B&W film and meters

[M9reno]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apologies if this duplicates earlier threads: I have not been able to find one with precisely this question:

 

How many of you who predominantly shoot black & white film find they require, or even benefit from, a light meter?

 

To what extent do you feel a judicious application of the Sunny 16 rule, or simply experience, is sufficient for black & white film photography?

 

I have read that the advent of colour film was the main reason that external (and then built-in) light meters became seen as necessary. Black & white does not make the same unforgiving demands in measuring accuracy. Do people here agree?

 

I ask all of these questions as I carefully consider the purchase of a new MP. Since it will almost always be used for black & white, I wonder to what extent its inbuilt light meter will just be getting in the way of my photography, an unwelcome distraction from something that in theory and with enough experience (gained on a less expensive metered camera, say my M6TTL, or with an external meter) I could realistically learn to work out on my own.

 

..which, if true, would mean that black & white photography can be done with less distraction and more spontaneously on a meter-less camera like the M3 and M2. This is, to a small degree, what I've been trying to do, and slowly getting better at, over the past few months, although I don't trust my light-metering instincts completely, particularly indoors.

 

On the answer to this question, in short, currently hinges my consideration of an MP: undeniably beautiful, but really necessary for my photography, or even a potential impediment to its spontaneity?

 

What do people here think? Thanks in advance for your thoughts and please excuse the long post!

[Guest Ornello]

Apologies if this duplicates earlier threads: I have not been able to find one with precisely this question:

 

How many of you who predominantly shoot black & white film find they require, or even benefit from, a light meter?

 

To what extent do you feel a judicious application of the Sunny 16 rule, or simply experience, is sufficient for black & white film photography?

 

I have read that the advent of colour film was the main reason that external (and then built-in) light meters became seen as necessary. Black & white does not make the same unforgiving demands in measuring accuracy. Do people here agree?

 

I ask all of these questions as I carefully consider the purchase of a new MP. Since it will almost always be used for black & white, I wonder to what extent its inbuilt light meter will just be getting in the way of my photography, an unwelcome distraction from something that in theory and with enough experience (gained on a less expensive metered camera, say my M6TTL, or with an external meter) I could realistically learn to work out on my own.

 

..which, if true, would mean that black & white photography can be done with less distraction and more spontaneously on a meter-less camera like the M3 and M2. This is, to a small degree, what I've been trying to do, and slowly getting better at, over the past few months, although I don't trust my light-metering instincts completely, particularly indoors.

 

On the answer to this question, in short, currently hinges my consideration of an MP: undeniably beautiful, but really necessary for my photography, or even a potential impediment to its spontaneity?

 

What do people here think? Thanks in advance for your thoughts and please excuse the long post!

 

B&W does not require the same accuracy in exposure that color transparency film does, but today's color negative films have much the same latitude as B&W negative film. So long as the exposure is adequate it does not matter if it is a little generous. There is no room for underexposure, but there is for additional exposure. One or two stops over is usually tolerated quite well, however. If in doubt, give more exposure.

 

It is quite easy to memorize the exposure for common light conditions.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Michael Hiles]

I can’t comment on cameras with meters – never owned one. I suspect that distractions in the viewfinder might annoy me – but the world seems happy with camea with meters appearing in the viewfinder, so who am I to blow against the wind. The obvious advantage of a camera with meter is no external meter to schelp around. My spot meter is a bit of a pain to carry, so I don’t unless there is likely to be quite varied light situations.

 

I meter when I have the time or feel a need or uncertainty. I use a spot meter and apply zone ideas to assure the whites, grays and blacks are placed in their correct zones. This is much easier than the nay-sayers suggest – it is completely natural and fast when you understand what it is you are doing, and it produces outstanding technical results.

 

On a given day of photographing, I will often use the meter to give me a general sense of what the exposures will be, and then make experience-based estimates when things change a little. In fact, I can usually get it 90% right without a meter just based on long experience. A sunny is a sunny day is a sunny day. Last year I spent 2 weeks around Rome and the Amalfi coast without using the meter at all – 100 % of the negatives were good and 90% were 90% perfect and capable of outstanding prints (the images were perhaps more arguable). And anyone can do this. Just think about what you are doing, and remember what you last did that was successful – that is the essence of using experience.

 

While B&W film generally is more forgiving than colour film (particularly slide film), there is still an optimum exposure. This implies testing for your personal film speed, and metering with some care. While 90% right probably still produces good negatives, close is not right on. In my view +/- 1/3 of a stop is “right on”.

