Teach me how to get rid of the light meter

[Murray Kelly]

After my re-interest in photography after 30-40 years I discovered the incident light meter. It makes so much sense that I am amazed it wasn't common knowledge all those years ago. Incident readings were, after all, used by the cine industry from the mid-30s.

If a subject is light reflecting a reflective reading will read to give an under-exposed image. A shady scene v.v. Incident readings aren't influenced by what the eye sees, but only how much light is falling on the scene. The film records accordingly.

It is all so simple I don't know how I ever took reasonably exposed pictures at all!

One soon becomes able to assess the light and the sunny 16/ shady 5.6 rule is pretty close to the mark. With a two bath developer, you're never far off correct exposure! 🙂
You then learn to leave the meter at home.

Not being a professional I can live with slight variations from exact.

Murray

 

[PetarDima]

Rather, it is about training yourself to previsualize how the camera sees in order to use it as a tool to express how you FEEL about your subject. There's a whole chapter on hand-held photography where he uses Cartier-Bresson as an exemplar.

Underline this 100 times! 🙂

 

[David Murphy]

Back in the 60's my Dad taught me to use the little instruction sheet that came packed with 35mm film in those days. If you can still get one, read it -- there's knowledge there. I later worked with cinematographers who scorned the use of exposure automation.

I must confess though that I use the TTL meter on the Bessa R in extreme situations such as night street work with reversal film.

 

[Matthew55000]

I agree, but guessing exposure without a meter is not taking creative control, it is trying to hit a pinata with a stick while blindfolded. If you get it, that's mostly down to luck and the latitude of the film. Why would you want that? I'm still not seeing how that's taking creative control of anything. Buying a lottery ticket is not taking creative control of your checkbook, dig?

I'm surprised to see how many people are disagreeing with the above.

So many people are using older cameras and no meter and for some reason equates that to 'having more creative control' in their photography which is rather self delusional as all one does is putting oneself in a position full of guesswork and a slower way of working.

If Kappa was alive he'd use a dSLR.

 

[Finder]

I'm surprised to see how many people are disagreeing with the above.

So many people are using older cameras and no meter and for some reason equates that to 'having more creative control' in their photography which is rather self delusional as all one does is putting oneself in a position full of guesswork and a slower way of working.

If Kappa was alive he'd use a dSLR.

Who is Kappa?

 

[Jocko]

Who is Kappa?

He was the man who invented pie beating.

Cheers, Ian 🙂

 

[ZeissFan]

Recently, on another forum, someone wrote that he is more accurate than a light meter. That is absurd.

An accurate light meter is a good thing to have. Being able to interpret the reading according to the scene in front of you is even better. Mostly, that will come through experience.

I would simply say to keep trying. Flip between incident and reflective metering -- and spot meter, if you have it. Get a feel for how shadows and areas of extreme brightness affect the final photo.

But a good light meter is definitely a useful tool to have.

Robert Capa most certainly would have used a DSLR, as he was a news photographer, and that's the tool that news photographers use today. The camera he would choose for his personal work is anyone's guess.

 

[Finder]

No, it doesn't, and you don't know what my system is.



Only if you know the bulb is now 200 watts. But you won't, because it will seem the same relative brightness to you if you walk out of the room and walk back in a week later, or if the value of the bulb is gradually changed while you're in the room - that's how our minds work - we compensate.

Ask yourself this - why do we need white balance on digital cameras and color-correcting filters or special film for various kinds of 'white' light?

It is because the sensor (digital or film) is not fooled about what color the light it. Our eyes, on the other hand, are. We see light we expect to be white as if it were white. The only time we notice that the white light of an incandescent bulb is not white at all is when compare it to something that is shedding white light.

We say "Oh, the digital sensor in my camera was fooled about the white balance in the room." No, it wasn't. The camera did not agree with you about what 'white' is, because white to it is an objective standard, and to your eyes, white is whatever your mind expects it to be.

Eyes are easily fooled. It is not your fault, it is how we are made.



