The Great Light Meter Debate

[JohnTF]

Dear John,

Well, unless you've taken an earlier reading (or Polaroid or digi...) and the light has not changed, it's never more than a informed guess, but it can be a VERY well-informed guess, so there's my mild concession to your mild objection.

Cheers,

R.

I suppose I have a reaction to the common language usage of a hypothesis as an "educated guess", which can have some meaning I suppose, but if it is educated, is it really a guess, or the best prediction based on the data? Your experience from a collection of past data, and a light meter reading are both merely data.

Probably from years of trying to dissuade my students from blindly guessing, and the ensuing pride associated with the occasional dart hitting the board, I have developed a bit of a concern about the use of this word. I try to label a lucky guess as just that.

It is further reflected in my current personal irritation in the media with instant expertise and what passes for valid news reporting spiced with impulsive responses twittered to the broadcast.

I have shot with some very experienced people and if their "guess" disagrees with my light meter, I check the meter. ;-)

We can all too easily become over dependent on devices, I wanted to set the cash registers in some fast food place to give out too much change, then wait for the operator to ask for more change when the machine runs out of cash. ;-)


Regards, John

 

[antiquark]

This is a perennial debate. Does anyone want to argue with the following?

My vote is: to each his own.

 

[rxmd]

I like simple too. I do not attempt to use a simple camera, nor do I choose not to meter, when exposure is important to me. Exposure is not always important to me.

Great! Then you're actually right there with everybody else.

 

[skibeerr]

Measure the light, where to start........?

 

[David R Munson]

Very true with colour tranny or digi, where exposure is keyed to the highlights, but with neg (where exposure is keyed to the shadows) the only way to be SURE of adequate shadow detail without unnecessary overexposure is a direct (usally spot) reading of the shadows: not a 3-second job.

Cheers,

R.

Well, it is a method that I have based my process on and I get precisely the negatives I want pretty much 100% of the time. Maybe not for everyone, but it works wonderfully for me.

 

[wolves3012]

Some meter every shot. Some refuse to meter. The pro-meter crowd says the no-meter crowd is wrong and vice-versa. Neither camp is correct.

Fact: the human eye is an appalling judge of light level, since it's adapted to a huge range whilst maintaining adequate vision. However, the human brain can read the clues and figure a fairly good approximation, given the experience and desire to do so.

Personally, I meter most shots. I still goof at least a couple of frames per roll by forgetting to change aperture or speed but I accept that. Those who say a meter is essential fly in the face of the experience of those who manage without. Those who say a meter is unnecessary should really add "for them".

Why can both sides not simply accept that we choose what works for us? Some rely on a meter, some cannot guess accurately enough and so need one (myself included). Instead we have one side telling the other they're wrong, which is itself wrong. I admire those who get away with good guesswork, I know it's something I can't manage.