In praise of old light meters

[Bill Burk]

Maybe the earth was hit by a huge polaroid.

Reminds me how sensitive some meters can be. I had a Pentax Spotmeter V with me on the top of San Bruno Mountain trying to take a meter reading for the Endeavor flyover. It was impossible!!!!! The radio towers put out so much electromagnetic interference the needle swung wildly!

I used a Spot Messenger to track my position. It fell off the car as I drove home. I thought I had lost it for good until I got back and realized it was telling me where it was the whole time.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/endeavor-flyover-san-francisco-september-21-2012.39363/

 

[munz6869]

I've recently been using my Pocket Spot (after remembering where it was) and enjoying it's small-ness and simplicity heaps. Truly an engineering marvel and as accurate as my excellent big and bloated Sekonic fancy thing.

Marc!

 

[Bill Burk]

Pocket Spot sure is cool, I remember hearing it took a long time to get one.

 

[munz6869]

Pocket Spot sure is cool, I remember hearing it took a long time to get one.

Ha, yes! Seven years of email to them, in my case! But I got it eventually, and they do say Large Format photography is a slow, thoughtful pursuit...

Marc!

 

[Anon Ymous]

Does the dialface have a set of EV numbers? --- between the botttom of the range and the top of the range would seem to be its operating range!

Yes, as @AgX pointed out, just because the dial goes down to EV X, it doesn't mean that it can actually measure that low. Meanwhile, I had a look at it and the lowest EV is -6 on the dial, but it certainly can't get that low.

 

[AgX]

Exposure Values are based on film sensitivity and thus there have to be enough figures on a dial to cope with the possible film sensitivity settings of the meter. The sensitivity of meters are typically given for ISO 100. At TTL meters of cameras the aperture of the used lens has to be given too.

But I have seen brochures on meters were just that range of EV figures on the dial was given as metering range...

 

[benjiboy]

With the 2 light meters in the front of his head, and the computer behind them?

The human eyes are a very poor tool for evaluating light intensity because they react too quickly and imperceptibly to it.

 

[wiltw]

As Gossen themselves got their papers wrong, why then should my meters be defect?
More so as my many Gossen meters per model all show same characteristics.

Seems to prove that marketing materials are generally written to lure buyers, and used to poorly reflect 'the truth' until a standards organization is formed to create uniformity in specifications. Certainly that is true of specs for the high fidelity sound equipment marketed before the 1960s. And some, like Bose, continue to publish no sound fidelity specifications at all !

 

[wiltw]

Not at all !
A dialface with EV values has a values range stretching far beneath the sensitivity limit of the meter. To establish this limit the film sensitivity must be set at Iso 100 first.

But even better to check at an actual metering for actual minimum response.

oh, doh! I wrote post 68 without putting the brain into gear, it was freewheeling out of control...I knew that was false logic!
...a really low ISO would result in a really low EV value, compared to really high ISO, having nothing to do with the minimum number of footcandles or candela measureable.

 

[Bill Burk]

Ha, yes! Seven years of email to them, in my case! But I got it eventually, and they do say Large Format photography is a slow, thoughtful pursuit...

Marc!

Wow!!! That’s longer than I waited for my Littman. To their credit… worth the wait.

 

[markjwyatt]

Reminds me how sensitive some meters can be. I had a Pentax Spotmeter V with me on the top of San Bruno Mountain trying to take a meter reading for the Endeavor flyover. It was impossible!!!!! The radio towers put out so much electromagnetic interference the needle swung wildly!

I used a Spot Messenger to track my position. It fell off the car as I drove home. I thought I had lost it for good until I got back and realized it was telling me where it was the whole time.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/endeavor-flyover-san-francisco-september-21-2012.39363/

Cool picture!

I will have to try that next time I am on Mt. Wilson. They have a huge antenna farm up there.

 

[Bill Burk]

Cool picture!

I will have to try that next time I am on Mt. Wilson. They have a huge antenna farm up there.

It’s fun but makes me think about the brain-frying capabilities of a good radio antenna. Once read a book “The zapping of America” because they had installed microwave print dryers on the web presses in Porterville. A pressman told me his concern and asked me if he should be worried. (Bottom line no… the equipment was shielded but don’t defeat the safety interlock).
I used to clean the laser imagesetter and on the back of the mirror I used to inspect the lenses printed the words “Pop, pop” - a reminder of the story in the chapter in the book where a technician explained the sound he heard when he was blinded looking down an active waveguide.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use this little beauty when I'm out with old folders.

 

[Helge]

Recently got a Weston Master IV with Inverticone. Very good condition and amazingly registers light, which is a first for me with Westons.
It consistently measures half a stop over, maybe a little less that half a stop.
I read something about that being by design.
Is this true?
Tested against my Lunasix and Lunasix F and light meter app.

 

[MattKing]

The Weston Master IV was introduced at the same timer as the ASA standard changed, so perhaps that is part of the reason.

