The Great Light Meter Debate

[watchyourbackgrounds]

an argument for no metering...sort of

an argument for no metering...sort of

We shoot for different reasons, with different gear, with different goals, with different standards of success. Any manual film shooter accepts, and I'd guess even enjoys the challenges of getting a good shot with gear that doesn't guarantee it. It's part of the fun, and it's particularly relevant these days, when technology can do so much for you. For every advancement of technology, there's a backlash on the other end. DSLRs give birth to pinhole camera on the other end. This is a phenomenon common in many, probably most fields that have been (and I say this nicely) technified in the past decade.

The line somebody draws to make sense of their own shooting doesn't have to make sense to anybody else. In my shooting, I can draw squiggly line borders that include sharp lenses and no meters, or fine film and Target processing. My own rules don't have to make sense to anybody else, because they don't affect anybody else.

I can improve my batting average by fifty points by shooting a Yashica T4 rather than my Bessa with Skopar 35/2.5--because the T4 is a better camera than I am a shooter. But it's not about batting average for me. I like the challenge, and when i get what to me is a super shot of my family or friends on a camera and lens that requires me to dig deep and pay attention to light, I feel, in my own private world, that I've accomplished something. I don't get that feeling with the PS camera. And lately I've been trying to shoot meterless (batteryless Bessa, or BB), trying to learn to pay more attn to the light. My batting average is low, but getting higher, and for me, it's a winning combo.

If I were the master that Roger and Frances are, or if I were a pro, I wouldn't shoot meterless. But for me, at this stage of my life and photography, if I can voluntarily introduce an unnecessary challenge and "win" with a good shot at an ever increasing rate, then I kind of dig it.

This doesn't have to make sense to anybody else, and it may not, but it shouldn't threaten anybody, either. 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

We shoot for different reasons, with different gear, with different goals, with different standards of success. Any manual film shooter accepts, and I'd guess even enjoys the challenges of getting a good shot with gear that doesn't guarantee it. It's part of the fun, and it's particularly relevant these days, when technology can do so much for you. For every advancement of technology, there's a backlash on the other end. DSLRs give birth to pinhole camera on the other end. This is a phenomenon common in many, probably most fields that have been (and I say this nicely) technified in the past decade.

This is a real 'philosophy of photography' post, worth more than any sterile discussion of Sontag or Barthes.

It's likening photography to target shooting, in a way. There can be few more pointless pursuits than trying to put small holes in a piece of paper, yet many people enjoy it, and enjoy trying to get better, even though they know they will never be of championship status.

Yes, you can liken it to using a Holga (Holgas leave me cold) but everyone has a level of certainty/uncertainty that they can tolerate, and a level to which they want to rely on a machine to do things for them.

A few weeks (or maybe months) back I did a column for AP on phatic photography, by analogy with phatic speech which is speech as social interaction ('Good morning,' etc) rather than as a means of conveying new information. Many here's-my-cat-look-at-the-bokeh shots are phatic.

Here, we have a third variety of photography, as distinct from (1) 'It's the picture, stupid' and (2) phatic, viz. (3) the process of photography as relaxation and physical and mental exercise, a bit like many sports.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

It's likening photography to target shooting, in a way. There can be few more pointless pursuits than trying to put small holes in a piece of paper, yet many people enjoy it, and enjoy trying to get better, even though they know they will never be of championship status.

Then we are talking about fotografvergnügen, to coin a phrase. Nothing wrong with that.

However, if such be the case, then one ought properly not ask 'what is wrong with this photograph' because one does not care. Likewise, the sharpest lens and the most well-made camera body should have little to do with it - if one is simply deriving enjoyment from the act of photography and not the results one obtains.

I enjoy the act of fotografvergnügen myself. Like the target shooter, however, I challenge myself to make the best photographs I can make in a given circumstance. That would include trying my best to obtain exposures that are as I intend them to be, rather than leaving them to the tender mercies of 'acceptable error', fate and memories of similar lighting situations. As a sometime target-shooter myself, I would be discouraged if I found that I could not get anything resembling a tight group on the paper, and found it was due to my lack of caring about breath control (for example). Choosing to forgo breath control because it is more enjoyable to disregard it, I would be unpleased with my results.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Bill,

It occurs to me that we may (or may not) have been misunderstanding one another fundamentally.

