Teach me how to get rid of the light meter

[Xmas]

Ruben

http://gbchcf.free.fr/lunasix3.htm

Gossen example...

Noel

 

[bmattock]

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.

Thanks, Frank, yes, that's what I mean.

The eye & mind cannot measure lumens. Neither is the amount of light available on a sunny day constant all over the earth minus the poles.

What is possible is what is constantly demonstrated by those who say "Well, I am able to correctly set exposure by eye," and then they proceed to do just that.

However, what they have done is rely upon approximations and the latitude of their recording media to guess without serious error. Their exposure is no more under their control than a single use camera's.

If one wants to let the 'close enough' maxim take charge, then one can certainly guesstimate exposure, set hyperfocal distance focusing, and point-n-pull. That's certainly appropriate for some photographic situations, too.

But I submit that if one is willing to simply get the exposure close enough and not take creative control of it, then use the meter built into most of the cameras these days and set the thing on AE. It certainly won't slow you down, and it will probably guess better than you can most of the time.

If one wants to take creative control of exposure, then a different methodology is called for.

In neither case is guesstimating exposure really an ideal solution. It will work, but it seems to be useful only in displaying a perverse pride in one's ability to get a dart on the dartboard at all, let alone near the 10 ring. We buy the best lenses, the best cameras we can afford, we agonize over film choices and how best to process and scan, and then we 'eh, who cares' the exposure.

Seems a trifle odd to me.

 

[GoodPhotos]

It helps greatly to learn a particular film and stick with it for a while.
At the moment I'm working my way through 20 rolls of NPH in my Rollei and 20 rolls of Supra 800 in my IIIf. I rate both at 400 most often (the Supra has been frozen, but is a bit dated and can use the extra stop anyhow). I'm usually shooting between EV13 and EV15 outside this time of year and EV6 in most of the indoors areas that I haunt. (I happen to like the look of my Summarit wide open at 1/25 so it works out well inside.)

I too play the game of trying to guess the exposure first and then check that against an incident reading from my little Digisix. With chrome, I'd probably want to rely on the meter a bit more.

When I'm using the 'best lenses, the best cameras I can afford' I use the built in 3D colour matrix metering and iTTL BL fill flash to build the exposure I want. When I'm using a 1952 Leica or a 1954 Rollei (on which the shutters are probably not all that spot on anyhow) and I'm using colour negative film with a HUGE and forgiving latitude, an educated guess gets me the images that I like just fine.

 

[ruben]

......
In neither case is guesstimating exposure really an ideal solution. It will work, but it seems to be useful only in displaying a perverse pride in one's ability to get a dart on the dartboard at all, let alone near the 10 ring. We buy the best lenses, the best cameras we can afford, we agonize over film choices and how best to process and scan, and then we 'eh, who cares' the exposure.

Seems a trifle odd to me.

I don't know why, but had I fit to this dark scenario i would feel a deep need to re-claim in loud voice my belonging to the human race.

In fact, I do not buy the best lenses nor the best cameras I can afford, nor agonize over film choice or how best process and scan, and, curiously, I do care about the exposure, as otherwise I wouldn't have an image. Either way, these are only some of the components, of a bigger whole which is making a picture.

In this "whole" each one of us cooks his own cake, according to many factors, ciircumstances, considerations, and personal skills. I would like for my cake to include intuition, illusion, instincts, sentiments, individalism, madness, and originality. For me, Photography is creation, not mathematics, nor fatal determinism.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[bmattock]

Sorry, Ruben. Of course you're right. I meant only that 'we' photographers tend to agonize over tiny details that may not even matter, such as this version of a Summicron versus that one (I have neither of course), and then we ignore something simple like taking creative control of our exposure. It is another way we can express ourselves creatively, but so many ignore it. That's all I meant.

 

[Morca007]

To come at this sideways, I'll talk about what I do to create my exposures.

I generally take an averaged metering of the lighting conditions where I am shooting to begin. What this translates to is if I am out streetshooting downtown at two o'clock, I will:
1. Meter a few times using my camera's built in off of people, the ground, and the sky, to get an idea of which way is up.
2. After this, I can easily adjust my speed and aperture to meet whatever needs I have. If I want to get a darker image, more motion blur, shallow depth of field, what have you, I have a baseline to go off of.
And if I encounter a new lighting situation?
Simple; Repeat step one.

 

[jose medina]

how did you come to know your technique, and propose me a method about how to learn it.

Ruben[/quote]
Hi Ruben,
i have seen your question. I think ther is a good answer here: http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm
tell me what you think of it.
Regards

 

[FrankS]

As to the question of why we would choose to try to set exposures with out a light meter: RF users are generally an odd lot. Not only do we use an outdated medium (film) but we typically use cameras lacking commonplace automatic features such as autofocus, autoexposure, etc. Most of us enjoy taking complete control of decision-making and thereby, feel greater ownership of our images. Many of us print our own prints. Wanting to wean ourselves of light meters is just an extension of this.

