The Great Light Meter Debate

[Roger Hicks]

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

Anyone who does not use a light meter when necessary is a fool.

Anyone who does not accept that using a light meter may not always be necessary is an even bigger fool.

Anyone who cannot understand that different people have different definitions of 'necessary' is the biggest fool of all.

(Idle thought as a break from reorganizing my study. All displacement activities gratefully welcomed!)

Cheers,

R,

 

[david.elliott]

To each their own. 🙂

Best of luck with reorganizing your study Roger!

 

[fixbones]

well said ha ha

 

[ZeissFan]

With color slide film, I'm a bit more careful and generally meter nearly every shot.

With b/w, I'll sometimes take an initial reading to give me a base. And then I'll make small adjustments as I move from light to shade -- and usually checking readings here and there along the way.

 

[MacDaddy]

Light meter? What's THAT? *o)

 

[Ronald M]

Sunlight Studio lights you don`t move. Multiple shots in the same location.

None require a meter.

Use one when you must, but don`t become a slave to it.

 

[condon]

A lightmeter is a tool and very easy to understand.
Light is a different matter and sometimes hard to understand.
A lightmeter may be helpful - sometimes.

 

[johne]

At 81 tomorrow, I fear my guessokmeter needs batteries.
johne

 

[dmr]

A light meter makes a suggestion, not a mandate. 🙂

 

[MCTuomey]

no argument here, roger

 

[bean_counter]

my father shot Kodachrome exclusively for decades on his IIIf w/o a meter, and he nailed most of his exposures

alas, I am a slave to my hand-held meter, but I dislike in-camera meters

to each his own

now, enough goofing off, back to work on your study 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

now, enough goofing off, back to work on your study 😉

I'm just putting it back together. Several dozen cables and wires. What sort of idiot designs a 'universal' fitting (USB) and then makes it in three sizes, the most common of which is nearly square so you need to look carefully before you try to push it in?

(Oh, dear, unintentional double entendre but it would be a shame to delete it.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[Michael Markey]

(Oh, dear, unintentional double entendre but it would be a shame to delete it.)

Cheers,

R.[/quote]

Matron ,the screens.
K Williams (I think)

 

[uhligfd]

So, what about the person who defines "fool" via photographic terms and behavior?

A fool or a sage? Obnoxious or sane?

Get out and look for/see pictures worth taking!

 

[micromontenegro]

I love to have a lightmeter, so I can check if it agrees with my guesstimates. But I recently it does seem to agree very seldom, so I tend to leave it at home ;-)
Nonetheless, I do have one onboard one (selenium) that I trust blindly. I have been known to go fetch that camera when unsure. Go figure.

 

[BillP]

Roger, I agree, although I would suggest replacing the term "fool" with "unenlightened"... 🙄

Perhaps it would be advantageous to consider why people use/rely upon meters - I suspect the logic expressed may be interesting in and of itself.

Off the top of my head I can think of the following reasons:

1. The need for accuracy
2. The perceived need for accuracy
3. Lack of experience
4. Lack of confidence
5. Habit
6. Laziness

Ultimately, whether someone uses a meter or not matters as much to me as whether or not they believe in a deity - as long as they keep their belief to themselves and try not to convert me. I am confident and happy in what I do - sometimes I meter, sometimes I don't - and no amount of browbeating otherwise will influence my choice one jot or iota.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I agree, although I would suggest replacing the term "fool" with "unenlightened"... 🙄

Perhaps it would be advantageous to consider why people use/rely upon meters - I suspect the logic expressed may be interesting in and of itself.

Off the top of my head I can think of the following reasons:

1. The need for accuracy
2. The perceived need for accuracy
3. Lack of experience
4. Lack of confidence
5. Habit
6. Laziness

Ultimately, whether someone uses a meter or not matters as much to me as whether or not they believe in a deity - as long as they keep their belief to themselves and try not to convert me. I am confident and happy in what I do - sometimes I meter, sometimes I don't - and no amount of browbeating otherwise will influence my choice one jot or iota.

Regards,

Bill

Dear Bill,

Couldn't agree more, especially the last paragraph.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MacDaddy]

Ha! Actually, I have a nice Sekonic 558 unit and use it occasionally, especially when shooting either way early or way late in the day when the light gets quite tricky to gauge. I don't use it like I should, but the results please me and those foolish enough to actually WANT to see my photos. YMMV! (Obviously, SOME folks took me literally! The joys of the internet!)

 

[bmattock]

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

Not really.

Anyone who does not use a light meter when necessary is a fool.

Anyone who does not accept that using a light meter may not always be necessary is an even bigger fool.

True.

Anyone who cannot understand that different people have different definitions of 'necessary' is the biggest fool of all.

Works for me.

My dispute has never been over the use of non-use of light meters. It gets right up my sleeve when someone states that they can, with experience, evaluate light conditions well enough by eye to dispense with the need for a light meter (the 'Sunny Sixteen Softwits'), because it is not true.

I also find it ironic and amusing that people spend fortunes on the sharpest lenses, the highest-quality cameras, and the finest film stock obtainable. They agonize over dust specks in lenses, they debate the degrading quality of skylight filters, they debate the finer points of lens hoods and RAW versus JPEG digital storage. Then, these self-same purity addicts throw metering to the winds and just roll the dice instead of taking a mere moment to take a meter reading.

"Metering? Eh, whatever. Sunny-16 and call it good."

It is my contention that exposure is a creative tool, just like focus, shutter speed, focal length, filtration, f-stop, composition, and so on. One can use exposure creatively if one chooses to do so. I do not think every shot must be metered to within a gnat's eyelash, but I think ignoring proper metering in favor of some imagined purity of guessing exposure is imbecilic in the extreme.

In the last go-around thread about metering, one thing that finally became clear to me at the end was that for some of the 'I refuse to meter' fatheads, they were actually talking about the joy they experience when taking photographs sans metering, not the resulting images. Well, if that's the case, fine and dandy. However, I wonder at the need for a camera at all if one is merely after the joie de vivre of gallivanting around in public. I advocate the proper use of a meter for those who care what their photographs look like.

If one is simply wandering around pretending to be HCB and smoking Gauloises under their very black berets with a battered M2 and a wide lens, then by all means, have at it. I would not even bother with the film in that case, since it's the experience one is after, not the finished product. Umm, it's not actually 'photography', but if if makes one feel good, then go for it.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I don't really care one way or the other. People use what they feel works for them and are happy with.

Bob