How did they do it?

MattKing · Apr 22, 2007

I expect that the ability to estimate correct exposure is associated with the ability to judge whether or not the light available will result in an interesting photograph.

IMHO the best way to tell if someone is (or is going to be) a good photographer, is to determine how observant they are about light (and of course, shadows).

My very first new 35mm camera was a Retina S1. Although it was otherwise a sad end to the Retina line, it had one intriguing function - it had the sunny 16/kodak exposure guide built into the aperature setting ring.

Actually, it had another interesting function - it featured both a hotshoe for electronic flash, and a flashcube socket. Boy those flashcubes could put out a lot of light.

Matt

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Apr 22, 2007

When you look at disposable cameras, it might seem to be a miracle that they ever give correct exposure: one aperture, one shutter speed. But just like the stopped clock, it's always correct at least twice a day. If you're in the proper conditions, they can give near-perfect exposure.

catem · Apr 22, 2007

You've all just reminded me that when I first got interested in b&W & learnt to print (in my twenties) I was using an Agfa Prontor 11, and didn't have a light meter. It was also complicated by the fact that the focus was stuck on 3 feet.

I came up with some nice pics then, though. I'd completely forgotten I did that, I'd be lost without some sort of metering now - or think I would be.

It's true I often used the idea when using the fm2 (which I haven't done for a bit) of getting a base exposure reading & adapting from that if conditions change.

Makes me think I'll get out the Agfa again, I've still got it. And it's still stuck on 3 feet.

Jim Noel · Apr 22, 2007

An interesting little experiment, which my wife and I did before dinner (barbecued rock lobster, with a salad of beetroot, walnut and sour cream, accompanied by a bottle of Vouvray, then strawberries and cream and a little peach brandy, after which all bets are off).

Roger, if I thought I would get a dinner like that I would make a trip to visit you just to eat!

I have been photographing the 1930's. I could not afford a light meter until some time in the 1950's. In the beginning I used simple little cardboard exposure calculators from Kodak. From them I learned to judge light conditions and vary exposure based on changes from a normal sunlit scene, as well as front, side or back lighting. I used one film for many years, Super XX, one developer D-76, and developed by inspection.
When I stopped using these great little calculators I had a great deal of information sored in my personal computer (brain) which I continue to use today. When I do bother to take a meter reading it is always checked with my memory. If there is a significant difference I assume the meter is incorrect. This has enabled me to discover when meters are in need of repair or calibration several times.

So to answer the question about exposure calculation w/o a meter, it is very simple - EXPERIENCE AND MEMORY

eddym · Apr 22, 2007

snegron said:
I might solve this if I go really retro and get a Leica M3 single stroke. Of course, what would I do if it breaks down? I'm sure I would need a backup body! And so the obssession continues...!

No, get a double stroke. And don't worry... they don't break down. My 1957 vintage M3 DS is still working perfectly. Yes, it's been CLA'd once... but it's never "broken down"!

eddym · Apr 22, 2007

jstraw said:
1/ISO? like 1/100 for ISO 100, 1/400 for ISO 400?

Yes, of course. Don't tell me you've never done this.

jstraw · Apr 22, 2007

eddym said:
Yes, of course. Don't tell me you've never done this.

Ok.

Ole · Apr 22, 2007

Half the fun of using meter-less cameras is to use them without a lightmeter.

All my FED and MF folder shots were (and are) unmetered, and very few needed any darkroom "trickery" to be printable! I'll happily shoot slide film umetered too, as long as I know the camera (shutter) well.

copake_ham · Apr 22, 2007

jstraw said:
1/ISO? like 1/100 for ISO 100, 1/400 for ISO 400?

As other have noted, yes.

Simply apply the Sunny 16 rule and compensate for lower light levels. I won't claim to always be as accurate as my meter - but in most outdoor shooting situations I mainly verify the first shot by checking the meter. Thereafter, I can fairly readily adjust the aperture setting simply by noting how the light has changed from my first shot. I then do an occasional "double check" with the meter just in case...

Michael W · Apr 22, 2007

Julius Shulman, the great American architectural photographer, wrote that he never used light meters. He started in the '30s when they weren't around & by the '60s, when they were, he felt that he didn't need one as he was so experienced at judging exposures. Some of his famous shots such as the Palm Springs house & the one in the hills of LA were very long evening exposures, all worked out in his head.

