In praise of old light meters

[Rolleiflexible]

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 .

And then add onto that user variations. Are you aiming the meter correctly? If reflective, did you aim at an 18 percent gray? Did you account for dynamic changes in light? The list goes beyond the meter. Is your shutter accurate? Is your aperture dial correctly marked? Are you reading it correctly? And we won’t even talk here of post-exposure variations in how you process and print your negatives.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter whether the meter is calibrated to a standard, assuming there is one. What matters is whether you, the photographer, can devise a repeatable workflow, with reproducible results. I have no idea how far my L-28 deviates from factory standards. I DO know that if I set my L-28 for a stop slower than box speed and then rely on its readings, I will nearly always get a negative with great shadow detail, and good highlights too.

And in the end, that’s all that matters to me. I have created a system, with all of its accumulated errors, that together produces a printable negative. When I pick up a new L-28, as I did last week for $15, I calibrate it to my old L-28, and it is good to go. So, for all of you who distrust your old meters, please feel free to send them to me. I will give them a happy home in retirement.

 

[MattKing]

So, for all of you who distrust your old meters, please feel free to send them to me. I will give them a happy home in retirement.

Be careful Sanders. If the number of old meters that I have kicking around is any indication, if you get a lot of response to this, you may need to rent a warehouse!

 

[benjiboy]

And then add onto that user variations. Are you aiming the meter correctly? If reflective, did you aim at an 18 percent gray? Did you account for dynamic changes in light? The list goes beyond the meter. Is your shutter accurate? Is your aperture dial correctly marked? Are you reading it correctly? And we won’t even talk here of post-exposure variations in how you process and print your negatives.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter whether the meter is calibrated to a standard, assuming there is one. What matters is whether you, the photographer, can devise a repeatable workflow, with reproducible results. I have no idea how far my L-28 deviates from factory standards. I DO know that if I set my L-28 for a stop slower than box speed and then rely on its readings, I will nearly always get a negative with great shadow detail, and good highlights too.

And in the end, that’s all that matters to me. I have created a system, with all of its accumulated errors, that together produces a printable negative. When I pick up a new L-28, as I did last week for $15, I calibrate it to my old L-28, and it is good to go. So, for all of you who distrust your old meters, please feel free to send them to me. I will give them a happy home in retirement.

 

[benjiboy]

You can get three brand new out of the box three top of the range digital light meters each manufactured by different leading makers, and take a reading with each from a Kodak Grey Card and they will not agree with each other exactly, but individually in the field will produce perfectly acceptable results. I have tried this and know it's true.

 

[Arvee]

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.

Spot on!

+1

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

I've been using a circa-1950 GE PR-1 Selenium meter that reads pretty comparably to my OM-2 and F2 Photomic TTL meters. Part of my parents' studio gear, it was kept closed in its case for many decades, so the Selenium is still active. Anyway, it's a beautiful little antique that works fine for Tri-X.

I Googled up a nice article about these meters:

GE PR-1 Exposure Meter - Down the Road

A look at a vintage hand-held light meter.

blog.jimgrey.net

 

[Subversive Mk II]

A few years ago I bought a pair of selenium meters, an old Sekonic L (rebadged as a Hanimex) and a Horvex 2, both of them still bang-on accurate in the range I'd likely be using them at.
Slightly later, picked up a Gossen Luna Pro SBC, which is a lovely thing, and happily uses a standard 9v PP9 battery.
Got that one cheap as it had a fault - with was nothing more than a battery lead had flexed and broken.
Recently followed that with a harder-to-find Leningrad 6, which works perfectly.
When I venture out with any of them, it adds to the slowness of the activilty, as I want to make film shots count, so I take much more time setting them up, including farfing around with light meters. This applies especially when I shoot large format.
Sometimes, they're a talking point, which is even better.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

perfect and works all the time without batteries!

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

So, a bag of photo-gear goodies came my way last week from a friend who'd recently cleaned out an apartment in Queens. (Most notably, a gorgeous Leica IIIf with the collapsible Elmar that seems to work perfectly!) Included were two vintage meters, a Weston Master V and a Gossen Luna-Lux SBC. The Weston's selenium is dead, so no-go there. The Luna-Lux...

We used classic Luna-Pro meters in my parents' studio, and I still have one or two boxed in the garage, but of course, they have obsolete-battery issues. So I was happy to see that the Luna-Lux uses a 9-volt battery. But I have to tell you, I am mightily disappointed in this meter compared the older Luna-Pro in every other way.

