Is it possible to train oneself to accurately interpret light intensity?

[MattKing]

I frequently evaluate the light intensity without a meter, but rarely stop there.

I use the results of that evaluation as a check on what my meters tell me, and to inform my exposure decisions.

It helps me ensure that I think about my choices.

 

[kintatsu]

...And real accuracy is never guaranteed with a light meter, either. We must learn to correct that 'dumb' meter and we do so by judging: 1) the reflectance value of the scene's important elements (ie, the meter does not know how light of dark an object should be) and 2) the overall contrast...

A good meter will give you luminance readings from your subject. Even a regular spot meter can give you that, if you set ISO to 64 and f/ stop to 8, the resulting shutter speed is the reciprocal of the luminance expressed in c/ft2. Having good quantified readings, you can then interpret the results for your placements and vision.

Placing a value at meter or x stops over/under is not really correcting your meter, it's a value judgement based on individual visions.

Your meter doesn't need to know how dark or light it should be, it's giving you an approximately 18% reference value. At least in the nominal, basic gray placement.

 

[markbarendt]

Reasonable, workable, but not always exactly right.

The real need for exact placement in most situations is IMO typically overstated. It truly depends on the film choice, subject in play, and self imposed constraints.

Surely if Provia or Vlevia or similar film is used and it is going to be projected then there is very little tolerance for exposure errors and if needed to get proper subject placement within the frame one must use artificial lighting or posing or creative composition or some such thing to manage where things fall.

With negatives exact can be important if like Vaughn you are deep in the forest and have an SBR of 12 stops or some such long scale subject that may use up the whole range a negative can catch.

Those are both special cases rather than the norm.

When shooting more "normal" SBRs with negative film exact placement becomes mostly a convenience to say, save a little work in the darkroom, rather than a physical necessity.

Shooting to be exact with the camera is not without it's own cost, it requires more thought and time and effort.

When I'm just out and about with a camera I typically carry my camera set for the darkest situation I'll be in, then if something happens fast all i need to think about is focusing and composing. This type of work means I work harder when printing.

My other extreme is a studio setup, here exact matters to me. From studio setup I expect to set the enlarger once for all the work done during that whole session and not to have to do any burning and dodging. This means I work harder when I'm shooting.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

If it were so easy, light meters would never have been invented.

Maybe there are people that have "absolute luminance judgment" in the way that some musicians have perfect pitch, but if the phenomenon is as rare among photographers as perfect pitch is among musicians, light meters are not going to go away anytime soon.

I'll estimate using sunny-sixteen or even a know luminance in a pinch, but I really prefer to use my spot meter.

Best,

Doremus

 

[kintatsu]

...I'll estimate using sunny-sixteen or even a know luminance in a pinch, but I really prefer to use my spot meter...

Same here. Using my meter gives me a starting point, and a reference for the future.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've posted these before in various places:

Average indoor lighting--enough to read by--is remarkably consistent: f:2.0 at 1/30 sec., EI 400. Open up a stop for medium-low light or maybe even three for dark spaces like bars, and stage lighting is something else entirely.

Most floodlit buildings at night are about f:2.0 at 1/4 sec., EI 400.

Outdoors on a sunny day, open shade is about two stops darker than direct sunlight--but these are the old rules on the film box--f:22 at 1/ISO for a sunny day at the beach or in the snow, f:16 in a regular scene, and so on.

 

[markbarendt]

I agree David, light is remarkably consistent in given situations.

 

[JBrunner]

I evolved to where I can function without a meter. Sort of a walking incident meter. But I have never managed to reach the point where I can evaluate values within a scene as well as my spot meter, and I doubt I ever will.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

"Is it possible to train oneself to accurately interpret light intensity?"

No.
A light meter, used intelligently, is as good as it gets. And that's very good indeed - I don't think a light meter has given me a bad exposure yet this millenium.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I've posted these before in various places:

Average indoor lighting--enough to read by--is remarkably consistent: f:2.0 at 1/30 sec., EI 400. Open up a stop for medium-low light or maybe even three for dark spaces like bars, and stage lighting is something else entirely.

