Shooting without a lightmeter

What about cameras like this? How would one understand how to get the correct exposure at the time?

 

Well, first of all you'd have to establish the sensitivity-through trial and error-of your medium. I can't tell what that's meant to shoot-it would have likely been either a "false positive" medium(daguerreotype or tintype/ambrotype/ferrotype) or a glass plate(wet or dry). Wet plate and the various tintype related processes use sensitized colloidion, although tintypes get less exposure than plates as the false positive effect depends on the negative being fairly "thin."

 

In any case, once you've established the sensitivity you either shoot under controlled conditions, or you use a light meter. Yes, they've existed almost as long as photography, although the technology has changed. One of the earliest common types was called an extinction meter. I've seen them in a couple of forms, but the idea is you look through them and determine the darkest number(or whatever other scale the meter uses) that you can see. It's dependent of course on your eyesight and also on ambient light, but they do give you some idea.

"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."

 

When the above camera was current, there was no standardised speed for plates. No ASA, no DIN, no Weston, and certainly no ISO. So everything was by trial and error, and if the exposure was a bit off, the blue-sensitive plates would be developed by inspection until they were printable.

 

Photographers in those days were mostly professionals, and the few amateurs around were mainly from rich and privileged classes that could afford expensive equipment and materials.

 

Nowadays, and for about the last 100 years, the average 1st worlder can just go out and buy film of a consistent speed and expose it accurately using a cheaply bought meter.

 

So I really don't see any good reason not to take advantage of those hard-won advances and simply measure the light with a meter. Less wasteful, and IME a better way to truly learn about light than simply guessing until you get it right.

 

Or did Ansel Adams simply waste his time writing two volumes on measuring exposure?

Ansel Adams has a paragraph in his book "The Negative" about estimating exposure on page 39.. In fact he said that his photo "Moonrise, Hernandez, NM was shot without a light meter because he could not find it quickly. He calculated his exposure from moon brightness. I use a meter but if an old Leica came to me at a good price I would buy it and shoot it without a meter. Not likely that will happen around my area.

The Sunny 16 rule is based on what you would expect using an incident meter. There are folks out there shooting old camera's without light meters. Leica's latest film model is without a light meter just because there are people who do not want a meter for various reasons. Edited January 17, 2018 by rossb

I shot a roll of HP5 yesterday without a lightmeter just for the fun of it. I took the batteries out of my FM2n and put a cheat sheet in the little film reminder slot on the back door. It was a little slower as I was trying to determine the amount of light and all. Basically I did fine however and my exposures were about the same as usual. Probably an exercise like that once in a while would be helpful with your photography. I am planning on purchasing a Leica 35mm pretty soon and the exercise was to determine if I should consider a meterless Leica. Well I think I would be fine without a meter but I want one anyway so I am looking for a M6 or MP.

@cassiorenan I think an old view camera would be a tad more forgiving with a meterless approach. Why? - You take one plate at a time and can rush home into your darkroom wagon process it and learn your share from the mistakes you maybe made. That is way more instant feedback than evaluating a roll of 35mm with two different Xmas trees on it's ends. Also: Old recipies for enhancers and reducers date back into that period, when huge negs were created for contact copying. While you can clip 35mm apart and dunk it into those soups, you'll probably curse noisier because any additional grain gained that way is less welcome when you are going to enlarge.

@rossb I am absolutely no fan of the meters Leica build into any M, besides maybe the M5, which I never handled.

I started serious photography with a meterless Agfa and feel way more comfortable reading a handheld meter before I dig a camera out than to raise something, watch an internal traffic light, lower it and dig for a shorter lens providing a faster aperture. Around my hometown I can be seen planning ahead, carrying just a meter but no camera yet. I am also fine on touristic journalistic strolls where I am metering handheld and setting my cameras so they'll be ready. - Just trying to emphasize: While I like having a meter, I see little need to have it built into my camera.

Upon entirely meterless photography: I am confident about doing it for a minor gambling kick / look and see dabbling. It worked in the past, so why shouldn't I get away with it too? - OTOH: If results matter, the lab rat will(!) have to sweat where the shooter was cool & lazy. You turn less eager to create a mess when you know you 'll be the one supposed to fix it later.

Theory and exposure guessing can't harm. Meters are stupid devices assuming you point them at a 18% gray. If you fail to keep that in mind a reading far off your expectations might baffle you enough to figure out what went wrong. I simply guess I'd shoot less film if there was more gambling involved. Hoping to nail focus and avoid too much camera shake is usually already enough for my taste.

I use a meter with digital whenever I have the time. The sekonic meter is calibrated to the camera's sensor and i know precisely where the clipping points are. With MF film, even with the latitude, at $2 a click, i am precise on each exposure placing shadows or tonal values using a meter. I use the meter when using strobes with film the same as I would with digital. When shooting a client, I don't want to have to call and tell them I blew the exposure on the film. With b&w film's latitude, you have a good chance of having a workable exposure. The best exposure for the shot, not so much. That's where a meter and the zone system comes into play.