Shooting without a light meter

Xmas · Mar 18, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
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.

The Brownie I started photography on had no controls at all, the negatives were all ok exposure wise.

DREW WILEY · Mar 18, 2015

My own mother used a box Brownie for decades. Yeah, all those shots sorta turned out too. Depends what you mean by "OK". Then you get
these idiotic comments like, if Edward Weston didn't need a meter, neither do we. Well, for one thing, we don't know how much film he wasted to get to the point where he could estimate exposures reliably. Second, he made many many exposures in similar lighting conditions and got used to it. Third, he did use a meter at one point in time. Or you take that anecdote of mine where I dunked the meter in the creek and still got excellent exposures. That's because I had metered thousands of shots under similar lighting and simply remembered the values. And I wasn't shooting a box Brownie loaded with error-tolerant amateur film, but was shooting large format chromes along with b&w negs intended for a very fussy printing. Did you think I can afford to waste that kind of stuff? Sure, anyone can play the piano too,
any way they wish; but not everyone is going to play in such a fashion and to make others want to listen to it. It helps to know what your
doing. Talking about "art" independent of refining your "craft" is utter nonsense. Leave that ideology for the cell phone crowd.

flavio81 · Mar 18, 2015

I'm amazed at some of the answers above. I see a poster above who clearly has not spent the extra effort to train his eye and shoot reliably without a meter; and thus claim that good exposures without a meter are "beginner's luck" and that doing such thing is "wasting money" on film.

Funnily enough, for the last three (3) years, about 95% of the pictures I took were taken without a light meter. Why? Simply, because most of my favorite cameras don't have a meter or don't have a working meter - Mamiya RB67, Mamiya C330, Kodak Retina IIIc, Nikon F. And I don't really feel like carrying a meter. Sometimes i take far longer when using a meter, since the typical centerweighted meters do need manual compensation by the user depending on the scene. Otherwise the exposure suggested by such a meter will be wrong.

In fact some of the best pictures I took were taken without a meter. One of my favorite games is, whenever I see another photographer out there with a DSLR shooting the same thing as me, to tell him/her my current exposure setting and ask him/her to take a look at the correct exposure he/she is using. I found i'm often correct within half a stop. Sometimes exactly correct. My contact sheets come out consistently just fine.

To be able to do this, the Sunny 16 rule is not enough, but then it's not rocket science either. The quality of shadows outdoors is a reliable indicator for a good baseline of the actual light intensity. Then you can compensate if the subject is backlit or under the shade -- the compensations stay constant and are reliable. Indoors is even easier; the eye alone being good enough to judge exposure. Of course, for this you need to train yourself first by comparing your judgement to a handheld meter. Then, little by little you will "pick up" a pattern and be able to do it by eye alone.

I thought i was pretty good at this, and I thought i had some special talent, until I had a conversation with a friend that was photojournalist for AP and UPI - Jaime Razuri, one of the best-known PJs here. You can google him. Anyways, he told me that, when he was a very young PJ, his older, seasoned colleagues would arrive at the scene, and then the "leader" of the PJs would quickly judge by eye the exposure and then dictate the exposure values (f/stop, speed) to the other photographers -- and with the detail of specifying different exposure values for every corner of the scene ("use this at this corner", "at this other corner you add 1 stop", etc). I'd guess this was the late 60s. That's how they did it, he said. No time for using the exposure meters. (This story was narrated to me when we both were shooting pics at the same event. Him with his nice Fuji X100, me with the Mamiya RB67. I did ask him what his exposure setting was; it agreed with my camera's setting (judged by eye), and then he told me the above story)

removed account4 · Mar 18, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
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.

hi drew

i don't use a meter much and i don't really have much trouble with creativity or my last 500 sheets of film.
i have probably shot the better part of 3000 sheets and 1000+ rolls without a meter over the last 13 or 14 years .. ( 35mm, 120, 4x5, 5x7 + 8x10 )
b/w as as well as color / chromes don't have green hair or a nose ring, but i have used a holga maybe 5 or 7 times, and it seems maybe 30 years ago
i might have had something that looked like a mohawk ... that said, i don't think i will be more magical or creative with a meter or a more disciplined process controls ...
or anything else.

