How to estimate exposure? [Archive]

View Full Version : How to estimate exposure?

Stradibarrius

07-01-2009, 07:53

When you do not have your hand held with you what are some methods to estimating exposure? I know the sunny 16 rule, are there others or is it just a guess?

bmattock

07-01-2009, 08:01

Despite what people are about to tell you, estimating exposure is just that - estimating. It only 'works' because of the latitude of color print film and the similarity of certain common scenes for the purposes of exposure.

These examples used to be printed on boxes of film.

Examples include sunny days, cloudy days, night time, full moon, and etc.

Get a meter and use it. That's what they are for.

eli griggs

07-01-2009, 09:02

There are several printable guides to estimating exposure on-line and if you can find an old Kodak pocket guide (was it called "Professional Pocket Guide"?) it had a small slide calculator for estimating exposures.

A meter is really the way to go most of the time but you should guess and try if it is the only way to get a quick or discreet shot or go home without having made an exposure.

A few months back my Rozeann and I were dining in a relatively dim steakhouse one evening and I managed to grab several table-top shots of a little girl and her grandfather interacting at a family gathering a table over without a meter and without alerting anyone that they were being photographed.

I do this often as practice, even though I'm not really interested in what's going on or making prints of what I've shot, and after awhile you can quickly eliminate possible exposures and be relatively certain that you will have printable images. It doesn't always yield good results but it works often enough to make it worthwhile to try.

Of course, bracketing is always a good idea if you have the time and the action is not too fast, even with aid of a meter.

You should also practice estimating before taking a meter reading, you loose only a moment or two and it builds skill.

Cheers

JRG

07-01-2009, 09:47

I sure wouldn't argue against using a meter, if you've got one handy. But I find it useful to be able to estimate what the meter is going to say before I pull it out.

Fred Parker's site has (probably) the most thorough extension of the Sunny 16 rule. But it isn't all that easy to use when you're in a hurry.

Some time back, I condensed the rules at the Fred Parker site so that they can be printed and then mounted on a 3x5 index card, which will fit nicely in a shirt pocket. There are eight such "cards" in total, each for a different ISO setting. I usually carry just one, matching the film I've got loaded. (I'm attaching a low res copy of the "cards" for ISO 400 and ISO 800), as a jpeg file.

The full set of "cards" along with explanation of how to use exists in a PDF document (quality much higher!), which I can't attach here. PM me if you'd like a copy.

bmattock

07-01-2009, 09:48

You should also practice estimating before taking a meter reading, you loose only a moment or two and it builds skill.

You cannot build skill estimating light by guessing. Your eyes are not calibrated to any standard. It simply is not possible. You can only become a good guesser based on memory of similar situations. That is not the same as estimating exposure settings.

bmattock

07-01-2009, 09:51

But I find it useful to be able to estimate what the meter is going to say before I pull it out.

If I put you into a semi-dark room and ask you to tell me the EV, you will be wrong. Five minutes later, you'll be wrong as well, although your eyes will have adjusted to the darkness and things will appear lighter. Take you outside into the bright sunlight and you will be wrong yet again, as it will seem far brighter out than usual until your eyes adjust. You can only rely on memories of past more-or-less correct exposures. It is not possible to be accurate by guessing.

Eyeballs are not calibrated light sensors. You can't measure how long a board is by looking at it - you can't measure the light by looking at it. You can only guess.

dmr

07-01-2009, 10:27

I had an interesting experience along this line a couple years ago when a battery died with no notice and I had to do things manually.

I thought back to similar situations when I had a good battery and remembered the approximate exposures for that type of scene. I was able to convert to the current film speed and salvage the session.

Here's the story with example photos:

http://omababe.blogspot.com/2007/10/cross-processing-bean.html

Kevin

07-01-2009, 10:40

Perhaps it would be helpful to learn how many stops away from sunny-16 the following states are:

Cloudy
Overcast
Shade

David William White

07-01-2009, 11:00

Not so difficult to estimate, especially with black and white negative film, and good practice.

The guidelines for Tri-X 400 were (from the box):

f/16 @ 1/250th -bright or hazy sun with distinct shadows
f/11 @ 1/250th -cloudy bright with no shadows
f/8 @ 1/250th -heavy overcast or open shade

In ordinary outdoor shooting, there is just a three stop spread here. I'm sure there would be no confusion between these three general lighting conditions.

A meter reading could make things a lot worse if your subject is backlit, for instance.

