Shooting without a light meter

[removed account4]

clive, they were all hacks, and fools
and according to some people they might have been one of those
who claimed they didn't use a meter, but used one ( and told people they didn't )
you know, frauds ... and if the technology was available
and they didn't use it, they should have because their images
would have been even better. you have to be utterly foolish to be aware of
light, and how to read it and operate your camera without a meter.


threads like this never cease to amaze me ...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Did Atget use a light meter?

Did Brassai use a light meter?

Did Kertész use a light meter?

Just a little disingenuous. The unspoken underlying assumption is that the work they produced without benefit of modern meters was as technically proficient as that produced by someone who does use modern meters.

The more relevant begged question is, would their work have benefited further from using an accurate modern meter? And the answer to that is that they didn't, so we can never know beyond speculation. Which renders the above comparisons moot.

Note in advance that photographic artistry and photographic technology are complimentary, not mutually exclusive, properties. All three of those gentlemen could have wildly overexposed or underexposed their pictures just as easily as you or I can today. That they didn't evidences the application of some level of technical knowledge in their respective approaches.

So the question then simply devolves to one of degree. They were already doing something reasonable back in the day, but could they have done even better using today's tools? And that question can never be definitively answered.

Ken

 

[John Koehrer]

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

David.
www.dsallen.de

I like the "after which he puts the meter away and does what he thinks" part. Of course that follows his "feeling the light"

 

[Patrick Robert James]

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.

You must not know much about photographers in Hollywood. Handheld meters went the way of the dodo when digital came along. In fact most commercial photographers just use histograms or the computer to which they are tethered to check their exposure now. I would suggest that your premise of every photographer in Hollywood using a meter is exactly the opposite of the truth in this digital age.

If you meant cinematographers then you may have a point, just not one that you elucidated effectively. I also doubt that they all use meters either. Digital capture is not like film. You can see the product and make adjustments accordingly. No meter is needed. So fail on your premise. And they all expect a paycheck whether they use a meter or not.

I would love to hear the conversation between Drew and the cinematographer.

Drew- You shouldn't expect to be paid.
DP- What?
Drew- You didn't use a light meter.
DP- What the f--- does that have to do with you paying me?
Drew- I only pay people that use a meter since that is the only right way of doing things.
DP- What was wrong with my imagery? Was it not exposed correctly?
Drew- It doesn't matter. It just isn't right unless you use a meter! What are you, an idiot? Don't you get it?


Hilarious!

 

[removed account4]

You must not know much about photographers in Hollywood. Handheld meters went the way of the dodo when digital came along. In fact most commercial photographers just use histograms or the computer to which they are tethered to check their exposure now. I would suggest that your premise of every photographer in Hollywood using a meter is exactly the opposite of the truth in this digital age.

If you meant cinematographers then you may have a point, just not one that you elucidated effectively. I also doubt that they all use meters either. Digital capture is not like film. You can see the product and make adjustments accordingly. No meter is needed. So fail on your premise. And they all expect a paycheck whether they use a meter or not.

I would love to hear the conversation between Drew and the cinematographer.

Drew- You shouldn't expect to be paid.
DP- What?
Drew- You didn't use a light meter.
DP- What the f--- does that have to do with you paying me?
Drew- I only pay people that use a meter since that is the only right way of doing things.
DP- What was wrong with my imagery? Was it not exposed correctly?
Drew- It doesn't matter. It just isn't right unless you use a meter! What are you, an idiot? Don't you get it?


Hilarious!

i was just talking to someone a week or 2 ago about a technique he and others use to do photography
in hollywood nyc, chicago and all over the world. basically there is no meter, as you say the camera
is tethered to the computer and from the computer the operator adjusts every exposure
about 15-20 exposures are collaged/melded / layered together to create something that looks like "perfection"
(no its not hdr or anything like that ) ...

i can't say anything about film making / movie making, all my friends who were doing camera work or assistant / 1st assistant &c on set
are gone and were gone before digital movie making became a reality...
but yoru assessment is right on,

and it IS hilarious !
===

thanks for the kind words Quinders !

===

john

 

[DREW WILEY]

I said Photographers, Patrick, not Fauxtographers. Digital movies are for obese teenagers who have nothing better to do than hang around malls. This is an analog forum, so trying to twist my words into implying anything but actual film use in an obviously movie sense (cinema) is just playing the troll game. And if you want a pro meter calibrated, what town do you send it to? (implying where the most routine demand for that kind of service is). Now go back and play with your cell phone.

 

[DREW WILEY]

jnanian - "digital perfection" is exactly why I seldom go to a theater anymore. More like digital "fake" - a profession where digi manipulation and post-processing has become a substitute for actual lighting and camera skills. But quite a few theaters around here still specialize in the real deal. And this is the techie epicenter of the world. You'd be surprised at how many of these digital engineers prefer a real movie themselves. That's how mom n' pop neighborhood theaters manage to compete with the Mega-Plexes, which are actually in the industy of selling oversized overpriced sodas and popcorn to thirteen-year olds. But you've obviously rooting for the mega-plexes. A bit of a traitor for this forum, it seems.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... and enjoy your popcorn with artificial butter !