I pretty much agree with you that it is foolish NOT to use a meter when you are learning photography: the percentage of losses is likely to be very great. I started with a clip-on meter on a Pentax SV in 1966 and 800 feet of free outdated FP2.

Where we differ is what you need to do once you have learned and gained a bit of experience. In 1969 or so I bought a Leica IIIa. I carried it everywhere. Carrying a meter as well would not have been practical. By then, I was pretty good at guessing exposure, so I didn't worry.

And I haen't worried since. I'm sure I'd have lost more pictures to faffing around with a meter for every shot than I have lost by guessing exposures when a meter isn't convenient. Ideally, of course I'll meter, but for photography-as-sport, going for a walk locally, I do sometimes enjoy the sort of thing described by watchyourbackgrounds: my Retina, or an old roll-film camera, and no meter. I don't recall the last time I lost a shot, or even got a significantly sub-optimal image, with this approach.

And yes, I do care about the pictures. I also care about a leisurely stroll without worrying about professional pressures. I just prefer a different balance to what you espouse.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David R Munson]

My view on this is colored by my experience in commercial photography. An incident meter is phenomenally useful a cinch to use, and pretty much takes just a little more than zero time. In the span of three seconds (actually three seconds, I timed it once out of boredom) I can whip out my Sekonic and know if my exposure has changed, etc. The beauty of an incident meter, too, is that it is in no way influenced by subject reflectance, as it measures the light falling on the subject. I have used a meter long enough that it is second nature to me. It is easy as could be, and it guarantees that (outside of the stupid mistakes we all occasionally make) I nail my exposures every time. Given that, why wouldn:t I use a meter?

(note that I:m on a Japanese keyboard and there:s no apostrophe)

Oh, and I don:t always use my meter with digital (histograms are a godsend), but do plenty often.

 

[bmattock]

And yes, I do care about the pictures. I also care about a leisurely stroll without worrying about professional pressures. I just prefer a different balance to what you espouse.

I confess that I do not go out to take photographs when my purpose is actually to stretch my legs. However, I do not condemn those who do just because I do not.

Like you, I take photographs for the pure joy of the act at times - and as many here have seen, I will gleefully employ a Kodak Brownie with an intentionally inverted lens or duct-tape a copier lens to the body of an old SLR just to see what sort of effect I might get. Metering in such situations would be rather gilding the Lilly.

What I have counseled against are two notions, neither of which you espouse, but which are rife on RFF.

The first is that meters are unnecessary, because one can eventually learn to guess the best exposure in any circumstance. You haven't said it, but many others here have. I have agreed that exposure charts can be useful and accurate 'enough' for 'reasonable' exposure, as can memory of similar lighting situations of times past. What I don't agree with is that reasonable exposure is the same thing as putting exposure under one's control.

The second is the concept that there is some sort of purity to be obtained by not using a meter. This is a concept I find utterly absurd. We demand that our shutters be accurate - for the very reason that we want good exposure. But if we refuse to meter, shutter speed accuracy is hardly important (just as an example).

I also have to admit that I derive a great deal of enjoyment from the irony - which I have stated repeatedly and which those affected seem to feel as a sharp stick in the eye - of those who demand the very best in everything and then eschew metering in favor of 'reasonable exposure'. Imagine thousand-dollar (or more) lenses which are blinkered by being used in less than optimal circumstances. I have to chuckle.

"I want the best of everything, and I send back nine lenses out of ten which I buy, on the basis that they don't meet my exacting standards. Exposure? Meh, who cares?"

I also espouse a standard which I freely admit I have raised myself. I realized some time ago that exposure is not an objective standard, but rather a subjective one. "Correct exposure" is simply the exposure that one desires, no matter what others may say or what a meter may indicate.

However, having said that, if one does not have precise control over one's exposure, one cannot be said to be exercising one's desire with regard to exposure (other than 'reasonable accuracy' as stated in previous posts).

It was an enlightening moment for me (pardon the pun) when I realized for the first time that just as focus and aperture can be used creatively to achieve the effect one wishes, so to can exposure. Exposure is not just about getting a reasonably accurate image - it is (or can be if one wishes) a method of exercising creative control over the image itself.