Remember that a hell of a lot of photography was done long before meters existed.

batterytypehah!

07-01-2009, 11:19

I second the Fred Parker recommendation (aka Ultimate Exposure Computer - google it). It was a liberating experience to me. I hadn't realized before that there are only so many lighting situations you are going to encounter.

As for "calibrated eyeballs," I find that's the wrong way to approach this. Nobody has those and nobody needs those. Try to train yourself to recognize the lighting. A ski slope in full sun is a ski slope in full sun is a ski slope in full sun. Your eyes have nothing to do with it.

When you have a meter, great, but that wasn't the OP's question. Also, knowing what's a likely reading for where you are, and what isn't, will prevent metering mistakes.

bsdunek

07-01-2009, 12:14

The 'Sunny 16' rule, and then stepping down for each change works pretty well. Certainly the latitude of the film helps. That said, my Grandfather, back in the 40' & 50's took many properly exposed slides on Kodachrome. It was ASA 10 back then, and had very little latitude. He just used the chart on the film box and it worked great. Just shows it can be done.

Keith

07-01-2009, 12:30

I agree with bmattock totally that the human eye cannot read light levels accurately because that's not what it was made for. It's the brain storing situations and information giving you an historical log to draw from that allows meterless shooting. I can generally get pretty close and occasionally be dead on ... but a meter gets it right every time if you use it correctly.

It is nice to know though, that if I'm out shooting and happen to drop my meter in a creek I will come home with something ... I always carry one of Fred Parker's charts with me! :p

ruby.monkey

07-01-2009, 12:49

A meter is the most reliable method of determining exposure, but it's not much use When you do not have your hand held with you now is it?

I like to carry a Sekonic TwinMate in my pocket and an exposure guide in my head, but sometimes I forget the meter. It's nice to know that I can get close enough without it to bring home a few good shots.

mh2000

07-01-2009, 12:55

if you are using an in-camera meter or reflective handheld meter you have to estimate how far your subject is away from a neutral gray which makes it about as precise as using Sunny-16... in fact, I find Sunny-16 to mostly give better results on average than my modern cameras with evaluative metering... in my experience you need to use an incident meter or gray card to beat Sunny-16 outdoors. I can often estimate available light shots better than my Canon D/SLRs can too.

Roger Hicks

07-01-2009, 19:19

Experience. After surprisingly few years you will find that you can guess exposures with more than sufficient accuracy. Often, indeed, your estimate will be better than an unadjusted broad-area meter reading (eg backlighting, unusually bright or dark subjects, very large contrast ranges at night...)

Of course your eye is not measuring the light -- but on the other hand, your brain is a more powerful computer than anything ever built into any light meter, and you can remember other difficult situations, which the meter can't.

But it's 'use it or lose it'. Start relying blindly on a meter, and you soon lose the ability to estimate accurately. That's why I often set the aperture and shutter speed; take a reading; and see how far the meter and I agree. Often we're within 1/2 stop and my estimate is better, at in the kind of awkward situation described above. But if I'm seriously out, by 2-3 stops, then the odds are that I have been fooled, and the meter hasn't.

Oh: and neg films typically tolerate 2 or even 3 stops of over-exposure, but almost no under-exposure. I have a theory that the famed 'Leica glow' is often a result of overexposure resulting from guessed exposures.

Tashi delek,

R.

bmattock

07-02-2009, 01:06

Experience. After surprisingly few years you will find that you can guess exposures with more than sufficient accuracy.

Until you find yourself in a situation which you have not been in before. Indoors is also quite difficult, since there is no frame of reference for 'indoors'.

Often, indeed, your estimate will be better than an unadjusted broad-area meter reading (eg backlighting, unusually bright or dark subjects, very large contrast ranges at night...)

Because that's not proper metering. Only spot-metering is proper metering.

Of course your eye is not measuring the light -- but on the other hand, your brain is a more powerful computer than anything ever built into any light meter, and you can remember other difficult situations, which the meter can't.

Your brain is easily fooled with optical situations and lies to you. Example - every 'optical illusion' ever created.

But it's 'use it or lose it'. Start relying blindly on a meter, and you soon lose the ability to estimate accurately. That's why I often set the aperture and shutter speed; take a reading; and see how far the meter and I agree. Often we're within 1/2 stop and my estimate is better, at in the kind of awkward situation described above. But if I'm seriously out, by 2-3 stops, then the odds are that I have been fooled, and the meter hasn't.

