Enlarging meters, are they worth it?

[Patrick Robert James]

I use a Zonemaster because it saves time. When I was young pfaffing about in the darkroom was fun, but after all these years I just want to get the prints made and do them well. Meters can be a hindrance or a tool depending on how you treat them. You still have to evaluate the print.

I have a few meters. I have the enlarger adapter for a Gossen. Never used it. I also have an Ilford EM-10 which worked pretty well but was very limiting. I used it by adjusting the aperture which is not ideal, but it was quick and efficient. I then bought a Darkroom Automation meter which was great but too complicated. I don't want to do math in the darkroom. I do use that for the densitometer though to check skies. The Zonemaster was the one. I thought about getting a timer from RHD but I already really like how I work with my timers (Kearsarge) so the Zonemaster fit the bill. I haven't looked back.

Back in the day I used to think taking an hour to get a finished print was acceptable on average. These days with the help of the meter I can usually do two or three in an hour. That is a huge difference. I'd rather make more good prints.

 

[Pieter12]

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

Obviously I'm not making a series of bracketed exposures with black and white film unless I feel it is necessary. But on the other hand I will stray from the meter reading if I think the results will be more of what I have in mind.

 

[xkaes]

I'm a bit perplexed that this subject has become controversial.

Controversy? I just don't see that at all. Heated debate? All I see is people explaining why they prefer one approach over another -- most of the time, but not always. It seems like just about everyone uses/used both approaches PRN -- as needed.

 

[Pieter12]

The subject of the OP was are the meters worth it? I think the discussion shows that for some the convenience is worth paying for. Others prefer to continue without--not sure if the expense of the meter or the possible savings cost of extra paper comes into play for them. For me, the test strip method suits my practice. I am not sure I want to spend the time learning to use another bit of equipment I feel I can do without. Plus I don't know if a meter helps any for split-grade printing. It might require some additional hoops to jump through.

 

[koraks]

I think the discussion shows that for some the convenience is worth paying for.

And to an extent, whether it's really a convenience. I did use a meter for a while. At some point I have up on it because test strips got me there faster and with less fuss. Like @L Gebhardt at some point I grew really tired of calibrating every new kind of paper and I couldn't be bothered (still can't) to settle on a single paper. Similar story with a color analyzer for RA4 printing, although that's actually easier because there's just a whole lot less variation in color papers than in B&W. Even then, it didn't really do it for me.

 

[MattKing]

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

But what if you don't want automation - which I don't - but appreciate useful and reliable additional information?

 

[xkaes]

Interesting how some people want metering "suggestions" when it comes to exposing film, but not paper.

 

[Pieter12]

Interesting how some people want metering "suggestions" when it comes to exposing film, but not paper.

I can make many prints at my leisure from a single negative. Sometimes there’s just one chance to expose a negative.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

For me investing in the Heiland system was absolutely worth It.
Plug and play, no calibration needed.
Not expensive for what it offers, but certainly a lot of money.

enlarging meters(I use the one from RHDesigns)get you quickly close to a working print but a test strip isstill the ultimate way to get to a final print.

 

[koraks]

Interesting how some people want metering "suggestions" when it comes to exposing film, but not paper.

I would want the suggestions if I made paper negatives. But I don't.
The comparison between capture and print doesn't take into account the fundamental differences between these two activities.

 

[BMbikerider]

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.

Each to their own. But, and I have used this analogy before. If you have or develop the skills to make a print without external aids then you are on the way to becoming a master printer. Very much the same as a master carpenter or cabinet make will use his/her skills to make a beautiful classical piece of furniture then that will be a thing of achievement and beauty. I doubt it very much if the likes of Ansel Adams ever used a printing exposure meter or even had the need to.

If you cannot be bothered to learn the fundamental skills to make prints (or furniture) without external aids and instead go to outlets that sell masses of flatpacks and buy something that you can put together with a screwdriver and perhaps an Allen key. (Your main skill will need to be deciphering the instruction!).

As for myself, most of my printing is RA4 colour which I think I have got reasonably well under control. That came about as a system of standardisation I created for my benefit, where the film, paper, film developer. paper developer is almost always the same. The main check comes about with the 1st print from a newly developed colour film which can have variations. After that mostly it all comes together with few changes. Exposure onto the paper was carefully logged for varying sizes of paper/enlargements and because of standardisation there will be little differences. Yes I use test strips and sometimes I get 'difficult' negatives where there are mixed light sources and that is where personal skills come to the fore.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

not that complicated; first place at an important highlight to get exposure. then, place at important shadow to get the contrast right.

 

[BMbikerider]

enlarging meters(I use the one from RHDesigns)get you quickly close to a working print but a test strip isstill the ultimate way to get to a final print.

I agree 100%

 

[Sirius Glass]

I bought a nice one years ago. I never got around to making a standard print. So it is still sitting where I placed it years ago. I just checked and it is still there. One day I will get a round-to-it and then I may start using it. Instead I have switched to split grade printing.

 

[eli griggs]

An old Besler PM2L colour analyzer has a b&w function that works well and if you decide to do colour work, is decent for old school tech.

Minolta ambi/flash meters are good, Gossen Luna Pros, including the electric F and earlier SBC meters have, among other accessories, a good, universal darkroom meter attachment that fits the SBC and Luna Pro F, etc.

 

[What About Bob]

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......

