How do you meter with your meterless Leica?

[removed account4]

How accurate should the meter be? And I mean accurate not whether or not it gives you the exposure you want.

a meter can be dead on accurate,
but the camera's shutter may be
dead on wrong,
and
the person reading the meter
might not be a precise meter user


i opt for over exposure, split processing in caffenol + ansco130
split 1/2 time develop as usual, normal time in ansco 130 ( 1:7ish, 4 mins )
then in sumatranol 130 continuous for 4 mins ... works perfectly ...
or if it is expensive outdated sheets of poorly stored film ( as i tend to use )
process continuously (shuffling in a tray ) for about 10-16 mins and contacting
the negatives ... not for vegans / vegetarians, the film is beefy

 

[E. von Hoegh]

How accurate should the meter be? And I mean accurate not whether or not it gives you the exposure you want.

The meter should be accurate enough that any error it introduces is negligible, most any modern meter can be calibrated to be the most accurate part of the exposure chain of shutter speed/aperture/development. Say 10% at the very outside, and linear. Saying that "the meter may be accurate, but the shutter may not, so it doesn't matter" is just nonsense; a meter can be used with any camera from a folding Kodak with two speeds + T & I to an SLR with speeds from 1 to 1/8000 sec., the meter is probably the easiest part to ensure the accuracy of.

 

[omaha]

"Measure with a micrometer, mark it with a piece of chalk, cut it with an axe."

 

[vpwphoto]

^^^ NO TWO meters meter/systems agree to the 1/10th of a stop, nor is 1/500 on a Hasselblad the same a 1/500 on a N90s. I had a Tamron lens that was a half stop and then some off what was marked.

A test of your methods, and going with that until they fail you is the way to go. And this develops your "Inner Meter". I was an a shoot with my meter-less Hasselblad shooting a commercial job on E-6. I checked exposure for a photo under a sunny sky and got a reading I KNEW WAS WRONG!!! Something was wrong with the meter (it was off by at least 2 stops!!). After fuddling about and an art-director getting impatient, I had to go without the meter. Knowing what the sun was doing to back-lit people. We were using reflectors for fill.... I went with my gut. Didn't feel great, but it worked. Know your methods equipment, film and processing (these are all variables to "effective exposure"... and the rest falls into place.

 

[markaudacity]

Someone asked how accurate a meter needs to be. For negatives, you'll almost never notice a third of a stop either way. For slides, as accurate as you can get. Reversal is very sensitive to small changes in exposure. A third of a stop up or down changes the tone noticeably.

Also be aware that scanners are MUCH more particular about negative density than photo paper under an enlarger. If you're only judging your negs by how the scans look, you're not seeing the whole picture. "Perfect-looking" contrasty negs that will print well without filtration in the darkroom often scan very poorly.

If your workflow is exclusively scan-to-digital it's probably a good idea to underdevelop a bit. Scanners can often pull a lot out of thin negatives, but there's a maximum density they can't 'see' through and no amount of tweaking and tuning will change it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

In soviet times I was using ORWO color slide film instructions to take pictures with FED-2. I was totally unaware what "exposure" means. All I did is checking the instructions print (which was provided with every roll) and finding picture in it with matching light conditions. Then set shutter and aperture accordingly. It was working fine.

I sold Bessa R and some other cameras and lenses couple of months ago to buy one beaten up, but working M4-2. With Bessa R I lost the sense of exposure. All I was doing is rotating the shutter speed dial and aperture ring to get right exposure signal in VF.
Now with same FED-2 and M4-2 I have Sekonic TwinMate 208 to check the light if I'm in doubt. More pictures I take this way, less often I need to measure.
Plus, B/W film seems to be forgiving some exposure mistakes as long as it is overexposure.

 

[BradleyK]

Another "sunny 16" shooter...backed frequently, I will admit, by recourse to my trusty Gossen Luna Pro SBC (back in action, by the way).

 

[benjiboy]

These days when quality light meters are so cheap and freely available, to proudly assert that you don't use one and rely on "sunny 16" is some sort of inverse snobbery that implies that you are too clever and experienced to need one, I started in photography 62 years ago when in my early teens when light meters were only owned by a few professionals and cameras with coupled rangefinders were the height of camera technology and most photographers had to not only know "sunny 16" but how to judge distance accurately, I knew how to do these things before many of our members were born, but I maintain that not to use some of the wonderful versatile and highly accurate light meters that are currently available is a sign of foolishness, and I doubt if many top professionals who get big bucks for their work rely on guesswork to calculate their exposures.

 

[cliveh]

Today the best light meter is probably a digital camera.

 

[markbarendt]

Today the best light meter is probably a digital camera.

Not IMO. I will grant that they can be handy but an incident meter gets me more reliable exposures even when I'm shooting digital.

 

[cliveh]

Not IMO. I will grant that they can be handy but an incident meter gets me more reliable exposures even when I'm shooting digital.

Mark, my point was that you are able to look at an image, as opposed to reading a number.

 

[markbarendt]

Mark, my point was that you are able to look at an image, as opposed to reading a number.

My point is that, especially in bright or low light situations, those little screens are hard to see and judge accurately and can even be downright misleading.

