Exposure without a meter

[BrianShaw]

There was a spot meter attachment for the Lunasix?

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/gossen spot.html

 

[benjiboy]

The old Gossen meters weren't able to take up to nine readings either spot , general,or incidental remember them and average them at the press of a button, or meter ambient light and flash at the same time telling you what proportion of the resultant reading is flash. I've been using light meters for about fifty years and the modern digital S.P.D. ones are the ones I always dreamed about.

 

[BrianShaw]

The old Gossen meters weren't able to take up to nine readings either spot , general,or incidental remember them and average them at the press of a button, or meter ambient light and flash at the same time telling you what proportion of the resultant reading is flash. I've been using light meters for about fifty years and the modern digital S.P.D. ones are the ones I always dreamed about.

For what they are, the Luna-Pro and spot attachment can surely get the job done... as can a Weston with invercone. But as you say, more modern meters with multiple modes and readings, exposure averaging, etc, etc are a dream! I use all 3 but when I use the (now old) Sekonic L-558 I always say/think "wow".

 

[Chan Tran]

I sold my Luna Pro SBC and Western Euromaster last year and replaced them with a couple of modern digital meters a Kenko KFM 2100 ( Minolta Auto Meter V1) and a Sekonic L358 with the optional 1° spot attachment and I wouldn't want to go back to the old ones.

I might trust the SBC but I wouldn't use the Weston. In such case I rather guess.

 

[Bill Burk]

I spent a week with the Weston Master II and it served me well... The Sekonic TwinMate hit the drink early in the week so it was sitting out in a baggie of rice (it's fine)...

Most meter readings were palm of hand placed on Zone VI, something the Weston is particularly good at.

I've had a couple of bad Weston's but now I have a couple of good ones... They can be trusted.

But this is a thread about Exposure without a meter... On the last day of camp, the program director's father (a friend, who once caught me in the mountains with a digital camera and scolded me "Bill, I thought you stood for something") visited to celebrate the 60th anniversary... I wanted a photo of father and son, so I guessed the exposure and shot.

Afterwards, I checked incident reading with the (now dried-out) Twin-Mate. I was only off by one stop. I can't remember if I was off towards over or underexposure. But since I rate Tri-X at 250, being off one stop, in any direction, does not affect quality in any way.

So you CAN develop a good sense for exposure guesswork.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There was a spot meter attachment for the Lunasix?

Yes, I have one.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

It may be rubbish regarding the point friction claim. But... for something that works just fine 10 times longer than tested... that over-engineering's gotta mean something.

View attachment 91803

Well, the statement that the vertical axis with the weight of the coil and needle taken by the point is theoretically better is true. But - the friction in either type is so low as to have no sensible effect on the accuracy of the reading - the poise of the needle assembly is far more important, and it is there that the G.E. type would have an advantage over the Weston. But (again) - both of my Master IIIs, a user and one as-new-in-box have perfect poise; that is you can hold the meter in any position with the axis horizontal with no error due to lack of poise.

Either meter if in good condition is excellent.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I might trust the SBC but I wouldn't use the Weston. In such case I rather guess.

I've been using the Weston since the late 1980s, the same meter. All formats, all films, it's never let me down. They're not for low light though and that's when I use a LunaSix.