I was waiting to see if the EM10 would be mentioned. I have that very same meter by Ilford, somewhere, and for the life of me I cannot find it. Think I bought the EM10 around the same time I bought the Cibachrome tube and the extender tube for 11X14.

 

[GregY]

I agree 100%

I'd rather spend the $500 on paper (which doesn't go very far these days) than on a meter.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have a couple of Gossen Labosix enlarging meters - much better than a typical light meter for that purpose, but not truly sensitive enough either. I have a true easel densitometer for that purpose, capable of reading much lower light with much greater precision. It cost a lot more too. I frequently use it, but not for ordinary garden variety black and white printing.

 

[eli griggs]

I'd rather spend the $500 on paper (which doesn't go very far these days) than on a meter.

Old camera meters, like the Minolta ambi/flash III & IV, or the Luna Pro's are inexpensive and very good, as well as the old Bessler PM2L I have.

All are inexpensive and accurate.

Unless there has been a very major advantage built into new enlarging meters, especially those costing $500, there is no reason not to go old school for quick starting points.

In general, my b&w negatives have been of a density that makes it easy to dial into the starting range needed, when I've been freshly doing a long period of developing and printing.

This is one GAS attack item that does not need a large investment of cash.

IMO.

 

[GregY]

Old camera meters, like the Minolta ambi/flash III & IV, or the Luna Pro's are inexpensive and very good, as well as the old Bessler PM2L I have.

All are inexpensive and accurate.

Unless there has been a very major advantage built into new enlarging meters, especially those costing $500, there is no reason not to go old school for quick starting points.

In general, my b&w negatives have been of a density that makes it easy to dial into the starting range needed, when I've been freshly doing a long period of developing and printing.

This is one GAS attack item that does not need a large investment of cash.

IMO.

I was referencing the RH meters which are currently in production at $500+. As i mentioned, somewhere in my darkroom i have an EM10 meter, but i never found it any better than using test strips.

 

[markbau]

I realise I'm very late to this thread but I'll throw my 2 bobs worth in. Over the years I have tried many meters, the Ilford one, a Jobo multitronic, a Gossen attachment for a regular light meter, a Jobo colour meter that had a B&W function,the last one was useful in a pro lab situation where we had to bang the prints out fast. If you are just using one enlarger you should be able to guess a pretty decent exposure after a while that will be a good starting point. A few years ago I got an RH analyser pro and it is easily one of the best photographic purchases I've ever made, the amount of time and paper it saves me has meant it has paid for itself many times over. I'm not saying anyone "MUST" have one, I didn't have one for 90% of my printing career, but used properly they are amazing. If you are happy with your current set up, more power to you.

 

[Chan Tran]

Interesting how some people want metering "suggestions" when it comes to exposing film, but not paper.

I guess the main different is that you can try to make another print while you very likely not able to make another photograph.

 

[Chan Tran]

I would use meter for enlarging but I would build one myself. Not for saving money but I want to work in my way. When I did RA-4 printing I used a scanner and it worked quite well. I would scan the negative in manual mode. Make the adjustment for color and exposure until I have a good scan. Using the settings on the scanner I can then figure out the filtration setting on the color head as well as exposure time.

 

[guangong]

For some of the reasons already noted above, differences among papers of exposure speed,, quantity of prints, etc, never felt need for meter. The gadget I have used for many decades consists of a small sheet of glass with a vertical peg, upon which sits a spindle with two wings that have cutouts giving accurate exposure ratio differences. Place on a strip of paper, give spindle a twirl, turn on enlarger for a given time, and pick best result. I use this gadget because I can get readings for two different areas of negative on one test strip. I bought two, figuring I would drop the glass base. Hence, never dropped. Must have bought them at Olden Camera about 50-55 years ago.
However, if large volume printing were my business I would probably use a meter. In fact, I may even have LunaPro attachment hidden somewhere in my basement.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I have looked into getting a meter. But I have such a standard process its likely not worth it.

1. 95% of my prints are 5x7 using a speed easel typically not moving the elevation.
2. When possible use the same print developer at 20C
3. Use only two types paper and know the f/stop speed adjustment when changing paper.
4. Use an incident meter when shooting one of two types of film using one general purpose developer…this makes for consistent exposures on -135. David Vestal preached a good negative is easy to print.
5. Print 3x a week…..your eyes become calibrated with frequent repetition.

I cut a 5x7 up in 5 test strips. Use one strip to cover an area of important mid, low and high values. It normally takes 1 or 2 strips to find the right exposure. My negatives are uniform and typically print well on a #3 contrast filter. After the test strip I eyeball contrast adjustment.

When things are going well I average 2 prints to get to a baseline keeper. At that point I evaluate for dodging and burning. I avoid heavy makeup on the print. I may need a test strip for manipulation but often guess and it works out. If I dodge and burn more than just a simple adjustment it may take 2 or 3 prints.

I usually get to a final print from individual negatives in 15 min…..30 min if I’m having a bad day. Granted, this is enlarging to 5x7 which is not challenging for a printer.

If I think I have a really nice image on another day I batch enlarge selected negatives to 7.5 inches across on 8x10 paper. Slightly bigger image with wider white margins. Again I have a good idea of the change in time for the increased enlargement factor.

I think I’m reasonable efficient without a meter.

If during a print session I changed neg format, made big enlargements on 11x14, and often varied the enlarger head I may feel different about meters.