Manual Exposure Control - Experience or Luck?

[Paradox]

I now find with the 40Ds top LCD screen I can see the shot I want, adjust the settings to roughly what I need, and then I find that when I bring it to eye level to shoot that the exposure is pretty well correct - Maybe a stop off here or there, but all things considered pretty accurate. It's not something I think about, I just dial in some appropriate settings (So a small aperture for landscapes, for example), flick the SS and ISO to values that seem appropriate, and it's basically there.

What I really want to know - Is this pure luck on my part, or am I finally getting a handle on this exposure lark? :p

[JLV]

I go back a long way. We did not have built in light meters, in fact we did not have light meters. The ISO (ASA) was what ever film we had in the camera. We estimated the focus distance, chose the f stop and the shutter speed. Yes, I would say you are getting a handle on it.

Keep it up

[erichlund]

I was just making this point in another thread. There was a time when you really needed to read the light. Now, even when people put the camera on manual, they are still using the meter in the camera to do their thinking for them. I don't mean everyone, but there is a tendency to rely on technology.

I wonder how many people are even aware of the Sunny 16 rule, and could adapt it to different conditions. For instance, Sunny 16 says set f16 and set your shutter to the film speed (not exact). So, if I was using 100ASA film (typical for me), I would set 1/125. But if I'm at a track meet, I probably want 1/500. That's two stops, and lets say it's moderately cloudy (weak shadows), another two stops. So for the cloudy I adjust to f8. Then to get 1/500, I need two more stops, so that's f4. Better not be using that consumer zoom, because at the long end, I'm not going to do better than f5.6. Of course, I could have loaded 200ASA. Then I could still use the consumer zoom.

We have it so good now. We can set the film speed for the individual shot, not the roll. And we have a meter in the camera to confirm that, yup, it's moderately cloudy out.

[cdifoto]

even when people put the camera on manual, they are still using the meter in the camera to do their thinking for them. I don't mean everyone, but there is a tendency to rely on technology.

There's nothing wrong with that, IMHO, as long as you're not just match-sticking it anyway. There's nothing irrational or newbish about using the meter for its designed purpose...as a reference.

Why should I guesstimate exposure when I can take a reading off my subject and [usually] get it right on the first grab? I'm simply not good at math in my head. It's much faster for me to just take a reading off of whatever it is I'm shooting. Having features and using them doesn't make someone less of a photographer than the guy who's doing it old-school.

[erichlund]

I'm not saying that you should not use your meter. It is very useful and convenient. I use mine all the time. But, if you make a habit of reading the light conditions, you will get good at it. The advantage of this has nothing to do with the meter, but picking up on subtle things that can impact your photo. Training yourself to read more and more into the subtleties of the lighting conditions makes you a better photographer.

[Margus]

Manual Exposure Control - Experience or Luck?

Try to take 100 pictures with fully manual ISO, apperture and shutter control in varying lighting conditions - bright sunshine, evening sun, cloudy day, rainy day, indoors, etc.. If success rate is less than 20% then your outcome is pure luck. Over 20% you are promising and over 50% you can congradulate yourselt, you are experienced!

I had my first camera when everything was the other way round compared to present day - the cheap cameras had full manual controls only and the expensive ones had some kind of automation and light metering built in them. Autofocus was only for pros :D

[Ken.]

I'd say experience. Even in my manual exposure days you had to have a clue of the science. Reflected light meters had no clue what you were aiming at or what tone was important. Incident meters measured the light falling on the meter but had no clue if it was the same as the light falling on the subject and what tone was important. Spot meters relied on you choosing the right spot and that right spot had to have the same reflectance as the gray it was calibrated for. Add that we had a clue of the film latitude.

All the magic behind this meter stuff is 18% gray. Most meters assume that if you blend all the light into one diffused mess it would equal 18% gray. Where that standard came from I don't know. It's been around forever. So the skill comes in knowing if your entire scene, blended all together, is higher or lower than that point.

Now we have cameras that act as reflected and spot meters and make a "best guess". I sometimes wonder what the meter is thinking. By instinct I adjust the exposure.

[erichlund]

All the magic behind this meter stuff is 18% gray. Most meters assume that if you blend all the light into one diffused mess it would equal 18% gray. Where that standard came from I don't know. It's been around forever. So the skill comes in knowing if your entire scene, blended all together, is higher or lower than that point.


Ken, you Kodak card is showing. Digital cameras use anywhere from 13% to 15% gray for metering. The 18% gray card was created by Kodak for the print industry to calibrate their equipment. Photographers latched on becuase there was basically nothing else, and Kodak gray cards were cheap. But, 18% is a little dark for the average scene, so camera meters are actually calibrated to a proprietary value in the range I mentioned, 13-15%.

[kombizz]

Would be nice to master yourself in the Manual Exposure setting by practicing more. Then I am very sure you are able to find your way in getting better tastier images.
Good luck

[Ken.]

Ken, you Kodak card is showing. Digital cameras use anywhere from 13% to 15% gray for metering. The 18% gray card was created by Kodak for the print industry to calibrate their equipment. Photographers latched on becuase there was basically nothing else, and Kodak gray cards were cheap. But, 18% is a little dark for the average scene, so camera meters are actually calibrated to a proprietary value in the range I mentioned, 13-15%.

True, but it was a convenient standard back in the day. The greater point is consistency and that meters are assuming that "normal" is always that constant, be it anywhere from 13 to 18%. It may seem strange now but I learned most of my metering techniques using incident meters, not reflected meters. It was more important to know how much light fell on a subject than how much it reflected back.