Why bother committing to memory those things which a proper meter handles far better? The solution is to HAVE A METER and USE IT. Those who complain about failing to bring a meter with them are not to be pitied - if they forgot their camera or film (or memory card), they'd be in a spot, wouldn't they? Don't forget your meter, or be a great thumping silly.

Oh: and neg films typically tolerate 2 or even 3 stops of over-exposure, but almost no under-exposure. I have a theory that the famed 'Leica glow' is often a result of overexposure resulting from guessed exposures.

If one only cares about 'approximate' exposure, then I suppose it works.

I find it amusing that people obsess over lenses with incredible characteristics, lose sleep over scratches in lens coatings, cry over which camera body is the most awesome, and then throw caution to the winds and use "That looks about right" exposure settings. Anal in every detail until it comes to exposure, and then it's "Oh, the hell with it, I'll just take a guess." WTF?

If your photographs matter to you, learn to use a meter properly, carry one with you, and don't be a dolt. Not you Roger, this is advice to the hoi polloi.

Roger Hicks

07-02-2009, 03:12

Dear Bill,

We are in substantial agreement (especially about selective obsession, and using a meter whenever it's remotely convenient, and spot metering) but because of years of using non-metered cameras (especially a Leica IIIa when I was at university) I find it's a skill I don't want to lose. Also, my Retina IIa is so tiny that I'd rather rely on memory than carry a meter when I have the Retina with me just for fun. Finally, even unknown situations can usually be judged surprsingly well, by analogy.

I don't seem to be able to get quite as excited about this as you on the one side, or the 'Ya don't need a meter' brigade on the other.

Tashi delek,

R.

capitalK

07-02-2009, 03:20

I find it helps, at first, to limit yourself to one or two film speeds. Maybe 400 and 100. Once you get comfortable in different situations you can mix it up and do the conversions in your head for 50, 200, 800, 1600, etc.

batterytypehah!

07-02-2009, 03:26

Seems this bears repeating again -- first words of the OP:

When you do not have your hand held with you

Any discussion about meters and how to use them is irrelevant to the question at hand.

OK, so some of you feel strongly about this, but please discuss metering somewhere else. You're a lot like the guy at a soccer game who decides to pick up the ball and carry it into the goal.

Now, the reason that estimating can work very well is that even the best most precise major $$$ meter will only nail one of the factors that go into exposure. So your meter is dead-on, congratulations. Is your shutter, too? Not if you shoot vintage equipment; 20% off after a CLA is apparently not unusual. Do you know the precise speed of the particular batch of film that's loaded? (Not the nominal speed -- I don't know how much current emulsions vary but it's likely to get worse as production volumes go down.) Do you have a full understanding of how your subject reflects light and how you want it to appear?

Similar uncertainties exist on the developing side, of course.

The good thing is that these factors are very unlikely to conspire towards one side (over or under exposure). Chances are they'll cancel each other out instead.

So, get over it. IMO being about on target is the best you can hope for, meter or not.

Roger Hicks

07-02-2009, 04:01

So your meter is dead-on, congratulations. Is your shutter, too? Not if you shoot vintage equipment; 20% off after a CLA is apparently not unusual. Do you know the precise speed of the particular batch of film that's loaded? (Not the nominal speed -- I don't know how much current emulsions vary but it's likely to get worse as production volumes go down.) .

Normally, broad-area meters are set up for tranny and will recommend underexposure of neg films; sluggish shutters add exposure, thereby compensating in the opposite direcyion, but rarely as much; true ISO speeds are far closer to nominal than they used to be, and there is no reason why this accuracy should decline; and of course true ISO of a B+W nominal ISO 400 film can easily range from 200 or less (fine grain dev such as Perceptol) to effectively 800 (Microphen, DD-X).

Individual metering technique of the same subject can easily give +/-1/2 stop variations, and of course, unless you are using a spot meter you have to be able to guess (or measure -- unlikely) the overall average reflectance of your subject.

Bill's absolutely right, for neg films: spot metering is the only totally reliable system, and even that relies on the photographer's deciding which is the darkest tone in which he wants texture and detail. For tranny/digi, you can spot meter highlights or (much easier) use an incident light meter.

And you're absolutely right. As long as you get an exposure you're happy with, consistently, how much does it matter exactly which metering technique you used -- including guesstimates?

