Shooting without a light meter

Latitude isn't a myth Drew, it's a reality of modern film and follows your own "definition of quality".

If your definition of quality is a contact sheet where each frame is consistently exposed so that you can choose print candidates quickly and effectively. Then even black and white negative film would have a very narrow "Latitude" and you would need a meter to obtain quality results - according to this definition of quality.

If you just want to have a blast in the darkroom and print anything that looks fun without worrying what differences in print exposure time are thrown your way... Then you might not want to make contact prints because they will mislead you to fret that a particular negative is "overexposed" compared to another. In this "definition of quality" you have much "Latitude" with black and white negative material, in the side of overexposure. Underexposure is hazardous so it is helpful to err on the side of overexposure.


There's a lot more that can be said, but some of my thoughts can be simplified like this...

For black and white negatives...

With contact print consistency as a measure of quality, Latitude is tight. Listen to Drew Wiley.
With print-ability as the measure of quality, Latitude is generous in the direction of overexposure.

Latitude is a marketing tool for amateur films like Kodacolor Gold in disposable cardboard cameras. It's utter voodoo when working with a
film on power steering like TMX100 in a high contrast situation. A film like this will easily blow out the highlights in bright snow if you're trying to retain values in deep shadows at the same time. Of course, the reward for careful metering is being able to bag the entire gradation without sacrificing midtone gradation through minus development. To do this kind of thing require understanding correct shadow placement on just the correct position on the film curve. (Yeah, I know... you folks who dont' shoot in clear high altitude air with twelve stops of range won't get it). When I want to break my own ideology, and am just out snapshooting casually, then I'll avoid hotrod films, and work with something less steep on the toe. But it is true, that with most (not all) black and white films, erring on the side
of overexposure is better than underexposure, unless you understand what rules you are breaking and why. We do that too sometimes.
And by all means experiment, because sometimes doing something "wrong" lends a degree of creative magic to something that would have
otherwise been missed. Yet fun is one thing, and consistent results another - at least until a degree of proficiency makes that instinctive and fun again.

Latitude is just a posh word for failure to understand what you are doing. Taking photographs without a meter is just plain dumb. If YOU want to control your final image, you need to understand how to meter a subject, what your equipment, metering regime, personal EI, developing time and methodology, desired results require of you in terms of the complete process. If I ever hear ‘Sunny 16” mentioned again I think that I will throw up! Get real, there is only one exposure that will give you EXACTLY the result that you have envisaged for a scene. Sure, when you have a degree of experience as a darkroom printer you can ‘save’ many negatives that are far from ideal but is this really your aim? Film and chemicals cost money as does the whole process cost you significant amounts of time. Why oh why would anyone want to throw this to the wind just for the sake of saving a few pennies or not taking the time to learn how to achieve the results that suit you?

So to answer the OP, get yourself a hand-held meter, learn how to use it and get on with making photographs how you want to. Also, bear in mind that a roll of film with each negative exposed correctly for what you wish to achieve will produce a very mixed and inconsistent looking set of contacts - which is the reason that I never make contact prints.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Note also that if the OP has a smart phone, (especially of the Apple flavor) there are a number of lightmeter apps out there in the sub-$5 range. I have a couple of them and while I have not done any serious tests, they appear to offer something in the way of additional input for exposure. One does not need to drop $100 or more for a dedicated piece of hardware.

Yeah I investigated that. My phone's light sensor appears to be limited (probably with software) to specific lux values that I assume are used as conditions to change the screen brightness. Given that my shooting with rules/tables has been okay I haven't really used it much.

I'm pretty new to photography in general so there's the possiblity that I don't realise what I can/want to achieve so haven't come up against the limits yet as such.

Also, I was under the impression that latitude was actually a thing and was how much extra "space" there was to fit all the information either side of a "centered" exposure. As in, if you had a latitude of 1 stop, you could under or overexpose by a stop and still have the same difference between the highlights and shadows. If you had an image with a high dynamic range, the latitude would be smaller so would benefit more from accurate metering.

