Enlarging meters, are they worth it?

[eli griggs]

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.

This is a good perspective on learning to print and have a 'calibrated' system to quickly arrive at a printing routine result, for a five by seven inch print, which can be duplicated in smaller or larger prints, using and adjusting the initial settings.

IMO.

 

[wiltw]

If you print a large number of negatives, a meter will help you be more efficient and waste less paper.
If you print while under deadlines, a meter will help reduce your stress.
If you have a need to match multiple prints, a meter will be really useful.

And as a past user of the Beseler PM4L analyzer with my Beseler 45V-XL enlarger with Unversal Color Head, I can attest to all three of Matt's enumeration of advantages. I can add a fourth benefit...in printing a few dozon copies of the color transparency as prints for an exchange, in more than one darkroom session. the analyzer (along the the color controller and Jobo processor) helped me to get absolute consistency of color across darkroom sessions so that there was zero distinguishable difference across all the prints.

 

[Charles O'Connor]

I would say its worth it if you use it. Like the others here it can help get an average print on the first exposure or set up to get the desired tone on the first try. Personally I only do B/W and have tried a meter in the past, a probe on U45, and various iPhone apps. End result is I don’t use one and instead use fstop timing from a chart, usually note a midtone at exposure, and I waste a sheet from each box to confirm it is consistent with last batch by exposing a step wedge. I don’t do densitometer just eyeball it. I have baselines for all papers I use and developer. Been doing it for a while 40 years and can pretty much get a good print on first try just from looking at negative. I also don’t add many variables any longer. Still don’t deprive yourself of a new gizmo if you have the money. You can always sell it if not part of your workflow.