They often achieve an exposure that they find acceptable. This is fine if that is what they want. However, if one tries to describe that as taking creative control, it is incorrect. It is getting better at pitching horseshoes, is all.



Yes, it is. I can guarantee you that if I have a 1 degree spotmeter that is working properly, and you have your eyeballs, I can select the exposure I want to the edges of the ability of my film to reproduce - you cannot.

You can achieve (possibly) an acceptable expsure, in that the lights and darks may well be recorded faithfully in an average way. Or you may occasionally blow out highlights or lose detail in the darks - a scene's dynamic range often exceeds the latitude of the media we use to record it with.

And that is where I will prevail. Given that something will not be recorded, some detail will be lost, with a proper meter and my knowledge of how to use it, I can choose just what will be lost and what will be kept. You can only aim for the middle and hope, or bracket.

Anyone who guesses their exposure feels they can point at a photograph in which all the elements are exposed without detail being lost and say that this is proof they can do it. But give them a scene with EV values from 3 to 16, and let's see how they do. No matter what, some detail will be lost. How will the guesser decide what to lose and what to keep?

To measure anything, you first need a standard to compare it to. It does no good to measure a board of unknown length with another board of unknown length. One must first set a standard and then compare everything to that. Meters give known values that can be used as standards if they are working correctly and understood properly. Eyeballs do not.

I think you are missing the point. First, meters are not infailable. Even with your spot meter the meter can come back with the wrong exposure for limitations to the meter itself as well as the operator. After all the operator has to judge the scene - if eyeballs are as bad as you say, then the operator is an unreliable source.

The other mistake in your argument is there is only one "correct" exposure in any given situation AND the the exposure must be optimized to record as much as the scene luminance as possible. That is a false assumption. Especially if you are going to also argue the control of exposure is a creative control. In fact, many photographers would bracket a high-contrast scene because they know the metered exposure could very well be "wrong."

Now if you want to place limitation on your photographic method, that is fine. But to present them as THE only way to do things would require some proof. I have not read in any reliable source that a meter is the ONLY way to determine accurate exposures - both in measuring them and in the ability to accuratly determine them. While meters are useful tools, if someone wants to develop a different system of determining exposure, there is no technical reason they can not acheive that. Arguing meters may be easier would not be an arguement for not trying to acheive a different method, even one based on the human visual system.

And I am sorry, I thought you were being sarcastic in reference with the Zone System. Funny thing is, I don't think Ansel Adams had a great deal of technical problems. His system certainly worked for him.

 

[sirius]

Meters are not infallible. In camera, what about shooting into a direct light or the classic snow shot or a scene with a lot of black silk or backlighting or a scene where the sky is in the picture? An incident meter doesn't tell you the truth always because sometimes you are so far from your subject you can't get the meter into that light. I have a book on exposure (because I've been rather slow with understanding it) and oddly enough, the last page of the book is the sunny 16 rule. It says for those hard to meter situations where you just can't trust your meter, fall back on the sunny 16.

Interesting thread. Who would think (film) exposure would be such a hot topic? Are we really talking about guessing because we prefer it to metering (no!) or about how to have the lightest kit for classic meterless camera (yes!). Besides, the sunny 16 rules are not guessing---they are based on experience!

 

[VinceC]

I'm not really sure how a meter would have handled these scenes. Both shot with what some here call guesswork and what others call experience.

 

[ruben]

...........

If Kappa was alive he'd use a dSLR.

Incidentally, my mind frequently led me to ask myself "how did Kappa (Capa) manage to technically work. Fortunately I have found in this thread the answer.

If you have a dSLR, or a humble GSN, by all means just push the button ! But if you have today the camera Capa had, then my question is very relevant.

I think folks that many of us are loosing proportions a bit, and therefore missing the opportunity to learn new things of actual importance. Thus for example you could be less enraged by bmattock, my good friend, if you put aside the bravado phrasing, and are able to take the good side of his argumentation, which i could entitle The Need Of A Creative Symbiosis Between The Photographer And His Light Meter. Can anyone deny it when put this way ?