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I said Photographers, Patrick, not Fauxtographers. Digital movies are for obese teenagers who have nothing better to do than hang around malls. This is an analog forum, so trying to twist my words into implying anything but actual film use in an obviously movie sense (cinema) is just playing the troll game. And if you want a pro meter calibrated, what town do you send it to? (implying where the most routine demand for that kind of service is). Now go back and play with your cell phone.

I can only go by the words you use Drew. If you don't want any confusion then write what you mean specifically using the appropriate words without making any gross assumptions.

I am experienced enough not to need a light meter (which you can't grasp) but, if I wanted a light meter calibrated I would send it to Quality Light Metric Co which has a Los Angeles address, not Hollywood. West Hollywood is a town, Hollywood is a neighborhood of Los Angeles. There is no town of Hollywood in California. Just a little detail for you since you seem so wrapped up in them.

By playing with my cell phone, do you mean the light meter app on my cell phone that I don't use?

So confusing!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hollywood, LA, same difference. Same smoghole. You still need a passport to head north over the Grapevine into real California. But LA is
welcome to annex Bakersfield if they want it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... Oh now I understand your wizardry, Patrick. "35mm". Try 8x10 on for size with that "never need a meter" mentality. You'll need an elephant to carry your load of film holders, along with a second elephant to carry enough cash to pay for that much film. Even shooting a Nikon I'm not that cavalier. But I do need a paycheck and must spend it wisely.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Not sure what the size of film has to do with anything, but I do mostly shoot 4x5 these days. Film is film.

I am guessing that if you saw my Jeep you would say that your truck is bigger.

What I am getting from your reply is that to you film is expensive so you need to be anal when you use it. Is that the case? If so, why don't you just say that instead of insisting that photography can only be done with a meter?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hollywood, LA, same difference.

Not the same, but a person so interested in details would know that. Which leaves you where?

 

[removed account4]

jnanian - "digital perfection" is exactly why I seldom go to a theater anymore. More like digital "fake" - a profession where digi manipulation and post-processing has become a substitute for actual lighting and camera skills. But quite a few theaters around here still specialize in the real deal. And this is the techie epicenter of the world. You'd be surprised at how many of these digital engineers prefer a real movie themselves. That's how mom n' pop neighborhood theaters manage to compete with the Mega-Plexes, which are actually in the industy of selling oversized overpriced sodas and popcorn to thirteen-year olds. But you've obviously rooting for the mega-plexes. A bit of a traitor for this forum, it seems.

drew

my uncle was one of the projectionists at radio city for decades
you're preeching to the choir ...
all photography, digital or film based is fake ( its a fantasy )
but that philosophical conversation isn't really what is being discussed, and i don't
really know what that has to do with using a meter or not ...

you suggested that commercial photographers in hollywood use a light meter,
i suggested if they are current maybe they don't seeing most of the people i know, and know of
are tethered or read a histogram ... and they are currently shooting jobs.
my line of assignment work is outside the commercial sphere -- i do HABS/HAER work
and there is a movement within that "genre" to do everything digital. while i do some of the work
digitally, i fight it every chance i get because none of it is archival .. again, not in the scope of this conversation...

i am not really sure why you care so much that i don't use a meter,
is my so called wasting film really bothering you that much ?
if so, you must really be bummed out, its been about 10,000 exposures
( some 35mm and 120 but mostly 4x5-5x7 adn 8x10 )
that i haven't used a meter, maybe more ...

 

[MattKing]

There are still a couple of hundred movie screens in our metropolitan centre of more thsn 1,000,000 people, but none of the distributors are willing to supply film prints, so all of the theatres - from multiplexes to the few remaining neighborhood theatres - have been forced to change to digital projection.

To my knowlege, there is one remaining operating 35mm film projector in the city, in the theatre operated by the Vancouver Film Festival. They use it for the small number of international films they are unable to obtain in digital format.

The last couple of films I've seen - The Imitation Game, and Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - were shot on, respectively, Kodak Vision 3 film and Sony Digital media.

They both looked quite good, although I preferred the look of The Imitation Game. What was clear, however, is that the movie makers themselves cared about the appearance of their work.

In both cases, the lighting was quite dramatic, so exposure choices must have been carefully arrived at.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I applaud anyone burning up thousands of sheets and frames of film. That helps keep the coating lines going. I just can't afford that approach.

 

[flavio81]

I applaud anyone burning up thousands of sheets and frames of film.

Here is a quick pic of some contact sheets of pics I took this year, all without a meter, indoors and outdoors. Practically all of them are just fine. Some of them have been enlarged successfully as well, with good tones. Films Acros 100, Delta 400; camera RB67 pro-S.

No frames were "burned up" here.

In medium format, thanks for the practical absence of grain, overexposure or underexposure doesn't have quite a big impact on the image quality, compared with 35mm.