Modern films have so much latitude, TMAX among them, that for the vast majority of scenes, you can easily expose 2-4 stops more than the "correct" exposure, which is really the minimum exposure, with no tonal penalty, and minimal grain penalty.

You should expend no energy trying to achieve the "perfect" minimum exposure, because for most scenes, doing so just limits your choices later by limiting the shadow detail in the negative. By this important measure, pursuing the minimum exposure hurts negative quality.

Sunny 16-type techniques work, have worked for generations, and will continue to work until the sun burns out.

Carriage,

Your impression is the classical view that is often taken regarding latitude.

In this view, there is a "safety factor," less than a stop, towards underexposure. This gives a fast, realistic speed. Instead of putting the average exposure in the middle which would cost you speed.

Most latitude remains on the side of overexposure. If you accept the commonly held belief... there are roughly 7 stops to a normal scene, then there might be 4 stops latitude towards overexposure.

One phrase that helps understand exposure placement: The least, if it is enough, is usually the best.

Correct exposure is a good thing, a separate light meter is a good thing to have.

An incident meter, such as recommended by Ralph Lambrecht, will help you make negatives where contact prints will look consistent.

Either way, even with consistent, accurate exposure... You can't really get away from making test strips in the darkroom. That's considered by most to be necessary for each and every print.

David Allen said:

Latitude is just a posh word for failure to understand what you are doing. Taking photographs without a meter is just plain dumb. If YOU want to control your final image, you need to understand how to meter a subject, what your equipment, metering regime, personal EI, developing time and methodology, desired results require of you in terms of the complete process. If I ever hear ‘Sunny 16” mentioned again I think that I will throw up! Get real, there is only one exposure that will give you EXACTLY the result that you have envisaged for a scene. Sure, when you have a degree of experience as a darkroom printer you can ‘save’ many negatives that are far from ideal but is this really your aim? Film and chemicals cost money as does the whole process cost you significant amounts of time. Why oh why would anyone want to throw this to the wind just for the sake of saving a few pennies or not taking the time to learn how to achieve the results that suit you?

So to answer the OP, get yourself a hand-held meter, learn how to use it and get on with making photographs how you want to. Also, bear in mind that a roll of film with each negative exposed correctly for what you wish to achieve will produce a very mixed and inconsistent looking set of contacts - which is the reason that I never make contact prints.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Click to expand...

david,

you should lighten up a little bit. its not the end of the world
or anything to get all worked up about. some people do things differently than you
there ARE different ways of using a camera, and no one way is right or wrong.

maybe using experience based exposures aren't suited for your photography
meters work for you, great. not everyone is you, or works the same way you do.


happy metering !

john

jnanian said:

david,

you should lighten up a little bit. its not the end of the world
or anything to get all worked up about. some people do things differently than you
there ARE different ways of using a camera, and no one way is right or wrong.

maybe using experience based exposures aren't suited for your photography
meters work for you, great. not everyone is you, or works the same way you do.


happy metering !

john

Click to expand...

Dear John,

well I do take my photography (but not my self) very seriously!

It is my belief that a lot of people who visit this site are just starting out with photography and are looking for sound advice.

The OP stated that they had recently started photography and had noticed a large variation in the negatives and asked if a meter would help.

I do not expect people to work the same as me simply because we are different and seek differing results.

However, much of the advice given included references to the latitude of the film but did not relate to how that will help if you are way out with your guessed exposures.

If someone is not photographing similar subjects in similar lighting conditions they are going to have problems assessing the correct exposure and this appears to be the case with the OP. Therefore, I would suggest that the most useful advice to give the OP is to get a meter and learn how to use it correctly.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

David Allen said:

Dear John,

well I do take my photography (but not my self) very seriously!

It is my belief that a lot of people who visit this site are just starting out with photography and are looking for sound advice.

The OP stated that they had recently started photography and had noticed a large variation in the negatives and asked if a meter would help.

I do not expect people to work the same as me simply because we are different and seek differing results.

However, much of the advice given included references to the latitude of the film but did not relate to how that will help if you are way out with your guessed exposures.

If someone is not photographing similar subjects in similar lighting conditions they are going to have problems assessing the correct exposure and this appears to be the case with the OP. Therefore, I would suggest that the most useful advice to give the OP is to get a meter and learn how to use it correctly.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Click to expand...

hi david

sorry to sound argumentative, ...
i agree people should get sound advice and this website should dispense sound advice
and i make it a point to dispense good advice, as you do

( to me at least ) it is probably more important to learn how to read light without a meter .. and to realize meters give false readings
and can be as inaccurate as someone doing sunny 16.
of all the follks using a meter ( spot, reflective or ambient ) i wonder how many of them religiously use a grey card, or do they just wing it ?
winging-it without a grey card ( to me at least ) seems like the same thing as judging the light from experience ...
( sorry to make a big leap here ) and it seems it would be a waste of resources ( time, materials &c ) to not use a grey card as much as it would to not use a meter ...

unfortunately to some "going meterlesss" is a shameful act
( as is not to use / care about step wedges or sensitometric testing
N+1 &c and a whole lot of other technical stuff many people thrive on ).

if it is such bad advice ( to judge light without a meter, learn from one's experience and expose accordingly )
why would kodak suggest people do just that .. ?
they ( kodak ) prints the sunny 16 exposure guide on every box of film they sell.

( sorry again for seeming argumentative, i don't take myself very seriously either )

john

For my shooting with Exa 1a I am using the app called Lightmeter in an android smartphone and that is proven to be good enough.
Yes there is a skill to be developed to use only my eyes, however it requires continuous practise that I can not guarantee.

jnanian said:

hi david

sorry to sound argumentative, ...
i agree people should get sound advice and this website should dispense sound advice
and i make it a point to dispense good advice, as you do

( to me at least ) it is probably more important to learn how to read light without a meter .. and to realize meters give false readings
and can be as inaccurate as someone doing sunny 16.
of all the follks using a meter ( spot, reflective or ambient ) i wonder how many of them religiously use a grey card, or do they just wing it ?
winging-it without a grey card ( to me at least ) seems like the same thing as judging the light from experience ...
( sorry to make a big leap here ) and it seems it would be a waste of resources ( time, materials &c ) to not use a grey card as much as it would to not use a meter ...

unfortunately to some "going meterlesss" is a shameful act
( as is not to use / care about step wedges or sensitometric testing
N+1 &c and a whole lot of other technical stuff many people thrive on ).

if it is such bad advice ( to judge light without a meter, learn from one's experience and expose accordingly )
why would kodak suggest people do just that .. ?
they ( kodak ) prints the sunny 16 exposure guide on every box of film they sell.

( sorry again for seeming argumentative, i don't take myself very seriously either )

john

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you are guilty of what you are accusing others of. 99.9% of people do not understand what a grey card is or does or how to use it and do not realise it is as unreliable as "winging it".

RobC said:

I'm afraid you are guilty of what you are accusing others of. 99.9% of people do not understand what a grey card is or does or how to use it and do not realise it is as unreliable as "winging it".

Click to expand...

i am guilty of claiming not using a meter, and using experince and sunny 11 / sunny 16 is wrong,
and it is wrong to learn to read light and set exposures from expereince instead of being tied to light
reading and sensitometry equipment and elaborate metering and developing techniques ?

not sure how this can be since 99% of the time i don't use a meter, i expose all my film the same way, no matter the iso
age or format, and develop it all in the same developer for the same amount of time ...

i also expose dryt plates and paper negatives, whether i coat them myself or they are from manufactureed photo paper
using sunny 16 as well ...

You removed the question you asked me so I removed the answer. End of of conversation.

David Allen said:

Dear John, ...
Therefore, I would suggest that the most useful advice to give the OP is to get a meter and learn how to use it correctly.

www.dsallen.de

Click to expand...

So he can produce beautifully exposed rubbish?
Bruce Guilden might say no instead buy a flash gun and go to Coney Island, so he could produce ... ?
If they print ok now what detectable difference will an exposure meter make?

I have learned a lot from this thread. Thanks guys! Apparently-

1- I am dumb.
2- I don't understand what I am doing.
3- There is only one correct exposure and I am not getting it unless I am lucky. (I am Irish, so I must be pretty lucky!)
4- I am sloppy, although my pants are neatly creased and my beard is neatly trimmed, so that one is confusing....
5- Don't dunk my light meter in a mountain stream or my exposures will still be perfect anyway. Good to know! I'll avoid mountain streams.
6- Spending a lot of time in high altitude air may reinforce my pedantic beliefs. I always thought mountain air was good for me. Who'uda thunk?


My personal opinion is that rules are for those that want their photographs to look just like the photographs of everyone else that follows the rules. Zonies take note. You just think your photos look different.

Over the years I have had my eyes opened a few times. I knew a girl once that pushed all of her slide film two stops. Every roll she shot. (A few people here just had an aneurysm hearing that). She made some great photos. When I first started photography I bracketed everything. I went through a lot of film on my first road trip. There was a three stop difference between the exposures and you know what? Aside from the underexposed frames, they all printed fine. I never bracketed again. The reality is shooting film is a little like shooting a shotgun. You just need to get close. How you determine that closeness is up to you. You can use a meter, your eyeball, flip a coin, machine gun it with bracketing, eeny-meeny-miny-moe it; doesn't matter as long as you are close.

I always like David Vestal's simple exposure suggestions. Don't underexpose, don't develop too much (I break that one all the time though). He had more to it, but I can't remember the rest and a quick google didn't find it for me. Maybe it is in one of his books. So much for rules.

Weston never used a meter. He found them stifling. Look how it turned out for him. Yeah. He sucked.

I have found a few "ways" myself over the years-
If in doubt, add a stop, or two even.
If the light is really low, set the lens wide open and the shutter speed to the lowest you can manage for the lens. It may not be right, but it will be the best you can get under the circumstances. I made many a picture that way at night.
You can print a thick negative. A thin one is a pain in the...
You will never have a thin neg if you don't underexpose. Duh.
There really aren't that many exposures. Guessing which one to use is pretty simple. Or you can just look at the box.
Shoot 'em all. One of 'em will be good....
Film is cheap. Time and travel isn't.

RobC said:

You removed the question you asked me so I removed the answer. End of of conversation.

Click to expand...

hi robC,
sorry, i edited my post to respond to what you accused me of ..
( instead of going off on some tangent about how i have
used and know how to use reflective meter readings and a grey card ...
i figured it was irrelevant and had nothing to do with what you posted )

to answer your question,
" how many stops different is 100% and 18% " ...


82 stops

jnanian said:

hi robC,
sorry, i edited my post to respond to what you accused me of ..
( instead of going off on some tangent about how i have
used and know how to use reflective meter readings and a grey card ...
i figured it was irrelevant and had nothing to do with what you posted )

to answer your question,
" how many stops different is 100% and 18% " ...


82 stops

Click to expand...

That depends on how you define a stop John. I define it as 2.621, so in my world there are 31.285 stops difference. YMMV.

Xmas said:

So he can produce beautifully exposed rubbish?
Bruce Guilden might say no instead buy a flash gun and go to Coney Island, so he could produce ... ?
If they print ok now what detectable difference will an exposure meter make?

Click to expand...

I am always surprised that the pursuit of control in photography (i.e consistently achieving the negatives that suit how you want your prints to look) is somehow always turned into "beautifully exposed rubbish". Why should this be the case? Sure there are lots of people who get obsessed with achieving technical perfection (however they, you or I may define that) but technical proficiency in itself is no barrier to making good images.

One of the keys to having control of your materials is that you can make negatives and prints that represent your interpretation of a scene rather than a technically literal rendering of the same scene. Hell, Ansel Adams managed to get National Parks created through his images and campaigning despite the fact that his images were heavily manipulated (or a long way from a technically literal rendering of the scene).

If you have an approach that suits your work then fine. You may well have learned over many years a perfect combination that suits the images you want to make. However, back to my point of providing sound information, if someone wants to progress quickly a sound approach to exposure is important.

There is nothing more sad to me than when someone comes to me for instruction and they have very well seen images ruined by severe underexposure (most often combined with severe overdevelopment). This combined with a lack of experience in the darkroom (or indeed with little knowledge of effective scanning of negatives) means that these images are potentially (and needlessly) lost for ever. To achieve an understanding of good exposure combined with appropriate development takes no more than 4 hours of boring tests and teaching.

All of the people that I have taught 'get it' in these 4 hours. They may then go on to adjust how they expose and develop as their knowledge base and experience increases but they have had a good foundation to swiftly move forwards. In general, such adjustments are based on a development of what and how they want to photograph things.

I think that the two 'opposing schools' of thought: experiment widely and seek out intuitively what works for you versus quickly pin down the variables and get on with making images the way you want cause great confusion for people starting out. When I was on the part-time BIIP PQE course at the Polytechnic of Central London, we received (as it was an accredited course by the prevailing professional organisation of the time) a wide gamut of technical instruction that included all the usual sensitometry, mixing of chemicals, working with X-Rays, Ultra-Violet, Infra-Red, etc and this was a very thorough grounding for tackling everything from press work to 10" x 8" transparencies of paintings for museums and auction houses.

At the same time, the BA and MA students were left to the 'just go out and try' approach. This, combined with a strict adherence to semiology and the writings of Lacan, Freud, et al led to most of the students on these courses becoming extremely frustrated at not being able to achieve what they wanted. A very large number of these ended up attending one of my father's weekend courses where they learning the simple basics. Needless to say, their ability to achieve the results that they wanted in a consistent manner greatly improved.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

snip

David Allen said:

Sure there are lots of people who get obsessed with achieving technical perfection (however they, you or I may define that) but technical proficiency in itself is no barrier to making good images. .....


I think that the two 'opposing schools' of thought: experiment widely and seek out intuitively what works for you versus quickly pin down the variables and get on with making images the way you want cause great confusion for people starting out.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Click to expand...

hi david

if someone has a system, technical or not, and it works for them to get what they want
why should it matter how sophisticated the system is? i agree, some people like the technical, some don't.
there is no reason to call someone out and suggest they are foolish because they might not use a system prescribed
by someone else .. ( and that is exactly what happens when someone stands their ground and suggests they don't need
a meter to get consistent, well exposed printable &c exposures. folks from the other camp jump all over them,
suggest they are fools &c and try to talk technical in circles around them to make them see inept )

over the years i have been called a liar &c because my results appeared to be consistant with
someone who has a different system in place. it was suggested i lied about the results from a developer i use,
( because i don't measure my ingredients and the person accusing me was a scientist and it was his way or the highway )
and even last year ( maybe a little longer than that ) when i suggested that tmy-2 exposed at 800 was "process normal"
( as suggested by kodak ) and i did just that, it was suggested that i lied about how i processed the film because it
was perfectly fine as expected, and the person whose homework i was doing didn't want to believe it was true ...

you are probably right being haphazard and just experimenting for
the sake of experimenting and not paying attention to anything is probably wrong.

but it is useful to learn the light and understand from experience.
one can still take notes, bracket and expose ... ( without a meter ),
understand what full sun, open shade &c are from experience.

when i first got a 35mm camera my teacher told me the meter was probably not correct
and to bracket my first roll to see how to read it + how to incorporate it into my exposure+development + print system.
he was right. the needle "dead-center" was wrong.
its no different than what i have suggested, but instead of relying heavily on a piece of equipment that might or might not
be working correctly &c, that one notices the intensity of the light and goes from there ..

whatever works, works + YMMV and all that stuff ...

sorry i have said sunny ... i didn't say it again,
i hope you didnt' really throw up ..

john

ps, i also agree that when one learns it is best to learn with a meter as much as one should actually pay attention
to what the meter is saying ...

David Allen said:

Why should this be the case? Sure there are lots of people who get obsessed with achieving technical perfection (however they, you or I may define that) but technical proficiency in itself is no barrier to making good images.

Click to expand...

Hi David

If is if you miss the shot cause you are playing with the meter?
Or cleaning a spec of dust of the lens.
Answell took one of his moonlight shots at risk cause the light was going too fast without using his meter and had to intensify the afterwards.
Does this mean he is a bad person?

Noel

Xmas said:

Hi David

If is if you miss the shot cause you are playing with the meter?
Or cleaning a spec of dust of the lens.
Answell took one of his moonlight shots at risk cause the light was going too fast without using his meter and had to intensify the afterwards.
Does this mean he is a bad person?

Noel

Click to expand...

Hi Noel,

I have never missed an image while playing with the meter (even when I worked commercially in fast moving situations as opposed to the relatively static subjects that I have been photographing for the last years). As I am working I take readings of the important shadows where I want to keep detail so am prepared. It somewhat reminds me of the press photographers that I used to meet on PR shoots in that period of highly automated film cameras just prior to the flood of digital. I often encountered a smirking (usually younger) press guy who could not resist asking how I could possibly do my job with a Hasselblad. He (it was almost always a he) would then explain what his new Canon / Nikon ? etc could do with its auto focus and auto exposure. He would explain that the auto focus was really fast (although they all used to do that thing of taking one shot then turning away refocussing and then turning back to refocus on the subject) and how pressing this and that button he could compensate the meter up to +/- 2stops and how much scope his zoom had.

Well I always used to get my shots because I had pre-metered and zone focussed so nothing to be set. As to his super zoom, well if I had to crop the image a little bit not problem for a 10" x 8" print from a 6 x 6cm negative. Also, as I mostly did not know if the magazine / paper required a landscape or portrait orientated shot the square format also helped with that as well.

As to cleaning specs of dust from a lens - well who does that? - yes if the covering filter got splashed with water but specs of dust?

By the way ol' uncle Ansel got the shot because he was prepared with the knowledge of the luminance of the moon - but this is splitting hairs as this is an exception to his normal working methods (and yes I am in the camp that believes his later work was not all that but his printing and teaching skills certainly got better).

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

David Allen said:

There is nothing more sad to me than when someone comes to me for instruction and they have very well seen images ruined by severe underexposure...

I think that the two 'opposing schools' of thought: experiment widely and seek out intuitively what works for you versus quickly pin down the variables and get on with making images the way you want cause great confusion for people starting out.

Click to expand...

Hi David Allen,

Except for using the saint's name in vain, this was a beautiful post, well worth re-reading.

It's always the shot that I want to print, that is technically deficient, which drives me to more technique.

But it's like wanting to teach musicians to read sheet music when they want to play by ear. All they know is the "square" musicians read music. Don't worry. You can read sheet music and still play Jazz... You can understand sensitometry and still take photographs. It does not get in the way. It comes into play when you are in the darkroom getting ready to develop film. Then you have time and are in no danger of missing a shot.

Fiddly cameras and light meters get in the way sometimes, but with practice you realize you can meter the light when you get there, set the camera to settings you would probably have used anyway... And then shoot knowing the latitude will cover minor changes in light between your meter reading and your shot.

David Allen said:

the BA and MA students were left to the 'just go out and try' approach. This, combined with a strict adherence to semiology and the writings of Lacan, Freud, et al led to most of the students on these courses becoming extremely frustrated at not being able to achieve what they wanted.

Click to expand...

I've read my fair share of Lacan and Freud, but I don't recall them offering very much in the way of advice on exposure and development, I have to say ...

Yeah... I had a couple of beginner's luck negatives. But what about the next five hundred? Some of you must have a lot of money to waste
on film and travel and printing, imagining that you'll magically be more creative without a meter or disciplined process controls. Just hop in
the car and hit the road... Well, how far will you get if you drive into a tree, or if the gas tank is empty, or if you haven't checked your engine
oil? Those kinds of artistes are dime a dozen in this town. Everyone around here with green hair, a nose ring, and a Holga thinks they're
a creative photographer, which is exactly why all their remarkably creative non-technical shots all look similar, just like they do.