M3 to MP

[NB23]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2,3 and 4 are a plays on shadows and highlights.  They are part of my latest winter series along the lines of "Anonymous New Yorkers," the point of which is that we live in the shadows during the winter time and for the most part only see people's shadows and highlight-laced outlines   What I want to be properly and not properly exposed is all based on my own deliberate artistic rendition of how I want the scene to look.  I didn't rely on my meter for the final decision, which is my point.  

 

Ok... but what about the "far superiority" of handheld meters, then, if you come up with examples of pictures with meterings all over the map? 

[A miller]

Ok... but what about the "far superiority" of handheld meters, then, if you come up with examples of pictures with meterings all over the map? 

 

an incident meter reading will set the stage of the overall "base" exposure of the overall scene.  Then adjustments need to be made based on what I am trying to fit within my frame and what I want it to look like, all in the context of using solely film which as you know is very forgiving with its highlight retention.

Pointing a camera down to the ground is ok but has its drawbacks, including but not limited to:

 

-it give a middle gray on a surface that is not exactly middle gray, so additional adjustments need to be made for that.  In NYC, every sidewalk is a slightly different shade of gray.  And some or not even gray at all but a brick granite, or tar.  So that throws things off.

-common subjects are peoples faces, which have shadows within them.  Even assuming an exactly middle gray sidewalk (which is nearly always NOT the case), pointing a camera straight down will be like holding an incident meter with the ball sticking straight up to the sky in a parallel fashion.  But I find that hold the ball perpendicular with the sky is actually a little better representation of how light falls on a face standing on or walking down the street.  The perpendicular position will typically give a lower exposure value.  How much is really depending on the type of light in the scene, which you need to assess in order to compensate.  

 

When I am with my M7 (which is my least favorite camera and will be selling soon in favor of my M-A, M3 and IIIg), I find the spot meter totally annoying as it almost always gives me readings that I would not otherwise choose.   

 

Again, just me...

I am happy to concede that your way works for you as well as many others.  

 

I still, though, think in-camera spot-meters are for the most part crutches...

[NB23]

But the meter in a MP or M7 are not spot meters...

[A miller]

But the meter in a MP or M7 are not spot meters...

 

whatever it is, it is a point and shoot crutch, IMHO

[NB23]

I just want to say that there is no artistic expression to be reached with exposure.

 

There is only one correct exposure possible for a given subject. Not two or three and especially no artistic underexposure or artistic overexposure. There is one correct reading, that's all.

 

In your examples of people walking towards the camera, the correct exposure was for the highlights (the faces). And to reach that exposure, the correct reading is the one given by the insident meter in the same light as the faces and that's it. There's no creative exposure to be had from that point on.

 

The point of an exposure meter is to give an accurate metering and we must stick to that reading. The key is to know what and how to meter, but not to meter and then starting to go artistic with the readings.  Straying away from the meter readings will negatively affect the final image. 

[A miller]

I just want to say that there is no artistic expression to be reached with exposure.

 

There is only one correct exposure possible for a given subject. Not two or three and especially no artistic underexposure or artistic overexposure. There is one correct reading, that's all.

 

In your examples of people walking towards the camera, the correct exposure was for the highlights (the faces). And to reach that exposure, the correct reading is the one given by the insident meter in the same light as the faces and that's it. There's no creative exposure to be had from that point on.

 

The point of an exposure meter is to give an accurate metering and we must stick to that reading. The key is to know what and how to meter, but not to meter and then starting to go artistic with the readings.  Straying away from the meter readings will negatively affect the final image. 

 

I couldn't disagree more.  And I'm bored of this discourse with you...

[NB23]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I couldn't disagree more. And I'm bored of this discourse with you...

You may be bored but you should go back to basics. You have proved enough of your "knowledge" with your pics and erroneous discourse.

 

Showing severely underexposed images that were metered with a "superior" meter and then creatively tweaked proves that you are on the wrong path.

 

Going back to the very basics and sticking to it would be my best advice to you.

[A miller]

You may be bored but you should go back to basics. You have proved enough of your "knowledge" with your pics and erroneous discourse.

 

Showing severely underexposed images that were metered with a "superior" meter and then creatively tweaked proves that you are on the wrong path.

