Teach me how to get rid of the light meter

Hi folks,
Just now I come home from my job, where I had the opportunity to random glance about this thread, which seems to have got a great input of ideas and thinking.

So I cannot make any commentary since i would like rather to study each post with comfort.

I want just to say that may be I have been ambiguous in expressing myself. I don't want to stop using light meters. What I want is not loosing a picture for the lack of time to take it out, read etc. This is a big difference. I want to e x t e n d my knowledge about exposure, not narrow it.

In the streets (or better said - out of home) I have found two types of situations in which a reasonable sense of light level was decisive for having the pic or not. One as said, is due to movement or better said a very short lasting photographic situation. The other has been at instances of very close distance, with somewhat still people, in situations I wanted to 'shoot from the hip', conspicuously. I think it was Barret (Amateriat) who once wrote about a situation in which he was forced to use his "best educated (exposure) guess", a sentence keeping me thinking about.

Many thanks for all the wonderfull contributions, providing a lot to think about !

And yes, where are the Contax/Leica/FSU aficionados without meter in their cameras ?

Ruben




PS
Hi Sirius, our pal bmattock is a man of strong opinions, and you sound to be too, just in the opposite direction at this specific case. I too am a man of strong opinions, although I cannot vouch for the level of elaboration, and people like us, or like me, sometimes arouse some 'exclamation marks'. But you know what ? we have a blessed task in the food chain. Since we tend to be very vulnerable to common sense, once put under the lupe of systematic analysis, we are easy breakfast for our thinking adversaries to prove their opposite argument. :) So enjoy all aspects of RFF !

And I am quite happy that among so many screws, auctions, etc, finnally a RFF member raises his voice in defense of the honour and legacy of one of our masters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sirius said:
I agree with your points but please don't call Ansel Adams and the zone system soulless. Have you read his books? I found it to be anything but soulless and, in fact, it was a method to do visualizations with exactly the kind of creative work you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have read his books. I disagree with his philosophy of exposure. I am also underwhelmed that it has been taken far past what he ever intended and has become, in essence, a religion or more properly, a cult.

I agree that the art of photography is knowing when to over-expose and underexpose according to one's "vision" for the scene. To do this properly you need to know what the average metering of a scene is according to a meter or the sunny 16 rules.
Click to expand...

You have accurately stated the heart of all misunderstanding about exposure. There is no overexposure, there is no underexposure. There is only exposure. When we say a photograph is under or over exposed, we mean by comparison to a standard that many agree upon - but it may not be a standard the artist intended.

Imagine musical notation system - western scales are but one concept of how musical notes may be represented. Other systems are equally as valid, and a 'chord' that is not pleasing to a wester ear may be quite lovely to someone else. Which is a 'proper' chord?

There can be no "average metering of a scene." What can that possibly mean? There are light values in any scene, which may represent a great difference between extreme light and extreme dark or a very small difference between the two. The 'average' would mean what? In some scenes, it would mean that both light and dark are equally blown out, based on the latitude of the recording media. In others, it would represent a flat, low-contrast scene of little visual appeal. No meter than I am aware of can read all the light values in a scene and average them, only a finite number of points. A human with a precise 1 degree spot-meter might do so, but I fail to see the advantage of averaging the values recorded. Even the Zone System does not attempt to do that.

My biggest disagreement with the Zone System is that it attempts to measure the length of a board by starting in the middle, comparing that to how long you wish your board to be, and then adjusting what you call the middle accordingly. You measure a board from one of the ends. If you know either the darkest area of your scene in which you intend to retain detail or the lightest, you measure your exposure from there, counting backwards or forwards to maintain compliance with the latitude of your recording media.
 
Hallo,

I'll come out of the corner. Been collecting strenght to make my first post for the last 2 weeks.

Since the first thread that draged me into this forum a couple of months ago was "Exposure chart for your pocket" (Sticky thread in the RF Gen Disscussion forum) I think this is actually the apropriate place for the No 1 post.

Anyway...

