photography. But I realized that in daylight, once you know how to expose your subject in the sunlight and in the shadows, you can leave the meter in the bag because it won't be useful for a while.

It's an attitude that serves me well when I use my Nikon with TTL meter. Instead of adjusting the aperture for every subject it looks at (dark, pale), I don't touch to anything once I know my light.

So the lesson is: instead of metering all the time, meter intelligently, and you will save time and headaches.

 

[bmattock]

You are making things way too complicated.

I am not suggesting that every shot needs to be metered to a gnat's eyelash. I am suggesting that exposure is a creative control that is available to photographers if they wish to avail themselves of it, just like focus, aperture control, film ISO/digital sensor selection, and shutter speed. If you want to use that control, you have to, uh, control it. Guessing won't do.

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.

Yes, and a human decides whether to use a faster or slower shutter speed to contribute their choice of creativity to the scene, as appropriate. Guessing shutter speed, while it might technically 'work' eliminates the potential for using shutter speed for creative purposes. Same for guessing exposure.

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?

No, but those are strawman arguments. I would need a radar gun to tell if a car was going 100 mph or 70 mph, and the difference between the two would be a legal highway speed (in some areas) or speeding.

You make a good point, though - if the difference is critical, then the measurement is critical. If not, then not.

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.

I did not say that humans are incompetent. I said that humans cannot accurately measure light. That's due to the way we are made - we are not light meters. We need to see clearly, we do not need to know it is EV 15 or whatever.

Those are universal limitations. We also cannot fly. I am not saying we are incompetent because we cannot fly, I just say we cannot fly. If we want to fly, we have tools for that. Same for light metering. We have tools for that.

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.

I am not saying it isn't possible. I am saying they are doing just as you said, 'getting by'.

Just think about this for a second.

If someone showed up here and said, "You know what? Focus is BS. I just turn the lens barrel until I think it feels right, based on my experience with things that were in focus before, and I don't even bother with a rangefinder patch." Would that sound smart? Sure, he might get things in focus, and he might even be relatively good at it, because he has some idea of what has worked for him before and he can guess distances OK.

That's what we're saying about exposure when we advocate not using a light meter. I have read some here saying it is a 'experience of freedom' and so on. Would they say that about focus? About setting shutter speed?

While I don't spend a lot of time agonizing over exposure, there are certainly times I want my exposure to be under my direct control. Exposure is just another tool in my bag of tricks, like focus, shutter speed, and aperture. When I want that level of control, I use a light meter. I don't let it think for me, I read it, interpret it, and apply the choice I have made. Same for focus, same for shutter speed, and so on.

That's the point. Exposure is a creative control for photography, just like any other control. We don't commonly advocate abandoning focus, shutter speed, and so on, but we often do hear advice not to bother with using a light meter, just 'train your eye to guess' the exposure. Be we humans were not built to do that very well.

That it works a good part of the time is tribute to the latitude of film and the commonality of certain situations, like daylight in a certain part of the country at a certain time of year, etc - not so much our ability to know what the actual light value measurement is.

 

[bmattock]

Well blow me, but I managed to expose this scene decently:

There is no such thing as proper exposure. There is only the exposure you want. If you like that exposure, then it's a good thing. If you guessed the exposure and got what you wanted, you were lucky and that's good too.

If you use a meter and apply your own intellect, you can control such situations instead of guessing and getting lucky.

If I said "I closed my eyes and threw a dart. It hit the target. I tried it over and over and found I can do it from time to time, enough to convince me I've got some talent guessing where the dart is going to go," is that better than simply aiming the dart? I don't see the advantage.

 

[FifthLeaf]

If you use a meter and apply your own intellect, you can control such situations instead of guessing and getting lucky.

If you're just guessing then, of course, you'll have trouble. But reading light is more a matter of reading your experiences than actually reading the light itself. So maybe you know what the light in a particular city at a particular time of day in a particular season will do to your negatives. And if you build up a library of this knowledge, you can shoot without a meter in those situations. It's sort of like developing an old detective's hunch.

Having said that, I always use an incident meter to because it's an accurate point to start from. But there are times I've caught mistakes in my meter, like if the diffusor lid slid off, because my experience tells me the reading is off.

If I said "I closed my eyes and threw a dart. It hit the target. I tried it over and over and found I can do it from time to time, enough to convince me I've got some talent guessing where the dart is going to go," is that better than simply aiming the dart? I don't see the advantage.

There's no advantage because closing your eyes isn't any faster than leaving them open. But if closing your eyes saves you time and allows you to carry fewer darts, now you have an advantage.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Bmattock, there was one camera that you can focus by feel, the TLR Minolta Autocord. It has a lever under the lens panel that you move back and forth to move the lens panel in and out. With a bit of experience you learn where it should be for various distances. Unless you're shooting wide open at close distances it's no big deal to use the sportsfinder in the hood and focus with your finger tip. You can also do that with tabbed rangefinder lenses, but it would have been nice if they were all designed with the same focus throw.

