To meter or not to meter...

[Pfiltz]

It's all I know. I started out metering shots.

[benjiboy]

I would no more go out with a camera and not bring a meter than I would make parts on a lathe without a micrometer.

I agree,I knew how to do "sunny 12" fifty years ago, but the human eyes IMO are a very poor device to register changes in light intensity because they register them so quickly and imperceptibly that you don't notice them, and even taking a reading with an exposure meter only gives you an indication of the light level not the correct exposure It's a point to start thinking about the reading and filtering it through your experience before setting the camera.

[E. von Hoegh]

For you this may be perfectly true, that doesn't mean it's true for me or anybody else though.

Did a little test a while back, shot Delta 400 from -1 to +2 stops, developed in DD-X and was able to print the exact same, really nice print across the whole range of negatives by changing nothing but enlarger exposure.

Took a vacation a while back, used a dozen disposable cameras and got a lot of great stuff across a wide range of situations. Do the same with my Holga regularly too.

The book "Theory of the Photographic Process, forth edition, T.H.James" page 506 in chapter 17 by J.H.Altman has a graph that show about a 3-stop range (1-log relative exposure) across which the panel of 200 observers judged as producing excellent prints. Same book chapter 19 by C.N.Nelson page 556 a graph comparing differences in print quality from short toe and long toe films on a studio portrait. The graph shows a range of 4-5 stops across which a negative can be shot which can produce excellent prints, 90th percentile quality or better. Short toe films approach the 100th percentile for a very short maybe one stop area, and maybe that's where you are trying to hang out which is great, but switch to long toe films in the same situation and they approach the 100th percentile over about a 3-stop range.

Exposure latitude exists.

It's true for me, too. If I want to use the entire range of whatever film I'm using, there is no latitude for error in exposure or development.
And the fact that 200 observers find a print acceptable really has nothing to do with me getting negatives or transparencies the way I like them, does it?
I can work with a less-than-ideal negative, but I'd rather get as close as possible to ideal. Sometimes you can't, for any number of reasons. But any time I can, I will. It's like shooting at targets, under one set of circumstances a 5" group might be acceptable, but the ideal is a "group" the diameter of a single bullet.

[DREW WILEY]

It's a difference of philosophy, or maybe sloppyosophy. You have machine-gunners who will take sixty
shots a minute and still never bag anything worth cooking, and you've got snipers who can down a duck
with a single round. That's probably why, back in the heyday of film wars between Fuji and Kodak, they sponsored workshops teaching people to shoot as much film as possible if you wanted good
pictures. Worked for their bottom line, but not for mine!

[Chan Tran]

There is really no such thing as exposure latitude, just a factor of how far thing can be off and still be
nominally usable at the expense of what the film was really engineered for in the ideal sense, which of
course is related to the amount of contrast in a scene. Amateur color neg films are marketed under the assumption that folks will be winging it with less than ideal training or equipment, and will want Aunt Maude's skintones still looking vaguely human even if everything else in the print looks like hell. I use a spotmeter for everything, though have worked sheerly from memory in a few instances even with trickier chrome films. But otherwise, it's about like asking a sniper to walk around with a blindfolded.
In the old days, they'd print a little tip sheet on the film box, which usually worked for garden-variety
applications. My mother tooks photogrphs her whole life using a little box Brownie with no meter -
and every single shot was horrible!

Exposure latitude is the difference in dynamic range between film and paper.

[Michael R 1974]

No, it is not. Generally it is a way of relating the exposure "range" of the film to the subject brightness range. It is not a straight forward relationship since there are several variables involved. It also depends on subjective preferences.

[Poisson Du Jour]

Exposure latitude is the difference in dynamic range between film and paper.

(!)
What!? Where did you get that tidbit from?
I wouldn't be too concerned about the latitude of paper as opposed to a sharp understanding of the latitude (range of acceptable exposure/dynamic range, above and below a known point of reference) of temperamental films, Velvia 50 and 100F among. Neg films are so relaxed that you can get away with 5, maybe 6 stops of exposure error (I never bother with them, preferring the 'tight and narrow' of beautifully spot metered E6 stock). But go 2.3 stops either way with Velvia and ... you're stuffed.

Take a roll of Velvia for a ride and see exactly what happens with narrow latitude. Might be a waste of money, but it's a brutally simple method of finding a film's "g-spot": a point where exposure is ideal (within a given set of acceptable circumstances), either side of which things go pear-shaped.

[markbarendt]

It's true for me, too. If I want to use the entire range of whatever film I'm using, there is no latitude for error in exposure or development.
And the fact that 200 observers find a print acceptable really has nothing to do with me getting negatives or transparencies the way I like them, does it?
I can work with a less-than-ideal negative, but I'd rather get as close as possible to ideal. Sometimes you can't, for any number of reasons. But any time I can, I will. It's like shooting at targets, under one set of circumstances a 5" group might be acceptable, but the ideal is a "group" the diameter of a single bullet.

Yes there are a fair number of guys around here, like you and Drew, that fall in a special class of artisans within our craft that may actually intend to print 10,12, or more stops of scene luminance range and use every bit of straight line between toe and shoulder. That is quite a feat, I'm not trying to make little of that work.

Sure you guys don't have any latitude but that isn't the norm in our world. Average scene luminance range is about 7 stops, if the film is capable of 10 there are 3 stops of room, latitude, to play with. 12 gets us 5 to spare, for the average Joe or Mark shooting portraits and family and wedding stuff, that's a lot of latitude.

The reason the 200 observers comment was included, as well as citing the exact reference, was to show that the idea that "more than one exposure setting can produce excellent prints" isn't unproven conjecture on my part. It's peer reviewed science.

[markbarendt]

It's a difference of philosophy, or maybe sloppyosophy.

This isn't about being sloppy, it is about choices, and for me it's about where I use my brain when I'm shooting.

I typically walk into a situation, incident meter, and set my camera to peg my mid tones essentially cross lit. In that situation I can then pay attention to my subjects, usually people or dogs, subjects that I need to connect with, listen to, give commands to, and pose.

If the opportunity pops to get a front or back lit shot I rely on the latitude of a film and know that, given my subject matter and nice negative materials, I have lots of room. I don't have to think about re-metering, just point, focus, shoot. Perfect content trumps perfect exposure in my life.

I fully realize going in that in the darkroom I'll need to adjust exposure to get the print I want, that's ok, I know the limits of my films and I'm willing to do that work.

[Pioneer]

It's a difference of philosophy, or maybe sloppyosophy. You have machine-gunners who will take sixty
shots a minute and still never bag anything worth cooking, and you've got snipers who can down a duck
with a single round.

This is certainly an interesting post, as most of these are, but the real answer is not as simple as yes or no, it is based on the situation you are in.

Put the machine gunner on top of a hill several clicks from his target and he is lost where the sniper is right at home.

On the flip side, place that same machine gunner on a street in Baghdad during the Gulf Conflict (War) and he is right at home while the sniper is probably dead within 5 minutes.

I seriously doubt that HCB or Capa spent a lot of their time metering. On the flip side St. Ansel most certainly did (except maybe for "Moonrise Hernandez", and maybe a few more but who's really counting.)

Everyone has their own personal guidelines they are most comfortable with. In my mind developing your eye by guessing exposure settings to match your lighting is a valuable skill to practice.

So..sometimes I do...and sometimes I don't.