Suggest a color film that's one step better than Kodak Gold or ColorPlus?

[MattKing]

Both those Gossen choices were designed for mercury batteries. There are a bunch of very accessible solutions for using modern batteries in them. Here is one of many Photrio threads that talk about the issue: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/the-weincell-1-35v-px625-replacement.200663/#post-2705432

The Luna Pro is a great meter. It was one of the standard high end choices for a very long time. It does use a CDS cell, so there can be age related issues.
I gave away the last one of several I've owned over the years to someone relatively new at this. I expect they are still using it happily.

Gossen meters can be a bit confusing, because the US importer changed the name on a bunch of the models. If you see a Profisix, for example, that is the name that applies everywhere in the world except for the USA, where it is known as the Luna Pro SBC. That is actually the old meter that I recommend most - it uses an easily found 9 volt battery, and will work with a slew of special purpose attachments. It is slightly larger in the hand though.

Don't worry too much about manuals - Mike Butkus' invaluable site is your friend: https://www.butkus.org/chinon/
If you take advantage of his site, the recommended donation is very reasonable.

 

[MattKing]

This might be a good choice - a Luna Pro F: https://www.ebay.com/itm/4062082084...lp:3959035&itmmeta=01K5DAP434ZQT9NN028248VX06
Essentially a Luna Pro SBC, with added flash metering capability, at the cost of some of the SBC's extremely good low light capabilities.

 

[dcy]

This might be a good choice - a Luna Pro F: https://www.ebay.com/itm/406208208427?_trkparms=...
Essentially a Luna Pro SBC, with added flash metering capability, at the cost of some of the SBC's extremely good low light capabilities.

Perfect!

Ordered.

I was just coming here with a list of variants of the Luna Pro SBC, and the one you linked to was in my short list.

Yeah, I don't want to complicate my life with mercury batteries when there are perfectly good options that take modern batteries at a reasonable price. Seeing that the Luna Pro F has added flash metering (is that what the "F" stands for?) makes it a clear winner.

Thank you so much for the help!

 

[dcy]

Luna-six/Luna-pro are fantastic meters and affordable too. The only caveat is that you’ll need a MR-9 battery adapter since it uses obsolete battery. Gossen battery adapter is available at B&H last time I looked. The white dome gets slide from the side to the center, over the sensor, to change to incident mode. Then slid to either side for reflective mode.

For a bit more money and a more modern sensor and current battery, you could look at Luna pro SBC. A bit bigger but a faster meter to use.

Manuals and how-to-use guidance is online, or in those books…

Thanks for the help!

Yeah, getting an older model with an obsolete battery sounds like asking for trouble. I spent a while learning what I could about the Luna Pro SBC and all the variants and alternate names. I ended up getting a "Luna Pro F". Thanks for steering me in the right direction.

 

[BrianShaw]

https://www.gossen-photo.de/wp-content/uploads/DL/FOTO/AG/ba_lunasixf_gb.pdf

 

[dcy]

https://www.gossen-photo.de/wp-content/uploads/DL/FOTO/AG/ba_lunasixf_gb.pdf

Thanks!

 

[dcy]

The Film Photography Project has a nice 5 min tutorial.

 

[dcy]

I think I know how I'm going to use the light meter with my camera:

(1) First take an incident light meter reading. Get the needle to the "0" point.
(2) Then take a reflected light meter reading. As I move the needle to the "0" point, note how many stops separate the two readings.
(3) Set my camera's exposure-comp dial accordingly, bringing the camera exposure more in line with the incident meter reading.

 

[BrianShaw]

Why not. You could try that but you might learn that its mostly a waste of time and effort. You're still guessing at what the camera is really measuring and doing. With one or the other measurement at least you'll know what the exposure should be (if you so choose to accept the meter's recommendation)...

 

[snusmumriken]

I think I know how I'm going to use the light meter with my camera:

(1) First take an incident light meter reading. Get the needle to the "0" point.
(2) Then take a reflected light meter reading. As I move the needle to the "0" point, note how many stops separate the two readings.
(3) Set my camera's exposure-comp dial accordingly, bringing the camera exposure more in line with the incident meter reading.

Be careful that the incident light meter is in the same lighting conditions as the subject, and facing the same way!