 

Regarding Sunny 16, the idea is very useful, but the numbers have (for me) been wrong. A sunny day, anywhere I have ever been, does not require an exposure of f16 and 1/ASA. It is much closer to f5.6-f8 and 1/ASA, i.e. a 2-3 stop difference, which is unarguably make/break with any film. I use Ilford XP2 almost exclusively, and expose for 200 ASA (which most people agree is about optimal for that film – 400 ASA make negatives that are too thin). A bright sunny day – based on my well calibrated meter and accurate shutters – requires f5.6 and 1/250th. Using the usual tables to adjust for different conditions and situations works very well – but based on adjusting from my basic f5.6 and 1/250th.

 

Colour would, in my view, require more metering for changes in situation. But probably not for every picture in similar circumstances. Just more care to produce good negatives, or (more to the point) well exposed transparencies.

[spydrxx]

I think you will find as many opinions on this subject as there are photographers. The best answer is to see what works for you. Long before I had my first light meter, I was shooting Kodachrome using the sunny 16 guideline (after all, that's what Kodak printed on the boxes). My B&W was always done without a light meter in the 1950s and early 60s. When I finally got a light meter in the late 1960s, my keeper rate improved perhaps 10-20%. These days I often use a meter to confirm what my mind tells me is optimal exposure (since my eyesight is getting increasingly poor). Forget all the hoo-ha about the artistic merits of using a meter or not, and see if you can go without a meter for a week or two...you may not be comfortable doing it...so then you merely learn how to properly use a meter...or better yet, both a reflected light meter and an incident light meter, and then decide which is best for the work you do.

[pico]

The MP viewfinder is not as uncluttered as the M3 or any of the several non-metered Leicas. You may as well use the internal meter. A reasonable technique is to take readings from the scene from a few critical areas and then ignore the internal metering distraction and roll the exposures manually to the appropriate readings for the subjects.

[Guest Ornello]

I can’t comment on cameras with meters – never owned one. I suspect that distractions in the viewfinder might annoy me – but the world seems happy with camea with meters appearing in the viewfinder, so who am I to blow against the wind. The obvious advantage of a camera with meter is no external meter to schelp around. My spot meter is a bit of a pain to carry, so I don’t unless there is likely to be quite varied light situations.

 

I meter when I have the time or feel a need or uncertainty. I use a spot meter and apply zone ideas to assure the whites, grays and blacks are placed in their correct zones. This is much easier than the nay-sayers suggest – it is completely natural and fast when you understand what it is you are doing, and it produces outstanding technical results.

 

On a given day of photographing, I will often use the meter to give me a general sense of what the exposures will be, and then make experience-based estimates when things change a little. In fact, I can usually get it 90% right without a meter just based on long experience. A sunny is a sunny day is a sunny day. Last year I spent 2 weeks around Rome and the Amalfi coast without using the meter at all – 100 % of the negatives were good and 90% were 90% perfect and capable of outstanding prints (the images were perhaps more arguable). And anyone can do this. Just think about what you are doing, and remember what you last did that was successful – that is the essence of using experience.

 

While B&W film generally is more forgiving than colour film (particularly slide film), there is still an optimum exposure. This implies testing for your personal film speed, and metering with some care. While 90% right probably still produces good negatives, close is not right on. In my view +/- 1/3 of a stop is “right on”.

 

Regarding Sunny 16, the idea is very useful, but the numbers have (for me) been wrong. A sunny day, anywhere I have ever been, does not require an exposure of f16 and 1/ASA. It is much closer to f5.6-f8 and 1/ASA, i.e. a 2-3 stop difference, which is unarguably make/break with any film. I use Ilford XP2 almost exclusively, and expose for 200 ASA (which most people agree is about optimal for that film – 400 ASA make negatives that are too thin). A bright sunny day – based on my well calibrated meter and accurate shutters – requires f5.6 and 1/250th. Using the usual tables to adjust for different conditions and situations works very well – but based on adjusting from my basic f5.6 and 1/250th.

 

Colour would, in my view, require more metering for changes in situation. But probably not for every picture in similar circumstances. Just more care to produce good negatives, or (more to the point) well exposed transparencies.

 

I, too, have found the "sunny 16" rule not to be true. But so long as the light is steady and you are not roaming around inside buildings where some of the light is blocked off, exposure is not that complicated. My point was that adequate exposure is crucial. Slightly more than that is not a problem at all. +2 stops, -0 stops is how I would describe latitude. Unlike what this poster suggests, if the scene contains a long scale, just ignore that and give the same exposure regardless. The shoulder of the film will take care of it. Expose for the shadows, always.

