View Full Version : do you use a light meter?
EcoLeica
06-29-2006, 03:45
I came across this page during one of my daily deviations from my research. Im keen to learn how to read light without a lightmeter (would make street work easier). Just want to know if anybody has tried similar techniques and if they were successful?
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#Introduction
Cheers
c.poulton
06-29-2006, 03:56
I'm trying to wean myself off using my light meter but i'ts difficult - do I trust myself?:confused:
My first camera was a nikkormat FT2, 2 months later its lightmeter stopped to work, so I bought a lightmeter (sekonic L188 if I remember correctly) and I started to use it. One year later I know my first rangefinder cameras (mokba-5, and later canon IV-Sb2, canon P...). Now I have a nikon F100, nikon F3, bessa R, and other cameras. Today I don't love to use the lightmeter of cameras, and in a large number of case I set my camera manually, the experience maturate using a lightmeters help me and generally the exposure is correct, also using slide.
I find it somewhat liberating to use a handheld meter. I find that if I have one with me and I am using it I will not rely on my camera's meter, and I also will not "meter" as often. I will set in my mind what exposures are needed that day and just adjust appropriately, checking with the meter every once in while to make sure I am still on target.
Hello:
I find that I use a handheld light meter* in preference to the ttl meter of a M6 to keep me honest as the general light level changes. Metering can get in the way of seeing.
yours
Frank
*DigiSix in incident mode
Fred Parkers ultimate exposure Computer is a great resource. I would recommend it to anyone. I still use a light meter. If I have the time and really want to get the exposure I want the meter allows me to measure several areas of the scene to get an idea not only about the general lighting conditions but total range of light in a scene.
So, the long and the short of it is: the more tools you know how to use the better off you are.
Ronald M
06-29-2006, 04:49
I prefer knowing i got the pic than some macho thing.
Learn to read light for sure for when ther is no time, but use the a meter for something other than full sun when there is time.
boarini2003
06-29-2006, 04:58
I prefer knowing i got the pic than some macho thing.
Learn to read light for sure for when ther is no time, but use the a meter for something other than full sun when there is time.
Agree.
Question: is there a noticeable difference in the way pictures are exposed when using a handheld vs. the in-camera meter, or does it ammount to the same thing?
The caveat is that you ideally have a lightmeter available in order to learn how to live without one.. Either that, or you need to meticulously write down all exposure data and cross check them with the negs..
But it is doable, and in the end you'll find that light levels are pretty predictable throughout the day and given the weather. Do take the printed exposure guides with a grain of salt, they assume that you live at modest lattitudes. Too far north or south, and you'll have to open up 1 or 2 stops.
The great thing is that you'll be able to recognise when a built-in light meter does something odd. And, as Rover has already pointed out; you learn not to ride the exposure.. which means you'll get much more consistent results irrespective of subject reflectivity.
My post seems to have crossed this one..
Agree.
Question: is there a noticeable difference in the way pictures are exposed when using a handheld vs. the in-camera meter, or does it ammount to the same thing?
Depends on the kind of meter. If you use an incident meter, you measure the light. It's not dependent on the subject. The meter inside the camera tries to expose the scene for an average mid grey reflection, i.e. it is subject dependent.
Of course, with a grey card you can use the built in meter to establish the light level, but it's not really convenient.
oftheherd
06-29-2006, 05:12
I have several cameras without light meters. I have sometimes used one to confirm settings of in camera light meters. When I got my first light meter (Sekonic Micro Leader), I found it better in really low light than my in camera (Yashica TL Super) meter. With my Fujica ST 901, I don't think I ever used a separate light meter. When I got my Sekonic L28c2, I found I often preferred it to a reflected light meter. I like my Gossen Luna Pro best as a reflected light meter. Even the Luna Pro sbc seems to work best that way. Both are good as incident meters, but nothing beats the Sekonic L28c2 except below 4 lux, it gets a little harder then. At that point, the Gossens come out.
Answer to your question: I use a light meter when I need to. I can also still to some extent guestimate exposure without one. A trick I learned in Vietnam when I didn't have a light meter and had to use the data sheets provided with film. Got pretty good at it then. Not so good any more though. Getting lazy perhaps.
