In praise of old light meters

[BrianShaw]

Can’t you just adjust your film speed setting by a stop to compensate?

Of course. But it would be even better to have it correctly calibrated.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I have a bunch like most people who have been doing this a long time.

I stick to incident meters. I've owned spot meters in the past but I just never used them. So much faster to just take an incident reading and use a little of that thing called experience...

I pretty much just use a Luna Pro Digital or a Sekonic L-358 these days. I do keep a Luna Pro SBC with my large format gear. The SBC makes it easy to translate filter factors with the dial. I also keep an old Luna Pro with my panoramic Holga pinhole. It is marked so I can translate the ridiculous f/256 or whatever it is pinhole. Math while I am trying to do something else hurts my brain. Sometimes I use an old Weston 4 with my Leica M3 just for fun.

I've always preferred dial meters. Digital meters are great and all but they aren't as quick to reference even though I usually use a digital meter. The Luna Pro Digital is just so small and convenient.....

 

[Arthurwg]

I always carry my Gossen Pilot as back-up, no matter what I'm shooting with.

 

[benjiboy]

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.

 

[Kino]

Well, there are meters you shoot with and meters you just look at. I plan on building a shadow box display for my more vintage meters, just because I love the way they look.

The OT was, "In praise of old light meters", so while function is great, the appreciation of form is equal for me.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

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.

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.

 

[Besk]

My Luna Pro was purchased in the 1970's and is my most used meter. (The Gossen service center adjusted it for silver oxide batteries years ago) I have two Luna Pro Digitals also. And no Weston (3 or 4) I have ever bought used has worked.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

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.

 

[snusmumriken]

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?

 

[benjiboy]

Did you bin them or sell them on?

I sold them

 

[benjiboy]

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.

If you are happy with what you have, fair enough, but I found that selenium cell light meters difficulty in low light situations very limiting, and although I had a Gossen Luna Pro S. B.C meter that would read low light it was as big and heavy as a compact camera.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

... most 20 or 30 year old selenium cells have aged, and tend to be unreliable ....

Differing environmental conditions lead to different experiences with Selenium cells.

There is nothing inherently unstable or unreliable about Selenium. The problem arises from their packaging, or lack there of. While CdS and Silicon photocells are well sealed and even available in hermetic packages, Se cells are diiped in clear lacquer/plastic/AOS. Moisture seeps in, especially around the edges, and corrodes and short circuits the cell. If the cell has been kept in a high humidity environment it will fail soon than one that has been kept bone dry.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Get them calibrated at the same lab and the same time and then they will agree. At least until you drop one.

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

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.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

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.

You are missing the point.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Contact Corning Glass Works and filter.find.

 

[Bill Burk]

You are missing the point.

Sally Mann is in a league of her own. I’d venture that she is the generation’s Edward Weston.

 

[Craig]

I only use film, you can't "chimp" that.

Back in the day, it was called Polaroid.

 

[MattKing]

Every time I see the title to this thread .....

 

[benjiboy]

Get them calibrated at the same lab and the same time and then they will agree. At least until you drop one.

That's not strictly true Steve, I have no axe to grind in this discussion, but different light meter brands have different acceptance angles, measuring methods, and parameters .