 

Going back to the very basics and sticking to it would be my best advice to you.

 

Thanks for the advice.

I'll be sure to stick to my own workflow and create first class photographs.

[Guest d.sge]

Keep your M3 and buy yourself a tiny Voigtlander VCmeter II much cheaper than MP.

 

 

 

The VC Meter II is great if you want a center-weighted meter for a 75mm lens. 

[NB23]

Thanks for the advice.

I'll be sure to stick to my own workflow and create first class photographs.

Is that like first-class mail? I'm always amazed at how all the other methods supercede it by quite a margin. That good ole american marketing.

[rpavich]

2,3 and 4 are a plays on shadows and highlights.  They are part of my latest winter series along the lines of "Anonymous New Yorkers," the point of which is that we live in the shadows during the winter time and for the most part only see people's shadows and highlight-laced outlines   What I want to be properly and not properly exposed is all based on my own deliberate artistic rendition of how I want the scene to look.  I didn't rely on my meter for the final decision, which is my point.  

 

You would think that this would have been obvious.

 

In any case...nice series. Well done.

[A miller]

Is that like first-class mail? I'm always amazed at how all the other methods supercede it by quite a margin..

Spoken like a true first class poser....

Keep exposing for that sidewalk with your expensive camera that everyone on this forum must bow-down to...

[hepcat]

I just want to say that there is no artistic expression to be reached with exposure.

 

There is only one correct exposure possible for a given subject. Not two or three and especially no artistic underexposure or artistic overexposure. There is one correct reading, that's all.

 

The point of an exposure meter is to give an accurate metering and we must stick to that reading. 

 

Ok, I'll bite.  Petty sniping aside, how did you arrive at your "one correct exposure possible for a given subject" axiom?

 

It is my understanding that meters are <mostly> calibrated to expose 18% gray as 18% gray, nothing more, nothing less.  So, how do you choose which light value in a scene as the one to expose accurately as 18% gray?   Isn't that what all exposure schemes (including the Zone System) is about?  And if one photographer consciously chooses a different value to be 18% in his frame than another, isn't that in fact artistic expression?

 

The point to a meter is to tell the photographer what exposure will lead to an accurate 18% gray in the frame using an 18% gray card...  not to arrive at the "one correct" or "accurate" reading.  It's up to the photographer to apply that knowledge as he/she sees fit in the frame and express the shadows and highlights as he wants them to look, not as the meter says they should look.

 

Frankly, that's my beef with automatic cameras...  they expose the way the programmer thinks they should look rather than how I want them to look.  

 

I sold all my Hassy gear last month and bought a Mamiya 645 AFDii a couple of weeks ago.  Yesterday, I bought a Mamiya 645 Pro TL as I just can't bond with the 645 AFDii and it's auto exposure, buttons and dials any more. I'll re-sell the 645 AFDii.    I shot Canon EOS 1 film gear for years... but I find I just can't do LCD panels and front and rear dials, auto exposure, and autofocus any more.    The camera is making too many of the decisions I want to make, and is inconvenient to override it and shoot manually... hence my return to manual cameras.   Built in meters are handy on occasion, but I find that I ignore the meter in my M9P most of the time because it just doesn't "know" what I want the image to look like; how I want it exposed...  in other words, it doesn't know which value I want to be 18% gray in my image. 

 

So please explain how there can be but one "accurate" exposure for a given scene?

[TRIago]

Nonsense? Plese get back to me when you'll have used a BP Leica.

 

Besides, Zinc is such a cheap move. And Chrome, black or silver, is so slippy.

Yes, I am a Leica snob.

What a douchey comment. This might be true for you but it doesn't mean it's true for me or the others. I sold my old M3 to keep my M6 with no regrets. Not only that but I own another brassed M and still feel the M6 is the best. Whatever.

[A miller]

Ok, I'll bite.  Petty sniping aside, how did you arrive at your "one correct exposure possible for a given subject" axiom?

 

It is my understanding that meters are calibrated to expose 18% gray as 18% gray, nothing more, nothing less.  So, how do you choose which light value in a scene as the one to expose accurately as 18% gray?   Isn't that what all exposure schemes (including the Zone System) is about?  And if one photographer consciously chooses a different value to be 18% in his frame than another, isn't that in fact artistic expression?