 

If you are walking along the beach and come across a white house, expose exactly the same as if it were black sand.

 

Exposure is based on the illumination level, never the reflectivity of the subject.

Edited March 10, 2012 by Ornello

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some of my cameras have built in meters and some don't, I work pretty much the same with them all whether I use the TTL meter, a handheld (incident light) meter or my own judgement. Often I use all three!

 

Don't like the meter in your MP? Take the batteries out!

 

Outside, with consistent light, you only need to take a reading once. Adjust/meter again if the light changes. Sunny 16 is more like sunny 11 from my experience, and experience is best to find what works best for you.

 

I think the OP is overcomplicating matters.

[Guest Ornello]

Some of my cameras have built in meters and some don't, I work pretty much the same with them all whether I use the TTL meter, a handheld (incident light) meter or my own judgement. Often I use all three!

 

Don't like the meter in your MP? Take the batteries out!

 

Outside, with consistent light, you only need to take a reading once. Adjust/meter again if the light changes. Sunny 16 is more like sunny 11 from my experience, and experience is best to find what works best for you.

 

I think the OP is overcomplicating matters.

 

In my experience, more like sunny f/8-11.

[earleygallery]

In my experience, more like sunny f/8-11.

 

I found it to be Sunny 16 in the Australian outback. It's obviously variable depending on where you are, air pollution levels etc.

[TomB_tx]

When I was most active in photography (college 1964-1968) I used meterless cameras, B&W (mainly), all available light, and didn't own a meter. By constant shooting & processing film, examining the negatives, you evaluate results and learn to read the light. I got nice results without a meter.

Leaving college I got a Leicaflex SL and other cameras with meters, and then seldom used my meterless cameras, as I got uncomfortable without the re-assurance of the meter. Kind of like cell phones: we didn't care about them when we didn't have them, but once we start relying on them there's no going back.

[Guest Ornello]

When I was most active in photography (college 1964-1968) I used meterless cameras, B&W (mainly), all available light, and didn't own a meter. By constant shooting & processing film, examining the negatives, you evaluate results and learn to read the light. I got nice results without a meter.

Leaving college I got a Leicaflex SL and other cameras with meters, and then seldom used my meterless cameras, as I got uncomfortable without the re-assurance of the meter. Kind of like cell phones: we didn't care about them when we didn't have them, but once we start relying on them there's no going back.

 

Well using films of more than one speed for me makes it more difficult. Back when I used only Tri-X Pan I could estimate exposure easily. Open shade? 1/250 @ f/5.6. But shooting ISO 25, 64, 100, 200...I would get confused.

[M9reno]

Often I use all three!

 

Thank you, James. I guess my point is: isn't using all three methods for one shot over-complicating matters, as you say?

 

Don't like the meter in your MP? Take the batteries out

 

Well, yes... But then the question becomes, why buy the MP? What does the black & white shooting, meter-less user gain from the MP that he doesn't already get from the M3 and M2? The MP is beautiful, but buying one for that reason alone seems to me equivalent to fetishising its aesthetics and thus (again) to over-complicate matters, as you say.

 

Please let me be clear: I don't at all want to imply any distaste for the MP. On the contrary, I am such a huge admirer of it as to feel on the edge of taking the next step. What worries me, I suppose, is that the easy availability of an inbuilt light meter will promote an unnecessary reliance on it. I doubt many MP users leave their battery compartment empty. And it worries me to think of coming to depend on those arrows, and using three light-measuring methods before taking one shot. I'm otherwise fully ready to be sold. Could you give me the needed push?

 

In any case, thank you so much for the time you have generously taken to reply to my query.

 

Best wishes, Al

Edited March 10, 2012 by M9reno
Added my name

[stunsworth]

I'm not being flippant, but why not take out the batteries when you're shooting B&W and pit them back in when using colour?

[M9reno]

I'm not being flippant, but why not take out the batteries when you're shooting B&W and pit them back in when using colour?

 

Thanks, Steve. Not flippant at all. That's just the kind of encouragement I need.

[earleygallery]

Why use all three? Well, I might wish to compare reflected and incident readings in a tricky situation, and I'll use my own judgement based on those readings. It's not over complicating matters to get the right result.

 

Why buy an MP? Well if you prefer to buy a new film M camera you only have a choice of two Leica models, and both have built in meters.

 

Give me an M2 loaded with B&W film and send me out without a meter and I'm confident I'll get a printable image from every frame. But I still like to use a meter for consistency and those trickier conditions.

 

Thank you, James. I guess my point is: isn't using all three methods for one shot over-complicating matters, as you say?

