• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

In praise of old light meters

@Rolleiflexible , When you “calibrate” are you mostly verifying agreement/disagreement and documenting the difference? That’s what I’ve done. Doing lab calibration or actually adjusting the meter so they all read exactly the same isn’t something I’d undertake.
 

I set the meters side by side, and use the adjustment screw in the back of the new one to line it up with the old one.
 

From the point of comparison that you raised, all the light meters must be calibrated before comparison to make the comparison accurate.
 
Ahhh. My understanding from the meter manuals is that, technically, that’s a zero-adjust. That’s how I use that adjustment. Then I annotate how far off it is from my “most trusted” meter. But I can’t think of a valid reason why offsetting the zero-adjust like you do wouldn’t work… as, obviously, it does for you.
 
Out of the box of 21 meters (the seller threw in a couple extra) two Weston Master III seem to have held their factory calibration!

I almost don’t want to open them because they are reading correctly on the standard light.

For today’s “project” I sat in the sun and applied “Snow Seal” to several of the leather cases.
 
The 'zero adjust' screw isn't going to make for a good calibration adjustment.

The meter scale is non-linear. Turning the screw so it yeilds a 1/2 stop change at the middle of the scale will cause a 1 stop change at the low end and a ten stop change at the very low end (Sekonic 398M).

If a meter consistently reads a 1/2 stop off it is best to adjust the ASA setting to compensate. If the meter error is inconsistent a new/old meter might be the best solution.

I've found working on old selenium meters to be rather hopeless: there is dust in the movement's pivots so it hangs up now and then; the needle trap moves the needle; the needle scrapes on something; the wires are rotted; the cell leaks current ... Westons, in my experience are the worst offenders, though when new they were the nicest of the old-school meters.
 
Ikophots almost always work and you can feed pigs with them. They were obviously very popular hitting a magical point on the cost/quality ratio scale.

Out of the around fifteen or so I have accumulated only one or two don’t read correctly. And they all match up like synchronized clocks.

They are not really useable below EV 10-9. But if you shoot B&W handheld in those light conditions just go as slow and open as you dare.
 

You’re not wrong. I started this project with a few nicely working Westons, so I thought it would be fun. I thought there would be a good yield. Looks like the yield is close to three out of twenty.

I thought loose nuts making poor contact would be the root cause of many. But it turns out rare.

Needles are rarely a problem. I’d say if untampered, nine out of ten have good movements. The meters are well sealed with an o-ring on the top and a rubber gasket on the back. Dusty samples are rare. The magnetic dust can be picked off with a toothpick tipped with a little contact cement. There are no wires to speak of, they join the coil directly to the copper ring. And a copper band or steel strand makes the positive contact.

The chief failure though is the Selenium cell.

I have not found a way to revitalize Selenium cells. Yesterday a “dead one” threw out 90 microamps when I touched a wire to a random spot in the middle of the front. I can’t rely on that.
 

Good ideas don’t often scale. You can’t build a cathedral like you build a doghouse. You can’t scale an insect up.
Or at least you can’t expect your scaling to work for as long.
The insect will soon asphyxiate and the cathedral collapse in the first storm.
It seems selenium cells are only good to certain size for a certain time.

What’s puzzling is that somewhere in this world there isn’t someone manufacturing a cell that would fit with a bit of adjustment.
Selenium cells are still made after all.
 

I have found that all of the Sekonic Studio Deluxe L-28C samples I've owned (a dozen or so) over the years to be within maybe a 1/3 stop of each other. I tune the new to the old. Maybe there are logical reasons why this is not best practice. But it is close enough for my needs and uses.

In Sanders World, nothing is ever precise. I assume shutters are less than accurate with age. Film and processing have their own imprecisions. And apart from meter variations, there are light variations, and variations as to how I hold the meter to the changing light.

When I meter a scene, I build in fudge factors. I know that too little light will kill shadows. So I drop the box speed and make exposure judgments that err in favor of too much light, not too little.

