Exposure without a meter

[Anscojohn]

As the story goes, because he couldn't find the thing at the time he made that photograph. He wasn't trying to prove anything.

*****
Yes. He says he extrapolated the exposure from his known "EV" of the full moon. And the negative is underexposed and needed a tremendous amount of water bath development with D23 to try to support the low values in development; then partial selenium toning of the foreground as well.

As one of the grizzled, cigar-choping darkroom rats told me decades ago, "If you have to shit glass to get a good print, you f++++d up the exposure and development of your negative."

For Criminy sake, use a meter until you know how to judge light; after that, use a meter.

 

[2F/2F]

There have also been two accounts of that story given by Mr. Adams. He may be full of it, or at least embellishing in the meterless account. The meterless account based on a known luminance value for the moon (and adjusted because it was low on the horizon) was given in his autobiography, which was written decades after he took the shot. In an interview given much closer to the date of the exposure, he said something about how he metered the shot. I know this because I have been corrected on it myself, having stated that the shot was made based on experience.

Let us also not forget that it took him about 1/3 of a century from the time of exposure for him to get the print we love so much, because his vision changed over time, and also his exposure and development were totally jacked up for that shot!

On the other hand, he said that he missed the duplicate neg because the light went by the time he flipped the holder. If he had taken the time to use a meter, he may not have even got the first shot! THIS is a case for meterless exposure...the last few seconds of a fading light, when there is just no time.

However, Mr. Adams likely would not have even known what to guess if he was not at the top of his game and used to taking meter readings in various situations

The bottom line is: You can do just fine without an exposure meter. However, you aren't proving anything to anyone, and you will always be more accurate if you make a GOOD meter reading. So why not meter when you can? With the best light meter in the world running about one tenner, even the most broke photographers can afford to meter.

 

[mr. mohaupt]

First off, BradS I got that, I have thick skin, in my line of business you have to.

Second 2F/2F I am not trying to "Prove anything" thats not the case at all, in fact my original questions still have not been answered... Well half answered anyways. All I am trying to do is simplify life when I just want to walk around with an already slightly large camera.

All I wanted to know was A.) The best way to fine EV using only your experience (am realizing that its only based on experience) and B.) does this value equal middle grey. Only reason I ask is for the zone value system.

CPorter I am SURE that Mr. Adams wasn't trying to prove anything but my point was that he had the experience and knowledge on how to do it without a meter.

~m

 

[Ian David]

If you want to get better at judging EVs, walk around with that Fred Parker chart referred to in your original post and an incident meter that gives an EV reading. Compare the two and start getting a sense for what EVs arise in what situations and how they vary with the changing light.
EVs given by a meter (and EVs included in a chart like Parker's, unless stated otherwise) are always a reference to middle grey.
Ian

 

[mikeb380]

Sunny 16 rule lives!!!

I know there are a lot of threads on this but I have not seen on with what I am looking for.

I recently purchased a Yashica A TLR and took it to my local camera guy who specializes in repairing older cameras. While I was there I happened to notice he had a number of old Weston meters and asked him if he had any working and for sale. He proceeded to tell me that I do not need one and that "now-a-days real photographers do not need a fancy camera with a meter to take great photos."

He gave me a little lesson on how to use a simplified Exposure Value System (EV). It "seems" flawless but I am trying to poke holes at it to understand it better. And since I wont see him until my camera is ready (he lives about 30 mins away) I figured I would post it up here.

His method:
EV= Tv+Lv (where Tv is time value and Lv is Light value or aperture pretty strait forward to this point) note all this for ISO 100 you add one to your EV for every higher ISO E.I. ISO200 +1, ISO400 +2, etc

To determine Tv and Lv you first have to determine EV and you do this buy shear guestimation. Meaning you know a Sunny days is EV 16-15 Landscapes are about 10 and home interiors are about 5-7. Once you can easily figure out the EV the rest is easy

for Tv
1s=0, 1/2=1, 1/4=2, 1/8=3, 1/15=4, 1/30=5, 1/60=7 and all down the line
For Lv
F/1=0, F/1.4=1, F/2=2, F/2.8=3, F/4=4, F/5.6=5, F/8=6 and all down the line

Now for the example EV=Tv+Lv
Say you are taking a picture of an interior with bright lights that is about EV 8

you pick the combination that equals 8 = (1/15s + F/4)



This method blew my mind, it was the first I had heard of it put so simply. I wanted to employ it immediately but ran into some snags. First; how do you accurately determine EV each time. I guess with trial and error but with 120 film this would get expensive quick. Second; does this equation only produce what a light meter would assume is middle grey (right exposure)? If that is the case I could stop down or open up for different lighting scenarios that I was going for.