First of all, it just feels like junk in comparison. Big, boxy, plasticky, and its case feels like vinyl - if it's leather, it's crappy leather. Terrible ergonomics (why is the actuation button on the other side?), no battery check button, no level adjustment. The three-LED display is awful compared to the old needle display, not to mention that it's tricky to get right. And the kicker for this particular sample: it reads about four stops off vs. my old PR-1 and TTL meters. And that's fine, I don't really need to use it.

But am I the only one who finds the Luna-Lux a huge come-down from the classic Luna-Pro in terms of design and construction? I expected better from Gossen.

 

[mrosenlof]

I've owned a luna-lux since early 1982. It's always worked for me. Seems accurate until the battery runs down and the LEDs don't light up. It's very much the "meter I grew up with" (I was 23 when I bought), so I can't compare with earlier Gossen. I bought a Minolta autometer IV-F in about '92. It no longer works, the Luna Lux does.

 

[Helge]

But am I the only one who finds the Luna-Lux a huge come-down from the classic Luna-Pro in terms of design and construction? I expected better from Gossen.

It’s clearly a Luna Pro/Six/SBC with a worse readout method bolted on.

The diodes are no doubt much cheaper than a precise and fast galvanometer needle.

The case is a different kind of plastic and was meant to hold the more advanced electronics of the better meters.
I like it and I think it probably is less likely to crack if dropped.

The meter button is on the other side so you can turn it and lock it, for continuous reading, with your left hand.

FWIW my example is also off. I was going to fix it and give it away to a good home, but what was the point really? The other meters are much superior and can be had for under $100.

Nothing beats the superb elegance of the original LunaSix and LunaSix 3 (was there ever a 2?) though.
The design, the feel, and the elegant simplicity of the circuit and metering, with extremely impressive sensitivity for the technology. And also IMO better colour balance than the SBC meters.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

The Weston's selenium is dead, so no-go there.

Not so fast: A lot of the Weston meters have issues with the contacts inside of the meter. I recall that squeezing a Weston Master V in the center can revive it. (I did that once.) Others have taken them apart, cleaned the contacts, and put them back together -- not a simple thing, as there are delicate parts inside. Before you consign the meter to the shelf, you might find with some fiddling that it can still have a place in your bag.

 

[Bill Burk]

Not so fast: A lot of the Weston meters have issues with the contacts inside of the meter. I recall that squeezing a Weston Master V in the center can revive it. (I did that once.) Others have taken them apart, cleaned the contacts, and put them back together -- not a simple thing, as there are delicate parts inside. Before you consign the meter to the shelf, you might find with some fiddling that it can still have a place in your bag.

Speaking from experience now…. Yes. I have a couple Weston II which came to life when I made better contact.

But dreadful poor luck lately on eBay. One by one I have been finding weak cells that mean I can’t calibrate. Once in a while there’s a cell that reads “25 at 32” which is to say… there are Weston II that can come close. But I only have one or two that will calibrate.

The cells that show a “W” logo are the best. You can see it behind the bubble lens.

The Weston V are shamefully poor. Almost every one is a dud.

 

[Helge]

Speaking from experience now…. Yes. I have a couple Weston II which came to life when I made better contact.

But dreadful poor luck lately on eBay. One by one I have been finding weak cells that mean I can’t calibrate. Once in a while there’s a cell that reads “25 at 32” which is to say… there are Weston II that can come close. But I only have one or two that will calibrate.

The cells that show a “W” logo are the best. You can see it behind the bubble lens.

The Weston V are shamefully poor. Almost every one is a dud.

Never found one that worked continuously and opening it is daunting with the weird bolts on the back.

To me Weston’s in the short time I tried them, is all about superb daylight incident metering.
The invertidome is big and inverted. It’s the main thing they have going against the Sekonic.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

It’s the main thing they have going against the Sekonic

I will use my Studio Deluxe until it falls apart. Best meter ever.

 

[Helge]

I will use my Studio Deluxe until it falls apart. Best meter ever.

Really? Descripe why please.
Low light metering was always wonky with this type of meter.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Really? Descripe why please.
Low light metering was always wonky with this type of meter.

If the light is that low, I am not shooting film. Or if I am, then reciprocity failure is going to make me build in a big fudge factor. I prefer incident metering. I like analogue. I don’t like batteries. The Sekonic Studio Deluxes are well-designed and well-built. They sit well in the palm. For my photography, they are dead accurate. I never hesitate to trust mine. FWIW, I prefer the older models, the L28s. They aged well.

 

[Bill Burk]

Never found one that worked continuously and opening it is daunting with the weird bolts on the back.

To me Weston’s in the short time I tried them, is all about superb daylight incident metering.
The invertidome is big and inverted. It’s the main thing they have going against the Sekonic.

It only takes a simple tool. I took one of those split pins and used a carbide tipped scribe to cut “flutes” to match the milled screw head.

I’ve gotten to where I can totally disassemble a Master II in about five minutes, (keeping the needle, coil and magnet unit in a separate box for safekeeping)

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Very nice. I bought one of those at my local shop and was very excited about its small size and nice build. Luna Pro is way too big for me. However, the Pilot's readings were off. I took it apart and there was some corrosion on half of the cell. I searched to no avail for a new cell. Good thing is the shop took it back. Some day I'd like to get another that works correctly.

small light meters are still available new from Gossen for reasonable money

 

[ic-racer]

small light meters are still available new from Gossen for reasonable money

I wound up getting a Reveni with which I am happy.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Really? Descripe why please.
Low light metering was always wonky with this type of meter.

If the light is that low, I am not shooting film. Or if I am, then reciprocity failure is going to make me build in a big fudge factor. I prefer incident metering. I like analogue. I don’t like batteries. The Sekonic Studio Deluxes are well-designed and well-built. They sit well in the palm. For my photography, they are dead accurate. I never hesitate to trust mine. FWIW, I prefer the older models, the L28s. They aged well.

@Helge: I was curious to hear your further thoughts. When you say, “this type of meter,” were you referring to the Sekonic Studio Deluxe meters? Or to Se meters generally?

FWIW, I have never seen any inaccurate readings from my old Sekonic meters. I shot a roll at twilight in the woods last night, and the exposure was spot on. How has your experience differed?

 

[Helge]

@Helge: I was curious to hear your further thoughts. When you say, “this type of meter,” were you referring to the Sekonic Studio Deluxe meters? Or to Se meters generally?

FWIW, I have never seen any inaccurate readings from my old Sekonic meters. I shot a roll at twilight in the woods last night, and the exposure was spot on. How has your experience differed?

Both. I have an L-398A and it’s good down to about EV 7.
After that its precision gets less.
My old Ikophots are surprisingly precise in good light. But linearity and general precision drops dramatically with light levels.
Same with various Gossen meters with selenium. The cells in those meters are much smaller and less efficient than the silicon basically solar cell in the L-398A.

I like to use a tripod in murkier conditions (indoors, dusk, early morning, and deep shade) and there a low level capable meter is necessary.

Ordinary selenium has the advantage that it’s more sensitive to green whereas the amorphous silicon used in modern battery less meters leans into the blue. That’s good for light with a lot of red in it.
Same reason why it was possible for Gossen to make the Sixticolor.
Wouldn’t be possible with amorphous silicon.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I have an L-398A and it’s good down to about EV 7.
After that its precision gets less.

I wonder if the L-398A is less accurate than its predecessors. I stick with the L-28C and I have not experienced the issue you raise. For example: I shot a landscape with a Rolleiflex at twilight. The Sekonic said one second @ f/100 for EI 100, which I believe comes out to EV 7. I doubled exposure (2 secs) to adjust for reciprocity failure. The exposure was perfect.

The L-28C is from the late 1960s. I have never been led astray with one.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I wonder if the L-398A is less accurate than its predecessors. I stick with the L-28C and I have not experienced the issue you raise. For example: I shot a landscape with a Rolleiflex at twilight. The Sekonic said one second @ f/100 for EI 100, which I believe comes out to EV 7. I doubled exposure (2 secs) to adjust for reciprocity failure. The exposure was perfect.

The L-28C is from the late 1960s. I have never been led astray with one.

The comparison is invalid unless all the light meters have been calibrated with the same standard light source by a calibration technician. Otherwise it is just random measurements by randomly selected calibrated light meters.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

The comparison is invalid unless all the light meters have been calibrated with the same standard light source by a calibration technician. Otherwise it is just random measurements by randomly selected calibrated light meters.

I have seen you say this in various threads. I disagree. As a photographer, my only interest is a repeatable process. If my meter is off, that’s okay so long as it is consistently off. When I get a new meter, I calibrate it to the old meter. It works just fine for me. Maybe it wouldn’t for you but that’s not my problem.