In Sanders World, I will still make well-exposed negatives even if the meter is off a half of a stop. So long as the meter is reasonably linear and gets me in the ballpark, I am fine. If you are certain as to your own control of all these variables, then I suppose the issues you raise might pose problems. But not for me.
 
Kino said:
And I'll drag out the old chestnut about re ionizing Selenium Cells that's been floating around the Interwebs for a while:

Can't say if it works or not, but I guess I should try it sometime...
Click to expand...
It doesn’t work.

Come on, ketchup Coke, baking soda, vinegar???? It just ruins them.

There is a single-atom layer of gold deposited on top of the cell.

I think a real solution will require gold deposition in a vacuum.

But I might try strands of gold leaf on the cell that almost works.
 

Well… the general intent might work. Those substances as cleaning agents is ridiculous.

I’ve revived a Weston III simply by cleaning the copper contact ring very gently for a better contact. It was a long time ago and I don’t recall what I used but if I guess it was a very mild rubber eraser. The meter is still in service and accurate within reason.
 

Bummer! I was about to go transmute some lead into gold with another Internet recipe , but you're harshing my buzz!
 

Improving the contacts as you mention can fix some meters. As I have found though, only a few. The cell has to be good. Maybe your best bet is Weston Master III.

Cleaning the cells themselves, I have yet to have a cell spring to life. No matter how gently or roughly. No matter what chemistry I tried.

Bringing them to the melting point of Selenium definitely ruins them and creates a bit of a hazard.

I am seriously considering taking a cell from a good Master III for a Master II.

The dial faces have letters A, B, E etc. The lowest markings of these different scales vary in how tightly spaced they are. I think that’s how the high and low are calibrated (by picking the dial that reads 32 on both high and low on 100 foot lambert standard after the holes are drilled to hit sunny 16 on high). It is insane but ingenious what they did.
 
I was able to bring back a selenium cell meter on an Aries 35-V Rangefinder by simply removing it, cleaning the outer rim with a rubber eraser and re-installing it. More of an issue of contacts than cell degradation...
 
I can't help myself. Whenever I see this thread's title, I think of something else.....
 
MattKing said:
For some, what you describe as "Sanders World" is akin to purgatory!
I'd be more than happy to spend lots of time there.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I read posts here and marvel that I get any printable negatives at all. Here’s a negative I shot Saturday evening, facing west into the twilit sky on the Appalachian Trail:



Among my mistakes:

I shot with Fomapan 200.

I shot a 1/5-second exposure on a monopod. (A concession to age — not so long ago I would have trusted my hands.)

I metered with an uncalibrated 1960s-vintage Sekonic Studio Deluxe in failing light.

I shot a run-of-the-mill Automat with a Tessar, not a modern Rolleiflex with a Planar.

I (semi-)stand processed the film (a tabular film!) in Rodinal.

I scanned the negative with an old Epson 4990 flatbed, with the negative lying directly on the glass.

I post this not so much for the older photographers here because I know you know this already. But it frightens me to think of young photographers who come to these forums looking for guidance, and read about how you should never shoot without a tripod, or how stand processing is unreliable, or how you need to send out your light meters for calibration, or how the Zone System rules, etc., etc. It’s off-putting to a newbie, and it is a fussiness about shooting film that has never been a part of The Knowledge as I was taught it back when the pterodactyls were still roosting high up in the truffula trees.
 
Last edited:

+1
 
I’ve always liked what I read Adams said about Weston’s method. Take a reading and add one stop. Good enough.

I probably have that wrong but it works more or less.

The “Sander’s world” cracks me up because it is so true. Everyone should have their own world.

And I am not fond of dogmas. I’ve seen all kinds of things done in photography that “shouldn’t” have been done, but if it works and you like it, that is all that matters.
 
Patrick Robert James said:
I’ve always liked what I read Adams said about Weston’s method. Take a reading and add one stop. Good enough.
Click to expand...

Or halve the box speed -- same adjustment. The point (to state the obvious) is that B+W film is forgiving of overexposure, but underexposure kills shadow detail. So when in doubt, put more light on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register