Needless to say that my good friend bmattock will better convince broader layers of members, instead of enraging them, by taking a more moderate manner of expressing himself, flowing from some kind of openess towards different approaches, including his own. I am sure my good friend bmattock is very much aware that in his next 40 years he will learn more and more, like any one of us or perhaps more than most of us, and at some point may say to himself: Concerning X issue, I was wrong then. I have learnt from him a lot, I still have to, and I feel sorry folks when you do not differentiate within his exceptional knowledge, between the wagon and the horse, rejecting the horse while looking at the wagon.

In my humble opinion, Bill, being right and not wrong, is not the end but the begining of somenthing much more broad and important: the ability to transmit your knowledge to the widest possible audience, thus giving water to the tree (Photography) under whose shadow you grow. This stage is not achieved by Ecumenical Concilium or Marxist interpretation type argumentation, but by pedagogical skills.

The light meter by itself is a wonderfull instrument, can any one deny it ? (I hardly can believe myself this thread leads me to write this)

The human brain by itself is the instrument of all instruments. Obviously there are situations in which either the meter or our brains, can deceive us. The best interplay between the two is a winning formula. Can any one deny it ?

It is just that from our experience in photography we all know there are situations in which we have no time to use our brains and have to blindly rely on our meters, and at other instances we have no light meter available, or no time for it, and have to rely solely on our brains, instincts and experience, if we are the lucky ones with brains instincts and experience for light metering. I would like very much to belong to these lucky boys.

My last word is about the great masters of photography. Personally I would not disregard any of them without an elaborated argumentation. But I would not reject any elaborated argumentation against any of them, just because any of them is held as one of the masters. I myself had the happy opportunity to hear a demolishing critic of HCB, which since it is not mine I will not rephrase. We humans seem to have deeply engrained the need of superfathers. And we, the common people, are very much responsible in holding the greats as great.

Therefore, why not relaxing a bit and having a virtual beer all together, and continuing the discussion in more relaxed, and therefore creative, ways

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[bmattock]

bmattock, can you give me a link to your photo gallery?

Which one?

Feel free to have a look at this one if you like:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/

 

[bmattock]

I think you are missing the point.

No, I'm not.

First, meters are not infailable. Even with your spot meter the meter can come back with the wrong exposure for limitations to the meter itself as well as the operator. After all the operator has to judge the scene - if eyeballs are as bad as you say, then the operator is an unreliable source.

First, I have consistantly said 'meter working properly' as a stipulation. If a meter is not working properly, it is of little use. Second, meters are a lot more reliable than the human eye at evaluating how much light is hitting the sensor.

The other mistake in your argument is there is only one "correct" exposure in any given situation AND the the exposure must be optimized to record as much as the scene luminance as possible. That is a false assumption.

It would be a false assumption, if I had made it. I didn't. I have consistently said that *if* you want to take creative control of your exposure, you must use a correctly-functioning light meter and use it correctly. If you do *not* wish to take creative control of your exposure, then AE is likely to be just as accurate - probably more so - than guessing exposure by eye.

I have never said that there is only one correct exposure. IN FACT, I have said that correct exposure is the one you, the photographer, intend.

Especially if you are going to also argue the control of exposure is a creative control. In fact, many photographers would bracket a high-contrast scene because they know the metered exposure could very well be "wrong."

Because they do not know how to use the meter correctly, you mean. The meter is right. They just don't know how to use it.

Now if you want to place limitation on your photographic method, that is fine. But to present them as THE only way to do things would require some proof.

Again, I have not done so. I suggest that if you want to take creative control of exposure, guessing is not that way. If you do not want to take creative control of your exposure, then AE is more accurate than guessing. So guessing is about the stupidest way to set exposure that there is, given other choices. If you want to do that stupid thing, fine with me. But let's not pretend it is taking creative control - it's not. It is guessing.