I bookmarked the paper for future reference. While I did not see a lot of new information in it, it is the most complete compilation on this subject that I have found. I try to use the "Sunny 16" rule as a starting point, and work from there, using a small pocket meter as a check for unusual situations. My SLR has built-in metering, which I find adequate.
Jim N.
I'm a "Sunny 11" afficionado myself, but I do use a light meter indoors, in deep shade and after dark.
I always carry a light meter when shooting w/meterless cameras, but only meter as the light changes.
I came across this page during one of my daily deviations from my research. Im keen to learn how to read light without a lightmeter (would make street work easier). Just want to know if anybody has tried similar techniques and if they were successful?
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#Introduction
Cheers
I use an incident meter with my meterless rangefinders. In my experience incident meters are far more reliable than meters that use reflected light. Highly recommended.
Joe Brugger
06-29-2006, 10:22
Though just a mere boy to this day, when I started messing with photography in the early 1960s, light meters -- built in or otherwise -- weren't nearly as common as they are today.
A lot of us learned to expose using the sheet of paper Kodak packed with the film, learning to read sun angle, intensity and shadows. It's not nearly as difficult as people make out but it can be a little slower. Indoor exposures took either flashbulbs or some experience with Tri-X.
I think I shot photos for six or seven years, mostly on Plus-X, before getting my hands on a meter. The negatives I still have print very easily. Kodachrome wasn't in a kid's budget.
trittium
06-29-2006, 11:12
I shot meterless for a while, and got pretty good at guessing exposure. I ended up purchasing a cheep selenium cell meter that is suprisingly very accurate. Now I kind of use it to make sure my "crazy eye" is working, and adjust exposure based on an ejumacated guess.
Oddly enough, I just finished a roll in conditions where I really value a built in meter. "Partly Cloudy". Sometimes bright sun, sometimes dull. With the bloody clouds scudding along and the light swinging two stops every two minutes that needle in the finder seems priceless. Especially when trying to track small children or a basket ball game.
When the pace is leisurely I can guestimate exposures (and bracket!) and be sure of my shot. When you're depending on intuition and dumb luck however I shamelessly take what help I can get (auto focus, like anti lock brakes, does not necessarily help! Sometimes you want to lock the brakes...)
Incident meters are wonderful. When you are photographing still life. Three year olds do not fall into that category. Use mine when ever I shoot a bowel of fruit though.
Fred Parkers ultimate exposure Computer is the best presentation of exposure I have ever seen. Save the web page. Print it. Nail it to the bathroom wall across from the camode. Laminate it and use it as a place mat at every meal. Tape it to the mirror on your bedroom ceiling. Whatever it takes study it. Then you'll know what the hell the meter is telling you.
The real reason to use a meter, actually, is so that you can justify Light Meter GAS.....
Man doth not live by bodies and lenses alone!
...Incident meters are wonderful. When you are photographing still life. Three year olds do not fall into that category. Use mine when ever I shoot a bowel of fruit though ...
I think incident meters have more flexibility than you suggest ... they aren't just for still subjects. You can take one reading of the light falling on a location and then shoot away. Only when the light changes do you need to take another reading. I have shot sports car races, soccer games, and other active subjects while using my incident meter. If you have kids who are running in and out of sunshine and shadowed areas you might need two readings for the differing lighting conditions. Very doable.
nightfly
06-29-2006, 13:27
I don't own a light meter and I have a number of cameras that are meterless including the one I use most. For the last few years I've shot without one and really I don't even think about it much anymore. I shoot mostly black and white print film that isn't particularly sensitive to over exposusre so I try and err in that direction. Seems to work for me. I just shot some slide film that I had cross processed so all bets are off on that, but they all came about pretty well exposed.
Shooting with a Holga for a year or so which is basically f8 and 1/125 of a second depending on how old the spring shutter is, taught me a lot about light and film speed so now having a camera when I can adjust both the aperture and the film speed now seems like a luxury.
That said I'd like a meter for low light work where Sunny 16 is out the window.
Most of the time (that's when I use the IIIf) I only use Fred Parkers tables. But my exposures with the F2/f3 are more consistent throughout a roll of film. It'll get better with time. Mostly I calculate stuff in my head such as f/stops and times and DoF, so why not make a decent stab at trying without a meter just to see if it works good enough in the long run? Okay, if I did this for a living, yes, I'd have my meter with me all the time!
back alley
06-29-2006, 14:52
I prefer knowing i got the pic than some macho thing.