Anyone have any thought? If you are looking for a good "EV" chart this site is great http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

Thanks in advance,
~m

This guy has made a simple task very difficult. All you have to do is know the ASA/ISO rating of the film. For a 400 ASA film, i.e. Tri-x use the ASA as the shutter speed, i.e 1/400 sec. In bright sunlight where the shadows are black, you would use f16 for lens opening. For the case where the shadow is a lighter gray, open lens to f11. For open shadows use f8 and for overcast sky with very light shadow go to f5.6. now you can adjust shutter speed and lens openings to get the combination which is apt for your situation. I learned this back in 1953 when I started photography and no one had meters and used it successfully through the 1980s and my first Canon F1 with meter. After a while it becomes automatic and you don't have to think about it. This is a much better method than a handheld meter of even a camera meter unless you take the time to learn how to properly use the meter. Using this method I borrowed my uncle's 35mm WWII Voitlander and won a prize in a national camera magazine contest. I was 15 at the time.

Give it a try, I think you'll find it easy after the first roll of film. BTW, this was Kodak's recommended method as posted on their film boxes. It is called the sunny 16 rule.

Cheers
Michael

 

[pthornto]

Interesting thread.
I sometimes enjoy walking around with old meterless cameras and guestimating exposure based on sunny 16 (Problem in NS Canada is that a lot of days only make it to f 5.6! I'm usually pretty successful at this especially using color print films that are OK getting a stop or two more exposure. Then again using a meter or metered camera just feels assuring and I know that I will get results that will give me most flexibility when I want to print.

The real subjectivity in exposure comes from how you want to portray the different tones in the scene. I've been reading Ansel Adams "The Negative" and think its a great book for explaining how exposure and development can be used together to control the range of tones in a scene. Definitely recommend picking it up and I know a lot of other great books have been recommended in other threads. Adams gives lots of examples and explains when you want to meter particular parts of a scene for a certain result.

I think 2F had it right when he said one of the real reasons to be able to approximate exposure is when you need to get a shot off quick i.e. when conditions have changed rapidly and something just needs to be photographed!

 

[Anscojohn]

First off, BradS I got that, I have thick skin, in my line of business you have to.

Second 2F/2F I am not trying to "Prove anything" thats not the case at all, in fact my original questions still have not been answered... Well half answered anyways. All I am trying to do is simplify life when I just want to walk around with an already slightly large camera.

All I wanted to know was A.) The best way to fine EV using only your experience (am realizing that its only based on experience) and B.) does this value equal middle grey. Only reason I ask is for the zone value system.

CPorter I am SURE that Mr. Adams wasn't trying to prove anything but my point was that he had the experience and knowledge on how to do it without a meter.

~m

******
I answered that in one of my responses. "Use a meter until you learn how to judge light; then, use a meter."
The common sense aspect of this was lost on people with too subtle a sense of irony, I suppose, that they missed my point: a skilled photographer's sense of light will become intuitive after one get's enough experience "JUDGING" the light and MEASURING it with a meter. After that, one judges the light; but you still check your judgment with a meter.

 

[jasonhall]

You want to know how to figure what EV to use.

Your only options is to use your experience to guess what the correct EV is, use a chart and hope you interpret the scene correctly, or use a meter to measure the actual amount of light available(EV).

I like to measure the light, not guess at it. I don't think that makes me lazy. Infact I think wanting to save an extra oz or two by not having a meter is a little on the lazy side. No offense intended. Want to go out and shoot with out a meter and base all exposures on your memory of what EV to apply to a certain scene, then go ahead, not a problem at all. Do it enough and you will get good at it, I am sure of it. Maybe as good as Mr. Adams.

I just dont understand why the meter is given a bad rap. thought of as a complicated machine that does all these wiz bang functions that makes us lazy. While there are many that have some pretty crazy features, at heart they just measure light. I use a Sekonic 558r. A heck of a meter with more functions that I will ever use. Why did I buy it? I wanted a incidental and reflective meter in one unit with no adaptors to take along. Thats the only reason.

Bottom line is you want to know how to figure out the base measurement of light (EV) to know what Tv/Av combo to use. You either measure it, or know it because you have already MEASURED it many times before. And then when not sure...measure it. The meter just measures the light, no wiz bang stuff going on there. I don’t understand what else you don’t understand here.

BTW, I shoot outdoors with the sunny 16 and one I like to call “Open shade f4”. But that is for snap shoot on B&W negs. As you know, lots of latitude. For the shots that matter, I measure it. If that means I am lazy….then lazy I am. Besides, despite the latitude of the film, there is only one correct exposure for the subject at hand.