 

The point to a meter is to tell the photographer what exposure will lead to an accurate 18% gray in the frame using an 18% gray card...  not to arrive at the "one correct" or "accurate" reading.  It's up to the photographer to apply that knowledge as he/she sees fit in the frame and express the shadows and highlights as he wants them to look, not as the meter says they should look.

 

Frankly, that's my beef with automatic cameras...  they expose the way the programmer thinks they should look rather than how I want them to look.  

 

I sold all my Hassy gear last month and bought a Mamiya 645 AFDii a couple of weeks ago.  Yesterday, I bought a Mamiya 645 Pro TL as I just can't bond with the 645 AFDii and it's auto exposure, buttons and dials any more. I'll re-sell the 645 AFDii.    I shot Canon EOS 1 film gear for years... but I find I just can't do LCD panels and front and rear dials, auto exposure, and autofocus any more.    The camera is making too many of the decisions I want to make, and is inconvenient to override it and shoot manually... hence my return to manual cameras.   Built in meters are handy on occasion, but I find that I ignore the meter in my M9P most of the time because it just doesn't "know" what I want the image to look like; how I want it exposed...  in other words, it doesn't know which value I want to be 18% gray in my image. 

 

So please explain how there can be but one "accurate" exposure for a given scene?

 

Hepcat - of course you are right, and even if there are points to disagree with (which i would not share) you still make very reasonable and credible arguments. I wouldnt even waste your time with this fox hole, which effort should be saved for people worthy of your time.

 

 

 

 

What a douchey comment. This might be true for you but it doesn't mean it's true for me or the others. I sold my old M3 to keep my M6 with no regrets. Not only that but I own another brassed M and still feel the M6 is the best. Whatever.

There are Leica snobs and then there are just plain internet bullies....

[hepcat]

 

Hepcat - of course you are right, and even if there are points to disagree with (which i would not share) you still make very reasonable and credible arguments. I wouldnt even waste your time with this fox hole, which effort should be saved for people worthy of your time.

 

 

Adam, I am genuinely interested in why he so rigidly adheres to the "one true exposure" meme.    To quote Dudley Field Malone, "I never learned anything from a man who agreed with me."   There may be a nugget in his logic that I've never explored.  At least I'd like to find out.  He now knows my thoughts on the matter... and I'd like to have him explain his.  I may learn something new.

 

[A miller]

Adam, I am genuinely interested in why he so rigidly adheres to the "one true exposure" meme.    To quote Dudley Field Malone, "I never learned anything from a man who agreed with me."   There may be a nugget in his logic that I've never explored.  At least I'd like to find out.  He now knows my thoughts on the matter... and I'd like to have him explain his.  I may learn something new.

 

by all means, pound away!!

[animalhairs]

I think too much is being made of the metering light thing. I use an in-camer meter, and I have never had an issue making a good print in the B&W or color darkroom. If you're scanning negatives, you have even more flexibility. There's no point in getting all scientific with a 35mm, handheld camera. Just find what works for you and go with it. BTW, I'm perfectly comfortable reading light while using cameras that don't have a meter. For me, an in-camera meter is not what A miller referred to as a "crutch." It's a choice.

[NB23]

The point is to come up with one same exposure reading with both metering methods.

And yes, there is one optimal reading for s given scene. Anything else will result in over/under exposure. Or as some call it: first class artistic expression.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hepcat]

The point is to come up with one same exposure reading with both metering methods.

And yes, there is one optimal reading for s given scene. Anything else will result in over/under exposure. Or as some call it: first class artistic expression.

 

I see.  Well, that seems to be without foundation, and pretty rigidly constructed thinking to me,  I suspect that you'd find a number of accomplished photographers who would take issue with that approach.   Low key lighting is dark and flat.  High key is bright and contrasty.  Both rely on moving that 18% reading up or down the zone scale.  Both are valid approaches, and neither rigidly conforms to a single standard of what an "optimal" exposure is.

 

But I also learned long ago that for every axiom I knew about photography, someone else was being successful by using a different axiom.

 

So, good luck with that approach.  If rigid works well for you, then it's a good approach.  It just wouldn't work very well for me...