It was while thinking about Gene Meatyard's photographs that I began to realize that one of his themes was not so much the subject of the images, but the atmosphere he intentionally invoked, through exposure more than composition or focus. Now this may seem like utter child's play to one who has formally studied photography, but I am an autodidact, and I had somehow missed this.

Thus, exposure to me has become a last frontier, and one that is not frequently explored by photographers. So much has been done with all of the other properties of photography, and so little with exposure. it is not enough to say one wants to underexpose or overexpose a scene creatively, that is gross control but not precise. High key and low key photography are like baby steps in that direction but are used for such basic effects that they are relegated to the toolkit of the portrait photographer as an occasional trick.

I recently went to a bodybuilding competition. I have no real interest in bodybuilding, but I thought it would be an interesting photographic exercise, and so I went. Whilst there, I invested some time in my thoughts on exposure, with interesting results:



I did not use the typical composition for portrait photography, nor the usual attempts to get good WB, etc. I went for the emotion and drama of the event, and I put my camera under manual control and intentionally chose what my camera insisted was underexposure. I wanted what I got and I got what I wanted - this was a manifestation of my continuing to desire to exploit exposure as a creative photographic tool.

Exposure can speak as powerfully as focus, framing, and aperture control. But I feel it is woefully neglected.

And so, as you have said, I am 'religious' about the subject. Doesn't everyone have something they feel passionate about?

 

[Ronald_H]

To be frank, meters confuse me. I often carry a meter (Gossen Digiflash) for my meterless cameras, and for example a Nikon FM, which has a decent meter.

BUT... the Gossen needs a quite severe exposure adjustment for normal circumstances. You can only do that with the manual.

The FM is not accurate at very low light levels.

If I use my TLR, I know the shutter is a bit slow, so I have to compensate for that.

Some films I use work better at other ISOs than is on the box.

The list goes one and on. Bottom line: A meter can be very handy, but never take it at face value. Better still: If you think your meter is wrong, it usually is!

 

[Roger Hicks]

My view on this is colored by my experience in commercial photography. An incident meter is phenomenally useful a cinch to use, and pretty much takes just a little more than zero time. In the span of three seconds (actually three seconds, I timed it once out of boredom) I can whip out my Sekonic and know if my exposure has changed, etc. The beauty of an incident meter, too, is that it is in no way influenced by subject reflectance, as it measures the light falling on the subject. I have used a meter long enough that it is second nature to me. It is easy as could be, and it guarantees that (outside of the stupid mistakes we all occasionally make) I nail my exposures every time. Given that, why wouldn:t I use a meter?

(note that I:m on a Japanese keyboard and there:s no apostrophe)

Oh, and I don:t always use my meter with digital (histograms are a godsend), but do plenty often.

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.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Kodachrome with a speed of ASA/Weston 10 or so sold for years. Bought by people who didn't really have meters, and used the off-the-box table recommendation of 1/60 @ f/5,6 (or 1/50 @ f/6,3) for their sunlight snapshots, and following the tables for the other situations. After selling for years and gazillions of slides later, they must have been doing something right, not always with meters though.

 

[bmattock]

Kodachrome with a speed of ASA/Weston 10 or so sold for years. Bought by people who didn't really have meters, and used the off-the-box table recommendation of 1/60 @ f/5,6 (or 1/50 @ f/6,3) for their sunlight snapshots, and following the tables for the other situations. After selling for years and gazillions of slides later, they must have been doing something right, not always with meters though.

It is an unwarranted assumption that since something has been going on for years, there must be something valid to it. For generations, people have been throwing a pinch of spilled salt over their left shoulder. Do you actually suppose that this negates 'bad luck' for spilling salt?

Just because lots of people do something only means that lots of people do it - it does not mean they are right.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Just because lots of people do something only means that lots of people do it - it does not mean they are right.

Dear Bill,

True. But if meterless Kodachrome users got the exposures right enough, often enough, to keep on doing it, it suggests they weren't entirely wrong either.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

True. But if meterless Kodachrome users got the exposures right enough, often enough, to keep on doing it, it suggests they weren't entirely wrong either.

Again, we just get wrapped around the use of the term 'right'.

It's 'right' if it is acceptable to the photographer, and if that is all they wish for, then they have done well and estimation of exposure has worked for them.

It is not 'right' if they got a blown-out sky and wished they had not, as an example.

One understands that DoF at a given aperture for a given lens will cover a small focusing error, and thus be 'acceptably sharp'. Is that a good substitute for careful focus?

The continuing use of single-use cameras equipped with fixed-focus lenses, no exposure control, and color print film indicates that for many, this is acceptable - and thus 'right'.

But is it what many of us would want?

 

[ZorkiKat]

It is an unwarranted assumption that since something has been going on for years, there must be something valid to it. For generations, people have been throwing a pinch of spilled salt over their left shoulder. Do you actually suppose that this negates 'bad luck' for spilling salt?

Just because lots of people do something only means that lots of people do it - it does not mean they are right.

Your analogies are soooo far off. You back your ideas with concepts of logic, but the examples you use to support your logic are by themselves unrelated to the issue.

Kodachrome in meterless Retina, Argus, Leica, Contax, or Perfex cameras, exposed using the tables provided by Kodak is not the same as 'believing' that tossing salt will cancel bad luck

You see, the exposure tables from which users learn to 'guesstimate' were based on what the film manufacturer knows about how its emulsion reacts to light (its 'speed'), coupled with what is actually seen (physical: light), to arrive at values which can be used for exposure. When the film gets developed, a proper looking shot is produced, making the shooter happy enough to buy more Kodachrome.

On the other hand tossing salt involves elements which have no known factual basis, no physical manifestation other than getting salt sprinkled about, and whatever form of luck which follows cannot be truly attributed to this action. That's entirely different and cannot be used to compare with what an Argus toting Kodachrome shooter does when he guesstimates.

And BTW, unlike Kodachrome, tossing more salt (pinching too much by not using a measuring spoon) will not necessarily result in an adverse reaction.

Do you really just want to annoy people?

 

[bmattock]

You see, the exposure tables from which users learn to 'guesstimate' were based on what the film manufacturer knows about how its emulsion reacts to light (its 'speed'), coupled with what is actually seen (physical: light), to arrive at values which can be used for exposure. When the film gets developed, a proper looking shot is produced, making the shooter happy enough to buy more Kodachrome.

A) you cannot 'see' the light value. Only a guess based on what the EV of the typical sunny day tends to be (or cloudy day, etc).

B) "Proper looking" is as I have said - subjective. Single use camera owners seem happy enough with 'good enough' and if that is what you want, I certainly have no objections.

Do you really just want to annoy people?

I am stating my opinion and defending it with logic. Shall I cease doing so because you find it annoying? That seems as if you're saying I am right, but you don't like hearing it.

 

[JohnTF]

Roger,

I object mildly to the use of the word guess if it involves every exposure made without the use of a light meter.

It seems a trained eye can judge the light, made easier by using common IE's, knowing your equipment, and the nature of the medium and materials. Some things become known through experience.

A painter makes a stroke on a canvas, is it a guess if he does not use some mechanical device to most precisely control it?

There was a time when I used what I had, which was a camera without a practical meter nor rangefinder. In fact, I was delighted when I had my first camera that had adjustable focus.

Is the use of a meter in some cases "over use" or a "comfort" issue?

Can the same be said of Program and AF modes, or even the use of a rangefinder?

I used to work/hang around the local photo shop, and sometimes people did not want to buy cameras they "had to set" -- most photos were made with fixed focus and exposure cameras-- box cameras. The salesmen offered to set their new cameras to F8, 1/60 second and ten feet for them. ;-)

In the end, you set yourself, not the camera.

Regards, John

 

[ZorkiKat]

Again, we just get wrapped around the use of the term 'right'.

It's 'right' if it is acceptable to the photographer, and if that is all they wish for, then they have done well and estimation of exposure has worked for them.

It is not 'right' if they got a blown-out sky and wished they had not, as an example.

One understands that DoF at a given aperture for a given lens will cover a small focusing error, and thus be 'acceptably sharp'. Is that a good substitute for careful focus?

The continuing use of single-use cameras equipped with fixed-focus lenses, no exposure control, and color print film indicates that for many, this is acceptable - and thus 'right'.

But is it what many of us would want?

