Enlarging meters, are they worth it?

[Keith Tapscott.]

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.

 

[koraks]

If it's about saving money, calculate how much you spend on test strips and compare that with the cost of the equipment of your choice, and the reduced number of test strips you anticipate. This will give you a rough estimate of the break-even point. I doubt that many people actually make this comparison and they choose to use (or not) a meter because of more intangible preferences - basically, because they like it. For me, that seems like a perfectly viable reason.

Maybe a good in-between solution would be to try and borrow one of these devices for a few sessions, or take some negatives to someone who has one and then do some printing together. Maybe through Photrio or some other platform you could find someone sufficiently close to give it a go. I know many people here are very willing to receive guests for some explanation, demonstration and experimentation.

 

[Frank53]

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.

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.

 

[VinceInMT]

I agree with koraks that it might be a cost saver in the long run but one would have to look at how much work one actually does to see if it’s worth it. If one is doing lots of production work, I can see the payback in both time and money coming quickly but for the occasional or intermittent printer, the payback might take a while. Of course, as koraks says, there are some intangibles. Even the non-production user might just be interested in saving time or, perhaps, one just likes gadgets and that alone can justify going in that direction.

I’ve also toyed with the idea of getting one, at least for 40 years but haven’t made the move and certainly not for the lack of money to do so. In many/most areas of my life, I tend to enjoy the simplicity and minimalism in various endeavors. I still develop film in a stainless tank with manual agitation. I deal with temperature control with a thermometer and a water bath.

That said, if you do get a meter, I would like to hear a report back on how it changes the way you do your work.

 

[Chan Tran]

I would build my own meter if I do the darkroom.

 

[Ian C]

There are factors affecting how enlarging papers respond to exposure and development that we can’t change. The speed of paper can, and often does, vary from one box to another. The finest meter, regardless of price, must be calibrated to the particular box of paper in use.

As paper ages, it can slow, and possibly produce lower contrast. Additionally, color papers tend to change color balance as they age. Some of this can be due to aging of the emulsion—simply the passage of time. Other factors are: the temperature, humidity, and gasses that might be present in the storage environment. Some emulsions seem to last for years with little change. Others exhibit considerable slowing, loss of contrast, or both.

Meters can’t predict these things. But they can be used in conjunction with exposure and development tests to determine how a particular box of paper will respond within a reasonable time after the test. If the paper supply sits unused for a sufficient time, say 5 or 10 years, then it should be retested to verify its current speed before relying on the meter’s recommendations.

I use a variation of this idea to determine the necessary exposure changes when changing print sizes on the same paper stock using a standard light meter that I already own.

Use of a Light Meter to Determine Exposure in Making a Print Based on the Exposure of a Smaller or Larger Print (on the same paper stock) | Photrio.com Photography Forums

For the common task of changing from an 8” x 10” to 16” x 20” print on the same stock, the Ilford EM-10 meter works well. I discuss this in post #45 in the following thread:

How to calculate a new print exposure time for a change in enlarger head height | Page 2 | Photrio.com Photography Forums

 

[xkaes]

They are expensive, ....

Hogwash. There are plenty of simple enlarging meters that you can get for under $20, from Paterson, Unicolor, and others.

The next, easy, inexpensive, step-up, is to get an enlarging attachment for your hand-held meter. Minolta, Gossen, Sekonic, etc. made these -- maybe $20-40.

Then there are the bigger analyzers, made by Beseler, Minolta, and others. Most of these you can get used for only a few bucks. There are over 50 Beseler models on EBAY right now, stating at under $10:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=beseler+pm&_sacat=0&_sop=15

But none of these meters tell you what the best exposure or contrast each picture needs. You have to know how to use it correctly -- just like a hand-held meter.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Hogwash. There are plenty of simple enlarging meters that you can get for under $20, from Paterson, Unicolor, and others.

There are over 50 Beseler models on EBAY right now, stating at under $10:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=beseler+pm&_sacat=0&_sop=15

I was referring to the Zone master meter. Thank you for the link though.
I'm not familiar with the Beseler brand.

 

[bdial]

I use a meter in the same way Ian suggests, to adjust exposure for changing a print size. I use an enlarging attachment for my Luna Pro rather than a dedicated enlarging meter.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have a couple of serious enlarging meters which I have used for complex color printing tasks and precise analytic work. And NO, they aren't $20 toys; more like $1000 and worth it. But I see no reason for owning any of them for basic black and white printing. But if you are on a tight budget and want something that will read relatively low light levels decently, try a basic lux meter. True enlarging meters work on a spot basis - capable of reading very small areas in the projected image, at least if they're in the central portion of the image; don't expect them to be cosine corrected for oblique angles of light.

Color analyzers aren't the same thing either. And as far as old used gear goes, you need do your homework in advance.

 

[xkaes]

This reminds me of a Beseler enlarging tool that I rarely use. It is a simple diffuser that fits in the filter holder of many Beseler enlargers, and allows any spot enlarging meter to average the light from the negative/slide. Of course, you need to run some tests first to get this "averaging" metering method to work under the enlarger, but once you do, it's a quick easy way to make your first print or step table -- and land pretty close to "home plate". It automatically deals with magnification, cropping, filtration, whatever. Although it could be bought separately, the ones I have came with other Beseler filter sets, etc. I don't recall ever seeing instructions for it, however.

 

[Pieter12]

Why learn dependency on a meter when it is quite simple to make a test strip? A test strip is made with the same chemicals and paper, under the same conditions as the final print in most cases.

 

[xkaes]

With a test strip you have to guess at the starting and ending point. With a meter, used correctly, you can nail it within a 1/2 f-stop, regardless of magnification -- and then create a step table of very fine exposures -- the first time.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Why learn dependency on a meter when it is quite simple to make a test strip?

I have been using the test strip method for many years.

Banish the test strip is one of the advertising lines for the Zonemaster meter.
What I want to know is do they live up to the hype?

 

[logan2z]

Banish the test strip is one of the advertising lines for the Zonemaster meter.
What I want to know is do they live up to the hype?

I have the RH Designs Analyzer Pro. I've rarely, if ever, made a test strip since buying it. But there are times when it is necessary and, despite the 'banish the test strip' slogan, there is a test strip mode included in the Analyzer Pro to make it easy to create test strips when you need them.

 

[Pieter12]

With a test strip you have to guess at the starting and ending point. With a meter, used correctly, you can nail it within a 1/2 f-stop, regardless of magnification -- and then create a step table of very fine exposures -- the first time.

If nacessary, a second test strip will do he same. So?

 

[Luckless]

If nacessary, a second test strip will do he same. So?

I'm still calibrating my metering and print processes, but how long does it take you to expose, develop, and inspect an initial test strip to establish your ballpark values for a precision pre-print test strip?

Because for me that adds up to the time that could be used to expose and develop actual final prints, and offers me faster turn arounds on resizing.

With the multitude of options of metering and controlling an enlarger's lamp, I really can't see a reason to rely on guess-and-check to arrive at a measurement when you could just measure it.

Like slowly cutting 'a little more' off a board a few times for want of just buying a measuring tape.

 

[MattKing]

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.
On the other side of the coin, if you print infrequently, a meter can help you get back up to speed more quickly.
If you use more than one darkroom for printing, a portable meter can simplify your life greatly.
They are rarely necessary outside of a demanding, commercial volume environment. They can be quite advantageous.

 

[Pieter12]

Measurements need to be made in critical areas, as do test strips. I find visual evaluation more intuitive. I can usually make a final print with 2 test strips (because I split-grade print) a first print and a final with minor adjustments, dodging and burning. And the results are all scaleable.

 

[ic-racer]

I guess it has been a while, but it used to be baseboard color analyzers were given away or thrown away. I wound up with a few and kept the best one to use as a baseboard enlarger meter.

I actually don't use it for printing on a routine basis, but it is a nice tool to have for measuring color filters and light intensity when doing enlarger repairs. Also works good demonstrating the new exposure when raising or lowering the enlarger head.

 

[xkaes]

The meters are great when you want to change enlargement / magnification. It avoids calculations, tables, and test strips.

But if you think of the negative as the scene -- in reverse -- metering is really simple, especially if you are a zone / spot meter fan. With an analyzer, you can meter whatever part of the negative you want -- just like in the scene, and exposure the paper, just like you did the film -- in reverse. You may want to expose for the middle of the range, or pick an area for creating as middle gray. It's very easy to determine the density range of the negative by reading the highlights and shadows -- and match it to the density range of the paper. That saves more test-strips.

And if you prefer an averaging metering method, you can use a diffuser under the lens as I mentioned before. You'd be surprised how easy and fast that is for making a "good" print immediately.

 

[cliveh]

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.

No, make test strips. An enlarging meter is a complete waste of money.

 

[BMbikerider]

To be honest I have never considered one, instead preferring to use the test strip method and not relying upon a device to do the work for me. With colour if you standardise the film/developers/temperatures then in theory you only need to do a multi test strip test is the negative is exceedingly contrasty or the picture was taken in less than ideal light (Tungsten rather than daylight).

The same applies to some extent with B&W, standardise your materials and chemicals and times/temps and it is only if you stray away from the standardisation do you have to do a test or two.

Allowing in both cases for the size of the actual enlargement which will either increase or decrease the time. Then it may work eqsier with a analyser but only if it is calibrated correctly. I have been doing this for too long (60 yrs) to change now, my methods are too ingrained

 

[Maris]

When I used to print for others I used an enlarging meter. This made the job quicker and removed personal bias in the results. Complaints like "Why is this print so bad?" would be met with "The meter does not lie. You got what's in the negative."
Now I print for myself and use only test strips. This in particular to guide creative burning and dodging decisions that a meter really doesn't easily address. I'm the one paying for the enlarging paper, I like darkroom work, and I'm not in a hurry to finish early.

 

[albada]

No one has mentioned the meter I use. It's US$110 from Darkroom Automation, including shipping within the US.

http://www.darkroomautomation.com/em.htm

For me, it eliminates most of the tedious part of darkroom work, which is test strips. 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