Enlarger light meter or other ways of avoiding wasting paper when making prints?

Back in prehistoric times a studio wouldn't change anything with lights, film etc. Didn't need much changes.

I use an incident meter which helps me to get film exposure. I think that simply using elevation and the good old paper dial "computational devices" found in any old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide, this and a f stop time phone app you're set.

Of course I take good notes, but I still just make test prints.

Fred Picker had a lot of good techniques to get good contact sheets, accurate personal film speeds etc.

I like to read Michael A. Smith method of printing in the darkroom , you can read his writtings in www.michaelandpaula.com

Brendan Quirk said:

We all learned to print with test strips. Absolutely true. One consideration - make sure the strip is really representative of the important parts of the print. I had good results with a test strip holder that advanced the paper, allowing you to always have the same area of the image in the strip.

Test strips save paper, but they can use up your time!

I have had really good results with the RH Analyzer Pro, and no more do test strips. I save a lot of time, but do sacrifice paper.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the comment... I don't think I can afford the RH Analyzer at present... paper, film and chemicals have top priority. What you suggest re the test-strip holder, I saw on a video by Dist Photo and thought it was a good idea. That, I think I can make without too much trouble.
Much obliged

prado333 said:

I like to read Michael A. Smith method of printing in the darkroom , you can read his writtings in www.michaelandpaula.com

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/onprinting.html

Click to expand...

Cool. Thanks for the presentation. I'll check that out today.

Nearly 50 years ago I used a Paterson CDS enlarger meter quite successfully on single grade papers. Just had to calibrate with test strips for each box of paper. Can buy these on the big auction site starting at about $10 each.

The “white” or “density “ channel of a free or donated Color Analyzer is a baseboard exposure meter.

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:

Thank you koraks , I thought lightmeter should be micro size internal thing. We dont have any of that equipment at your pictures. I dont know why it produced in that big size but not small size. I remember may be 40 years ago , multigrade first found .British technology, I used their drum scanners , studios , colorspace , laser film exposers , all were junk.

Click to expand...

I had the same outfit kodaks shows on a Beseler 45V-XL. I sold it, and some Fujinon lenses to a fellow in B.C., Canada in early 2000 and went back to my old ways of printing. I just could not figure out how to use it properly. Mine never had the probe either. Later I got the urge to try the multi grade heads when I was a little more tech savvy. This time I bought a used Ilford Ilfospeed Multigrade 400HL to put on my 4X5 Omega D6 enlarger and then a 400HS head for 35mm to put on my Leitz Ic enlarger. I love both! I think you probably are using the same Ilford Ilfospeed 400 system, but could be wrong. They made a small light probe for those also and if yours is a Ilfospeed 400 you can see the place to plug in the probe on the back of the controller unit. I don't have the probe and haven't seen one for sale on the used market so they must be rare. I will post some pictures later today when I get back home to show you.

Over 50 years, I've owned and periodically used darkroom light meters ranging from the cheap, handheld little one made by Ilford years ago, through the large Beseler units, to a Durst meter which was their most sophisticated stand-alone density and color meter, a more advanced unit similar to the system in their AC800 enlarger. My experience has been that unless you are producing prints constantly, and in volume, meters tend to get in the way more than they help. They must be recalibrated whenever you change paper or developer. For each new print, they only get you in a ballpark range of exposure and contrast adjustments, followed by test strips or prints. For my occasional usage, mine just collect dust.

Randy Stewart said:

Over 50 years, I've owned and periodically used darkroom light meters ranging from the cheap, handheld little one made by Ilford years ago, through the large Beseler units, to a Durst meter which was their most sophisticated stand-alone density and color meter, a more advanced unit similar to the system in their AC800 enlarger. My experience has been that unless you are producing prints constantly, and in volume, meters tend to get in the way more than they help. They must be recalibrated whenever you change paper or developer. For each new print, they only get you in a ballpark range of exposure and contrast adjustments, followed by test strips or prints. For my occasional usage, mine just collect dust.

Click to expand...

Dakroom meter is a very useful tool, even if we skip the calibration process. Verifying the uniformity of light on easel, transition from a small print to a larger one, finding the exposure for dodge/burn, unification the tones between prints, etc.

mshchem said:

Back in prehistoric times a studio wouldn't change anything with lights, film etc. Didn't need much changes.

I use an incident meter which helps me to get film exposure. I think that simply using elevation and the good old paper dial "computational devices" found in any old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide, this and a f stop time phone app you're set.

Of course I take good notes, but I still just make test prints.

Click to expand...

test prints or strips are a perfect procedure on the way to the perfect print, and hence, there is no waste of paper at all.

Best to know you're materials..
Use one film and one developer and one paper then it gets real easy.. darkroom meter is a waste of time
I do whole sheets of paper for testing because it tells me everything ..can usually nail it by a few sheets...

I am very happy with my zonemaster. Test strips are of course a proved and reliable way to make perfect prints, but when i started using de zonemaster i needed considerably less paper to arrive at a decent enough print. The difference being often one or two sheets of paper per print, which made it a very good the investment considering the amount of prints i make. With the zonemaster the first print often gets me pretty close, a second and sometimes a third sheet of paper being needed to nail things down. It also speeds things up a bit, not having to wait for a second, third and sometimes fourth teststrip to be developed, etc.

Huub said:

I am very happy with my zonemaster. Test strips are of course a proved and reliable way to make perfect prints, but when i started using de zonemaster i needed considerably less paper to arrive at a decent enough print. The difference being often one or two sheets of paper per print, which made it a very good the investment considering the amount of prints i make. With the zonemaster the first print often gets me pretty close, a second and sometimes a third sheet of paper being needed to nail things down. It also speeds things up a bit, not having to wait for a second, third and sometimes fourth teststrip to be developed, etc.

Click to expand...

I agree on all points! For me, the darkroom is mental and even a little physical therapy and I enjoy every minute of it. The only thing I don't enjoy is the rising cost of very good paper's. If I can even save 4 sheets during a printing session that's a plus. Back in the 60's, 70's and 80's enlarging meters sold like hotcakes. There must have been a reason for that? Yup, save time and money.

I've only used enlarging meters for color printing of Cibachromes. All types of negative printing, both RA4 color and black and white, is so direct using simple test strips, that I don't even bother plugging in my meters anymore. They have been repurposed for a variety of more technical applications, including verifying field evenness on the baseboard.

I have something even fancier which allows me to cross-calibrate cc settings between different colorheads if that becomes necessary.