Most floodlit buildings at night are about f:2.0 at 1/4 sec., EI 400.

Outdoors on a sunny day, open shade is about two stops darker than direct sunlight--but these are the old rules on the film box--f:22 at 1/ISO for a sunny day at the beach or in the snow, f:16 in a regular scene, and so on.

This works well if you are relying on the exposure latitude of your film/developer combination, I use pretty much the same numbers myself for casual stuff with 35.
But - when I want to know precisely where tha values will fall on the film's scale, there is no substitute for a meter. I cannot afford to bracket with 8x10 film. Or 4x5.

 

[BrianShaw]

... there is no substitute for a (accurate) meter. ...

My bottom line conclusion... but I wish good will to anyone who quests for an alternative.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

My bottom line conclusion... but I wish good will to anyone who quests for an alternative.

As do I ... just so long as they refrain from claiming that they can guesstimate exposure as accurately as exposure can be measured by an accurate meter, used intelligently.
It seems to be a macho thing for some, going without a meter - much like some shooters who claim (loudly, so they can hear themselves over the tinnitus) earplugs are for wimps.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think it's good to know the ballpark figures, so you can interpret what the meter says, and to recognize when you're using the meter in such a way as to get an unreasonable reading (pointing the incident dome at the wrong angle, wrong ISO setting, etc.), or when the meter isn't working properly (dead battery, out of calibration, etc.).

And even then, there are situations where you can be using a meter properly, but you still may want to bracket, and it's good to know those situations as well. The most typical one is a contrasty scene outdoors with color transparency film, where you might have a one-stop range of "correct" exposures that each emphasize a different aspect of the scene, or create a different overall mood.

 

[Bill Burk]

Of course, if anywhere is going to be the repository of knowledge how to estimate light without a meter... it's got to be APUG.

As I just pointed out in another thread (and as David A. Goldfarb just pointed out too)... A valuable purpose for learning to estimate light... is so you know instinctively that your light meter ASA dial might have slipped.

 

[NedL]

It depends on what I'm doing. With an old folder loaded with b/w film I almost never miss so badly that the negative is unprintable... and it is fun and liberating in a way to go fully sunny 16. Often with pinhole cameras I go completely sunny 16... it is part of the quirkyness and "expecting the unexpected" fancy free spirit of pinhole photography. For more "serious" exposures I use my meter carefully. I agree that shady scenes, dull-day late afternoon or early morning, sometimes I cannot guess exposure well at all... I am not aware of how much my eyes are dilating to compensate for the dimmer light.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Of course, if anywhere is going to be the repository of knowledge how to estimate light without a meter... it's got to be APUG.

As I just pointed out in another thread (and as David A. Goldfarb just pointed out too)... A valuable purpose for learning to estimate light... is so you know instinctively that your light meter ASA dial might have slipped.

And just to keep ones brain working.

 

[Vaughn]

This was nice to have occasionally (back of my old Rolleiflex);

 

[markbarendt]

I evolved to where I can function without a meter. Sort of a walking incident meter. But I have never managed to reach the point where I can evaluate values within a scene as well as my spot meter, and I doubt I ever will.

There was a point where I tried to get to this point and I can muddle through pretty nicely especially in the classic "film box directions" situations.

I found though that the act of metering, regardless of the method, takes a significant amount workload and worry off of my brain.

 

[David Lyga]

Ambivalent? Over lighting? :confused:
I surmise that your theories may come from a lack of in-depth knowledge and experience with meter. Especially the commentary about the lack of accuracy of light meters. Where did you get that idea from? In skilled hands, exposures are what the photographer sought, first and foremost, provided he has the skills and experience to know. What's difficult about that? Meters certainly are not dumb.QUOTE]

Poisson, there's something fishy here. First, I did not say that light meters were inaccurate. But I did say that they were dumb and that is because they do not know what the reflectance value of the photographed objects should be. That makes them dumb. A black cat in a coal mine receives quite a different level of exposure than does a white bride surrounded by her bridesmaids, even if the incident light level is the same. But...and this is the tricky part...NOT as great a difference as that light meter would indicate. The light meter would indicate that BOTH scenes should be recorded as medium grey. Of couse, this must be modified by the human brain's interpretation of the subjectivity of that subject matter. One EXPECTS to see quite a different rendidtion than what the meter assumes is 'correct'.

The responses to my post are really overwhelmingly intelligent and well thought out. This is a topic that simply cannot be hacked to death. David Goldfarb, I am going to disagree a bit with you in that the particular situations you offer are really quite easy and redundant and lend themselves towards mastery without a light meter. But what perplexes me the MOST are those shade or dull scenes that are literally 'all over the place' and conflating that fact with the fact that the brain 'accommodates' such extremes points to a virtual necessity for a light meter in such situations. - David Lyga

 

[BrianShaw]

... than what the meter assumes is 'correct'.

This may be the flaw in the logic. The way light meters operate are based on engineering assumptions, but it is not one of "correctness" as much as it is one of statistical normalcy. It is the operator who fails to understand how meters work and how photographic exposure works that assumes "correct".

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Ambivalent? Over lighting? :confused:
I surmise that your theories may come from a lack of in-depth knowledge and experience with meter. Especially the commentary about the lack of accuracy of light meters. Where did you get that idea from? In skilled hands, exposures are what the photographer sought, first and foremost, provided he has the skills and experience to know. What's difficult about that? Meters certainly are not dumb.QUOTE]

Poisson, there's something fishy here. First, I did not say that light meters were inaccurate. But I did say that they were dumb and that is because they do not know what the reflectance value of the photographed objects should be. That makes them dumb. A black cat in a coal mine receives quite a different level of exposure than does a white bride surrounded by her bridesmaids, even if the incident light level is the same. But...and this is the tricky part...NOT as great a difference as that light meter would indicate. The light meter would indicate that BOTH scenes should be recorded as medium grey. Of couse, this must be modified by the human brain's interpretation of the subjectivity of that subject matter. One EXPECTS to see quite a different rendidtion than what the meter assumes is 'correct'.

The responses to my post are really overwhelmingly intelligent and well thought out. This is a topic that simply cannot be hacked to death. David Goldfarb, I am going to disagree a bit with you in that the particular situations you offer are really quite easy and redundant and lend themselves towards mastery without a light meter. But what perplexes me the MOST are those shade or dull scenes that are literally 'all over the place' and conflating that fact with the fact that the brain 'accommodates' such extremes points to a virtual necessity for a light meter in such situations. - David Lyga

David. All tools are dumb, i.e. non-sentient. No tool is better than whomever wields it. The most important piece of equipment is between your ears.

 

[Bill Burk]

The way light meters operate are based on engineering assumptions, but it is not one of "correctness" as much as it is one of statistical normalcy.

A Zone System sticker quickly converts a reflective meter from one that assumes a statistical normal to one that facilitates intentional interpretation. Thus the "black cat in a coal mine" can properly be turned into that.

 

[BrianShaw]

A Zone System sticker quickly converts a reflective meter from one that assumes a statistical normal to one that facilitates intentional interpretation. Thus the "black cat in a coal mine" can properly be turned into that.

Sure, but I'd phrase that just slightly differently: ... from one that assumes a statistical normal to one that MORE EASILY facilitates A PHOTOGRAPHER'S DESIRED intentional interpretation. I can do that intentional interpretation with or without a ZS sticker, for example. The meter is still "dumb" even with a ZS sticker.

 

[Bill Burk]

Sure, but I'd phrase that just slightly differently: ... from one that assumes a statistical normal to one that MORE EASILY facilitates A PHOTOGRAPHER'S DESIRED intentional interpretation. I can do that intentional interpretation with or without a ZS sticker, for example. The meter is still "dumb" even with a ZS sticker.

I like your phrasing better, mine just sounds jargon-ey.

 

[Sirius Glass]

... there is no substitute for a meter. ...

Sunny 16 in nice for a sanity check, but I have learned that when used correctly there is no substitute for a light meter.