 

[wiltw]

It’s fun but makes me think about the brain-frying capabilities of a good radio antenna. Once read a book “The zapping of America” because they had installed microwave print dryers on the web presses in Porterville. A pressman told me his concern and asked me if he should be worried. (Bottom line no… the equipment was shielded but don’t defeat the safety interlock).
I used to clean the laser imagesetter and on the back of the mirror I used to inspect the lenses printed the words “Pop, pop” - a reminder of the story in the chapter in the book where a technician explained the sound he heard when he was blinded looking down an active waveguide.

That reminds me of the time, many decades ago when I flew on an Air Force Reserve flight on a C-130 cargo airplane as 'cargo' while I was an officer in the Army, my friend who was part of flight crew warned me into the plane when they were getting ready to do a function check on the radar, about the possiblity of having fried 'Rocky Mountain oysters' by standing in front of the plane during test.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That reminds me of the time, many decades ago when I flew on an Air Force Reserve flight on a C-130 cargo airplane as 'cargo' while I was an officer in the Army, my friend who was part of flight crew warned me into the plane when they were getting ready to do a function check on the radar, about the possiblity of having fried 'Rocky Mountain oysters' by standing in front of the plane during test.

Warming the cuckolds of your heart.

 

[AgX]

The Weston Master IV was introduced at the same timer as the ASA standard changed, so perhaps that is part of the reason.

I am not sure what you are referring to, but the filmspeed changes related to new sensitivity figures for same film. With this the meters were not affected or changed.

 

[BrianShaw]

Recently got a Weston Master IV with Inverticone. Very good condition and amazingly registers light, which is a first for me with Westons.
It consistently measures half a stop over, maybe a little less that half a stop.
I read something about that being by design.
Is this true?
Tested against my Lunasix and Lunasix F and light meter app.

A half stop difference is quite possible but is more likely a result in how you held the meter. The Weston instructions discuss this... and I assure you that it makes a difference.

I think the "by design" discussion you are recalling is about the manufacturer's decision on constants, K and C, which is common to all meters. Some have incorrectly hypothesized that these constants are so profound that they make a big difference (they don't) and that it is manipulation by the manufacturers to trick photographers with incorrect exposure recommendations (it isn't). The effect of these metering constants is rather subtle, especially when compared to film speed "safety factors", which Matt alluded to but in the wrong context for this discussion.

 

[MattKing]

I am not sure what you are referring to, but the filmspeed changes related to new sensitivity figures for same film. With this the meters were not affected or changed.

A meter with a setting for film speed using the older, pre-1960 standard will give an exposure setting recommendation one stop different than a meter with a setting for film speed using the newer, post-1960 standard.

 

[BrianShaw]

A meter with a setting for film speed using the older, pre-1960 standard will give an exposure setting recommendation one stop different than a meter with a setting for film speed using the newer, post-1960 standard.

I think it’s more like this. The difference between Weston speeds, Weston II, and ASA, Weston III, gave a 1/3 stop difference in meter reading (calculator dial, not LV). The difference between ASA before and after safety factor adjustment gives same meter reading (calculator dial and LV).

 

[MattKing]

I think it’s more like this. The difference between Weston speeds, Weston II, and ASA, Weston III, gave a 1/3 stop difference in meter reading. The difference between ASA before and after safety factor adjustment gives same meter reading but a 1-stop difference in how the image is recorded on the film.

Are you saying that if you set ASA 200 on the Master IV's film speed dial (possibly Tri-X before 1960) it would read the same as if you set ASA 400 on the Master IV's film speed dial (Tri-X after 1960)?

 

[BrianShaw]

Are you saying that if you set ASA 200 on the Master IV's film speed dial (possibly Tri-X before 1960) it would read the same as if you set ASA 400 on the Master IV's film speed dial (Tri-X after 1960)?

Not intentionally; I may have misunderstood your comment or not expressed myself clearly and acutely enough. I misspoke, it seems, as I re-read my reply.

A 200 setting and a 400 setting will definitely give a 1-stop difference.

What I was trying to say is that meters did not change because of the safety factor change.

 

[MattKing]

No. That appears to be what you said.

I said:
“The difference between ASA before and after safety factor adjustment gives same meter reading ”

If you set 400 on a pre-1960 meter film speed dial, would it recommend the same camera setting as a post ASA change meter also set to 400?
I don't think it will, because, for the same film rating number (not the same film) the ASA standard provided for more exposure prior to 1960 than it did after 1960.

 

[BrianShaw]

If you set 400 on a pre-1960 meter film speed dial, would it recommend the same camera setting as a post ASA change meter also set to 400?
I don't think it will, because, for the same film rating number (not the same film) the ASA standard provided for more exposure prior to 1960 than it did after 1960.

To the best of my knowledge, meter calculator dials did not change before and after 1960. I just compared a Weston 5 and Sekonic SBC and they are the same. And the Weston 5 calculator dial, with the exception of artistic features, is the same as the IV and III.