Of course. But it would be even better to have it correctly calibrated.
Can’t you just adjust your film speed setting by a stop to compensate?
I got rid of all my old light meters , because most 20 or 30 year old selenium cells have aged, and tend to be unreliable, I now use modern digital meters, that are powered by a single A A battery you can buy anywhere,and I get much more accurate and reliable readings.
I agree with benjiboy about digital light meters. I have two Gossen Luna Pro Digital meters and a Sekonic L-318B. In incident mode, all three read within about 0.1 or 0.2 EV from dark room to full sun. One of the Luna Pros is 20 years old. It's an impressive bit of calibration and stable electronics. I also recently bought a Luna Pro Digital F, which is about 0.4 or 0.5 EV different than the others, but I need to test it more.I got rid of all my old light meters , because most 20 or 30 year old selenium cells have aged, and tend to be unreliable, I now use modern digital meters, that are powered by a single A A battery you can buy anywhere,and I get much more accurate and reliable readings.
Did you bin them or sell them on?I got rid of all my old light meters , because most 20 or 30 year old selenium cells have aged, and tend to be unreliable
Did you bin them or sell them on?
That's an awfully broad statement. I can't say how or why selenium cells degrade, or which are more susceptible than others. But I have been using Sekonic L-28 meters all my life. And Sekonic discontinued them in 1976. And after running through nearly a dozen (because my wife treats them as consumables that get dropped and go missing) over the years, I've yet to encounter one that was degraded or unreliable.
I can't speak for other meters but I have no qualms relying on Sekonic meters made over fifty years ago.
... most 20 or 30 year old selenium cells have aged, and tend to be unreliable ....
A pile of meters is torture. I am happy with one. The problem comes with the second because two never read the same. So which to trust?
You see my dilemma.
I am surprised that the thread has almost no discussion of the the Sekonic (née Norwood) Director line of incident light meters. I have found them reliable and a pleasure to use. I stick with the older models and have found no degradations with age. Once I learned how to use an incident meter, I never went back to reflective meters.
Get them calibrated at the same lab and the same time and then they will agree. At least until you drop one.
Where is a lab that will calibrate photography light meters? Quality Light Metric is gone.
In my world, I calibrate the meter to my work. When I get a new meter, I make sure it tracks the old one. I don't get hung up on small differences. Errors in metering and changes in lighting with the sun and the clouds is a bigger deal than a half-stop of meter divergence from the ideal. In a pinch, I've even used iPhone meter apps. They worked well enough.
In the analogue world, true freedom comes from recognizing that our art is the cumulative product of a succession of approximations. There's a wonderful Sally Mann video online where she's struggling with a beast of a LF camera, squints up at the sun, and says, "Yeah, I'd say 30 seconds is about right." At some point, you trust your overall knowledge of your equipment and materials, and build in enough of a fudge factor to compensate if you are off one way or another. In my case, I shoot half box speed, in part to make sure my shadows don't go black, but also in recognition that if I am wrong in my metering, I have some built-in cushion to play with.
YMMV.
My point was to calibrate to a calibrated source not to a meter that may be off or nonlinear. Calibration to a standard source eliminates the errors and can correct nonlinearity. After all the money spent on the equipment, why would one just use a randomly uncalibrated standard?
Because you just need a standard. It doesn't matter whether your meter's numbers jibe with an external standard. It matters only that you can peg your other variables reliably to the numbers on your meter.
Then throw out all standards! Why use f/stops? Why time development?
If one uses the standards, problems can be more quickly corrected. Separately standards help assure that everything works as it is supposed to. Would you use cameras that 1/100 second is 1/72 second, a second camera the 1/125 second was really 1/140 second, a roll of film sold as box speed 400 is really 250 and the next of the same roll is 600. Standards matter and are important.
My point was to calibrate to a calibrated source not to a meter that may be off or nonlinear. Calibration to a standard source eliminates the errors and can correct nonlinearity. After all the money spent on the equipment, why would one just use a randomly uncalibrated standard?
Of course then you have to ask… where can I get the necessary Corning blue filter to correct the color temperature? I’m just using old 80B until I can find the right glass.
You are missing the point.
I only use film, you can't "chimp" that.
Get them calibrated at the same lab and the same time and then they will agree. At least until you drop one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?