M3 to MP

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think too much is being made of the metering light thing. I use an in-ca

mer 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.

To be clear, i dont regard an in-camera meter as a crutch if it is used ocassionally by a photographer who has a good understanding of light. In fact, i know of many portrait and fashion photographers who use a spot meter to measure light on models' faces and a starting point/baseline to calculate ultimate exposure (eg, Jan Scholz) So i dont think we are in disagreement.

 

Having said this, my own personal opinion is that people sell their photography short by not taking up this exposure skills and instead relying solely on an in-camers spot meter. This is the "crutch" that i am talking about.

 

And the nonsense anout having only one correct exposure for a given scene is beyond elementary. There may be a single correct exposure for a given subject (although the ability to use the latitude of film and also the expansion and contraction in the development process guts out kost of the force of this general principle). But there is most certainly not only one correct subject for a given scene, which is the basis of a photographer's artistic expression.

[Advertisement]

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

[M9reno]

Perfect or correct exposure is a nice idea, but in the real, sub-lunar world that we inhabit, full of confusion and decay, nothing can be perfect (sorry... not even a Leica MP).  All our bearings are approximations, imperfectly derived from our senses or other equally fallible gadgets, or just inspired guesses based on experience - and hope.  Advocate perfection and condemn error all you want - it's been done by all kinds of zealots - but it changes nothing, and just makes people unhappy.

[pop]

We attempt to "see" the finished image through which we desire to express our concept of the subject, and perceive (...) certain print tonalities relating to important values in the subject. Only then do we undertake the technical steps required to produce the photograph. These are, simply stated, measuring the luminances of the subject and using this information to determine exposure ....

From Ansel Adams, The Negative.

 

So there is only one way to expose a scene and the M7 knows how to do that? My hat's off to the lowly device.

[NB23]

From Ansel Adams, The Negative.

 

So there is only one way to expose a scene and the M7 knows how to do that? My hat's off to the lowly device.

A correctly calibrated meter knows how to expose a scene. It usually gives one reading. Not three.

[A miller]

From Ansel Adams, The Negative.

 

So there is only one way to expose a scene and the M7 knows how to do that? My hat's off to the lowly device.

The entire thesis of The Negative is essentially that a photographer must execute on his vision by placing his subjects on one of MANY exposure values (zones). There is no "right" answer.

 

And as many points there are within a range of zones, there are infinitely more renditions when it comes to printing the resulting negative.

 

This is the art of artistic expression.

 

Mr Adams would roll in his grave the suggestion that there is a single "right" answer.

[hepcat]

A correctly calibrated meter knows how to expose a scene. It usually gives one reading. Not three.

And it will render both a black cat in a coalbin as 18% gray and a snow scene as 18% gray because it thinks that anything it's pointed at should be 18% gray.   A meter doesn't "know" anything.  It just tells the operator, if pointed at the right thing, what a basic reading is off that thing. 

[maximilianm3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you are shooting portraits and your spot meter reading is off the chart, I suggest using a Thambar for correct exposure of the highlights.

[leicaphilia]

A correctly calibrated meter knows how to expose a scene. It usually gives one reading. Not three.

 

A meter "knows" nothing. It's the person metering who knows what he wants.

 

Your underlying premise seems to be that there is one true way to recreate something photographically, which itself is based on the false premise that photogrghs accurately transcribe reality, which is an extremely nâive view of the process. 

 

Some cultural philistine once sought out Picasso while he was resident in Paris. The guy wanted to tell Picasso he was'nt a good painter because his portraits didnt"look like" the people he was painting. Picasso asked him what he meant by "what people look like," to which the philistine pulled a small B&W photo of his wife from his pocket, to which Picasso replied "so, your wife is very small, completely flat, and has no color?"

[Wayne]

Advocate perfection and condemn error all you want - it's been done by all kinds of zealots - but it changes nothing, and just makes people unhappy.

Brilliant! It sort of encapsulates mankind.....not to mention photography disputes, specifically.

[Joshua Lowe]

I've heard the "one true exposure" thing before.  In the most most hyper literal, inflexible, autistic way of thinking - it's true.  If you only treat photography as a collection of numerical values to be optimized without any regard for intent, imagination, or creativity.

[A miller]

I've heard the "one true exposure" thing before.  In the most most hyper literal, inflexible, autistic way of thinking - it's true.  If you only treat photography as a collection of numerical values to be optimized without any regard for intent, imagination, or creativity.

 

indeed.  To me it reflects having a closed mind and a sort of stubbornness, which me thinks is more about not wanting to openly agree or concede anything on this forum as opposed to what a person really would agree to in private.

[NB23]

This thread still going on?