I have not read in any reliable source that a meter is the ONLY way to determine accurate exposures - both in measuring them and in the ability to accuratly determine them.

I do not know any other way to measure light than an instrument to do so - commonly known as a meter.

While meters are useful tools, if someone wants to develop a different system of determining exposure, there is no technical reason they can not acheive that.

Fair enough. I'll re-evaluate my system when that method appears.

Arguing meters may be easier would not be an arguement for not trying to acheive a different method, even one based on the human visual system.

Yes it would. The human eye is notoriously and provably inaccurate, and unable to accurately judge light value.

And I am sorry, I thought you were being sarcastic in reference with the Zone System. Funny thing is, I don't think Ansel Adams had a great deal of technical problems. His system certainly worked for him.

Yes, it did. It also imposed a tyranny that has vexed many a photographer into giving the thing up altogether. It worked for him because he had an innate understanding of the film and developer he used consistently, and he developed by inspection. Most of us do neither. Zone system will not work for us.

 

[bmattock]

Meters are not infallible. In camera, what about shooting into a direct light or the classic snow shot or a scene with a lot of black silk or backlighting or a scene where the sky is in the picture? An incident meter doesn't tell you the truth always because sometimes you are so far from your subject you can't get the meter into that light. I have a book on exposure (because I've been rather slow with understanding it) and oddly enough, the last page of the book is the sunny 16 rule. It says for those hard to meter situations where you just can't trust your meter, fall back on the sunny 16.

That's because you don't know how to use a 1 degree spotmeter properly. And most people don't, I'm not picking on you. Any meter which attempts to average a scene is capable of being fooled by contrasty scenes, all the things you suggested. The human must apply the meter directly to that which he intends to measure, or the exercise is useless.

Interesting thread. Who would think (film) exposure would be such a hot topic? Are we really talking about guessing because we prefer it to metering (no!) or about how to have the lightest kit for classic meterless camera (yes!). Besides, the sunny 16 rules are not guessing---they are based on experience!

Same thing would apply to digital exposure. The disadvantage of digital is less lattitude for guessing exposure or containing highly dynamic scenes. The advantage of digital is having reference to a histogram on many cameras, assuming they are accurate - some are, some aren't.

 

[bmattock]

I'm not really sure how a meter would have handled these scenes. Both shot with what some here call guesswork and what others call experience.

I am not suggesting they are bad exposures. I am suggesting they are the result of guesswork - call it experience if you like. If you did not wish to take creative control of the exposures in both cases, then you did just fine - I suggest AE would have done better in most cases.

If you had wanted, for example, to bring the blown-out highlights back down a notch and sacrifice some detail in the shadows, you'd have no way to do so, since you didn't know when you took the photos whether you were over, under, or right on the exposure you intended. You just took a guess and hoped to land in the middle of the latitude of the film. Congratulations, the photos are very nice.

Again, if you want to guess, guess. Just don't pretend it's scientific or taking creative control of your exposure. It isn't.

My Kodak Brownie has a meniscus lens - everything past five feet is always technically 'in focus'. However, I cannot perform any type of selective focus tricks with it. I cannot adjust my f-stop - what I get is what I get. If that's what I intend - then great. But if I want creative control over focus, or aperture, this camera won't work for me.

My Kodak Brownie is 'creative'. It is not under my 'creative control'. There is a huge and unsubtle difference.

 

[VinceC]

If you had wanted, for example, to bring the blown-out highlights back down a notch and sacrifice some detail in the shadows, you'd have no way to do so, since you didn't know when you took the photos whether you were over, under, or right on the exposure you intended.

You're making a lot of assumptions. Those are the exposures I intended. The highlights in the top photo are not blown. There is high-key detail in each of the boats' windows, as well as shadow detail in the corners that I didn't want to sacrifice because the subjects' faces, as well as the environment of the boat, were too important an aspect of the photo.

Ditto Lincoln. The highlights are not blown, and there is shadow detail.