 

 

 

Well, yes... But then the question becomes, why buy the MP? What does the black & white shooting, meter-less user gain from the MP that he doesn't already get from the M3 and M2? The MP is beautiful, but buying one for that reason alone seems to me equivalent to fetishising its aesthetics and thus (again) to over-complicate matters, as you say.

 

Please let me be clear: I don't at all want to imply any distaste for the MP. On the contrary, I am such a huge admirer of it as to feel on the edge of taking the next step. What worries me, I suppose, is that the easy availability of an inbuilt light meter will promote an unnecessary reliance on it. I doubt many MP users leave their battery compartment empty. And it worries me to think of coming to depend on those arrows, and using three light-measuring methods before taking one shot. I'm otherwise fully ready to be sold. Could you give me the needed push?

 

In any case, thank you so much for the time you have generously taken to reply to my query.

 

Best wishes, Al

[Stealth3kpl]

I don't tend to use my meter once I've taken an initial incident light reading. I tend to use that initial reading in sunshine as my reference. If I sense a change in the max sunshine brightness of the day I adjust everything (i.e. if I sense the sunny street has changed from f16 to f11, my shadows will shift from f5.6 to f4). I've been tending to shoot film at slightly lower iso than box setting; not particularly by choice, it's just the way the speeds are on the M. For example, if I've Portra 160 loaded I set the exposure relative to 1/125 because there isn't a 1/160 , or if Portra 400 is loaded I'll set the exposure relative to 1/250 bcause I don't want to under expose by setting 1/500. (in this way Some might say I'm actually using something approaching f11 rather than f16). It may be crude by the purist's standards but, hell, it more or less works. f16 bright sunny, f11 sunny, f5.6 for shade, f8 if it's not really shady but not really sunny. I test myself against my meter even if not taking photos - it's good practice.

One situation that confuses me is contre-jour. It would be simple if I wanted to expose something casting its own shade - I'd set 5.6. If it's light shining through leaves I've been thinking f8, but perhaps that should be 5.6 too (or would that blow the quality of the light??) How about if it's something like this. Oh, no, now I'm really having difficulty getting it right. Any rules of thumb?

Pete

[M9reno]

Thanks, Pete. I really like your picture.

 

Basically, my reasoning goes that if I got an MP, I'd keep the battery in, and keep the meter on, in case I ran into tricky conditions. (Up to this point I agree completely with James.) But of course the meter would light up every time, even in simple conditions. Since I will only shoot black & white (because I process the film myself and find colour film processing at home just too hard), I worry that the MP's meter would end up annoying me by constantly getting in the way, or it would prevent me from building experience in assessing light on my own (already, when I use an M6 or M9, I very often get lazy and keep my eye to the viewfinder and mindlessly turn, often not bothering to check the aperture or speed to which the magic arrows take me - a sloppy form of automatic exposure). Either result would be a pity.

 

A solution could be to take the batteries out in normal use and carry around a reflected/incident light meter, or a battery in my pocket, for the tricky conditions. But I can't help feeling that such a thing would be a very silly thing to do with an MP, and it would be hard to justify leaving behind an M3 or M2 at home in such a case.

 

In short, the MP sadly sounds like the wrong camera for me. On the other hand, my fetishist side can't easily get over how deliciously beautiful a black paint version looks, and I dream of its brassed patina! All of which makes me rather wish the MP's meter had an independent on/off switch, i.e. not on the speed dial! Sounds hopeless, but does anyone think Leica will serve such a thing a la carte?

 

Anyway... thanks again to everyone for giving such generous and helpful advice. Best wishes, Al

[kokoshawnuff]

You could get yourself a nice original black paint M2 or repainted M3 (if the 'fetishist' inside you needs black paint), both of which would be far cheaper than a new MP without the worry of red metering lights becoming an annoyance. With compact meters like the gossen digisix it's barely noticeable if you cary a bag or have lots of pockets, but there are times when you only want to cary a camera with one lens attached, some film and not worry about meters; if this is the case then trusting the ability to meter yourself or having a built in meter are the only options.

[M9reno]

You could get yourself a nice original black paint M2 or repainted M3 (if the 'fetishist' inside you needs black paint), both of which would be far cheaper than a new MP....

 

Absolutely agreed!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Stealth3kpl]

Thanks, Pete. I really like your picture.

Thanks, but it's not my picture!

 

But of course the meter would light up every time I worry that the MP's meter would end up annoying me by constantly getting in the way,

 

This is why I sold my MP for and M2

 

Pete