Learn to read light for sure for when ther is no time, but use the a meter for something other than full sun when there is time.
when did it become macho to not use a meter.
maybe some prefer to 'know' what they are doing - in their own way -.
i do both, use a meter and not use a meter. i also use ae on the zi.
not using a meter isn't really all that hard and no rocket science is required, just a bit of concentration and practice.
joe
Joe Brugger
06-29-2006, 14:54
Meters fail. Meters can be misleading. It helps a great deal to have some idea of the correct exposure, independent of all the hardware. Wonder if Margaret Bourke-White used a meter? She was pretty macho.
darkkavenger
06-29-2006, 15:01
I try to use sunny f16, sometimes I fail because I took a photo without checking the settings, but most generally, the exposure conditions turn out to be perfect.
Flyfisher Tom
06-29-2006, 15:42
I use a handheld because it prevents me from worrying as often about exposure, and it also gives you a better sense of lighting conditions as you guesstimate before taking the reading. In camera readings are great for fast situations, but tends to make one sloppy and lazy about being observant of lighting conditions.
MelanieC
06-29-2006, 15:48
I didn't use a meter at all for the first few months I used my M3, and got away with it for the most part (I shoot b/w pretty exclusively). When I finally shelled out for a decent meter (holy crap! how is this tiny thing so freaking expensive?) I realized that I could do a lot better and I think my shots are much better exposed now. Perhaps after I've used the meter for a while it'll help train my eye and I'll go back to not metering most of the time. It only takes a second to meter and the thing fits in my palm so why not meter, i say.
EcoLeica
06-29-2006, 17:36
Cheers for all your replies, its good to get everyones opinion on this. I think ill give this meterless idea a try. The freedom to do this, without a meter appeals to me
thanks
Graybeard
06-30-2006, 04:39
Outdoors, the "sunny-16" rule works quite well and indoors, with artificial light exposures are remarkably consistent, probably because people use generally use enough lighting to be comfortable for human vision (f2/(1/30th) with tungsten lighting, f2.8/(1/60th) for indoor commercial lighting, stores and public spaces, at ASA400.
The meter is valuable for less common situations such as deep shade outdoors, early evening, and deep shadow areas indoors. Even here an exposure table, or a good memory can substitute for a meter.
I don't use a meter at all with my M3 or IIIa. I used metered cameras for years, and it's amazing that my guessing is more accurate than the meters ever were. I agree that going meterless gives you much more freedom. Since I always use 400ASA film, I've become pretty good at consistenly getting a good exposure. Also, I find that I can shoot indoors consistently at 1/25 or lower without camera shake, thanks to the superb Leica shutter action.
Two things that helped me learn to shoot w/o a meter ~
(1) I shoot with old Zorkis and older Barnacks 95% of the time, and. . .
(2) I'm and old fart and forget stuff like meters, cameras, film, grandkids, where I live. . . So I've tried to learn Sunny16/11 at least well enough to get me by if I want to shoot quickly or . . . eh, hmmm . . . I forget something.:rolleyes:
I've got a couple of meters; a Weston that goes well in the pocket or a very small Sears selenium that hangs around the neck and can be read at a glance. Metering is a preference to me (when I don't leave the meter on the desk) so I can get the settings and concentrate on what I'm shooting without fiddling/putzing both mentally and physically with calculations. It makes my head hurt. I told you I'm an old fart, right? :cool:
Ecoleica, mastering meterless shooting is definitely a good idea. I find it quicker than playing chase the needle, as I used to on older 35mm SLR's and sometimes you camera's reflective meter is fooled by dark or bright backgrounds.
In response to Graybeard's post, I've pretty much memorize the light settings in a couple of rooms that I shoot in, but outside of those, I find a meter to be a valued accessory, though I have often guess and been lucky.
The meter is valuable for less common situations such as deep shade outdoors, early evening, and deep shadow areas indoors. Even here an exposure table, or a good memory can substitute for a meter.
I use a meter or, more recently, AE. For the vast majority of my shots, however, not having a meter wouldn't make much of a difference, because (1) I find my prior guesstimation of exposure is pretty close to what the meter ends up telling me anyway, and (2) I shoot mostly with Tri-X, which is so forgiving that you can be off by a couple stops and not lose the shot. Frankly, I think most photographers on RFF could get by perfectly well without a meter. In my experience, a meter will matter in a small handful of photography situations at the margins.
Having said all that, I find a meter--or AE, really--useful for the kind of shooting I tend to do these days, which is lots of street shooting. Under those conditions, the light levels can change dramatically when I turn a corner or cross the street to grab a shot. I live in the Norheast, where perfectly sunny, cloudless days are not the rule, so the sun darting in and out of clouds can alter light levels unpredictably. A meter helps me salvage those small handful of shots that I might otherwise lose if I didn't use one.
... it's amazing that my guessing is more accurate than the meters ever were ...
If you're that good at guessing you should disconnect the speedometer on your car, throw away your bathroom scale, and dump your tape measure. :D
If you're that good at guessing you should disconnect the speedometer on your car, throw away your bathroom scale, and dump your tape measure. :D
LOL, well, I've already thrown away the bathroom scale! Disconnecting the speedometer can be hazardous to your safety, and not measuring before cutting can be very expensive, so neither of those would be a good idea. However, messing up a photo only costs a few cents, and it's just more fun to not be dependent on a meter.
What fun is there in shooting with 50 or 70 year old cameras if you're going to be dependent on (relatively) modern technology? Why not just ditch the Barnack and use a digital AE?
I didn't meter this shot. Probably if I had, the atmosphere would have been totally different, because this is not a "correct" exposure. It's just one that my gut told me felt right. This is with the IIIa and uncoated Summar.
... I didn't meter this shot. Probably if I had, the atmosphere would have been totally different, because this is not a "correct" exposure. It's just one that my gut told me felt right. This is with the IIIa and uncoated Summar.
Very nice landscape! Congrats. Where is the location?
Very nice landscape! Congrats. Where is the location?
Thanks! It's the C&O Canal in the Georgetown section of Washington, DC.
I use a Pentax digital spotmeter 80% of the time,and I guess the remaining 20% of the time.
Raid
Joe Brugger
07-21-2006, 16:05
Try an incident meter some time. Faster and less fussy for shooting in the open, on the run.
Joe,
I have an incident meter (Minolta Auto Meter III), but I am used to the spotmeter. I "think" reflective multiple spot metering. The same goes for my SLR use. I have always favored SLR cameras with built-in spotmeters.
Raid
ErnestoJL
07-21-2006, 18:59
As I allways had problems of misjudging light levels, I trusted in lightmeters, but with certain exceptions.
Of course the exceptions were the failed shoots, then I started to learn how to use decently a light meter.
If the question is of what do I prefer, I prefer spotmeters, with less than 10 deg. viewing angle.
Ernesto
I prefer using a meter most of the time to get an initial reading and start working from there. I rely on two different meters depending on what I am shooting. When out ambling about with the IIf a Sekonic Twinmate L-208 is small and very convenient while on the long walk-about. For work that I really want to be right I have a Sekonic L-558 that is my light Bible. It has a good range and has never let me down. I subscribe to always using a light meter when able. But now I meter the light without even thinking about it most of the time and start working. If I have the impression that light conditions aree changing significantly then I just meter again, gotten to the point when I do that automatically.
Glenn
By the way, the incident meter is the only way for me 95% of the time.
MCTuomey
07-22-2006, 19:01
lovely composition, jkelly. judging from this shot, the meter that's in your head seems well-calibrated.
When I got my Zorki in Februari, I got myself a cheap Leningrad light meter that was okay for daylight work. I used it in the beginning, but these days I'm basically too lazy to carry it along. I can guesstimate daylight (sun/cloudy) pretty well now. It's mainly for indoor light and longer exposures with my Leica iiic that I ordered a more sensitive light meter. Probably, I'll end up using the light meter as a calibration tool for my guesstimates. I don't trust myself for slides yet, though. I should study Fred Parker's site more closely, it's a great resource.
Peter.
I use a light meter, its bulky but permits to expose quite precisely velvia and astia. I use incident meter most of the time with a sekonic studio master
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.