Roger Hicks · Apr 23, 2007

eddym said:
No, get a double stroke. And don't worry... they don't break down. My 1957 vintage M3 DS is still working perfectly. Yes, it's been CLA'd once... but it's never "broken down"!

If you're used to single-wind cameras, though, they are a disaster area. Wind on; try to take picture; OH SH*T; wind on again...

I had one double-wind M3 and hated it; I'd much rather have a knob-wind. I've had a few other DW cameras too, and loathed them all.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks · Apr 23, 2007

goldie said:
Julius Shulman, the great American architectural photographer, wrote that he never used light meters. He started in the '30s when they weren't around & by the '60s, when they were, he felt that he didn't need one as he was so experienced at judging exposures. Some of his famous shots such as the Palm Springs house & the one in the hills of LA were very long evening exposures, all worked out in his head.

'Worked out in his head' is the key. You don't measure the light; you compare the lighting plot with others stored in your memory. At that point HCB's trick is really quite easy.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks · Apr 23, 2007

Jim Noel said:
So to answer the question about exposure calculation w/o a meter, it is very simple - EXPERIENCE AND MEMORY

Dear Jim,

I couldn't agree more!

The next few days' meals are much less exotic. Tonight (Monday) is barbecued rabbit and sausage with a blistered pepper, tomato and shallot salad (made yesterday to allow the flavours to marry); tomorrow (Frances's day at the sewing circle), a chickpea-and-potato stew with chorizo and stinging nettles; and there's the rest of the rabbit marinading in a bottle of Cahors with shallot, garlic, capers, tarragon and bay leaf for a Maltese fenech stufat (stewed rabbit) later in the week.

This is one reason I prefer ready-mixed photographic chemicals: I spend enough time cooking up things to eat, without spending the same time again cooking up my own developers.

Cheers,

R.

Steve Roberts · Apr 23, 2007

snegron said:
Today many of us obsess over the quality of the built in light meters of our cameras, probably couldn't live without them. Many have opted for using handheld meters, but the end is the same. How did they do it?

I suspect that a lot of the ability to judge exposures comes down to the experience born of starting out in photography on a shoe-string. When I began I had a non-metered camera because that was all I could afford. Yes, I graduated to TTL metering as cash permitted, but I only ever regard a meter as putting me in the right ball-park, and anything that a meter tells me almost invariably needs tweaking by "an amount" to give the desired result.

This is, I suggest, one of many places where things go wrong for the person who simply flashes a credit card and jumps straight in with fancy kit, expecting the technology to do all the work in producing good pictures.

As a BTW, lets not forget that much of the work of the great photographers was itself great not because of being accurately exposed to 1/8th of a stop or obeying the zone system to the letter - it was great because of the emotion it captured. Perhaps the most extreme examples of this are Robert Capa's images of the D-Day landings - fuzzy, no detail, poor tonal range - I sure wish I'd taken them !!!

Steve

firecracker · Apr 23, 2007

I don't "guesstimate" anything, but I've been using the same 400ASA films with the same cameras for more than 5 years, so I kind of know the necessary readings for my shots now. Besides, obviously developing my own film helps to get more accurate for the final images.

eddym · Apr 23, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
If you're used to single-wind cameras, though, they are a disaster area. Wind on; try to take picture; OH SH*T; wind on again...

I had one double-wind M3 and hated it; I'd much rather have a knob-wind. I've had a few other DW cameras too, and loathed them all.

Well, maybe it's a matter of what you are accustomed to. I habitually double-stroke my M4-2 and M6, finding the 2 quick short strokes easier and faster than the long throw of the single stroke, especially when shooting rapidly with the camera at eye level.
But as they say... different strokes for different folks!

John Bragg · Apr 23, 2007

The reason I use fully manual metering is so that I can make the important decisions regarding metering my self, such as how to allow for backlit subjects and other such instances that fool automatic exposure. Like Roger my camera is invariably pre-set to my best guesstimate and the meter used to confirm this, whilst applying any compensation needed. I am not often far out, and on the odd ocasion I have used an unmetered camera (Zorki 4k) the negatives have been more than acceptable.
I think also that the "TRICK", if there is one, is to give generous exposure and develop to hold highlight detail. It has been said that HCB,s negatives were on the dense side, so maybe this is true ???