I'll add that these are both scanned by my one-hour photo shop, which burns CDs, so I didn't have control over the scanning.

My creative control in the top image was to expose for the faces to be a bit darker than the 18-percent grey range. I anticipated that highlights outside the sunlit, backlit windows would be five stops over-exposed instead of the usual three-stops over when using straight outdoor backlight in sunny-16. Any more than five stops, and the highlight detail would be fully blown, so I kept it at 5 stops -- to preserve high-key highlight detail -- and opted to sacrfice a bit of shadow detail because that wasn't as critical to my creative intent for the image. Then, in printing -- using PhotoShop, though I used to use this method back in my wet-darkroom days -- I dodged the faces about one-stop to compensate for the fact that I had purposefully under-exposed them in order to maintain high-key highlight detail.

Of course a light meter -- and knowing how to correctly read it -- is important to photogpraphy. But really the most important part of photography is learning how to correctly read light ... not reading a meter, but reading light itself.

In my opinion, learning Sunny-16 exposure tables, plus the many, many variations and exceptions, is the same as learning and memorizing multiplication tables instead of relying on an electronic calculator. Once you've learned them and know them forwards and backwards, they make a lot of sense, they become second-nature, and you learn to trust yourself. That never happens if you insist on relying on your light meter or electronic calculator.

I do use only 400-speed film. I like and rely on its latitude, and I "think" and "see" in 400. I also had the good fortune of getting paid to take black-and-white pictures for the first 18 years of my professional life, so that I was able to shoot and process perhaps 10,000 rolls of 400-speed black and white film, which is really a good way to learn any craft.

I would recommend setting aside the spot meter and learning to use a match-needle incident meter, or some other analog incident meter. An incident meter is the first and most important step in learning to go meterless. Spend a lot of time -- I mean, a LOT of time -- metering the light of your environment. Walk around a room and see how the needle moves. Outdoors, walk in an out of sunlight and shadow, under trees and beside buildings and inside dark places.

The Zone system is based on the reflective luminence of objects. Incident metering is based on the luminence of the light source itself -- dark objects are rendered dark, light objects are rendered light. But once you master incident metering, you realize that the Zone system and Sunny-16 are both really about figuring out where in the scene to place your neutral-gray value if you're shooting negative film with approximately nine full stops of latitude - -ie., you can still get detail four to five stops up and four to five stops down from the neutral-grey midpoint.

Much also depends on how you're displaying the image. Black and White negative film has an exposure latitude of as many as 15 stops. The Zone system uses 9-10 stops of latitude. Most photographic printing papers work best in the six-or-seven stop range. Digital photography and PhotoShop seem to work best in the six-or-so stop range ... photopaper, slide film and digital photography all "blow" the highlights much sooner than negative film. In that respect, a lot of creativity of any photograph depends on what strategy you use to "compress" or modify the tonal scale of the original negative or digital capture in order to display it.

When I did wet darkroom work, I preferred the "harder" paper grades that have only five or six stops of latitude. With PhotoShop, I prefer to use a wider exposure-latitude palett -- less contrast -- because I have more control over local highlight and shadow areas. I'll typically work on an image that is quite dark with low contrast, adjust the value-relationships throughout the image using burning, dodging and curves, then boost the contrast as high as it will go without losing highlights.

In practice, and with a good exposure to start with (no guessing allowed here) all of this really takes a couple of minutes.

 

[VinceC]

By the way, bmattock's avatar looks like it should have been about f/2 at 60. but someone under-exposed it by a stop, shooting at f/2.8. Probably the in-camera meter got fooled by the interesting streak of blown highlight in the image.

Here's how I'd have handled it.

 

[bmattock]

Well, Vince, I think we've taken this about as far as we can. I disagree with you, and there it is.

 

[VinceC]

Therefore, why not relaxing a bit and having a virtual beer all together, and continuing the discussion in more relaxed, and therefore creative, ways

I'm with Ruben. Though I'm actually having a South African shiraz at the moment.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Virtual 'Cheers' Ruben.