 

[MattKing]

I think I know how I'm going to use the light meter with my camera:

(1) First take an incident light meter reading. Get the needle to the "0" point.
(2) Then take a reflected light meter reading. As I move the needle to the "0" point, note how many stops separate the two readings.
(3) Set my camera's exposure-comp dial accordingly, bringing the camera exposure more in line with the incident meter reading.

This won't help you I'm afraid.
The issue that you are running into is that the area that your camera's meter is reading from leads it to set an incorrect exposure.
For your method to work, you would have to adjust your position in such a way as to get the metering area for the hand meter to match what your camera is metering from.
Tough to do without more knowledge about the metering pattern of the Pentax 17's meter.
I guess your proposal might help slightly by alerting you to when the scene is a problematic one for setting the exposure.

 

[BrianShaw]

To tag on to Matt's comment, and hopefuly not to bag on you DCY, but that camera is basically a P&S. The only control you have, it seems, is to change the ISO. A meter won't help you at all, but you got (1) a great meter and (2) a great price. You surely can use that with whatever $100 manual camera you soon buy. I didn't realize through the discussion what actual camera you had and found the manual to be quite interesting. You might/are expecting too much from it. Very expensive, for what it is, but I also like vertical format half-frame so whatever it takes. My orientation in that regard is half-frame 6x7. Run some Portra and Ektar and Proimage through it and see what the best EI is for what you typically photograph and what you expect from the negative.

 

[dcy]

To tag on to Matt's comment, and hopefuly not to bag on you DCY, but that camera is basically a P&S. The only control you have, it seems, is to change the ISO.

I can't say I enjoy the regular criticism I get about my camera.

The controls include en exposure compensation dial that go from -2 to +2 in 1/3-stop increments, and a dial to lean the exposure compensation either in the direction of wider aperture or slower shutter. --- I am not going to debate whether it is "basically a P&S". I am clarifying what controls I have. The controls would be sufficient if I knew what the camera was thinking.

I didn't realize through the discussion what actual camera you had and found the manual to be quite interesting. You might/are expecting too much from it.

I am not sure what you think I am expecting from it. It has an exposure compensation dial, and I can tell you that it works. I use it a lot, and over the small number of rolls I have put through it, I have been able to learn a bit about how film and the light meter respond to lighting conditions and how I can adjust exposure to get better shots (mainly an issue indoors).

My orientation in that regard is half-frame 6x7. Run some Portra and Ektar and Proimage through it and see what the best EI is for what you typically photograph and what you expect from the negative.

I don't know what you mean by "half-frame 6x7".

 

[dcy]

This won't help you I'm afraid.

Aside from the usual advice I get from others that I ditch the $500 camera that I enjoy using and get a used manual one, can you think of something useful I can do with the light meter I got?

I guess "alert you of problematic scenes" is not nothing.

I want to emphasize that I like most of my shots. It probably helps that I like to shoot outdoors in sunny conditions. I did not buy the light meter because it's filling a huge need, but I did hope to use it when I am in tricky lighting conditions (indoors) where my camera light meter may be off.

Tough to do without more knowledge about the metering pattern of the Pentax 17's meter.

It is a "partially center-weighted averaging metering" system.

 

[MattKing]

You have a very interesting, and quite good camera.
It will take lots of great photos in many different situations.
What it won't do is give you many abilities to carefully tailor its response to unusual or challenging conditions.
A manual exposure equipped camera will let you do that, but that doesn't mean that I and others are suggesting that you replace your camera - despite how much fondness many of us have for our manual cameras.

It is a "partially center-weighted averaging metering" system.

The devil is in the details.
There are an infinite number of potential versions of that, with tiny variations between them.
I can think of a couple of incredibly laborious, incredibly time intensive (and time wasting) and film consuming tests you could do to more accurately predict how exactly your camera's metering system will respond to specially challenging circumstances, but I really wouldn't recommend you do that.

I want to emphasize that I like most of my shots. It probably helps that I like to shoot outdoors in sunny conditions. I did not buy the light meter because it's filling a huge need, but I did hope to use it when I am in tricky lighting conditions (indoors) where my camera light meter may be off.

The solution to how to deal with tricky lighting situations with a camera like yours is to waste some film - bracket your exposures in those situations, using the exposure compensation dial.
The role of your new to you meter will be to help you recognize when you encounter such conditions, learn and categorize them, become more familiar with their details, and then, assuming you keep some notes about what the meter told you and then correlate that with the exposure adjustment that gave the best results, internalize that correlation to cut down on the range of exposure compensation to be employed in the future, as well as the number of circumstances where it is necessary.
It is the sort of iterative process that leads to valuable learning, and is much easier to explain in person, with negatives and notes in hand, then it is over the internet.

FWIW, with my cameras that are equipped with centre weighted averaging metering, I can look through the viewfinder and have a good sense of what parts of the scene are inside the metering pattern and what parts are outside that, as well as how responsive the meter will be to the various parts within that area.
Those observations are approximate, and come from a lot of familiarity, supported by having had to print the negatives that result - my favorite example of a feedback loop. However, that familiarity is supported in almost every case by a viewfinder that includes information that shows how the metering responds when I change the field of view - not an advantage available with your camera. So in order to get to the level of familiarity with your camera's metering, you will need to waste a bit more film, and to make notes, and analyze the results.
Or just waste a fair bit of film - your choice.

 

[BrianShaw]

Hi DCY. You seem a bit miffed at my comments in post 87. I hope that's not the case but please know that I didn't intend to offend you or your camera. There's not enough time in my day or energy in my soul to do that. I was simply characterizing the functionality and limited controls. You seem to have done a good job at puzzling through to make it do what you want. You are corect in that it would be a lot easier if the camera told you what it was doing in a bit more detail. I'll leave you in the capable hands of others and bid you kind wishes for success.

p.s. 6x7 was a typo. I meant half frame 6x9 (commonly called 645 in the modern era).

 

[dcy]

A manual exposure equipped camera will let you do that, but that doesn't mean that I and others are suggesting that you replace your camera - despite how much fondness many of us have for our manual cameras.

I do see the appeal of manual cameras. When I began shooting digital, I learned all about the exposure triangle and practiced using my camera in manual mode. But I found I didn't enjoy having to adjust the settings for every shot. My ideal camera would give me the ability but not the obligation to control everything. I mentioned earlier that I shoot digital in aperture priority or shutter priority. I like to mostly let the camera pick the exposure, but I want to be able to override it.

If money was no object, there are some range finder cameras that really appeal to me.

I can think of a couple of incredibly laborious, incredibly time intensive (and time wasting) and film consuming tests you could do to more accurately predict how exactly your camera's metering system will respond to specially challenging circumstances, but I really wouldn't recommend you do that.

Yeah. That doesn't sound fun.

The solution to how to deal with tricky lighting situations with a camera like yours is to waste some film - bracket your exposures in those situations, using the exposure compensation dial.
The role of your new to you meter will be to help you recognize when you encounter such conditions, learn and categorize them, become more familiar with their details, and then, assuming you keep some notes about what the meter told you and then correlate that with the exposure adjustment that gave the best results, internalize that correlation to cut down on the range of exposure compensation to be employed in the future, as well as the number of circumstances where it is necessary.

Sounds good. With 72 shots per roll, I often wish I could finish a roll faster and I have been bracketing exposures as a way to learn about the film and the camera. The approach you suggest will help me do that better.

 

[dcy]

Hi DCY. You seem a bit miffed at my comments in post 87. I hope that's not the case but please know that I didn't intend to offend you or your camera. There's not enough time in my day or energy in my soul to do that.

I was a bit. Sorry I reacted with impatience. It's just a comment I hear more often that I had expected. There really aren't that many new cameras in the market today and I wanted to support one of the few businesses making one. But as you said, you were just describing its functionality, and the Nth person to comment on the camera doesn't deserve a reaction that is mostly about the other N-1 people. You've been kind and helpful and I do appreciate the help you've provided. So thank you.

 

[MattKing]

If it helps, I do from time to time use a camera with some similarities to yours - one of the Olympus XA series.
Familiarity with its results leads to a high success percentage.
Interestingly though, I don't have much from it that has been digitized.
As I only digitize a portion of what I do, I guess that isn't totally surprising.
Here is one example though:

 

[mshchem]

One other thing.

If you have a lab make prints, even if you under or over expose the negative (-2 to +4 stops) the prints will be automatically corrected so that the final prints will have the same density. The control that you can have is motion (shutter) and depth of field (aperture).