Enlarging meters, are they worth it?

[Brendan Quirk]

Absolutely worth it. I use the RH Pro. The biggest savings is in TIME! The trick is to get good at placing the probe - without careful consideration of where you are metering, you can end up all over the place.

 

[brian steinberger]

Some people enjoy the whole process which includes making test strips; they should not get meters. Others enjoy the results (the goal) more than the process; they appreciate meters. The postings above reveal the thinking of both process-oriented and goal-oriented people.

Mark

This is interesting, and I’m not sure I ever thought about this. I am definitely in the later group. I want to get to a final print as quickly as possible. The printing process is ok, but IMO can become drudgery quickly, with time vanishing. I much prefer the process of going out in the field and shooting.

 

[Pieter12]

This is interesting, and I’m not sure I ever thought about this. I am definitely in the later group. I want to get to a final print as quickly as possible. The printing process is ok, but IMO can become drudgery quickly, with time vanishing. I much prefer the process of going out in the field and shooting.

Darkroom printing is just as rewarding as shooting for me. It is hands-on, artisanal and completes the process of making an image. A meter just automates and mechanizes it too much.

 

[MattKing]

Darkroom printing is just as rewarding as shooting for me. It is hands-on, artisanal and completes the process of making an image. A meter just automates and mechanizes it too much.

This tells me that you may not be using a meter in a manner that suits your needs and temperament.
Enlarging meters can be really helpful, while not in any way dictating to the printer how a print should be made.
When I use one, I never let it decide things for me. It basically helps me choose starting points.

 

[koraks]

The postings above reveal the thinking of both process-oriented and goal-oriented people.

But who's who...

 

[Huub]

I am on the side of those people who love their darkroom meter, in my case a R&H Design Pro. It speeds up te process considerably, saving time and costs on test strips. The other and most important advantage for me is that it is way easier to arrive at a good print. Using a meter i can make a pretty good estimate for a dodging and burning times and my first prints are often already pretty decent ones. Using test strips i would almost always need an extra sheet of paper to arrive at a print i think good enough.

When it comes to variations in paper between boxes and the effects of aging, my experience is that fresh paper from Ilford hardly ever varies from box to box. With Foma paper there are some slight variations, but not enough to worry about. The effects of aging are of course real enough after a few years, but then: aging often means loss of quality too, so it is something i try to avoid.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I am on the side of those people who love their darkroom meter, in my case a R&H Design Pro. It speeds up te process considerably, saving time and costs on test strips.

I sometimes wish I had bought the Analyser Pro instead of the stop clock.

 

[logan2z]

It speeds up te process considerably, saving time and costs on test strips.

That's been my experience too. Using the Analyzer Pro, I am usually in the ballpark after the first sheet of paper, with only a few additional iterations to get things where I want them.

 

[BMbikerider]

Darkroom printing is just as rewarding as shooting for me. It is hands-on, artisanal and completes the process of making an image. A meter just automates and mechanizes it too much.

I agree with you 100%. If you want automation get a digital printer!

I can understand it if you are making your income from darkroom printing where time = money, but why is the emphasis of speed to get the job done?

It is, for most a hobby so what is the rush? I would suggest that hobbies are to be spent getting the best out of them but not at the cost of speed. You would not get a skilled, time served cabinet maker using a computer guided machine to make all the essential cuts in the wood he/she is working with.

The joy is when it all comes together and this is due to an intimate knowledge of the subject and your personal skill as to what can be done to make it perfect.

 

[xkaes]

That's been my experience too. Using the Analyzer Pro, I am usually in the ballpark after the first sheet of paper, with only a few additional iterations to get things where I want them.

It is, for most a hobby so what is the rush? I would suggest that hobbies are to be spent getting the best out of them but not at the cost of speed.

As I mentioned before, an analyzer / meter does not deny you the ability to waste all the time and paper that you want -- to convince yourself that you are not a just mere "shutterbug", but a true artisan, worthy of respect. What it does do, is get you very close to home-plate on the first exposure with almost no time, and one sheet (or strip) of paper.. You can leave it there, if you want, or improve on it all you want. I typically want to change the exposure slightly and adjust the contrast as well -- in addition to some dodging and burning.

My meter saves me paper and time -- time I can use to make the other fine-tuning adjustments.

Well worth the price of admission.

 

[Chan Tran]

That reminds me that I still have an excellent condition Omega SCA-300 color analyzer. It's the only one I keep after getting rid of my darkroom. I used to have almost all of the Beseler color analyzer. The PM1A, PM2L, PM2M, PM4L and the Sargent Welch Minolta unit.

 

[Pieter12]

As I mentioned before, an analyzer / meter does not deny you the ability to waste all the time and paper that you want -- to convince yourself that you are not a just mere "shutterbug", but a true artisan, worthy of respect. What it does do, is get you very close to home-plate on the first exposure with almost no time, and one sheet (or strip) of paper.. You can leave it there, if you want, or improve on it all you want. I typically want to change the exposure slightly and adjust the contrast as well -- in addition to some dodging and burning.

My meter saves me paper and time -- time I can use to make the other fine-tuning adjustments.

Well worth the price of admission.

How much more paper do you use making test strips vs a meter? And why?

 

[xkaes]

Test strips don't waste that much paper, for EACH test strip -- depending on the size, of course -- but they do waste a lot of time. How much paper and time is wasted depends on the negative and the starting point. Let's say you start off with a test strip of 5-10-15-20-25-30 seconds. If you are lucky, then one for 15-16-17-18-19-20 seconds. Then make a print at 17.