Regards, John.

mayokevin · Apr 27, 2007

I remember an article in the old Camera Arts where the author followed HCB around and watched him work. The one thing I recall is that HCB was constantly metering a scene checking the light.

snegron · Apr 27, 2007

mayokevin said:
I remember an article in the old Camera Arts where the author followed HCB around and watched him work. The one thing I recall is that HCB was constantly metering a scene checking the light.

With a handheld meter?

PHOTOTONE · Apr 28, 2007

It is not a great trick to learn to expose film without a meter. As most have said, it just takes practice and memory. It is interesting to note that the Sunny 16 rule seems to be more Sunny 11 nowadays. Wonder why? I can confirm that my transparencies in bright sunlight work more often at Sunny 11 with shutter speed as ISO of film.

PHOTOTONE · Apr 28, 2007

One additional comment. Meters have only been readily available for less than 1/2 the time period photography has been possible. So for the first 75 years or so, you HAD to learn to expose "by eye" and experience.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Apr 28, 2007

PHOTOTONE said:
It is interesting to note that the Sunny 16 rule seems to be more Sunny 11 nowadays. Wonder why? I can confirm that my transparencies in bright sunlight work more often at Sunny 11 with shutter speed as ISO of film.

I've noticed the same thing, but I wonder if it's not a function of latitude. I think sunlight is more intense when you go near the equator, is it? I make my own calculation based on f/11, not f/16.

genecrumpler · Apr 28, 2007

Many of us started shooting before meters were generally availble. I took slides and B&W for maybe 6-7 years before getting a Brockway meter. Now I use a hasselblad and 4x5, none with meters. It is a skill that one learns. I was at Sexton's 2004 advanced workshop and we went to visit Kim Weston at Wildcat hill. Kim was showing off his new 8x10 Acar Swiss and i pulled out the bald and made an exposure. I later sent the image to John and Kim. Sexton was quite suprised that I got the image with no meter.

Experience does count!. I no longer carry a meter. I use summy 16 and expose at one more stop (i.e Tmax 100 and delta 100 at 50 and also fuji 160 at 50) I also use two bath Diafine and I can't remember the last time I got a thin negative. Print B&W with condensers and color on an Epson 3170.

BTW- the money I spent on Sexton's two work shops is the best investment I have ever made in photography.

Taurus 8 · Apr 29, 2007

It's like anything...practice makes perfect. I once had a car that only I could drive smoothly...the clutch had worn almost to nothing, but I just knew how to use it and it was smooth for me. Other people hated driving it because it'd buck and stall for them.

When I play guitar on familiar pieces, I set up my hands for the next chord change because I've been there, I know what's going to happen.

I have one picture I took of a chipmunk I have framed on my living room wall...people ask "how did you get the glint in the eye, the sharpness of the exposure, the lack of depth of field that makes your eye drawn to his face" etc. Truth be told, I just guessed at the exposure - I had no time to read the meter of my K1000. I got off 2 quick shots before he was gone...the first looked like an earthquake struck, the other...magic.

Sometimes the gods smile upon you, sometimes they don't.

bjorke · Apr 29, 2007

I could do the HCB trick in any of the places I typically shoot or spend time -- my home, my office, anywhere outdoors in this region, in the forest, on the lit city streets, restaurants.... it's really not all that hard! It can be learned mostly by rote.

Of course, this doesn't make camera manufacturers any money. Like cars and pistols, the makers have convinced everyone that they need an automatic.

How did they do it?

MattKing

Moderator

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

catem

Jim Noel

eddym

eddym

jstraw

Ole

Moderator

copake_ham

Michael W

Attachments

Roger Hicks

Roger Hicks

Roger Hicks

Steve Roberts

firecracker

eddym

John Bragg

mayokevin

snegron

PHOTOTONE

PHOTOTONE

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

genecrumpler

Taurus 8

bjorke

How did they do it?

Moderator

Membership Council

Moderator

Attachments

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency