bmattock
Veteran
So what you are advocating is spending years of blowing shots that could have been good, in order to develop a capability to take shots without a meter without blowing them most of the time.
When a meter would eliminate the preceding years of frustration and is so easy to use and cheap to purchase, I do not get it.
I don't use meters all the time, either. I use them when it makes sense to do so, and I care about the resulting image or wish to control the exposure precisely.
No one tells me what I need to do. I do not tell you what you need to do.
I do not advocate using meters before every shot. They can and do get in the way.
I advocate using meters when it makes sense to do so. Eschewing metering for the purity of memory is not sensible.
My point exactly. Many on RFF strive for much better than 'OK' in every other aspect of their photography. When it comes to exposure, they're fine with just 'OK' and not superior.
I find that ironic, funny, and yes, silly.
Wrong. I cannot flap my arms and fly, and neither can you. No one has calibrated eyeballs, and that's that. Let me know when you can look at a light source and tell me the EV accurately.
There is nothing wrong with having a closed mind when one is right. I have a closed mind regarding the possibility that I can flap my arms and fly off the top of a tall building, and that's a good thing.
My point was that when you have multiple variables, you cannot solve for 'x' very well. If you know the metering was accurate, then you can quickly diagnose the problem as being due to inaccurate shutter speeds. If you don't know if the metering was accurate, you're stuck with 'well it could be this or it could be that' and not knowing.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
I failed to qualify that last statement. I meant to say, that in cases of faulty shutters, the best meters will give no more help than "calibrated eyeballs".
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I failed to qualify that last statement. I meant to say, that in cases of faulty shutters, the best meters will give no more help than "calibrated eyeballs".
Ah, sorry, I misread it as a new idea, because of the full stop.
Cheers,
R.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
What makes you think that I 'blew' years and lost shots because of not using a meter. On the contrary, my exposures improved after one roll. By my third roll, I was getting a good (30 in 36?) batting average.
Meters? As a pre-teen, I did not know where to get them cheap....There were some available, but not within the allowance of a 12 year old. Not here.
Having no meter did not stop me from pursuing photography. If I had a mindset like you, delaying the first shot until a meter was available, I would probably have gotten no where.
Ironic yes. But are you referring the right crowd? Try to check which board this thread is in. Russian Rangefinders. Hardly the crowd who fuss about Noktons or Asphericals or Colour codes or T grain emulsions. You have here folks who like and enjoy using "primitive" equipment, and doing the best with least on hand.
Plus, you seem to be missing what 'correct' exposure really is in real world terms. It's not exactly what the meter says it is, but rather should be what makes the picture look right.
The case in the OP is not as critical as figuring out the variable which can make a Nuclear Reactor blow or a Space Shuttle to crash. The case was figuring out the possible causes from a relatively simple exposure situation.
Given Variables: Daylight, perhaps shaded. ISO known. For such, it's easy to figure what the exposure should be based on an exposure table. If it's determined that the exposure was on the dot or close to it, and yet still delivered underexposures, is it not correct to look elsewhere for the cause of the fault?
pevelg
Well-known
HOLY $***!!!!! Where has this conversation gone?!?! I did not use a meter because I did not have a meter. Why use the FED when I had a Mamiya 7ii? Because it was labor day and the film shop I use was closed and I had no 120mm film.
Now, reason I am concerned is because of the wide exposure latitude of the film I used. I used the sunny f16 rule, shot at 1/500th. Most of shots where taken at f11 or f16, same shutter speed. Lots of the shots came out fine. When I went into shaded areas, I usually opened up the aperture by 2 stops. With the exposure latitude, I think these shots should turn up ok.
Correct.
Now, reason I am concerned is because of the wide exposure latitude of the film I used. I used the sunny f16 rule, shot at 1/500th. Most of shots where taken at f11 or f16, same shutter speed. Lots of the shots came out fine. When I went into shaded areas, I usually opened up the aperture by 2 stops. With the exposure latitude, I think these shots should turn up ok.
Correct.
bmattock
Veteran
I have repeatedly said something very close to that.
What I have said is:
1) There is no such thing as 'correct' exposure. There is only the exposure that you intend.
2) If you do not measure the light, you cannot control the exposure beyond simple guesswork.
3) The human eye is not a good light measuring instrument.
4) Therefore, if one wishes to control one's exposure, a light meter is essential.
If one does not care for more than a reasonable level of accuracy regarding exposure, then a meter is not a requirement. This is what single-use cameras and amateur happy-snappers have been doing for over a century, and apparently enjoying it. Is that what you prefer?
bmattock
Veteran
The conversation went where it did because you posted several shots which appear to be severely underexposed, and you asked why. If one does not meter but instead guesses the exposure, then one cannot reliably determine if the problem is under-exposure by mis-guestimate or if the problem is a faulty shutter. And your thread was a very good illustration of that point.
Spider67
Well-known
......
......
Nobody here is that macho to ridicule or sneer at the use of lightmeters
@bmattock: sorry for the final argument ad hominem. If we are balding slightly overweight or whatever has nothing to do with this discussion.
your ruler comparison showed me another direction:
Often in discussion about ancient architecture it is pointed out that wonders of the world be it the pyramids or the walls of Tihuanaco it's pointed out that "they did not have those great tools we have today" and always in an awestricken voiceover. So maybe deep inside of us there is the thought that a "real" photograpeher does not need a the lightmeter as a crutch.
...and it's not only Pyramids etc. I rmemeber how proud workers at Rolls Royce were that they didn't use rulers for the red line on the side of the car.
......
Nobody here is that macho to ridicule or sneer at the use of lightmeters
@bmattock: sorry for the final argument ad hominem. If we are balding slightly overweight or whatever has nothing to do with this discussion.
your ruler comparison showed me another direction:
Often in discussion about ancient architecture it is pointed out that wonders of the world be it the pyramids or the walls of Tihuanaco it's pointed out that "they did not have those great tools we have today" and always in an awestricken voiceover. So maybe deep inside of us there is the thought that a "real" photograpeher does not need a the lightmeter as a crutch.
...and it's not only Pyramids etc. I rmemeber how proud workers at Rolls Royce were that they didn't use rulers for the red line on the side of the car.
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
"If one does not guess but instead meters the exposure, then one cannot reliably determine if the problem is a faulty shutter or a faulty meter." If he had posted these pictures not as the results of a guess, but instead of the use of the selenium meter in his FED 5, this would have been the alternative. It's not as if people haven't posted shots here before that were mis-exposed because the meter was off. This does not exactly pass the "so what?" test, does it?
Under these circumstances one can either choose to use this as an opportunity to rant against one's pet peeve, or to rant in general because one feels like ranting, or one can choose not to rant. You chose either option 1 or 2, I'm not positive which.
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
They should. Looks like there is a problem with the shutter in the FED. The gears in the shutter do have a tendency to gum up over time. Given that you say it's inconsistent, I don't think it's a problem with shutter tension, but either way it can't hurt to have a look at the shutter.
antiquark
Derek Ross
You're right, f/8 at 1/500 should give good exposure in open shade:
http://www.markushartel.com/tutorials/basics/sunny-16-rule.html
Maybe the shutter is the problem. You can try using your TV as a shutter tester:
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-135.html
fanshaw
Well-known
I rarely use a meter without estimating the exposure first. This has helped me learn to estimate and to know the sort of conditions when I really need to meter. It also provides a check so that I don't blindly follow the meter reading, if the meter were to develop a fault.