Jason

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Many photographers have shot without meters. I believe it was more of the rule than the exception in the early days. Of course, over the years there have been a number of techniques. All of them must have worked to some degree or they wouldn't have stuck around long enough to be known. The goal with any exposure technique is to produce a quality negative under the greatest range of conditions.

Both Westons didn't use meters. I believe they used something call the extinction technique. While viewing the image through the ground glass, stop down the lens and base the exposure on a particular tone when it is indistinguishable from black.

Many people up until the 40s and 50s used exposure guides. ANSI has one. It's ANSI PH2.7. It factors in latitude, weather conditions, angle of the sun to subject relationship, and time of year among other things. You simply start with the basic exposure then add or subtract the exposure value based on the particular shooting conditions.

 

[Chuck_P]

*****
Yes. He says he extrapolated the exposure from his known "EV" of the full moon. And the negative is underexposed and needed a tremendous amount of water bath development with D23 to try to support the low values in development; then partial selenium toning of the foreground as well.

As one of the grizzled, cigar-choping darkroom rats told me decades ago, "If you have to shit glass to get a good print, you f++++d up the exposure and development of your negative."

For Criminy sake, use a meter until you know how to judge light; after that, use a meter.

Excellant!

 

[panastasia]

The AA moonrise photo was a keeper because of a good guess and expert development by the master, because he was shooting B&W film.

Since it was a fleeting moment with no time to bracket, or change film, what do think his results would have been if he was shooting color transparencies?

 

[Anscojohn]

The AA moonrise photo was a keeper because of a good guess and expert development by the master, because he was shooting B&W film.

Since it was a fleeting moment with no time to bracket, or change film, what do think his results would have been if he was shooting color transparencies?

******
Mud

 

[MattKing]

Use both. Your photography will be the better for it.
Matt

 

[Terrence Brennan]

To meter or not to meter...

Wow. So many harsh responses...I am disappointed.

First off, Welcome. This place is usually friendlier than this.

I agree!

FWIW, I would suggest that you get a meter, and learn how to use it. Before long, you will have developed a sense of the proper exposure (and I am speaking of monochromatic negative film), and will find yourself dispensing with your meter, and "winging" the exposure.

I own, and use regularly, only old cameras--Nikon Fs, a Rolleiflex and a Rolleicord--none of which have built-in meters. I almost always have a decent meter with me, sometines my Gossen Lunasix-3, sometimes my Pentax Spotmeter. I have found in the past, when dealing with known expsoure situations, like "sunny-16," a quick check will suffice, and start exposing.

If you have a situation with variable conditions, such as the rapidly changing cloud conditions we had here in the Ottawa Valley last summer, you will have to estimate exposure, rather than consulting your meter. The reason I say this is that it is all too easy to spend your time checking your meter, rather than making exposures.

When using monochromatic negative film, you have a respectable margin for overexposure, so when in doubt, overexpose. You will find, when working indoors, after using your meter for a while, that a lot of interior scenes can be "guestimated" with a fair degree of accuracy. You will also find that sometimes it is very hard, when using a non-spotmeter, to calculate the exposure, so you will have to go the guestimation route. You will also be able to expose a lot faster.

(True story: about three years ago, near Christmas, I was in a store, and wanted a picture of an interesting display. I had one of my motorized Nikon Fs, with a 35mm lens, around my neck, discretely hidden by my winter coat and scarf. I also had my Lunasix-3, but knew that I had no time to use it, as the store was full of people. I guestimated my exposure at 1/60 of a second, at f/5.6, with Agfapan 400 rated at an EI of 1000, with the appropriate development. I made several exposures, and my negatives were right on the money. So was the store manager, who spotted me, and wanted to know what I was up to. I told him, and he asked about my "old" film cameras, et cetera.)

So I suggest that you do get a meter, and use it, and soon you will find yourself using it less and less.

Colour film, especially transparency film, you say? Definetely, get a meter, and use it, always.

 

[mr. mohaupt]

Finally I think this thread is going in the right direction. I also got my answers :-D Thanks! That the EV's for certain light scenarios correspond to middle grey. Its obviously important for when you are shooting scenes that are suppose to be white or black.

I will get a meter sooner or later, I just have always relied on the meter in my OM-1n, mkII, of in my Cannonet. The Yashica TLR will be my first "meter-less" camera. I think until I do I will just run around with my other camera's practicing guessing and then checking.

I guess my next question will be: What and when to use incident metering or reflective metering. I will put that in a new thread though so this one doesn't get convoluted.


Thanks all!

~m

 

[BobNewYork]

As humans we are excellent at measuring relative values - we aren't do hot at measuring absolute. If I dip my hand in 68 deg water and then into 67 deg water I can easily tell the difference. Without a thermometer, however, I couldn't tell whether it was 71 -70 deg or 68-67deg. And if I put my hand straight into water - without anything to compare it with - I'd be lucky to be within 10 degrees accurate.