 

[rxmd]

I meant only that 'we' photographers tend to agonize over tiny details that may not even matter, such as this version of a Summicron versus that one (I have neither of course), and then we ignore something simple like taking creative control of our exposure.

To be honest I agree that the +/- 1 stop inaccuracy that this method incurs probably eats up all the differences in rendition between a Dual Collapsible Summicron 0.5 and a Summicron 5 post-SPH or whatever, you've got a point there. Personally I see the advantage mostly that in trying to teach myself to do without a lightmeter, I have sort of emancipated myself from it a little bit - I used to check metering on every single shot even when in the same lighting conditions, and getting to understand exposure a bit better in practice helped me to get an estimate when light situations change, when I would have to meter and when I don't.

In addition, here I don't use a lightmeter simply because I don't have any. I've got an SLR with me which has a lightmeter built in, and a couple of newly-bought FSU cameras without one. When using the latter I need to determine exposure somehow. It's nice to see that this is actually possible with acceptable results. The essential thing is that I can take pictures without having to go and buy a Sverdlovsk-4 or something; if I can do without it, that'd be just another unnecessary piece of gear.

 

[bmattock]

As to the question of why we would choose to try to set exposures with out a light meter: RF users are generally an odd lot. Not only do we use an outdated medium (film) but we typically use cameras lacking commonplace automatic features such as autofocus, autoesposure, etc. Most of us enjoy taking complete control of decision-making and thereby, feel greater ownership of our images. Many of us print our own prints. Wanting to wean ourselves of light meters is just an extension of this.

I guess that's my point, Frank. Guessing exposure is not taking greater control, it's guessing, which is less accurate. From my point of view, there are two valid choices that make sense. One, use AE or just meter the scene and set the exposure, when you don't wish to have absolute control over the exposure. Two, learn to use the meter correctly and take complete creative control over exposure, adding it to your bag of tricks, along with selective focus, lens choice, framing, composition, and so on.

Rubbing sticks together to make fire when you have a perfectly good lighter in your pocket. What's the point of that? The image won't be any better for it, in fact, it may well be worse.

 

[VinceC]

As to the question of why we would choose to try to set exposures with out a light meter: RF users are generally an odd lot ...we typically use cameras lacking commonplace automatic features such as autofocus, autoesposure, etc. Most of us enjoy taking complete control of decision-making and thereby, feel greater ownership of our images.

I think Frank's comments are close to the way I work. I enjoy the challenge of using small, basic cameras without any unnecessary features. I also disagree that one needs a light meter to pursue creative control of exposure. If you are using judgement, guesstimates and exposure tables, you can still exercise creative judgment.

In my view, light meters, especially those built into cameras, are some of the most poorly understood, poorly used tools in the whole photographic process.

Neither is the amount of light available on a sunny day constant all over the earth minus the poles.

But I doubt it varies by more than a stop, which is well within the range of negative films. Remember the old rule of thumb for darkroom/film work ... expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. That axiom implies that the best exposure for black and white is to over-expose Sunny-16 by three stops which, in turn, shows: Film has lots of latitude; There is no one correct exposure; How you develop and print is as important as how you expose.

 

[bmattock]

A fire started by rubbing sticks together is no more pure, no hotter, no more holy, than a fire started by a Bic lighter. If it makes you feel better to guess your exposure, have at it. But let's not pretend it makes your photography better in any way - at best, it doesn't make it any worse, and at worst, it is horrible.

I don't pound nails into a plank with a rock if I have a hammer available. Nice to know I can do it if I ever have to, perhaps. But that would be the extent of my interest in it.

 

[bmattock]

But I doubt it varies by more than a stop, which is well within the range of negative films.

Bosh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight#Daylight_intensity_in_different_conditions

32000 lux Sunlight on an average day (min.)
100000 lux Sunlight on an average day (max.)

 

[FrankS]

I don't like the suggestion of switching the camera to AE, Bill. This view does not fit with my desire for taking control of creative choices. One needs to know how a light meter can be fooled, and how to interpret the information it gives. I want to be less reliant on technology making choices for me or telling me what to do. Using memorized settings allows me to do this and is easily accurate within the tolerances of the medium.

This is just a different way of working, a preference. Different strokes. I don't think it can be argued to be right or wrong.

I don' think it makes one's photography any better, pure, or holy. 🙂

 

[VinceC]

With all due respect to Wikipedia, they don't say whether or not the 32,000 lux is in the Arctic, so there isn't enough information for meaningful debate.

Also, if you just set the camera to record 60,000 lux, you will be no more than one stop under- or over-exposed. So Sunny-16 rules the day!

The difference between 32,000 and 100,000 is about 1.5 stops.
People who handle precision cameras tend to think the world they're photographing is just as precise. But nature isn't always precise. Often, it prefers big, bold brush strokes.