 

[Svitantti]

Of course theres not much sense to try to guess or estimate the exposure if you have the time etc. to measure carefully. But there are times and situations where/when you need to be quick.

Many have probably heard the story of Ansel Adams Moon-photo (where he didn't have the time to carefully meter but had to be real fast to even get the photo).

Of course estimating also needs practice, so many of RFF people are probably doing this and sometimes it could mean not metering even if you had the opportunity.

Personally I will use the meter when I can. I do even have a nice meter, but still there are times when I shoot in such low light, that it is just easier to use max aperture and as slow time as I think is possible handheld. Often I get enough light anyway in the important parts and the images turn out just fine this way.

You are right - people shouldnt expose just as their meters happen to say. It is important to know what the meter really does: where does it take its reading and what does it mean (average gra)....

 

[Svitantti]

About focusing...
It is probably hard to focus a 50/1.5 wide at close distances, but it is much different when you have a 35mm or wider stopped down a couple stops (or even a 80mm on a 6x6 stopped down enough). People have succesfully used the sports finders etc. for ages and I dont see why wouldn't they work even today. Of course theres no sense not using focusing aid like rangefinder or SLR view when theres much help of it and it is important...

Sometimes those not-so-opimally focused and/or exposed images might turn out more interesting than the by-the-book -ones ;-).

 

[Al Kaplan]

Sometimes I wonder how carefully British photographer David Hamilton focussed some of his photographs, but they were so soft and ethereal anyway. I've read that he would sandpaper the front element of his lenses. He worked with Minolta SLR's.(Caution if you google up his photos! Nudity that some might find offensive.)

 

[bmattock]

If you're just guessing then, of course, you'll have trouble. But reading light is more a matter of reading your experiences than actually reading the light itself. So maybe you know what the light in a particular city at a particular time of day in a particular season will do to your negatives. And if you build up a library of this knowledge, you can shoot without a meter in those situations. It's sort of like developing an old detective's hunch.

I agree with you. You're using memory, and memory can serve you well, if the scene you remember is accurate compared to the scene you have currently. I don't mean to say it can't work, I mean to say that human eyes can't judge exposure - but I think we agree on that.

Having said that, I always use an incident meter to because it's an accurate point to start from. But there are times I've caught mistakes in my meter, like if the diffusor lid slid off, because my experience tells me the reading is off.

Yes, quite correct. And I've had a meter go wonky on me, due to low batteries, and it gave me quite a start. One can't simply blindly obey it.

There's no advantage because closing your eyes isn't any faster than leaving them open. But if closing your eyes saves you time and allows you to carry fewer darts, now you have an advantage.

Very good point, well said. Thanks!

 

[Bassism]

I have a Fed 3b on the way and I don't own a meter. I also can't afford one unless I see one go on ebay from Canada for a few dollars. So, I've got two choices: I can shoot it without a meter, or I can carry another body with me and use that to meter, then switch to the Fed to take the shot. Carrying two bodies for separate functions goes against the whole reason I want the Fed in the first place.

So, I've been practicing shooting without a meter. I'll walk outside and meter the snow, the road, and something in the shade to see what the day is doing then turn the meter off. I've shot a few rolls now and haven't had a single neg that would be unprintable. With a bit of experience, considering the time of day and looking at the clouds in the sky would be pretty effective at giving you this initial meter. I've already pretty much got it down for the bright snowy days we've been having.

Obviously the human eye is useless as a light meter. We're physiologically unable to measure the amount of light in a scene.

The solution is as mhv suggested. You have to use your brain instead. If you know that it's a sunny 16 day outside, but the subject you're shooting is in the shade of an alley, then adjust your exposure as necessary. If there's a stream of direct sunlight in the shot that you want to place on zone IX, that's pretty easy to figure out too. It's definitely not a matter of guessing at all; you have to use the same intellect you'd use if you actually had a meter.

As for creative control of the exposure, that's up to the photographer, not whether or not he's using a meter. Personally, if I'm using a meter, more often than not I'll take a reading off of a midtone then shoot, usually only stopping to think about the exposure if its a tricky scene. Without a meter, you're forced to really think about the exposure for every shot. Furthermore, it's a far less tedious and time consuming process to consider the exposure when you 'know' what the 'correct' exposure is in your mind then having to read it off of a few points in the scene with a meter.

Can shooting without a meter be done? Of course! Can you achieve good and pleasing results? Of Course! Will your exposures be as perfect and precise as if you carefully used a spotmeter for every shot? Of course not.

Why would you want to do it? I imagine for many of us, it's a pleasing way to shoot. The same part of me that prefers shooting an all-mechanical camera also prefers shooting without a meter. I wouldn't do it all the time, and certainly wouldn't do anything really important without a meter. I also wouldn't go into a situation I've never been in before and try and do it without a meter. For that stuff, I have a dslr with a spot meter. But if I'm just out shooting 'art' I think it's a lot more enjoyable to have as little as possible in between me, my camera, and the scene.