Judging by the popularity associated with 'simple' things, perhaps that's what many of us would want. (Too bad, in the English language, "us" can be taken to mean 'you and me' or 'us and you'...I refer to the latter).

Yes, to many of us, "acceptably sharp" can be acceptable, compared to no shot at all....how many times did aligning the split image delay tripping the shutter and caused the loss of a shot?

Guesstimation will not automatically lead to washed out skies. Count out the tyros. They will likely get bad pictures anyway with the first tries. So no amount of exposure tool will remedy this.

However, using a meter isn't always a guarantee for getting the skies right. Even those who use meters would bracket, ignoring what the meter tells them and use something else which they feel right. How different is this from using 1/125 at f/16, based on a table, and then a couple more at plus and minus values?

And BTW, "simple" is the operative word which made (and still makes) photography more popular. The box Kodak made it simple. Roll film and flexible film replacing glass made the work simple. Small candid cameras made it simple. Were all these wrong because they were simple?

 

[varjag]

A) you cannot 'see' the light value. Only a guess based on what the EV of the typical sunny day tends to be (or cloudy day, etc).

Sun is a constant light source, therefore for every season and latitude the amount of light from the sun in clear sky is constant. Geographic and seasonal variations are usually less than 1 stop, combined. This is the basis for Sunny 16, and it is pretty scientific.

I am stating my opinion and defending it with logic. Shall I cease doing so because you find it annoying? That seems as if you're saying I am right, but you don't like hearing it.

There was that Zeno guy who was proving, by using flawed propositional logic, that movement is impossible. I can easily imagine him speaking in your voice 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

I object mildly to the use of the word guess if it involves every exposure made without the use of a light meter.

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.

 

[ZorkiKat]

A) you cannot 'see' the light value. Only a guess based on what the EV of the typical sunny day tends to be (or cloudy day, etc).

[...]



I am stating my opinion and defending it with logic. Shall I cease doing so because you find it annoying? That seems as if you're saying I am right, but you don't like hearing it.

Neither can film "see" EV. EV is an artificial value meant to divide light intensity into 16 or so steps. And I never mentioned anything about 'seeing' light values. I said "see" light- as in sunny, dull, or grey.

What film 'sees' is what is given it it as it comes through the aperture when the shutter opens.

When you look at the typical 'weather' scale of an exposure table, what you see as daylight conditions from bright sunlight to cloudy can translate to LV values.

As for defending your opinion with logic, sorrry, I don't see any. I see mostly non-sequiturs. Like comparing shooting Kodachrome meterless to tossing salt for good luck.

Edit: And that's not -and never could be- saying that I am annoyed because I find your argument right. It's your flawed reasoning ad nauseam which is annoying.

 

[bmattock]

Judging by the popularity associated with 'simple' things, perhaps that's what many of us would want. (Too bad, in the English language, "us" can be taken to mean 'you and me' or 'us and you'...I refer to the latter).

Again, I agree with you. If that is what is desired, how could I object to it?

Yes, to many of us, "acceptably sharp" can be acceptable, compared to no shot at all....how many times did aligning the split image delay tripping the shutter and caused the loss of a shot?

Again, I agree. My statements were that a guess which results in 'acceptable' results is fine if that is what you want. Is that what you want?

Guesstimation will not automatically lead to washed out skies. Count out the tyros. They will likely get bad pictures anyway with the first tries. So no amount of exposure tool will remedy this.

But guestimation will not eliminate blown out highlights, either.

Guessing is prone to error. Perhaps the margins are smaller for those more experienced at estimating local weather conditions, but error prone it remains.

However, using a meter isn't always a guarantee for getting the skies right.

If the meter is functioning properly and the person using it knows how, then I would disagree and say yes, it is.

Even those who use meters would bracket, ignoring what the meter tells them and use something else which they feel right. How different is this from using 1/125 at f/16, based on a table, and then a couple more at plus and minus values?

That would be the inappropriate use of the meter. The meter gives readings. It does not tell anyone what the correct or even appropriate exposure should be.

And BTW, "simple" is the operative word which made (and still makes) photography more popular. The box Kodak made it simple. Roll film and flexible film replacing glass made the work simple. Small candid cameras made it simple. Were all these wrong because they were simple?

They are not 'wrong', nor have I said that they were. I have said that they are not accurate. 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.