But you want more contrast. Then another one for 15-16-17-18-19-20 seconds -- if you are still lucky. Then one for......

Then you want a larger print, so then one for 20-25-30-35 seconds. Then one for..........

It can be endless.

Don't get me wrong. I like the smell of acetic acid in the morning.

 

[xkaes]

Another point that is only mentioned now and again. If you use a meter under the enlarger, you can determine -- with some simple tests -- what the ISO paper speed is. Of course, it's different for every paper, just like film, but once you find out what it is -- based on your developer, time, temp, dilution, etc. -- it's a piece of cake to set your enlarger height, lens f-stop, etc. Then meter the negative and it gives you the time you need to expose the paper. Aperture-priority semi-automatic paper exposure.

 

[GregY]

People use all kinds of various tools in darkroom printing, but i wasn't aware that making a fine print was a speed event.
I know I have an EM10 kicking around my darkroom drawers somewhere......

 

[Pieter12]

Test strips don't waste that much paper, for EACH test strip -- depending on the size, of course -- but they do waste a lot of time. How much paper and time is wasted depends on the negative and the starting point. Let's say you start off with a test strip of 5-10-15-20-25-30 seconds. If you are lucky, then one for 15-16-17-18-19-20 seconds. Then make a print at 17.

But you want more contrast. Then another one for 15-16-17-18-19-20 seconds -- if you are still lucky. Then one for......

Then you want a larger print, so then one for 20-25-30-35 seconds. Then one for..........

It can be endless.

Don't get me wrong. I like the smell of acetic acid in the morning.

I do split-grade, f-stop printing. Most of the time I get a ballpark print with 2 tests and a print. That will usually lead to one more for fine-tuning, depending on the amount of dodging and burning. Scaling up or down is a no brainer, no test strips involved, second print is usually a winner.

 

[Pieter12]

Another point that is only mentioned now and again. If you use a meter under the enlarger, you can determine -- with some simple tests -- what the ISO paper speed is. Of course, it's different for every paper, just like film, but once you find out what it is -- based on your developer, time, temp, dilution, etc. -- it's a piece of cake to set your enlarger height, lens f-stop, etc. Then meter the negative and it gives you the time you need to expose the paper. Aperture-priority semi-automatic paper exposure.

For me, not every negative gets the same treatment. I like to go by eye rather than measurements.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't get it. It usually takes me a single test strip to get on first base. The rest is intuitive. No chore at all. I do have good instruments, but am not the type that will ever want a self-driving car. I want direct control on the wheel the whole distance. I'm a printmaker, not a commercial lab.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Something I have considered for many years, but never got around to buying a state of the art enlarging meter.

Do you find that you save on photo papers by using one? They are expensive, so I don't want to waste money if they are too much rigmarole to calibrate.

It would be nice not to have to make test strips when changing papers and print sizes.

I use a Darkroom Automation meter, but I gave up quickly on the fancy features. I prefer test strips over the hassle of calibrating to each paper. The meter is used in almost every printing session. It's invaluable to me for:
- adjusting print times based on small prints scaled up to a larger size
- ensuring my condenser bulb/LED source is centered and producing as little falloff as possible (the Durst 138S is adjustable)
- measuring contrast of the image to choose a good starting contrast setting
- matching tones between shots with slightly different exposure. Think portraits where you want the skin to match but the light changed slightly

I have also built an arduino controlled version and it stacks up very well for much less money (unless I count my time). Someday I'll document it.

 

[grahamp]

I don't think having and using an enlarger meter makes for a better print over test strips. It does save me some time - I have a fair bit of time in general, but my darkroom sessions can be constrained - and it helps evaluate the whole composition without making a print.

With practice (and a willingness to check the calibration if needed), the Analyzer Pro gets me pretty close, and provides a good timer in the process. I can usually get the first print to within dodging range of where I want it.

I've had mine a long time, so the unit is basically paid for, but I don't know if I would invest in a replacement. Maybe just a test strip holder

Unfortunately, the only way to become a good printer is practice and critical evaluation of the results against what you want/like.

 

[logan2z]

I'm a bit perplexed that this subject has become controversial. If you find a meter useful, then use it. If you don't find it useful then don't use it

 

[DREW WILEY]

But Logan, the question becomes whether one wants to invest in an enlarging meter or not. And the stipulation, "state of the art", makes a mere fishing expedition whether one is a good fit or not a rather expensive proposition. You can spend a lot of money trying out certain ones, and potentially end up using none of them. And some of those former "state of the art" systems were rather temperamental, and now difficult to repair.

 

[xkaes]

People use all kinds of various tools in darkroom printing, but i wasn't aware that making a fine print was a speed event.

Speed event vs waste of time event? There is a happy medium.

 

[xkaes]

For me, not every negative gets the same treatment. I like to go by eye rather than measurements.

Are we to assume that you do the same in the field when you expose the film?

 

[xkaes]

But Logan, the question becomes whether one wants to invest in an enlarging meter or not. And the stipulation, "state of the art", makes a mere fishing expedition whether one is a good fit or not a rather expensive proposition. You can spend a lot of money trying out certain ones, and potentially end up using none of them. And some of those former "state of the art" systems were rather temperamental, and now difficult to repair.

I listed several very inexpensive alternatives above. Many darkroom users already have everything they need, but don't realize it.