Shooting without a light meter

[Carriage]

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?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Can you post scans of strips of the negatives? Not from the CD. Then we can answer whether or not lab compensated for the exposure variation.

If you use a light meter you can set the exposure to get the shadow detail and avoid washing out the high lights. Your proof sheets would be more consistent and you may avoid some of the test strips.

 

[mike c]

Modern B&W films have great latitude in exposure, do not know how long or involved you are in film photography, but sooner or later there will be a time when a meter will come in very handy. If you are happy with your results keep on doing it. A simple reflective meter does not cost a whole lot.


Mike

 

[eddie]

I assume the lab is returning your negatives. Make a contact sheet of the scanned negatives, and see how it compares to your first efforts. If those exposures look "all over the place", then they've been corrected, and not giving you the information you need to improve your exposures.

Also, make sure you're making your contacts correctly. Every contact sheet you make should be exposed for the same time, with the same f-stop, and from the same height. A lot of us actually mark the enlarger column (with tape, or marker) to make sure the enlarger head is always where it should be. Then, you need to be certain you're exposing for the proper time. The best way to do this is by making a test strip of your contact sheet. You need to find the first strip which shows the edge of the film as black as the paper outside of the negatives once the paper is dry. You're looking for the minimum exposure necessary to achieve maximum black on the paper. That's your exposure time for proofing your negatives.

Meters always come in handy, assuming you use them correctly. It's a worthwhile investment, and will help you hone your skills.When you get one, keep notes about your exposures. What shutter speed/f-stop you shot it at... What you metered... and what tones you expect to see in the prints.

 

[Carriage]

I assume the lab is returning your negatives. Make a contact sheet of the scanned negatives, and see how it compares to your first efforts. If those exposures look "all over the place", then they've been corrected, and not giving you the information you need to improve your exposures.

These were colour rolls. Do I need to do anything special to print them in black and white?

Also, make sure you're making your contacts correctly. Every contact sheet you make should be exposed for the same time, with the same f-stop, and from the same height. A lot of us actually mark the enlarger column (with tape, or marker) to make sure the enlarger head is always where it should be. Then, you need to be certain you're exposing for the proper time. The best way to do this is by making a test strip of your contact sheet. You need to find the first strip which shows the edge of the film as black as the paper outside of the negatives once the paper is dry. You're looking for the minimum exposure necessary to achieve maximum black on the paper. That's your exposure time for proofing your negatives.

The edge of the film would be the sprockety bit, right? So true blacks should be clear on a correctly exposed negative?

 

[heterolysis]

You can print colour film as B&W but the orange film base will be like putting a filter on the enlarger--you'll need to lengthen exposure to compensate. It's trickier, but it can be done with practice.


Printing will become easier if you have more consistency in your exposures, but it's still a subjective process, so it might not save you any time. Most films have a good latitude, but they can only be abused so much, and it's best to at least have the option of metering (or using a light meter app). With practice you'll get the hang of how to meter in different situations and you'll rely on less and less on a device to do it for you.

 

[MattKing]

These were colour rolls. Do I need to do anything special to print them in black and white?


The edge of the film would be the sprockety bit, right? So true blacks should be clear on a correctly exposed negative?

Printing colour negatives in black and white is certainly possible, but there are some tricks involved, so eddie's suggestion about doing a contact sheet probably won't help you learn as much as it would if the lab negatives were also black and white.

And eddie's suggestion about adjusting the printing exposure for the contact sheet was made to help you get good quality, repeatable contact sheets that will help you evaluate your negatives. If the edges of the negatives show up as just black enough on the contact sheet, then the other tones in the negative will be usefully portrayed as well. It is those other tones (not the edges) that you need to pay attention to in the negatives.

 

[RPC]

These were colour rolls. Do I need to do anything special to print them in black and white?

The paper is not sensitive to red and possibly green, so you will be missing part of the color spectrum so tonal values may not be correct. You would need to print them on panchromatic paper, but I don't know if it is made anymore.

 

[Cycler]

Brother Steve always used the little chart that came with his film. And got results as consistent as we two other brothers using Weston Masters! Or you could use the reciprocal speed to the film speed eg 500 sec with 400 ISO film. f16 in bright light, f11 in hazy/light cloud, f8 in moderate light, f5.6 as it gets duller and f4 if its raining. And extrapolate accordingly to suit your needs. Much depends upon personal views; your view of dull may not agree with mine. Therefdore this tends to be hit & miss; with much miss!

 

[Xmas]

There is so much latitude in negative (colour or mono) film that you don't need a meter.

In effect you need to give a stop or more exposure with tables, a calculator or rule method as underexposure is absence on information, and you might as well leave the camera in the gbag.

In 1960ish they changed the ISO (ASA then) so Trix magically changed from 200 to 400 cause 'every one' (well a %) was using a photo electric meter and no longer needed a stop margin.

This latitude exists cause when you scan or print you adjust ('automatically') for the density variation in negatives from exposure 'errors', but if you shoot slides it (the margin) is not there...

Most of the time I use 'sunny side f/16' a rule method although I always carry a Weston meter and invercone, it is normally 'padding' in gbag, cept when it is near to sunset. With slides I used the Weston and a spot meter...

Noel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule

 

[Carriage]

Yeah I've been using sunny 16 as a starting point and compensating based on an EV chart. Its just I only noticed how variable my attempts were when I did a contact sheet. The negatives all looked okay to me, though its not as if I'm really sure what a good negative looks like.

 

[Xmas]

If there is detectable dye in the shadows it is a good negative, but it is difficult to deal with the orange mask, if there is nothing but the orange mask the shadows not would look good on a print.

The highlights will be ok unless you have goofed badly on a high sunscreen factor day.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Modern B&W films have great latitude in exposure, do not know how long or involved you are in film photography, but sooner or later there will be a time when a meter will come in very handy. If you are happy with your results keep on doing it. A simple reflective meter does not cost a whole lot.


Mike

asimple incident meter will correct your issue and give you consistent exposure and negatives with full information ,which are easy to print.look at the Gossen Digisix for example

 

[gone]

The lab machine was probably auto correcting your negs, They pretty much all do that. You may as well go ahead and do your own developing if you're able to do contact sheets (B & W developing anyway, w/ B & W film and paper). Shoot, you're halfway there already.

While I agree that sunny 16 will give you useable negs w/ today's films, it might be instructive to use a camera w/ a good meter and see the difference. When I shoot w/ my Nikkormat or N8008s, both of which have very accurate meters, the negs just pop on the light table. Makes it super easy to scan them or print them, as I don't have to make any adjustments at all. I can get similar results hand metering, but it's not as spot on, and I've missed more than a few shots by having to take the time to meter things.

 

[DWThomas]

Part of it depends on the scenes you shoot and the time of day. As a broke high school student I used my Argus C-3 without a meter for a year or so. And with outdoor, daylight landscape situations, I even got reasonably decent Kodachrome ("ASA 10") slides. As mentioned above, the box had a chart: bright sun (beach, snow) sunny, cloudy bright, etc. If you start dabbling in night shots, musicians in dimly lit bars and such, a meter will likely improve your keeper rate.

And yes, somewhere there is a super duper chart describing exposures all the way down to almost nothing, but I think verbal descriptions are a lot less reliable once we get away from "sunny."

 

[eddie]

These were colour rolls. Do I need to do anything special to print them in black and white?

Sorry, I just assumed the film was black and white.

 

[RobC]

download following which was designed to be used with Ilfords pinhole cameras but will work just as well with any camera in manual mode.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/download.asp?n=1296&f=2011106152612113.pdf

print it out, preferably on a piece of card. Cut out and assemble and you're good to go. Use it as a check on your guesstimation of what the exposure should be or use it to set your exposure.

 

[removed account4]

i hardly ever use a light meter, but they can be useful
i use one of these: http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm


you can also use one of these http://www.blackcatphotoproducts.com/guide.html

they are all handy and require experience ( even a traditional light meter is hard to use if you don't use it right ) .

good luck !
john

 

[DWThomas]

i hardly ever use a light meter, but they can be useful
i use one of these: http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

[ . . . ]

That's the chart I was vaguely remembering; thanks John.

 

[John Koehrer]

I prefer an incident meter over reflected. Most will have the capability to do either. Reflected will have a CDS/SBC cell and a sliding incident ball that covers the ball.
It's not affected by the different brightnesses in the scene. It's gonna take a little practice with either one.

The charts can give consistent results if you're consistent in using it. With use, you begin to recognize different lighting and find yourself using it less.

The old Kodak Mater Photo Guide was pocketable & convenient, The Kodak Professional Photoguide is ~5"X8" with a LOT of information for you. Beaucoup information on old materials. But More on filters, close up, flash, lighting, lenses & perspective.
When you find you have questions. It has a lot of answers.
Amazon or any online bookstore should have them. Used, of course.

 

[BetterSense]

I haven't really used a meter on 35mm, MF, or LF B&W in about 4 years. I either left the meter at home, didn't listen to it anyway, or exposed wrong because the meter was wrong.

 

[Carriage]

I've been using this one's EV chart. I do the compensating from sunny16 in my head though.
http://expomat.tripod.com/

 

[cliveh]

A light meter? What's that?

 

[removed account4]

That's the chart I was vaguely remembering; thanks John.

pleasure is mine !

 

[DREW WILEY]

Latitude is a myth for people who are sloppy. That's kinda like believing in dumb luck at the Lottery. Sooner or later you might "win" a good
exposure based on the sheer frequency of tries, but it isn't a very efficient way to get from point A to B. Yeah, you might get something printable, but that's like trying to patch things up with layers and layers of duct tape. Now evaluating exposure based upon experience is a
little difference. You don't use a meter because you already have lots of experience with analogous lighting with your favorite film. So it does work. There have been a few instances up in the mountains where I accidentally (or stupidly) dunked my light meter in some nearly frozen stream. I dried successfully dried it out after the trip each time. But in the meantime, I had to evaluate exposures strictly from memory. I was good enough at this that not only my black and white negs came out correctly, but even my color transparencies were spot on. But it's certainly not something I like to do. Sheet film is expensive, and some of those trips were rather strenuous. Now I have a tight
little carabiner below the tripod head, and not just a hook, for when I'm hopping rocks over a stream with that whole rig over my shoulder.