i think the thing is that some people do great with a meter and love using one and making sure everything is just-so
and others are happy without a meter because they feel they know the light enough through experience to not worry about it. i also use a flash
( lumedyne 244 + sunpack ) and know from expereince that if i am making portraits with it x feet = x WS of light, i also know
and the mercury vapor lamps at my local strip mall and are 30feet high cast enough light to make a f22 45 second exposure using tmx(100) film.
i don't worry about it because i have done it .. the lights ( flash and MV lamps ) haven't changed, and i don't really think the light from the sun has changed much either ...

like with everything, whatever works, .. works.
you don't want to waste your time or film or effort not using a meter, that is great, more power to you !
but i don't bother, and i don't worry about it and don't think i am wasting my time at all
and i won't be calling people names who don't do as i do ... i've got thousands of beautiful negatives
without a meter and lots and lots of prints made from those negatives, seems to suit me fine ..

YMMV

David Allen · Mar 18, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
My own mother used a box Brownie for decades. Yeah, all those shots sorta turned out too. Depends what you mean by "OK". Then you get
these idiotic comments like, if Edward Weston didn't need a meter, neither do we. Well, for one thing, we don't know how much film he wasted to get to the point where he could estimate exposures reliably. Second, he made many many exposures in similar lighting conditions and got used to it. Third, he did use a meter at one point in time. Or you take that anecdote of mine where I dunked the meter in the creek and still got excellent exposures. That's because I had metered thousands of shots under similar lighting and simply remembered the values. And I wasn't shooting a box Brownie loaded with error-tolerant amateur film, but was shooting large format chromes along with b&w negs intended for a very fussy printing. Did you think I can afford to waste that kind of stuff? Sure, anyone can play the piano too,
any way they wish; but not everyone is going to play in such a fashion and to make others want to listen to it. It helps to know what your
doing. Talking about "art" independent of refining your "craft" is utter nonsense. Leave that ideology for the cell phone crowd.

Anyone who has read Edward Weston's daybooks will know how often he made a mistake with the exposure and ruined his photographs. During the 'shell / still life' period he got much better (but not without many return attempts) and from the 1930s onwards (with advice from Ansel Adams after many failed negatives, and no doubt too much whisky in AAs case, plus in response to the swiftly growing sensitivity of panchromatic films) worked for the rest of his career with a Weston Meter.

For the rest of Drew's comments I just want to say +1.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

flavio81 · Mar 18, 2015

jnanian said:
hi drew

i don't use a meter much and i don't really have much trouble with creativity or my last 500 sheets of film.
i have probably shot the better part of 3000 sheets and 1000+ rolls without a meter over the last 13 or 14 years (...)

i think the thing is that some people do great with a meter and love using one and making sure everything is just-so
and others are happy without a meter because they feel they know the light enough through experience to not worry about it.(...)

like with everything, whatever works, .. works.

+1

Well said.

eddie · Mar 18, 2015

The larger the piece of film, the more likely I am to use a meter. Half-frame to 35mm (and toy cameras) almost never. 6x6 to 6x9 most of the time (especially on the first exposure of the roll, assuming the others are under the same conditions). For 4x5, and up, always. For sheet film, though, I always "predict" exposure/development before metering. I'm right about 90 percent of the time. I've found it to be a good exercise, especially if my meter ever decides to take a swim, as Drew's did.

BetterSense · Mar 18, 2015

It's funny that I am the opposite. With 4x5 I rarely meter but with 35mm I'm somewhat more careful because of grain.

Patrick Robert James · Mar 18, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
My own mother used a box Brownie for decades. Yeah, all those shots sorta turned out too. Depends what you mean by "OK". Then you get
these idiotic comments like, if Edward Weston didn't need a meter, neither do we. Well, for one thing, we don't know how much film he wasted to get to the point where he could estimate exposures reliably. Second, he made many many exposures in similar lighting conditions and got used to it. Third, he did use a meter at one point in time. Or you take that anecdote of mine where I dunked the meter in the creek and still got excellent exposures. That's because I had metered thousands of shots under similar lighting and simply remembered the values. And I wasn't shooting a box Brownie loaded with error-tolerant amateur film, but was shooting large format chromes along with b&w negs intended for a very fussy printing. Did you think I can afford to waste that kind of stuff? Sure, anyone can play the piano too,
any way they wish; but not everyone is going to play in such a fashion and to make others want to listen to it. It helps to know what your
doing. Talking about "art" independent of refining your "craft" is utter nonsense. Leave that ideology for the cell phone crowd.

Well Drew, you must be ashamed of the way you are "playing the piano" because you never play for anyone. One of these days you should show us some of your work aside from that web site you used to have.

For anyone reading this, here it is- http://web.archive.org/web/201310190...om/gallery.php

But that can't really be your work can it? Someone as technical as you that never makes a mistake? A fussy printer? Or is someone else named Drew Wiley?

I don't have a problem with people doing photography any way they want. If someone with a nose ring and green hair wants to fly by the seat of his pants on his IPhone, that is fine by me (and I don't judge their fashion sense either). If someone wants to meter every single tone and calculate their exposure to the nth degree, that is fine by me too. In fact it is none of my damn business either way. My problem is with the people who are so pedantic they can't accept that their way is not the only way and treat everyone else like they are idiots because they themselves have discovered the Truth, The Way!

But then again, Drew thinks I am an idiot so it doesn't really matter what I think according to Drew. Everyone should just listen to Drew because he says he has it all figured out. He doesn't need to prove it. Just trust him up there on his soapbox.

Tiresome.

Sirius Glass · Mar 18, 2015

... and the internet never forgers anything!

Patrick Robert James · Mar 18, 2015

David Allen said:
Anyone who has read Edward Weston's daybooks will know how often he made a mistake with the exposure and ruined his photographs. During the 'shell / still life' period he got much better (but not without many return attempts) and from the 1930s onwards (with advice from Ansel Adams after many failed negatives, and no doubt too much whisky in AAs case, plus in response to the swiftly growing sensitivity of panchromatic films) worked for the rest of his career with a Weston Meter.

I have read the Daybooks three or four times David. More often than not he had issues with things moving on him due to the length of the exposures. He mentions that problem quite a lot (I recall off the top of my head with his banana and shell images). He also made mistakes with exposures, but meters were nearly useless at that time for the length of the exposures he was dealing with (hours). They just weren't that sensitive back then so he ended up making his best guess, and sometimes the light changed since he made his exposures outdoors in the shade. A bunch of clouds would screw it up for him leading to what he would call an underexposure - "undertimed". Ansel may have talked to him about meters, but that doesn't mean that he used one. He very rarely indicated anything about a meter in his Daybooks. If you have a particular reference to one I would love to see it.

David Allen · Mar 19, 2015

The daybooks stopped when Edward Weston met Charis Wilson and before his Guggenheim years - the last 10 years of his productivity and the period that he used a meter to guide his judgement.

"Young photographers are confused and amazed when they behold him measuring with his meter every value in the sphere where he intends to work, from the sky to the ground under his feet. He is "feeling the light" and checking his own observations. After which he puts the meter away and does what he thinks. Often he adds up everything ‒ filters, extension, film, speed, and so on ‒ and doubles the computation." Nancy Newhall in Edward Weston: Color Photography

Also, if you watch the film about Weston made by Willard Van Dyke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4aE2f07ON4&feature=related

you can clearly see him using a Weston Master exposure meter.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Xmas · Mar 19, 2015

David Allen said:
The daybooks stopped when Edward Weston met Charis Wilson and before his Guggenheim years - the last 10 years of his productivity and the period that he used a meter to guide his judgement.

"Young photographers are confused and amazed when they behold him measuring with his meter every value in the sphere where he intends to work, from the sky to the ground under his feet. He is "feeling the light" and checking his own observations. After which he puts the meter away and does what he thinks. Often he adds up everything ‒ filters, extension, film, speed, and so on ‒ and doubles the computation." Nancy Newhall in Edward Weston: Color Photography

Also, if you watch the film about Weston made by Willard Van Dyke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4aE2f07ON4&feature=related

you can clearly see him using a Weston Master exposure meter.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Yes he did and the Westons are calibrated with or for the zone system.

But sunny side /16 does not use judgement of light that would be well risky, it uses a look table in a calculator or in your head. If you use judgement you are doomed.

I do pack a Weston (and Ivercone) and it comes out of gbag when it is within two hours of local sunset, that normally also means I enter the nearest curry house or coffee shop. I even set the phone to alert on time... Sometimes I use an OM4 in manual/integrated.

Noel

removed account4 · Mar 19, 2015

great, weston + ansel adams used a meter !
and millions of others also used ( and currently use ) a meter !
whatever works for weston, and adams and millions of others is fantastic !

unfortunately, people who love to use meters ( and other stuff like sensetometric / densitometric toys )
have themselves elevated as if they are the be-all and end-all and everyone who doesn't do as they do are a bunch of hacks / WRONG.
its almost as if they have to single handedly re-create the f64 v mortenson feud and it gets kind of lame.

as seen in this thread ( they have no trouble calling people who don't "use" idiots, fools people who waste all their resources,
have no idea what they are doing, lack creativity & al. ( sorry i won't list them all ) ... )
at the end of the day, it is the final image that matters, ..
and i am sorry to show the man behind the red curtain,
but, there are plenty of non-creative, boring &c images made
by people who surround themselves by photographic technology.

the technology doesn't do much to aid in the creation of good photographs,
it just seems like something to brag about being used ( even if the final images lack luster ).

flavio81 · Mar 19, 2015

Patrick Robert James said:
My problem is with the people who are so pedantic they can't accept that their way is not the only way and treat everyone else like they are idiots because they themselves have discovered the Truth, The Way!

But then again, Drew thinks I am an idiot so it doesn't really matter what I think according to Drew. Everyone should just listen to Drew because he says he has it all figured out. He doesn't need to prove it. Just trust him up there on his soapbox.

Well said. I am getting tired as well. This kind of attitude is never good in this forum. Where is, for example, jnanian, telling other people NOT to use a meter? Using a meter is just fine and OK; but not using it is also a possibility and if it works OK for some people, then it's just all right.

It's like those people who tell you that digital photography is not "real" photography or things like that. I shoot film 99% of the time, but I'm just fine with people that use DSLRs. My choice is just a different choice, with some pros and some cons; not "THE right choice."

DWThomas · Mar 19, 2015

Aye, do what works for you!

On another forum there used to be an icon that I was looking for after about page 4.

Something like:

(It's animated if you click on it ....)

removed account4 · Mar 19, 2015

flavio81 said:
Well said. I am getting tired as well. This kind of attitude is never good in this forum. Where is, for example, jnanian, telling other people NOT to use a meter? Using a meter is just fine and OK; but not using it is also a possibility and if it works OK for some people, then it's just all right.

It's like those people who tell you that digital photography is not "real" photography or things like that. I shoot film 99% of the time, but I'm just fine with people that use DSLRs. My choice is just a different choice, with some pros and some cons; not "THE right choice."

its sad people are so upset / take offense &c by these things.

who cares how someone makes their photographic images
if you ask me, the problem is that there are people can't stand the fact that others do differently than them ...
so they call names and are harsh.

Quinders · Mar 19, 2015

I suppose if you're going to make a first post you might as well make it the most most contentious thread possible. Hello everyone <waves>.

I have to agree with the last couple of posters. I use a meter 95% of the time but would never presume to tell others that's the only way to make photographs and that they're fools if they don't. I've seen jnanian's photos and a lack of meter really doesn't seem to be holding him back.

In my experience as soon as I hear expressions like 'you must' or 'you have to', when it's related to photography at least, it's time not to pay too much attention.

And now I'm off for a bit more lurking. <waves again>

BrianShaw · Mar 19, 2015

I can't tell from looking at a photo if the photographer used a meter or not, let alone being able to determine if it was a reflective vs incident reading.

Ken Nadvornick · Mar 19, 2015

In the final analysis what counts are the photographs. The gulf between what someone says, and what someone does, can often be enormous. Always rely on the latter.

If one is looking to try out a new method to judge exposure, the logical thing to do is to ask someone who already practices the method of interest. Listen carefully, ask questions, but then always go look at their photographs.

Does what they said match up with what they did? Can you clearly see the cause-and-effect relationship? Did their use of the alternative method appear to make a difference? Or even the difference?

Or does what you see make no sense whatsoever when measured against what they said?

If the former, then it may be worthwhile to explore their alternative method further in your own photographs. Go out and give it a try.

If the latter, then politely thank them for their time and just ignore their advice and move on. It's not representative of the technical direction you wish to explore.

Ken

cliveh · Mar 19, 2015

Did Atget use a light meter?

pdeeh · Mar 19, 2015

Dunno.
I hear he had very long toes though

DREW WILEY · Mar 19, 2015

How many Hollywood photographers DON'T use a light meter and still expect a paycheck? Multiply them by a thousand and you still get zero.

cliveh · Mar 19, 2015

Did Brassai use a light meter?

cliveh · Mar 19, 2015

Did Kertész use a light meter?

Shooting without a light meter

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency