vivek iyer Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 "I suspect your pen-pal is in rebellion against those who are slaves to technology, but I see his position as being a slave to anti-technology. I'll bet he's limiting his photographic potential more than he's willing to admit." I like that first part of the first sentence. The second, I am not so sure about. There are also disingenuous bunch who claim something and do something else. If he/she was really genuinely serious, she/he wouldn't be bothering with a Leica or a rangefinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacob_brown Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 "A photo-pen pal has written, "Thou shalt never use a Light Meter" " He must be a pal if you're nice enough not to name him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_spiers Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 "If you want to make life hard, why not also remove the rangefinder and cover one eye with a patch? Could also wear a loincloth made from a potato sack while shooting. I'm afraid that doing things the difficult way doesn't make them any better, nor does using a 50 year old camera and lens." Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alokppatel Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 I tried Rogaine, but it was so unnatural so then I decided I would go back to the roots, literally and i applied the root of rubarb to my scalp three times a day. However I soon developed second degree burns on my...Wait it says blandness not baldness, my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Bob Atkins "No, I think it's doing things the hard way. Exposure is just one more thing to have to think about"...right Bob...and there go all those (just for example) fantastic sunset shots where someone had to THINK about exposure compensation. As well we'd sure have a lot crummy grey snowscapes if someone didn't THINK to over-ride the meter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Again, I don't think Tony, or his friend, or my salesperson way back when was saying not use a meter...they are saying to learn enough to know when not to trust your meter. But of course we all know technology is infallibe!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 not the safe perfection programmed into the camera by a corporate committee. So true. I've never used which had more sense than a robot. You just have to try to work out how far they are off the mark in any given situation. Serious pain in the arse stuff with any new bells and whistle auto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 I'm a bit late on this but... I agree about meterless photography but not that such makes a true photographer. Using older non-metered cameras of whatever brand I tend to guess based on years of experience. It is faster. Sometimes it's a challenge to guess and then check the guess with a meter. I think it is a good idea to try to learn basic exposure combinations. Ansel Adams used a meter to the extreme, but Brett Weston said that he rarely used a meter. They are both great photoraphers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 "Ansel Adams used a meter to the extreme, but Brett Weston said that he rarely used a meter. They are both great photo[g]raphers." Right, Todd. The secret, as it turns out, was in the prints. Both printed on *fiber*! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Rowlett Posted May 3, 2007 Author Share Posted May 3, 2007 Good thoughts, all. OK, let me try to qualify a little bit my pal's orientation towards photography. First, he's an old timer who is uncomfortable with things like the internet, the web, scanning, even <i>resin coated papers!</i> I think it could follow that if this guy started shooting with an M2/3 back in the mid 50's, a light meter might, to him, be "just an extra gadget that you don't need." Second, he shoots <i>only</i> with black and white. Thirdly, and maybe most important, he is a street photographer (and I believe a very good one). He may be anti-tech, but I really admire his connection to his equipment nearly to the extent that he doesn't even notice that he's <i>using</i> the equipment. Focus, f/stop, shutter speed, composition. These all seem to me as things that are automatic in his brain. He may quickly notice a scene and promptly forget that he just snapped it (until he has to advance the film). <p> I think with other types of photography, these things don't hold so true. Obviously, if you are a slide shooter, a meter is indispensable. I think we're talking about a pretty narrow field here. Backups? We don’t need no stinking ba #.’ _ , J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 The subject wasn't sunsets and snow, it was street photography. The moment is everything - ISO 400, f8, and rat cunning, as Tony Dummett used to say.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Tony - If your photos are not pleasing to you, then you should try new things. At this point, my own instinct would be to consider modifying *where* you're taking photos and *what* you're photographing, rather than how you're metering the shots. But you never know. Depending upon your assessment of the blandness and its causes, the new meterless approach may be worth a shot ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_. Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 i love all these writing theories about how you should take pictures... but then every time when i finish reading the notes, the sun goes down and i am left, all alone, in the dark, with nothing in the view of my lens. so the next day, i start over. or i could just take the damn picture... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Well I suppose I might as well confess, I do use a meter sometims, and remember the Bewi Extinction gadget that was the wonder of my high school photog club! Sure, I also use accessory finders once in a while, but it does make my navel wobble when someone claims he can't take a decent picture unless he has the proper frameline in his finder! Hell, if the scene demands a wider angle just slap on the old Skopar 25 (or whatever you remembered to put in your pocket) and fire away -- who has time to hunt around in the bag for that damned finder even if he has enough green to buy one?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alokppatel Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Mr. Root, that is great. Tony, photography is great because there are so many different photographers with different philosophies, i wouldn't want every photographer to feel the same way about cameras and photography that would be boring. Just like it holds for people. If everyone took photography ultraseriously we wouldn't have quirky yet equally compelling photos like the one posted by our Mr. Root. And if we had no serious photographers who create their own...well commandments, we wouldn't have photography at all. The key is recognizing that one is vital for the existence of the other. Ars Photographica a la Alok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_brewton Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Your buddy has echoed my thoughts exactly. Which is why is shoot with M3 & M4. I have acquired an M8, OTH, and basically agree with your premise of shooting it without a meter. It wouldn't bother me in the least. However, I do find that low light photography with the M8 takes on another life as it were due to the availability of high ISO's. As I have always disliked shooting anything higher than 400 speed film, having high ISO's at my fingertips does tend to invoke the meter crutch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 This forum seems to be wasting away. Close to dead. Irrelevant, meaningless, and misinformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 I must admit I get a bit annoyed with posts that are full of "thou shalts" or "thou shalt not" Who cares. Do what works for you. Thats one of the joys of photography - few rules. Although I must admit one thing using an M4P (no built in meter) and a hand held meter did teach me - you do not need to tweak the exposure setting when using negative film as much as most people think. Its all well and good to have say a Nikon with matrix metering that digitally compares the pattern result with thousands of exposures to assess correct auto exxposure, but I use a hand held meter to make sure I have a basic idea of correct exposure, then if I am in full sun and walk into shade I open up by a stop or so and then close down a stop or so again when I walk back into bright light. Thats it. Works 99% of the time. But as for grumbling about other people's metering practices, maybe your pal should get a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond_tai Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 When I was young and poor and could not afford a light meter I had to guess the exposure and pretty soon got pretty good at it. It takes a certain amount of practice that's all. There is nothing genius about remembering a bright incandescent lit room to be 1/60, f/2.8 iso400 as a starting point. By the way I too cut up my reject 11x14 fiber prints into post card sizes and mail them to my friends. And I thought I had a patent on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 <i>"Ansel Adams used a meter to the extreme"</i> <p> Maybe, but famously not for Moonrise, Hernandez, NM. Ansel USED a meter, but he didn't use it as a crutch, or as a substitute for understanding and seeing light. <p> Tools are just that. Without the eye, they're nothing. Assisting the eye - sure, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Heh heh, I know who he is... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chromatic-aberration Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Hubris (hyōō'brĭs) - excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 <i> Let me continue. He went on to say, "HCB never used [a light meter] 'cause the decisive moment doesn't last long enough."</i><P>What kind of dumbass waits until he sees a "decisive moment" to do his metering? You're supposed to adjust the camera to the lighting conditions as they change. Geeez, if he doesn't know <b>how</b> to use a meter, he's better off without one . . . ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteradownunder Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Here ya go Tony - the camera for you - no meter, and you focus by guestimate...works for me. <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/33093861@N00/353810840/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/159/353810840_e458709a37.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="" /></a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now