Trusting My Meter

[danac]

I'm guessing that at least 90% of the better B/W landscape images I've made over the last forty-four years with an AE-1 or A-1 (fifty-four if you include my old Pentax Spotmatic SP) were made using the settings my meter gave me. Sure some of those could have been a bit better by exposing for the shadows et al.. But overexposing with this tiny format will most often make for a grainier image which I personally don't like. In the last few years I've made a lot of poor negatives by over doing the creative routine. From now on I will trust my meter for at least one image and play with exposures for a further one or two just for fun. I know that Ansel took a dim view of bracketing but I just ain't as clever as he was.

[Ken Katz]

I haven't shot film in almost 20 years, and almost 40 years since I shot real B&W film, but the attached seems to be a good guide to the impact of over and under exposure:  http://canadianfilmlab.com/2016/04/03/black-white-film-exposure-test-comparisons-kodak-tri-x-400/

Note that their "box speed" exposure was determined by a spot meter of an 18% gray card, so the bright sky in the background would not have been included in the exposure.

IMHO, following a TTL averaging (or center weighted averaging) meter works fine unless you are shooting backlit, sidelight, or any high contrast scene.  For that you need to understand the light in front of you, what the meter is telling you, and how the recording medium at your focal plane will react.  I'm now a lazy EVF user, which shows highlight and shadow clipping live, and can always see what the image looks like and its applicable histogram before walking on.  I can still screw up of course, but the technology makes that harder.

[Bettendorf]

3 hours ago, danac said:

I'm guessing that at least 90% of the better B/W landscape images I've made over the last forty-four years with an AE-1 or A-1... were made using the settings my meter gave me.

Looks like you're on the right track.  The Central Emphasis Metering pattern in my AE-1P and A-1 have never let me down for 39 years.  Just be mindful that metering vertical will give you a slightly different reading with all 'A' models.

But Dana, the MOST important thing to remember is that your A-1 is Hexaphotocybernetic. (or so says Canon). 

 

[AlanKlein]

7 hours ago, danac said:

I'm guessing that at least 90% of the better B/W landscape images I've made over the last forty-four years with an AE-1 or A-1 (fifty-four if you include my old Pentax Spotmatic SP) were made using the settings my meter gave me. Sure some of those could have been a bit better by exposing for the shadows et al.. But overexposing with this tiny format will most often make for a grainier image which I personally don't like. In the last few years I've made a lot of poor negatives by over doing the creative routine. From now on I will trust my meter for at least one image and play with exposures for a further one or two just for fun. I know that Ansel took a dim view of bracketing but I just ain't as clever as he was.

Ansel's dead.  Bracket away.  I do.  

[John Crowe]

I shot film from 1983-2007.  I primarily shot fine grain (ultra slow) transparencies and negatives.  With 35mm I would only bracket under challenging light situations.  With 6x6 and 4x5 I was much more careful.

If you have a digital camera it would help a lot in identifying the correct settings.

[Gary Naka]

On 4/26/2023 at 11:18 AM, danac said:

I'm guessing that at least 90% of the better B/W landscape images I've made over the last forty-four years with an AE-1 or A-1 (fifty-four if you include my old Pentax Spotmatic SP) were made using the settings my meter gave me. Sure some of those could have been a bit better by exposing for the shadows et al.. But overexposing with this tiny format will most often make for a grainier image which I personally don't like. In the last few years I've made a lot of poor negatives by over doing the creative routine. From now on I will trust my meter for at least one image and play with exposures for a further one or two just for fun. I know that Ansel took a dim view of bracketing but I just ain't as clever as he was.

Even today's sophisticated "matrix" meters miss the exposure.  I have plenty of examples of that.  There are times when I switch from matrix to the older centerweight meter.  You have to learn your meter.

I agree.  Take a pic following the meter, then evaluate the scene and determine if you should take another pic, and which way to adjust the exposure.

Color transparency/slide is brutally unforgiving of over-exposure errors.  I used an incident meter when shooting slides.
B&W is more forgiving of exposure, but a blown highlight is still unrecoverable.  Been there, done that.  Grade 6 paper and a prayer.

Depending on the scene, some of my better landscape/sunset pics have been with deliberate underexposure, to darken the scene and make the colors richer.

[gwhitegeog]

Ansel Adams zone system? Expose for shadow, print for highlights'?

[glen_h]

In film days, I believed in manual setting, and bought a Nikon FM, not so long after the FE came out.

Manual is convenient in that it encourages you to check the exposure.

With a center-weighted meter, you can move the spot around and check for any changes.

(Mostly, I have noticed that the effect is small, and not worried about it.)

Also, manual allows for an easy manual exposure adjustment. 

For negatives films, I usually round up so slightly more exposure.

 

But then with digital, I got used to P exposure mode. 

Too much work to think about exposure most of the time.

[Tony-S]

On 5/2/2023 at 12:58 PM, gwhitegeog said:

Ansel Adams zone system? Expose for shadow, print for highlights'?

“Develop” (the film) for the highlights.