Tashi delek,

R.

ray*j*gun

07-02-2009, 04:19

sirius

07-02-2009, 04:31

Ah, bmattock, we meet again on this topic.

I like what Keith said. It's a Zen thing. Let go and learn to trust yourself. The pictures will come out well, most of the time.

There is a good Flickr group on the topic. Have a look at this thread. There is a completely wonderful story from Tom Abramson here. It's very memorable.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/sunny16/discuss/72157603697812726/

Cheers and happy shooting.

xxloverxx

10-22-2009, 06:14

bmattock

10-22-2009, 06:45

Its all degrees.......get as accurate as your circumstances allow but....be prepared to improvise.

My MOS in the Marine Corps was Combat Photographer and the conditions in Viet Nam were so horrible that we had a saying.....(using Tri-X and a Nikon).... F11 and be there! Oddly most of the time I came out with decent images.

"...most of the time...decent images...".

If you are under combat conditions, I have no doubt that stopping to meter can be dangerous to your health.

When one is not in such dire circumstances, and one wants more than 'most of the time' results, I posit that metering is a Good Thing.

bmattock

10-22-2009, 07:02

Bit of a late reply this, but to learn to guess exposure:

I got an incident meter and carried it everywhere with me for a month or so, taking readings everytime the light changed.
After a while the common scenes got committed to memory (e.g typical, bright but cloudy day in HK should be around f/4 at 1/125, ISO 400; inside the MTR (train) it's about 1.4/1.8 at 1/125, ISO 400)
Now, I shoot almost anywhere confident that I'm not over 1 stop off. I recently checked a guess against my meter and I was off by a few footcandles…:)

I guarantee that your eyes are not calibrated light sensors. What you are 'committing to memory' is not light levels, but as you said 'typical conditions'.

This works as long as conditions are typical.

Many of us live in climates that vary considerably from day to day, from hour to hour even. Some of us shoot in cities, where buildings block the sun and etc from block to block. Clouds often don't just appear in the blink of an eye, they more in more-or-less slowly and the scene darkens bit by bit, unnoticed by the human eye, until one suddenly notices "Hey, it got dark!"

As I have also stated - precise metering is for when you want to take creative control over your exposure. If you do not, and 'good enough' is literally good enough - then it seems you have a system which works for you.

I do not obsessively meter every scene I shoot. I have cameras which possess no means to set shutter speed or aperture, so metering would be moot in any case. And yes, they generally produce a usable photograph. But with such photography, exposure is not one of the aspects of the photograph which I can place under my control. If you can't or don't want to do so, no problem - don't meter. If you can and do want to, then metering is really required, because your eyes cannot.

shadowfox

10-22-2009, 07:21

If your photographs matter to you, learn to use a meter properly, carry one with you, and don't be a dolt. Not you Roger, this is advice to the hoi polloi.

Bill, I agree that our eyes and brains are not the same as a calibrated meter.

But I don't agree that you *have* to use a meter otherwise photography doesn't really matter or you're just being a dolt.

One of the most important aspect of creativity is unpredictability. Without which, we won't learn or adapt to anything different.

Now, please don't turn around and thinking that I said "no creativity if you're using a meter."

And sometimes I just like to pull out a negative from the tank and see crisp images despite me having not used a meter. Yeah, I'm shallow that way.

:D

shadowfox

10-22-2009, 07:31

When you do not have your hand held with you what are some methods to estimating exposure? I know the sunny 16 rule, are there others or is it just a guess?

I forgot to respond to the OP's question:

I understand and use Sunny-16 as an offset system. That is, it can be used under most lighting condition as long as you remember the basic rules.

Yes, some of the usage depends on your past memory for certain light situations, it is not unlike those fancy meters on Nikon or Minolta that records a bunch of "samples" of light situations.

Yes, it is all but an approximation, but if you're using B&W film or C-41 (or even slides) and the light situations doesn't change much, you're going to be surprised how well the images came out.

And most importantly, and probably why some of us like it, it's fun to do. Not for Bill, I gather :) but it is for me.

bmattock

10-22-2009, 07:36

Bill, I agree that our eyes and brains are not the same as a calibrated meter.

Excellent.

But I don't agree that you *have* to use a meter otherwise photography doesn't really matter or you're just being a dolt.

Oh, I don't think I've ever said that. My 'dolt' remarks are intended for people who think they *can* meter with their eyeballs, if they really think that.

What matters in photography is the result - to the viewer. What matters in photography is intent - to the photographer.

I am glad when a person likes my photograph, and whether I metered or did not meter is hardly important to them. However, if I am intending to expose a scene in a particular way, then metering matters to me, because like focusing, it is a matter of intent. If I intend to expose it thusly, then I need to make use of the tools that permit that. Guessing might work, but it might not. To me, that is not productive.

One of the most important aspect of creativity is unpredictability. Without which, we won't learn or adapt to anything different.

One often gets results based on unpredictability which one likes. Supposing that it is an effect of random (or guessed) exposure, how does one reproduce that effect if one does not know how it was achieved?

Now, please don't turn around and thinking that I said "no creativity if you're using a meter."

I won't. Please don't infer that I said anyone who doesn't use a meter is a dolt, when I did not.

And sometimes I just like to pull out a negative from the tank and see crisp images despite me having not used a meter. Yeah, I'm shallow that way.

I think a lot of the misunderstanding between people like us with regard to metering has to do with our individual understanding of exposure. I have no argument with people who claim they can get 'good' exposures from guessing. Sure, no problem.

But is that exposure under your control? Not if you're guessing. If you guess, you get what you get. If it is within acceptable parameters for you, then that obviously works for you.

But would you do the same with, say, shallow DoF and focusing? Would you accept a lens that backfocused, for example? You intend to place the focus at the eyes of some portrait subject, and instead it is his ears that are in focus and the eyes blurry. Would that be OK? I would argue it would not be OK, because it is not what you intended. Now, you could stop down and let DoF cover any focusing error, but that is a compromise, isn't it? Fine if you're OK with compromise, but not if you want total control.

With regard to exposure, I posit that it is a creative tool like any other. You can accept 'good enough' exposures that are the result of memories and guestimates and if it works for you, it's no different from stopping down to cover the errors of a mis-calibrated lens. If, however, you intended to precisely place black at X and white at Y, then guessing just isn't going to cut it.

So for me, it is down to intent. Yes, I fully understand that one can get acceptable exposures by guessing. I do it myself all the time, or use cameras which can't be set anyway. I like the results. But I do not expect precise exposure control from those methods or cameras. And I do think that precise exposure is a creative tool that can be exploited if one wants to use it, and takes the time and effort to master that particular control.

You don't have to manually focus - AF works just fine most of the time, right? DoF will cover a multitude of focusing errors. But some of like to manually focus, for the control it gives us. Metering is the same.

johnny9fingers

10-22-2009, 07:51

I miss the days when exposure info was printed in the boxes. Now I go to the web site for whatever film I'm using and print out the spec sheet. I use that info as a base whether I have a meter with me or not.

shadowfox

10-23-2009, 08:40

Oh, I don't think I've ever said that. My 'dolt' remarks are intended for people who think they *can* meter with their eyeballs, if they really think that.

Got ya! my bad for misunderstanding your post above.

One often gets results based on unpredictability which one likes. Supposing that it is an effect of random (or guessed) exposure, how does one reproduce that effect if one does not know how it was achieved?

By memory. For me, reproducing the result that I like is the intention, not necessarily having the exact reproduction of what I got before, I may actually like the results that are completely different the next time around.

I suspect that you and I represent the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to figuring something out.

I go from the most abstract idea, to the general idea, and down to some level of detail that satisfies me, but not more. (This drives my wife absolutely crazy, btw).

Some people go the other way, the details must already be covered as the ground base before moving up to the more general and abstract ideas.

I submit that for the detail-oriented folks, the idea of not knowing what causes things to happen is quite unsettling. While the abstract/general-idea-oriented people are easily overwhelmed with the mental effort necessary to keep all the parameters in check to ensure reproducibility.

With regard to exposure, I posit that it is a creative tool like any other. You can accept 'good enough' exposures that are the result of memories and guestimates and if it works for you, it's no different from stopping down to cover the errors of a mis-calibrated lens. If, however, you intended to precisely place black at X and white at Y, then guessing just isn't going to cut it.

So for me, it is down to intent.

I agree about the intent being the determinant factor.

My mindset of recognizing unpredictability as a creative tool to "predict" the outcome that I like (as I said above, not necessary the same outcome as before) probably comes from dabbling with printing, at least, printing the way I learn in by myself, not having anyone (other than books) who can show me the "proper" way.

It certainly is made worse by alt. processes where the outcome is almost guaranteed to not be the same as the previous try. But that's exactly what attracted me to photography.

That's probably why I feel at home with Sunny-16 and manual focus.

Harold Gough

11-29-2009, 05:49

You might say that, wherever you are, the 16 rule applies, under sunny skies with a few fluffy clouds. However, should you travel 1,000 miles or so closer to the equator, perhaps on a holiday trip, you could easily find that the rule would give about a stop too much exposure. Rules only work in the circumstances for which they were intended.

Richard G

11-29-2009, 14:06

In Florence in 1986, aged 26, with experience of a Gossen Sixtar for nearly 10 years, with a new M4-2 but no meter on that trip, I shot Ilford FP4 and Kodachrome 25 for a month with 95% satisfactory, and with those that weren't I knew it ahead of time because the light was low. I used the instructions on the box. I now have a Gossen incident meter and love it, but I will resort to Sunny 16 often and it is a good thing to know as a reference for mad meter readings in difficult circumstances - a pink rose in a sea of dark green fooled my M6's meter but I knew to ignore it. I am going to print out the abridged Fred Parker table kindly provided above. I love meter threads.

Carlsen Highway

12-14-2009, 14:40

Hmm.

All that really matters is that it can be done perfectly successfully, and the trick is to find a set of exposures for generic lighting situations - carry them in your head - and then make variations off them for the specific situations that you find.

One way of teaching yourself is to make up your set of generic exposures and memorise them. Theres not many that would get you by. Five only.
Then meter the light the day has given you at home, before you go out, with your automatic camaera or light meter, and then go forth with that as a baseline and and judge everything from that.
Shoot a roll of film through the day and when you get home before you go inside, estimate the exposure off your letterbox (or something) and then check it on the meter and see how far off you are. Develope the roll of film and see if you were out through the day. This will refine and inform your variations.

If you do that you will learn fairly quickly. Do it five days in a row and youll be alright after that.
(Its basically how I taught myself to get by with a non metered Leica. I didnt have a light meter and I refused to take my automatic SLR with me to act as a light meter.)
I am now a perfectly successful guesser of exposures, and it didnt take years to do at all. I have since bought a Weston MAster light meter but sometimes on casual days I will still just meter the outside light and then leave it at home.

Harold Gough

12-14-2009, 21:42

chris00nj

12-15-2009, 19:52

Besides sunny 16, my other frame of reference is:

Normal indoor light (EV 5) = 400 ISO, 1/60, f/1.4. I can count stops from there.

Harold Gough

12-16-2009, 00:31

Normal indoor light (EV 5)
Although you define it, in doing so I think you have a contradiction in terms. I don't do indoor photography (except via natural light through a window) other than with flash. Even so, everyday experience of life tells me that indoor light levels are very variable. Where do you find this "normal" light?

robklurfield

12-16-2009, 06:01

The Black Cat Exposure Guide is handy and more or less pocketable. You can use it to educate your eye and brain to do the guesstimating with a higher level of repeatability. I carry it around as a backup or to force myself to see how well I can think my way through exposure decisions without a meter. Bmattacok is right, however, that your eyes and brain are not able to be calibrated like a meter and are, at best, only capable of gross estimates. Nevertheless, I think you can learn your way to good results by practice.

www.blackcatphotoproducts.com/guide.html

Some other posters in this thread and elsewhere have recommended some similar tools that are free and equally good.

I have found that I can meter a scene quickly and then estimate adjustments from there quite well if I have established kind of base ready of the light from which to start. For many situatons, anything other than a narrow spot meter is still giving you only an estimate of the light, unless you're very precise in reading zones with a reflected or incident meter. In other words, even a good meter used insufficiently can cause you to take terrible exposures.

Harold Gough

12-16-2009, 21:54

For many situatons, anything other than a narrow spot meter is still giving you only an estimate of the light, unless you're very precise in reading zones with a reflected or incident meter. In other words, even a good meter used insufficiently can cause you to take terrible exposures.
So why not just use a meter carefully? What is the point of substituting some other system for accurate metering?

baachitraka

04-28-2011, 15:13

Keith

04-28-2011, 15:25

I suggest pactising with a digital camera ... they are not really all that forgiving with exposure errors and your mistake is instantly obvious to you via the review. When I get my X100 I intend using it to give myself a refresher course in meterless shooting ... the camera is ideal for this because of it's manual controls instead of the command dials that DSLR's seem to have mostly gone to these days.