 

I haven't seen great art nor great photography in this forum. Nothing that would cause me to change my mind.

Funny enough, I've seen consistentlly heavily underexposed images from a die-hard (or so it seems) incident meter user... Which completely kills his point.

 

My premise is very simple: an incident meter and a reflected meter measure light differently. But in the end, both must agree on ONE SAME value. The photographer must understand how to use both meters and make them agree on one same measure.

 

Give ME a Leica MP and a M3 + incident meter and two rolls of film and I'll give you back two perfectly exposed rolls of film.

 

Like owning two thermometers: both necessarily have to agree.

[A miller]

Nenad - yes, it is, b/c so many people disagree with you. And you are not making your case any clearer or more convincing. And your photos aren't any more a model of perfect exposure and quality, that i will tell you. you are better off not barking up trees with respect to people's artistic renditions, as your stuff is far from immune.

[dunhoy]

M3 + chromogenic b/w film + sunny 16 + experience & understanding will deliver as good results as any other M - any light meter used properly will of course help - bottom line is there is no substitute for experience and understanding - great gear does not in itself make a great photographer.

 

If you don't shoot wider than 50 why change the M3 as its viewfinder for 50mm is perfect!

[A miller]

 

If you don't shoot wider than 50 why change the M3 as its viewfinder for 50mm is perfect!

 

I think this point has a lot of force.  I also find the M3 to be the holy grail film camera for 50mm lenses.  The age of the VF and resulting slight reduction in contrast of the focus patch relative to the newer film Ms is, to me, far outweighed by the magnified frame lines that seem custom made for the 50mm FL.  The film spool is annoying, especially in extreme temperatures.  But I manage this quite well.

[hepcat]

This thread still going on?

 

I haven't seen great art nor great photography in this forum. Nothing that would cause me to change my mind.

Funny enough, I've seen consistentlly heavily underexposed images from a die-hard (or so it seems) incident meter user... Which completely kills his point.

 

My premise is very simple: an incident meter and a reflected meter measure light differently. But in the end, both must agree on ONE SAME value. The photographer must understand how to use both meters and make them agree on one same measure.

 

Give ME a Leica MP and a M3 + incident meter and two rolls of film and I'll give you back two perfectly exposed rolls of film.

 

Like owning two thermometers: both necessarily have to agree.

 

Wow, can you be any more rigid in your thinking?  Your premise, while simple, is also wrong.  Unless you define "perfectly exposed" by densitometer readings alone?  And even those are affected by development and base fog.    I haven't used a densitometer since 1975.  I don't even know anybody who owns a densitometer any more. 

 

Good luck with your "perfect exposures."  The rest of us will have to settle for the exposure values we want. 

[Mark Fisher]

I have an M2 that I adore.  I tried an M6 for a few months, but never bonded with it.  It just felt like another camera.  Like you, though, I wanted a camera with an internal meter to compliment the M2.  When shooting street with lots of buildings and changing light, I wanted not just a light meter, but also autoexposure.  The lovechild of an M2 and an M7 would work, but doesn't exist.  The camera I ended up with (time for the heresy) is a Konica RF.  It is solid and well made and a pleasure to use.  The finder isn't as nice as the m2 and the autowind is not what I'd prefer, but it is the ideal compliment to the M2 for me......the fact that you can pick one up for not too much money is also great.    

[Dominique Pierre-Nina]

Hi all, I too am new to this site and just bought my M3 two months ago and living it, I think it's a craft to learn and understand the consent of light and photography. I've used Hasselblad, Nikon F3, Fuji 670, Minolta Himatic 7s and Rolli that all amaz and I got great results but using the Leica M3 is just another level it's pure no fuss. My trusty Sekonic light meter is always at hand .

Dominique

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Dominique Pierre-Nina]

HI, i would like to add that in an age where everything is disposable and that their is a new product ( camera) on the market every six month or so, more or less doing the same as the previous one. Having an M3 or any mechanical camera has a lot to be said. I also believe that the concept of craftsmanship in any thing these days is lost let alone photography... I don't see the point of a computer doing all the work for you.. all you need to do is point and press the shutter release. There is a lot to be said for understanding light and how to capture it by using your aperture and shutter speed... its a craft and i am still and will forever be learning and perfecting it.

 

Regards,

 

Dominique.

[Brenton C]

I, too, have fallen for the feel and function of my M3. I get a kick out of the fact that it is older than me. 

 

I used meterless cameras as a kid (anyone remember the Petri?), and so much preferred using the build in meter of later SLRs so equipped. But it only took me one roll in my M3 using, usually, incident readings, for me to notice much more consistent exposures.

 

Now Im using the sekonic for incident readings with my R4, whenever comvenience doesnt dictate the built in meter.