 

[bmattock]

I don't like the suggestion of switching the camera to AE, Bill. This view does not fit with my desire for taking control of creative choices.

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?

So my point is if you want creative control, use a meter properly. If you don't, either use a meter and just do what it says or use AE. I don't get how reading tea leaves is taking creative control.

 

[mike goldberg]

For a lot of years I shot Nikon SLRs as a PJ, and took my M2+Summaron 35/2.8 along. "Sunny 16" and its variations, worked very well. Whenever I could, I shot at higher speeds and wider apertures. After doing this several thousand times, one gets pretty good at it, yet, I occasionally tended to overexposure [with D76, oy vay!]

I understand that matrix or multi-segmented metering in a dSLR, has some 30,000 subject/background/lighting situations on a chip, and makes the decision for you in an instant. I'm one of those that likes the new technology, and I don't want to abandon R/F and film. Yes, I'm pretty good with sunny 16, and when I do go out with an R/F, I carry a meter... which stays mostly in my bag.

Cheers, mike

 

[ruben]

It helps greatly to learn a particular film and stick with it for a while...........
...........I too play the game of trying to guess the exposure first and then check that against an incident reading from my little Digisix.

Hi GoodPhotos,
I must confess that I have been using the abovementioned guidelines for some two months already, and I have learned two things beyond the Sunny 16 rule. Both apply to relative low levels of light, and serve me as "points of support" like the Sunny rule.

The first thing i have learned is to appreciate the point of "Not enough light" for my newly standard ISO 200. The second point of support at low levels I learned about myself. At these situations I tend to over-estimate the actual level of light, as if there were more light that there is in fact, by some 2 to four stops.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[shadowfox]

A fire started by rubbing sticks together is no more pure, no hotter, no more holy, than a fire started by a Bic lighter. If it makes you feel better to guess your exposure, have at it. But let's not pretend it makes your photography better in any way - at best, it doesn't make it any worse, and at worst, it is horrible.

I don't pound nails into a plank with a rock if I have a hammer available. Nice to know I can do it if I ever have to, perhaps. But that would be the extent of my interest in it.

Personally, I don't equate using the sunny-16 like starting fire using sticks instead of a Zippo, it's more like playing Sudoku on an air-travel instead of sleeping, or like reading a science-fiction book instead of watching the DVD version, you know what I mean.

In other words, it's an enjoyable exercise for the brain.

Now, surprisingly, I've had only a couple of real blotches from the rolls where I used the s16 rule, and I've even learned how not to do it again... I don't attribute this to using the rule per se, but using the rule instead of relying ont the AE or meter, I became more aware of where I'm shooting and what I'm trying to get out of a scene.

Granted, I would not use the rule *everywhere*, I'd still rely on my meter on studio portraits, still-life shots, and bracket like heck if I'll ever be in Tibet somewhere overlooking an ancient monastery that hangs on a cliff 😱

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Ruben pointed me to this thread because I rarely, if ever, go out with a light meter. I didn't have the money for one when I first got into rangefinders and the ones that I could afford or got my hands on didn't have one. I had to rely on my knowledge of light and I lost some frames along the way. Now, though, I barely (if ever) really lose something beyond bringing back in either the digital darkroom or a real one (depending on where I send my negatives).

There is one time where I won't trust my brain to shoot things and that's with slide film. There is not enough room for error with slide film to even think of doing this. So, my public service announcement of the day: don't try this with slide film. You will be disappointed almost every time, even if you can do it with regular negative film.

I think the only reason I can do it as well as I can now is practice. I understand various light situations with at least two out of the four films that I'm shooting regularly (the others are ones I'm working on learning) because I've shot them time and time again in the same conditions. It's now almost instinctual. I can even do it inside now. If I have a nagging doubt in my own abilities, I open up or close down one or two stops on the lens depending on what my nagging doubt is telling me. Sometimes I do both. My gut feeling is usually correct, however. It's a constant learning experience that has taught me much about light and photography.

I think that the film you use is an important factor. If you constantly change the film you're using you're going to have a hard time doing this. If you use one or two exclusively (one 400 and one 100, for example) it is going to become much easier.

If you want to learn how to do this, I suggest you buy one film and use it exclusively for a few months. 4 or so at the least, but 6 seems to be around where I finally start to feel really comfortable that I'm exposing things correctly. Use one developer. Standardize your development routine. Write down in a notebook or on a small piece of paper what the shots on the film were shot at. Go by PRINTS, not scans, digital or otherwise, when being critical of your abilities. Everyone sees your stuff differently due to the fact that we don't all use the same monitor setup, and yours may not be the best either if you don't have a newer color-correctable one (like me).

It's going to take a lot of time, patience, and hard work. It's very possible, and quite nice to not have to have a meter every time I go somewhere with a camera. It doesn't make your photography better, but it does help you to better understand the light around you.