Inexpensive Print Exposure Meter Suggestions

[NickTrop]

Are they worth it? Heard pros and cons on these. If so, what's a good inexpensive one? Considering the attachment for the LunaLux SBC (since I have that meter...) Inexpensive =/= RH Designs Zone Master II (sorry to say...)

Suggestions, advice appreciated in advance.

 

[nyx]

I have RH Designs ZoneMaster II and it's not worth it IMHO. On the other hand, StopClock Professional from the same company is worth it's weight in gold.

It's nice when you just want to make lots of acceptable prints quickly, but when you want to play with them just a little bit, it just gets in your way.

 

[rogue_designer]

if you're not doing a large volume of quick prints - I wouldn't bother. A good densitometer will be more valuable in the long run.

 

[Bryce]

Most of the time for B+W work under the enlarger a meter isn't very useful. Test strips are quick and give more useable results.
That said, I've used an incident meter to establish the same exposure for a different size enlargement with good success. Just remember to kill the safelight first...
Color printers I believe tend to use a meter, but I have no experience with color materials.
Hope this is useful.

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

Ilford EM-10 is cheap, but I agree with above and just do test strips, after a while you can just eyeball a negative and come up with a SWAG (simple wild a$$ guess) time that will be close for the test strips.

Wayne

 

[Max Power]

I'm going to have to be the dissenting voice here!
A couple of years ago I spent a whole $10 on eBay and got a Paterson CdS meter. I calibrated it according to the instructions, and have found that it saves me a lot of SWAGging it. In my experience it saves me from doing an initial test strip.
My technique is very simple...If I have a neg which I believe has potential I do a 4x5 first, and always use the Paterson meter to get it close. In 75% of the cases, it is exactly where I want it, on the balance, and all there is to do is burning and dodging. I have also calibrated it so that I can SWAG if I decide to use filters on MG paper after the 'naked' print is done.

I like mine and would recommend one, especially if you can find one for cheap.

Kent

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Even a cheap Paterson Ilford or Durst etc. will get you in the ballpark.
By the time you are comfortable with it, you won't even need a meter...

Chris

 

[Ash]

cut a thin strip from a piece of paper and test strip at 5 second or 10 second intervals. pretty easy. I used to SWAG but I wasted more paper and more time that way.

During a session I kinda know from the darkness of the neg whether it will be properly exposed. Kinda like setting the aperture to a specific darkness that my eyes relate with a 30 second exposure or something. Takes lots of practice and is easy to forget or screw up

 

[MartinP]

I tried using an Ilford meter, but a combination of standardised contact-prints (so the density would always be proportional to enlargement printing time) and a little chart giving the correction-factor (inverse square law apples) between different size images on the baseboard actually covers just about everything you need - especially if the negs are consistent.

So, not worth the money or time for normal amateur use in my opinion.

On the other hand, when I worked in a commercial darkroom for a while, an automated system for making machine-prints was a huge time saver, even in black-and-white, but that would be for orders of several hundred prints from dozens of negatives when we used the colour machine-printer with a b+w paper roll in. This high number of (relatively) unexceptional prints is probably the opposite of what we mostly do in our home darkrooms I expect....

EDIT: If you will use a lot of test strips, try doing the exposure changes in stops (or 1/5 stops or whatever), as that way you can relate the results to different apertures or projection sizes more easily.

 

[NickTrop]

I appreciate your insights. I "guess" sometimes, sometimes do strips. Usually guess and tweak. Thought a meter might save some paper and time. So, for all the advice and insights, and as part of the human condition, I will likely learn the hard way by picking one up, then seeing for myself if they're worth it or not.

In the worst-case scenario, what's one more piece of "seemed like a great idear at the time" photographic equipment? It could keep that silly looking flash diffuser (works great but look ridiculous) and that stupid LED "digital camera autofocus assist light" tripod socket attachment company in my "graveyard of dumb camera equipment" drawer.

Ya know?

 

[mhv]

If your exposure and development procedures are constant enough, you could even make a whole print without guessing. When my contact sheets are looking good, I know that I can print Tri-X at 14s G2.5 on MGIV for an 8x10.

Otherwise, test strip are easy and useful because you can assess how things would look when darker or lighter. Sometimes the "correct" exposure is not the one that suits the print best.

One thing that will be even more useful than a meter is learning by heart a sequence of time intervals that corresponds to 1/4 stop exposure. For example: 10,12,14,17,20,24,28,34,40 is two whole stops in 1/4 intervals. The difference in densities between 10 and 12 is the same as between 34 and 40, even though the first two are separated by 2s and the last two by 6s. Wonder why? Look at the shutter speeds dial on your camera.

 

[NickTrop]

If your exposure and development procedures are constant enough, you could even make a whole print without guessing. When my contact sheets are looking good, I know that I can print Tri-X at 14s G2.5 on MGIV for an 8x10.

Otherwise, test strip are easy and useful because you can assess how things would look when darker or lighter. Sometimes the "correct" exposure is not the one that suits the print best.

One thing that will be even more useful than a meter is learning by heart a sequence of time intervals that corresponds to 1/4 stop exposure. For example: 10,12,14,17,20,24,28,34,40 is two whole stops in 1/4 intervals. The difference in densities between 10 and 12 is the same as between 34 and 40, even though the first two are separated by 2s and the last two by 6s. Wonder why? Look at the shutter speeds dial on your camera.

Excellent information. Thank you. If you would be so kind as to recommend where this level of detail of information is available it would be appreciated. The print-making books I have a pretty basic, but they got me up and running and making prints.

I actually ended up buying a Paterson CdS Meter today. It's an "integrating meter", reading all the densities in the negative and computing their average value. Reason was two-fold. I read a post by someone (not on this site) who absolutely raved about an old Spot-O-Matic meter, also an "integrating meter", which is pretty much this Paterson. He sold me.

Secondly - eh, it was $10.49 shipped. Looks brand new. If it works for me, great. If not, like I said, off to the graveyard of silly purchases.

Thanks again, all, for your input. Much obliged.

 

[Bryce]

Well, let us all know how the thing works out for you. Maybe the rest of us could learn a thing or two. More opinions is always gooder!