 

[bmattock]

The same part of me that prefers shooting an all-mechanical camera also prefers shooting without a meter.

I agree with all you said - I just wanted to comment on this particular sentence.

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.

To me, it just sounds funny - wanting to take control over the process, and then abandoning the exposure part to whatever happens to look about right.

I never thought that some people choose all mechanical cameras because they are simpler and therefore they don't want to be bothered to use a meter. To me, an all-automatic camera would be simpler, if simple is what one is after.

Perhaps I just have a different way of thinking about all-mechanical cameras and why people choose them! OK, I'll take that hit!

 

[Bassism]

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.

Cool, I can completely understand that. I feel the same way to a point. Even on my dslr I'm almost always on M and manually focussing, in the name of control. I guess you're just more of a perfectionist than I am. That's almost certainly a good thing 😉

 

[icamp]

Be nice to see a few more photos posted from those not using any form of light meter but their brain .
Thanks

 

[Erik L]

Be nice to see a few more photos posted from those not using any form of light meter but their brain .
Thanks

sure. heres kodak elite chrome 200 😛 sunny days are easy, indoors is not! i have a hard time guessing indoors. and ive only been shooting for a couple years

 

[bmattock]

Erik,

There you go. This is not to put down your photos, but look - the whitewalls of the tires and the convertible roof in the first shot, the white t-shirt in the second - blown out.

IF that is what you wanted, I would not argue a bit. And the photos show that the scene was very contrasty, so it would be hard not to lose detail somewhere, but I notice (at least on my monitor) that there's not much in the way of absolute black anywhere. Which would seem to indicate that you could have dialed down your exposure a stop or two, saved some of the detail in the whites, and let a few more shadows go to black - IF that is what you would have wanted.

But not without a meter.

Is it 'good enough'? Sure, and if you like it, then I certainly have no complaints. But could it be better? If you wanted not to blow out the whites, then yes.

Sunny 16 is amazingly flexible due to the long scale of a lot of films these days, so it covers a lot of would otherwise be glaring exposure errors. A meter can give you more precise control - if you want it.

By the way, I lived in Pekin. Back in the day, I went to Fearn R. Wilson, lived on S. Sixth, delivered the Pekin Daily Times. The school athletic teams were called the "Chinks," sadly. I was through there a few years ago - the place looks the same as it did in the early '70's. Which is not really a good thing. Still, it was fun growing up there.

 

[Erik L]

these pics are uncorrected and i was trying to get the interiors at least somewhat exposed. i think i did allright, when i was composing the shot i was trying to show the interiors as much

as possible (i guess i should have mentioned that)

i only live here, grew up in kenosha. planning on getting the hell out come spring.

 

[bmattock]

these pics are uncorrected and i was trying to get the interiors at least somewhat exposed. i think i did allright, when i was composing the shot i was trying to show the interiors as much

as possible (i guess i should have mentioned that)

i only live here, grew up in kenosha. planning on getting the hell out come spring.

No problem, no criticism intended. And I lived in Kenosha, too. Worked in Northbrook and Gurnee, IL, drove to work down 41 every day. I lived in one of those apartments over the bar that said "Ugly Bartenders, Warm Beer," on 52nd street. I used to own a computer store there that I ran on the side. My friend Brad owned Nomad BBS. He's a famous sci-fi writer now, he moved back to Kenosha.

Heck, I've lived everywhere. But I was in Kenosha / Racine for six years.

 

[Erik L]

also i dont bracket, my ego prevents that 😱

ok heres a picture, same roll that i shot more normally.
maybe this is a better example? also a high contrast area.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you have a meter and have time -- meter.

Otherwise, remember a simple truth: if you don't play, you can't win. Better to shoot without a meter than not to shoot. Experience + latitude will soon get you amazingly close to the optimum exposure.

I've shot thousands of pictures without a meter, and thousands more where I used the meter only to confirm my initial estimate of the exposure.

I've got a higher percemtage of good exposures via (intelligently interpreted) metering, but I've also got thousands of good shots without metering.

In other words, metering is an advantage, but like every other technical aspect of photography, if you're 'good enough' technically (and 'good enough' ain't very demanding), the aesthetics will trump technique every time.

Incidentally, this is why auto-exposure is often 'good enough...'

Cheers,

R.

 

[FifthLeaf]

For those not able to eyeball exposures, try this. Make a game of it. Look at a scene and judge what you would consider to be a good exposure... Then use the meter to see how close you were. Do this often enough and you'll have that head meter working tip-top in no time.

I've never found this to work. My mindset is different when I am holding a camera; for some inexplicable reason it's easier to guess with the camera in my hands than even if it's hanging around my neck.