This should probably be a separate post, but I'll reply as briefly as I can.
First, there is a common misconception that light meters tell us 'correct exposure'.
They do nothing of the sort.
First, because there is no such thing as an objective 'correct exposure' and second, because all they do is measure the light that strikes their sensor and report that value.
The fancier meters built into many cameras nowadays take light measurements from one or more points in a scene and apply canned logic to determine what is most likely to be a 'correct exposure' in many common cases.
This may or may not be what the photographer intends for any given photograph. And 'correct exposure' is the exposure that a photographer intends, nothing more and nothing less. We may critique a photograph and comment that it is 'over exposed' or 'under exposed' and we are referring to a commonly-accepted standard for exposure - in most cases, we're right. But that does not mean the photographer did not intend exactly the result achieved, in which case the exposure is correct.
So the meter without the human brain, coupled with an understanding of what exposure actually is, is useless.
However, the human brain, coupled with the human eye, is easily misled and lied to by the environment. It is part of our design to average, compensate, and make allowances. We can't determine proper exposure with our eyes alone. Those who believe they can are relying on a life's experiences with having guessed correctly more often than not, coupled with film's usual latitude that allows for some errors.
A properly-functioning light meter can inform me of what the correct exposure for middle-tone grey would be for the amount of light currently falling on the light sensor of the meter. It is up to me to make sure the light I want to measure is the light falling on that meter, and to interpret what that means in terms of the exposure I intend for that photograph.
Do not be a slave to the meter. But do not try to dig a hole without a shovel, either. Shovels are good tools; use them. Shovels without human brains to guide them are useless as well, so learn what exposure means.
It is my belief that proper exposure (meaning the exposure you intend, to give the effect you wish) is the least understood aspect of mastering photography.
We learn to focus. We learn to set shutter speed and f-stop to match a mechanical reading given by a light meter or a rule of thumb, and it will be 'correct' in the sense that the exposure will be more-or-less acceptable in most cases. Some of us go beyond that to learn composition, and some fewer learn the proper use of focus, shutter speed, and depth-of-field to obtain the effects they are after. A few of us learn the proper use of light modifiers such as filters and artificial light. We learn which films to use and when, what effects they give, and even darkroom technology or more lately, computer technology. Those who pursue large-format photography also try to learn the ways in which a photograph can be altered and controlled through the use of camera movements.
But few of us take the time to learn what exposure means and how it can be controlled under our will to give an effect we desire. We are either slaves to the light meter, or we are slavish disciples of Ansel Adams' Zone System; one is brain-dead and the other is soulless. Both consider proper exposure to be an objective standard that can be reached for any given scene, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Saying "I wish to learn photography without a light meter" is like saying you wish to learn orienteering without a compass. You may survive the wilderness, but it will be by luck as much as by skill, and for what purpose if you had a compass in your rucksack all the time?
) in virtually any lighting situation.