The meter provides an absolute measurement of brightness. Close is good for hand-grenades, (and horseshoes) and close will achieve a good image for many photographic purposes. A grenadier will get more accurate the more hand grenades he throws - but he still throws hand grenades. A sniper, on the other hand uses a carefully lightmeter, carefully calibrated to his film and development.

Bob H

 

[Chuck_P]

Finally I think this thread is going in the right direction. I also got my answers :-D Thanks! That the EV's for certain light scenarios correspond to middle grey. Its obviously important for when you are shooting scenes that are suppose to be white or black.

You have to remember that all meters assume that what you are pointing it at is representative of "average"------that is, that the average of all the reflectances (with a reflective meter of course) coresponds to middle gray or that the scene contains about equal proportions of light and dark areas. When it is not average i.e., when there are not relatively equal proportions of light and dark is when you have to be smarter than the meter. This is hugely important when pointing a hand held meter in reflective mode toward the subject/scene as it usually reads luminances in about a 30 degree angel. That's a big area for the meter to get fooled completely.

All EVs (given by your meter) for any light scenario want to provide exposure to the film for negative density values that correspond to middle gray in the final print. It's simply what meters do best and the reason that I don't bother to guess at it-------I let the meter tell me what it is designed to tell me and then I take over from there as it does not know what it is being pointed at, only the photographer does.

CP

 

[Q.G.]

That's a big area for the meter to get fooled completely.

Or not. Depending on what you (!) want.

It would be better to say that you can get fooled.
Because a meter only registers. It cannot be fooled.

 

[eddym]

Or not. Depending on what you (!) want.

It would be better to say that you can get fooled.
Because a meter only registers. It cannot be fooled.

Amen to that. Meters can't be fooled, but photographers can.

 

[Chuck_P]

Or not. Depending on what you (!) want.

It would be better to say that you can get fooled.
Because a meter only registers. It cannot be fooled.

Yes, yes this is understood---poor choice of my words.

 

[waynecrider]

Alot of time the light in a scene will not change, change just slightly or change because of clouds. Once you meter any one you can just about shoot meterless and intution (little voice in the head) will come into play. If you shoot an extra frame you'll more then likely nail the exposure or learn quickly from your mistake.

 

[2F/2F]

As humans we are excellent at measuring relative values - we aren't do hot at measuring absolute. If I dip my hand in 68 deg water and then into 67 deg water I can easily tell the difference. Without a thermometer, however, I couldn't tell whether it was 71 -70 deg or 68-67deg. And if I put my hand straight into water - without anything to compare it with - I'd be lucky to be within 10 degrees accurate.

The meter provides an absolute measurement of brightness. Close is good for hand-grenades, (and horseshoes) and close will achieve a good image for many photographic purposes. A grenadier will get more accurate the more hand grenades he throws - but he still throws hand grenades. A sniper, on the other hand uses a carefully lightmeter, carefully calibrated to his film and development.

Bob H

Absolutely! ()

Once I have a "sunlight" reading, I often will just base adjustments off of it without metering. Getting that initial reading an anything other than "perfect" weather can be tricky, however. Here in L.A., true sunny 16 conditions are not terribly common.

Same thing with music. I have relative pitch, but not perfect pitch. That means that once I hear one note, I know how any other note relates to it. BTW, perfect pitch is not a trait that actually helps a working musician, or even a piano tuner, so anyone who brags about having it is bragging about NOTHING! It is RELATIVE pitch that you really need as a musician or piano tuner. A piano tuner tunes middle C and select other notes with a tuner, but does the other eighty-something keys by ear; tuning chords. If you tune an instrument - any instrument - mathematicall perfectly, is sounds like HELL!

 

[Blisterina]

All right, I might sound like an arrogant pr*ck here (although can women be pr*cks? I dunno...), but I've rarely used a meter of any kind since the 1980s, when I lost the battery door on my Pentax and never bothered to get it replaced or buy a handheld meter. Yes, I am that lazy. And cheap.

I agree with waynecrider's comment about intuition coming into play; I think after a few years of snapping pix, at least in 35mm, it all kinda becomes instinctive. A few years ago I bought a Canon EOS Elan 7, which doesn't even function without batteries; maybe it's just my mindset, but I'm much happier with the images I'm taking since I returned to my Pentax. I've shot some lousy images with it over the years -- or rather, images that would have been fine if I hadn't screwed up the exposure so royally -- but from the good ones I have to admit I get an extra little jolt of joy because I'm meterless.

Anyhow, I say try the math if you want, but mostly try your instincts.