 

[cliveh]

My point is that, especially in bright or low light situations, those little screens are hard to see and judge accurately and can even be downright misleading.

True, but none the less I think an image is a better guide than a number in terms of guessing the correct exposure.

 

[benjiboy]

Today the best light meter is probably a digital camera.

That's not true Clive, the light meters in digital cameras are calibrated to the cameras sensor not film and 100 I.S.O on a digital camera will not produce the same exposure as it will on film, there were some extensive test on this subject a few years ago in Professional Photographer Magazine that proved this.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

 

[cliveh]

That's not true Clive, the light meters in digital cameras are calibrated to the cameras sensor not film and 100 I.S.O on a digital camera will not produce the same exposure as it will on film, there were some extensive test on this subject a few years ago in Professional Photographer Magazine that proved this.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

Is it not possible to match the ISO in some way?

 

[markbarendt]

Is it not possible to match the ISO in some way?

Sure, either is simply a reference point.

One of the problems though is the customization and automation built in to a digital camera; the ISO rating does not need to be applied in practice. Digital cameras regularly, in fact almost always apply modifiers to a whole range of characteristics that affect the result.

Light meters don't have this issue.

 

[Chan Tran]

That's not true Clive, the light meters in digital cameras are calibrated to the cameras sensor not film and 100 I.S.O on a digital camera will not produce the same exposure as it will on film, there were some extensive test on this subject a few years ago in Professional Photographer Magazine that proved this.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

But my Nikon F3, Nikon FM, Nikon F5, Nikon Df, Minolta flash meter III, Flash meter VI all agreed.

 

[TheToadMen]

My point is that, especially in bright or low light situations, those little screens are hard to see and judge accurately and can even be downright misleading.

My iPad screen isn't small and there are very good light meter apps available ;-)

 

[daleeman]

Sounds like this has gotten interesting.
I was shown as a young guy to do both read a meter and to rely on the Sunny 16 from the film box. So much so I would set the ASA/ISO reminder dial on the back of Dad's camera and then the shutter speed to match as part of the loading effort. Still do.
The light meter was always used indoors, at the house, in school auditorium when photographing plays, etc. Today I am blessed to have not only my M2 but also a M8.2 digital. The rear playback screen is not the best... it has the beginning of coffee stains on it too, and it has histrograms, but It is my light meter as I am ofen out with both cameras together. (Great way to carry lenses)
My instinct still rules, I still look, evaluate and set my cameras.

To the OP, go out and buy a nice quality used lightmeter, use a phone app or just follow the box instructions of sunny 16, just get out and shoot.

 

[markbarendt]

My iPad screen isn't small and there are very good light meter apps available ;-)

I have an iPad with metering app too, and in my iPod. These are very workable, they are light meters and as such more workable than digital cameras in my mind.

The problem remains though of it being hard to judge the picture it also provides. Bright and dark situations trick our eyes because or reference points around the iPad have changed.

 

[benjiboy]

The human eyes are a very bad instrument for judging light they react to changes in it's intensity imperceptibly to the owner, if they were any good nobody would have ever needed to invent light meters.

 

[Jerevan]

I use a Sekonic L308s (red of course, coz' red uns go fasta) with the incident dome. I set it at a time and aperture and adjust from there in shade or sunshine. Now and then I use the MR-4 - it's pretty nice to be able to adjust the shutter speed with one finger. I wish someone would come up with a contraption that incorporated the bigger wheel and left out the meter - it's good but rather heavy.

 

[Pioneer]

IMO correct exposure is over-hyped. If you have the time to sweat your exposure, fine. I have no issue with those who want everything perfect. But there are many types of photography where you get as close as you can and call it good.

For me, it usually depends on what I am shooting. If I have a large format camera on a tripod I almost always take the time to get the exposure where I want it. If I am using slide film I frequently take a couple shots at slightly different exposure. When I am shooting macro I will try hard to get a good exposure. But if I am working fast with my Leica M3 I don't get too stressed. I will take a meter reading to start and then work from there by eye. If I am in the ballpark where I know that I am going to get an image on film I am usually happy. Besides, I know I can make up for a few sins in the field when I am printing in the darkroom.

I appreciate that there are wonderfully accurate meters for me to work with, and I own a few. But fortunately for me, and a lot of others, there is no "perfect" one way to do most things in this hobby.

 

[cliveh]

The human eyes are a very bad instrument for judging light they react to changes in it's intensity imperceptibly to the owner, if they were any good nobody would have ever needed to invent light meters.

What a load of tosh. Our eyes are the final judge of what we produce.

 

[MattKing]

Originally Posted by benjiboy (there was a url link here which no longer exists)The human eyes are a very bad instrument for judging light they react to changes in it's intensity imperceptibly to the owner, if they were any good nobody would have ever needed to invent light meters.



What a load of tosh. Our eyes are the final judge of what we produce.

Actually, I think it is more correct to say that it is our brains/minds that are the final judge of what we produce.

The visual instrument we use is very sensitive - capable of observing and interpreting fine differences in light and shadow. With its built in "auto exposure" system it is, however, lousy at measuring the absolute amount of light.