 

[removed account4]

I applaud anyone burning up thousands of sheets and frames of film. That helps keep the coating lines going. I just can't afford that approach.

my gallery here had close to 4000 images in it, all without a meter.

 

[DREW WILEY]

In emergency circumstances I too have successfully worked without a meter. And sometimes I do it with a Nikon in familiar circumstances.
But I'm hardly convinced about the consistency of work without one, especially given the equivocal justification just given. Some people rely
on "latitude". I'd rather hit the nail on the head.

 

[Carriage]

Assuming I'm looking at getting a light meter, is something like this useful even if I had a meter in the camera? I assum so as I'd be able to do incident readings with it.

http://www.sekonic.com/products/l-208/overview.aspx

 

[Bill Burk]

Hi Carriage,

Yes. That's a very good value and reliable meter. I have one and often use it because it is so small and light it's easy to take with you. It takes easily obtained batteries and operates a long time on them.

It has an "Analog" feel, but it's really got digital electronics feeding into a traditional meter needle coil. So it locks on readings and holds them solidly.

It's not waterproof though. I have dropped mine in a creek where it took about 5 minutes for a scout to fetch it for me, I shook it out as best as I could, put it in a baggie of rice for a few days and it worked fine since.

 

[frank]

If the camera I'm using has a light meter, I'll use it. If not, I don't.

 

[M6F6E6]

right on, Drew Wiley. But the first kid to wear his pants low was not original, he was just copying the local plumber, but with nice clean clothes and fancy undies!!! the first doof-doof homey to wear his cap backwards was not original either... so many 'trendsetters' are just toying with the reality of real life.

Same for the new Holga hipsters - they are just amateurs 'discovering' the past. Good on them, I say, but don't pretend you are original and unique. They are just wasting lots of good money on their slap-happy hobby. At least they will help keep film alive, maybe.

 

[Xmas]

In or about 1961 they changed the ASA (BS) standard for mono film by increase the box and data sheet speed by a factor of two cause more people were using photo electric exposure meters and the safety factor of just over a stop (for mono film) was no longer considered necessary.

Independently Kodak had done a large survey and found that a simple reflected photo meter gave the 'correct' exposure reading for about 99% of photos taken.

There is some awareness needed to use sunny side /16 or the tables in the data sheet or the Kodak circular calculator, but you also need similar awareness to detect when your shot is the 1% that a reflected reading will give that needs adjusting.

If you are a cine team the lights guy(or gurl) will/would need to use an incident dome on the leading man's (or ladies') nose, to allow jump cuts, and contacting printing, with either mono or ECN2, except maybe if you are only going to digitally post process.

When I shot weddings on transparency film I used a dome on brides nose, or a spot meter on dress.

If you have a sun lit landscape with too many zones for the film in camera (or 'dark slide') you are going to need to swap out the film or reduce development time etc. or have more difficulty printing.

If the light is fading fast you need to push the button ASAP, meter second...

All that should be in basic photo training.

 

[removed account4]

getting back to the OP

I started shooting film a couple of months ago with a Pentax SPII without a working light meter and seemed to be getting decent exposures based on the scans of the negatives I was getting(done by the lab). I've recently started doing some black and white myself and did my first contact sheet the other day having just printed a select couple of frames previously. I noticed that the exposures seem to be all over the place with some of the contact print images being very dark and a couple very light. However on the negatives there still seems to be plenty (probably?) of detail.

I assume the lab must have been correcting the scans? Are the differences on the contact sheet just because my guesses at EV are wrong (I think so)? Could it be that I still have all the information due to the film's exposure latitude? What benefit would buying a light meter have if the exposures still have all the information? Would it just allow easier printing as I wouldn't need to do test strips for every frame?

hi carriage:

i'd get a light meter, and learn how to use it. i would also take your camera to a repairperson ( if you haven't already )
and have it cleaned, adjusted and lubricated to make sure
your shutter speeds are accurate. its not worth getting frustrated about your exposures
and processing being off when you are first learning the ropes ..
get comfortable with exposing ( pay attention to the light and what your meter says,
and the scene ) and process your film. one thing you might also do is
bracket your exposures in case your light meter is a little off. take a roll of film,
and make 3 exposures 1 as the light meter says, 1 1stop over and 1 1stop under ( like f8, 11, 5.6 )
( or you can adjust your shutter speed since they are all interconnected ( 1/125S, 1/60 (over), 1/250(under) )
and process your film the way you learned ( agitation, dilution and time ). contact print your film
( or whatever method you use to get your positive imaves ) and see which exposure works best for you
and your developing and printing methods ... and adjust your meter to agree with whatever ISO you choose
that makes your negatives look the best ( 400, 200 (over), 800 (under) )

if down the road you want to try to not use your meter again,
since you have been paying attention to the light and learning the light as you use your meter, it won't be as difficult
.. and your exposures might not be as all over the charts as they seem to be.

good luck !
john