I read the Fred Parker page and downloaded all of the sliders from the links in the thread. Then designed my own all possible combiations of sliders. Month later I am using none and even no auto with my compact digitals. Why?
The only thing that matters is the lightsource(s) lighting the scene. If the entire scene is in uniform light you are allowed to make mistakes up to 2 or more stops. It becomes complicated in situations of high contrast and even there the precision of the lightmeter is not very important. The meters fail in these situations too since they have no idea of the intention. Guessing the EV comp. in these situation is a wild guess sqared. Precision in such conditions can only be acheved by bracketing (possibly HDR), testing, luck and not with even with the best possible lightmeter, unless it's a digital camera that has millions of lightmeters in it and displays the result.

As the film speed unit ISO... sugests what you are dealing with is a standard. Meaning it's very rational and it is. Every stop in EV value is double the lower value. So is Shutterspeed, AV, and Filmspeed.
Powers of 2
Filmspeed
ISO... divide by 100 and
..
50/100 = 0.5 = 2^-1
100/100 = 1 = 2^0
200/100 = 2 = 2^1
400/100 = 4 = 2^2
..Shutterspeed. Slower and faster speeds are averaged but in the system still.
..
15s ~ 16=2^4
8s = 2^3
4s = 2^2
2s = 2^1
1s = 2^0
1/2 = 2^-1
1/4 = 2^-2
1/8 = 2^-3
.. faster values are averaged as the lower
1/15~1/16 = 2^-4
1/30~1/32 = 2^-5
1/60~1/64 = 2^-6
1/125~1/128 = 2^-7
..
Aperture is a value that describes the aperture in diameter so the actual progresion is the powers of sqareroot of 2 so it's a bit more confusig but if sqared the powers of 2 are visible. I am having a hard time with these I admit, but once learned I am shure it's very easy.
1/1 ^2 = 1/1 = 2^0
1/1.4 ^2 ~ 1/2 = 2^-1
1/2 ^2 = 1/4 = 2^-2
1/2.8 ^2 ~ 1/8 = 2^-3
1/4 ^2 = 1/16 = 2^-4
..


Note the usual Shutter speeds and apertures are negative.
What is clearly visible is that all become rational numbers fairly easily. Whats even nicer is that finding correct exposure for given EV is only a matter of adding them all up and get 0.

The sunny 16 rule is not a very good basepoint in my mind. It's only an anchor for one lightsource.

EV0 + ISO100 + 1s + f/1 = 0
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
It's the basepoint of the standard.


The sunny 16 is EV15.
EV15 + ISO100 + 1/125s + f/16 = 0
15 + 0 + (-7) + (-8) = 0

A bit of Highschool math that shouldn't scare you away. After understanding the stops the exposure calulation itsef is basic. Try.

Mostly the same story as the Ultimate Lightmeter but what I rationalized out of it.
I have a background of hobby programmer so the first 10 powers of 2 are in my head anyway but it's not that much to memorize.
You can take a look on the Fred Parker page to see the list of EV values -6 to 23. I have memorized 5, 10 and 15. Thats all I need. The rest are shadows of those cases and can be estimated stops down. The very low light is a matter of metering and/or testing/bracketing.

Dynamic range

Film or digital captures a range of 4-11 stops (different sources and subjective, not wort arguing over). This allows for a pretty big range of mistakes in uniform lighting, never mind the 1/10 precision. In contrasty lighting it's not a matter of precision metering eighter but intention. If your scene contrast is too far appart you need to decide which is more important and to what extremes your film or DC can capture that you would still be satisfied. If the entire image is exposed in the middle and consists of the eighter edges of the dynamic range would it be satisfying. In very close calls the only way to know is to test. The lightmeter in camera only assumes you want average 50% grey and tries it's best to achive that (the more complex can concentrate on parts of the image). You lose both or get the one that has bigger coverage which is not always the intention.
Tackling this with EV comp is worse guessing than using M mode with Sunny 16 in my mind. The lightmeter has no clue of what you have in the scene. Most of the modern consumer cameras have more Scene programs than there are EV values. Next you'll see the separate modes for portrait in white or black shirt :D. Those programs are preset stencils to produce generic images. Not that bad but they only EV comp modes for the family album scenes.

An example test I made. Sitting in a park near a small river I tyed to shoot the ducks on the rocks in the middle of the stream. The stream was very dark although in full sun as the ducks where also in full sun. Using a wide angle the ducks where very small in the frame and the in P mode the camera assumed I need the river to be 50% gray never mind the ducks. The suggested EV pointing at the scene was about 5 or more stops over the Sunny 16 (the dc has EV comp +/-2). So I pointed at the other direction and got the Sunny 16. Used that in M mode. And the ducks where still overexposed. The reflected light from the water acually made the ducks brighter. I was using a digital camera so I saw the results on spot. But consider the thought that would be needed to put into shooting 1 shot on film to get the right exposure. Lightmeter would help if you can go and measure the light at the object and still the aproximation to have the ducks on the edge of the dynamic range is anyway a wild guess so that the precision of the meter is a minor issue. The only usefull meter would have been a SLR with tele lens that I could have pointed exactly at the duck. The result is visible in the result only.

The lightmeter is a useful tool but if known how to use it properly its not neccesary in many cases anyway. It's one precise number in a myriad of wild guesses that can but not necessary help.

My view of it. I mostly become interested in very difficult contrast scenes where no meter usually helps. But figuring all this out for me has helped quite a lot.

I can now go and post all my questions about the FSUs I have collected in the last month.
Highly contagious GAS is here, the newbees should be warned!

*Runs away.
 
Last edited:
Honestly just do it. Give yourself the freedom to just go out and shoot a roll or 10 not using a meter. Maybe note your settings so you can learn from your mistakes. Print out a small Sunny 16 chart and tape it to your camera.

Stick with one film for awhile and just get to know it and how it relates to light. Developing everything yourself helps as does shooting black and white film with lots of latitude.

I started off using a Holga that was about 1/125 and f8 with no way to adjust it (the cloudy/sunny adjustment on a Holga does nothing because both holes are bigger than the actual aperture). I found what light it worked in and pushed or pulled films in other lights. That helped me understand light a lot better. f8 and 1/125 is pretty good for a lot things with 100 or 400 speed film.

Then I got a Rolleicord with no meter and taped a sunny 16 chart on the back. Being able to adjust the aperture and film speed felt like a luxury.

Now I shoot with a M4-P and never worry about it. Except for photos inside jazz bars which I haven't gotten wired yet, everything is mostly on. I've shot slide film outside and the technique works pretty well for that too but I don't shoot much of it but I know I can do it in a pinch.

Honestly it's not that complicated and once you start doing it you get a feel for the light and it becomes second nature. I find myself walking down the street and adjusting the shutter speed and aperture on my camera as the light changes without even really thinking about it and zone focusing as I see interesting things coming up.
 
In difficult situations it’s useful to imagine an 18% gray background against which I’m photographing a Nordic blond and a dusky black African model. Not a lot of use but it’s a nice thought, and it highlights the importance of dynamic range regardless of “correct” exposure.
The Zone system, just my opinion, is perfect for using at a Star Trek convention; life’s too short as it is

:)
 
ruben said:
Could you tell your personal story about it, how did you come to know your technique, and propose me a method about how to learn it.
Click to expand...

it's all on the inside of a box of velvia 100.
 
Xmas said:
Ruben

The alternate plan is you can take your meter apart and rebuild it...

Noel
Click to expand...

Which of them ? In fact I have among them an old and cute Sixon I never managed to disassemble. Would you like to give it a try ? I assume it is glued, and much easier to re-glue than a Kiev beamsplitter.
 
Ruben

Some of the Gossens have a plate on the underside with tables and serial number data and this is stuck on with glue and conceals the screws for access to inside. You have to ease the plate off with a really fine screw driver so it lifts without bending...

First try Googling and asking for help, dont destroy...

But it was meant as a joke you will recall your kiev meter?

Noel ( the troll...)
 
mhv said:
The only way to learn Sunny f/16 is to use it and make errors, then take lots of notes, and have a good memory.
Click to expand...

One cannot memorize light levels. The human brain does not work that way.

People think they can - the human brain *does* work *that* way.
 
Interesting.

The idea here, then, is something like, "Okay, I don't know how bright it really is, but I know a bright day when I see one."

There's a curious argument that can be made here, then - for example, I think I know what an f/16 day looks like in my backyard, because I'm familiar with the way the shadows fall, etc. Perhaps, then, in an unfamiliar setting, my "neural lightmeter" might be off, even under the same lighting conditions - simply because the visual cues aren't what I'm used to?

Or for that matter, that 's why myself (and lots of other folks, I'm sure) have trouble with low light. (Reciprocity failures and long toes aside, of course.)


Cheers,
--joe.

bmattock said:
One cannot memorize light levels. The human brain does not work that way.

People think they can - the human brain *does* work *that* way.
Click to expand...
 
Most of my shooting is done using sunny 16, but if I have any questions, I keep a meter in my pocket. There really isn't much in the way of tricks. My basic exposures go something like this:

1/reciprocal of film ISO @ f16 - bright sun
1/reciprocal of film ISO @ f11 - hazy sun
1/reciprocal of film ISO @ f 8 - open shade
1/reciprocal of film ISO @ f5.6 - cloudy day

interiors @ ISO 400 are usually shot @ 1/30 @ f2.8

knowing that you adjust your exposure based on what details you want to pull out of your shots. Look at the shadows and compare to the shadow table above. Just remember that trying to pull the shadows out in a high contrast scene will result in blown out highlights.

Good luck!
 
>>The idea here, then, is something like, "Okay, I don't know how bright it really is, but I know a bright day when I see one."<<

For people outside of Arctic regions, the light of a sunny day is constant. The sun is 93 million miles from earth and, thankfully for our species, has a relatively fixed output of energy. It is f/16 for highlights. Shadows illuminated by open sky are three stops less ... that is a function of the atmosphere and can vary with altitude and air density, but in the temperate climate zones, it is nearly always f/5.6.

For other settings, it isn't about memorizing an infinite number of variables. It is really about realizing there are 15 possible exposure steps between 1/8 @ f/1.4 edge-of-exposure-with-400-film and "Sunny 22" in a sunlit beach/snow scene. With a few weeks of experience, an attentive photographer can make an intelligent estimate about which of those 15 zones is most relevant to a given situation.
 
Joe and Vince are correct in saying that we can recognize the lighting situation, and Bill is right in saying our eye/mind can't "meter" light levels directly.
 
VinceC said:
>>The idea here, then, is something like, "Okay, I don't know how bright it really is, but I know a bright day when I see one."<<

For people outside of Arctic regions, the light of a sunny day is constant. The sun is 93 million miles from earth and, thankfully for our species, has a relatively fixed output of energy. It is f/16 for highlights. Shadows illuminated by open sky are three stops less ... that is a function of the atmosphere and can vary with altitude and air density, but in the temperate climate zones, it is nearly always f/5.6.

For other settings, it isn't about memorizing an infinite number of variables. It is really about realizing there are 15 possible exposure steps between 1/8 @ f/1.4 edge-of-exposure-with-400-film and "Sunny 22" in a sunlit beach/snow scene. With a few weeks of experience, an attentive photographer can make an intelligent estimate about which of those 15 zones is most relevant to a given situation.
Click to expand...

Careful! If you get in to sun spots, we'll stray toward that global warming topic again! :eek: :eek:
 
>>Joe and Vince are correct in saying that we can recognize the lighting situation, and Bill is right in saying our eye/mind can't "meter" light levels directly.<<

What's interesting is, I have to remove my sunglasses to do this accurately. If you've followed my life saga, you know I ran my handheld meter through the laundry some months ago and am too stubborn to replace it, even though I shoot two or three rolls of film a week.

When I try to estimate exposures with my sunglasses on, I have to use a very theoretical, abstract mental calculation. If I remove my sunglasses, I can more accurately see the actual lighting and recognize the patterns, so I can figure out an exposure much more quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom