Zone VI Modified Meters

[Beevo]

Curious if there is any information about what filters were installed in the modified meters.

Not trying to re-create, just curious.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have modified Gossen SBC, I only use it for black and white, not sure how it was modified, and how a Gossen SBC would be different from a modified spot meter. Saying that the Gossen seems to match my other meters so maybe the change was adding the built zone dial.

 

[Hassasin]

It seems to have been established, Zone VI meter modification was mostly a fad of null value, nothing better, but not worse than before modification.

 

[Paul Howell]

Yeah I don't think ZVI tinkered with the electronics of the Gossen at all. Same with the Weston Ranger 9 which had an optional Zone scale that replaced the standard scale. Still not sure about the spot meter.

 

[Beevo]

I ran across somewhere the mention of installing a IR Blocking filter on a light meter, specifically the B&W 486 and wondered if this was the (or one of) the filter(s) installed in the Zone VI modified.

 

[Hassasin]

If I recall correctly they did baffles and blue(?) filter. There were tests done later on by someone that was inconclusive if any of changes could actually be measured to any point of significance, one way or the other.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Two supplemental filters were apparently involved, one of them to allegedly correct for the dip in green sensitivity in pan film, the other possibly UV corrective, plus a replacement receptor. Then the inside was painted a deeper black. You'd want to talk to Richard Ritter about these. He was not only involved to begin with, but still services them.

I never bought into the concept. Skewing an otherwise exceptionally versatile meter for sake of Tri-X 320 film in particular simply robs it from ideal performance in other categories. But people simply get used to such idiosyncrasies, it seems. I've had a number of the unmodified Pentax Digital Spotmeters, and use them for both color and all types of black and white films. No need for a silly Zone Scale label on them.

I also apply tested filter factors when using colored contrast filters for b&w purposes - and not the Fred Picker method of metering through the filter itself with his special meter tweak, which can lead to dubious results.

 

[Beevo]

Thanks for the additional information. Somewhere I have digital copies of all the Zone VI newsletters but lack the time (and inclination) to search through them As I recall at the time the meter was being developed references were only made to a "filter pack" with no specifics.

The mention of the IR cut filter elsewhere started me on this path that led to my OP.

I have had for years a Sekonic L488 that I really liked and always (still does) provides reliable exposure information. When I got my first 4x5, it came bundled with one of the Zone VI Modified Pentax Digital meters. I kept both in the bag and used the Sekonic most of the time.

I currently have a Minolta Spotmeter F that I use on occasion.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The Spotmeter F reads identically to the unmodified Pentax digital spotmeters, They're calibrated to the same standard.

 

[Beevo]

Good to know, thanks!

 

[MarkS]

Zone VI did not modify the meters to match the spectral sensitivity of Tri-X, but that of panchromatic film in general. The sensor cell of the standard meter was so far off from any film 9mostly in IR sensitivity) that Z-VI made their improvements.
I used one for many years and made many good exposures (and a few bad ones too). Sadly I left it behind out in the field somewhere, never to be seen again. It was a useful tool and I had confidence in its readings.
Since those days I've used a few different meters, but not another Pentax "Digital". IMHO, they'd made a superb handling, single-purpose tool that Z-VI had actually improved.
I was always surprised and amused by all the controversy. Of course people reacted to Picker's huckster-like hype, but the meter didn't know about that. It was carefully modified to improve performance that didn't show every day, the standard meter was "good enough" for that, but at the edges of performance it worked better. Most people, and I suppose most of the complainers, didn't have the testing skills to actually find the differences.
In fact the differences between the two were small- but Picker was determined to make improvements, and did. Is that modified meter a 'magic bullet'? No. Do you need one to make good exposures? No. Is it an improved tool for the critical worker? I'll say yes- even though I haven't had mine for 15 years.
Is it worth the money for a used one today (whatever that might be)? that's up to you.
If you have confidence in your tools, you will make better pictures. That's intangible but true.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pan films differ from one another in specific spectral sensitivity. Then you've got the Orthopan and opposite extended red pan outliers, not to mention actual Ortho films.
So "in general" might be just too generalized a concept.

And I guess, that by people who simply wouldn't detect the difference, and accept just "good enough" results, your opinion would include Hollywood cinematographers who make their living depending on highly predictable meter results? There's a reason most preferred out-of-the-box Pentax Digitals for their spot metering work. A few did use the ZVI modified ones, and a few used both styles. But the unmodified ones were the industry standard. There's a reason there's an IRE scale on them instead of a silly Zone sticker.

But how do you recalibrate something after a period of time to an institutional standard if it's put together on a different premise? Those internal filters fade. All those modified ones are old by now. But all four of my straight Pentax ones still read exactly the same over their full scale, with only two minor recalibrations needed between the lot over the past four decades.

I had my own dealings with Fred. Wonderful Brilliant Bromide Paper. Still use his compensating development timer. Tried his ZVI tripods - big disappointment. Never have and never will consider his modified meters an "improvement". A patent medicine wagon style salesman, yes, but polite and informative over the phone. An interesting guy, that's for sure. I wish someone had cloned him, if for sake of a revival of Brilliant paper alone.

 

[Beevo]

Pan films differ from one another in specific spectral sensitivity. Then you've got the Orthopan and opposite extended red pan outliers, not to mention actual Ortho films.
So "in general" might be just too generalized a concept.

And I guess, that by people who simply wouldn't detect the difference, and accept just "good enough" results, your opinion would include Hollywood cinematographers who make their living depending on highly predictable meter results? There's a reason most preferred out-of-the-box Pentax Digitals for their spot metering work. A few did use the ZVI modified ones, and a few used both styles. But the unmodified ones were the industry standard. There's a reason there's an IRE scale on them instead of a silly Zone sticker.

I never detected a really noticeable difference when using the meter, I suppose one could test and prove/disprove the differences. For me it was not a real factor in my photographic results.

But how do you recalibrate something after a period of time to an institutional standard if it's put together on a different premise? Those internal filters fade. All those modified ones are old by now. But all four of my straight Pentax ones still read exactly the same over their full scale, with only two minor recalibrations needed between the lot over the past four decades.

That is a good point, I found my specialized filters for my telescope aged poorly over time.

I had my own dealings with Fred. Wonderful Brilliant Bromide Paper. Still use his compensating development timer. Tried his ZVI tripods - big disappointment. Never have and never will consider his modified meters an "improvement". A patent medicine wagon style salesman, yes, but polite and informative over the phone. An interesting guy, that's for sure. I wish someone had cloned him, if for sake of a revival of Brilliant paper alone.

I loved the Brilliant FB paper and used it exclusively until it couldn't be had anymore. The company that made it for him is no longer. Really miss that stuff. I have his Cold Light and compensating Enlarger timer and it will need to be pried from my cold dead hands before I give it up. I started my 4x5 adventures with a Mahogany/Gold Zone VI 4x5, really liked everything about it EXCEPT the weight. When I got back into the hobby after a 10 year hiatus I opted for a Nagaoka 4x5, one inch thinner and a few pounds lighter. Currently running a Tachihara.

Fred was an interesting guy, highly opinionated and very full of himself, but as you said polite and full of information, one just needed to sift through it. I have all the newsletters and sift through them for what I consider good information and ignore the hyperbole.

 

[Paul Howell]

I just dug out my Zone VI Workshop 1974, the last chapter is a list of products. "We leave nothing to chance. We test every meter for linearity, accuracy, and color sensitivity before we ship."

There is no mention of modifications to the meters, only calibration to spec.

 

[BrianShaw]

I just dug out my Zone VI Workshop 1974, the last chapter is a list of products. "We leave nothing to chance. We test every meter for linearity, accuracy, and color sensitivity before we ship."

There is no mention of modifications to the meters, only calibration to spec.

That's a very interesting fact, Paul, and I don't doubt your statement... but what conclusion should we be drawing from it?

This is the era, mid-1980's, that I'm more familiar with (see page 10):

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/03951/03951.pdf

 

[BrianShaw]

Fred was an interesting guy, highly opinionated and very full of himself, but as you said polite and full of information, one just needed to sift through it.

Many names can be inserted into that sentence. LOL

 

[DREW WILEY]

Paul - Zone VI offered two different varieties of Pentax meters - straight out of the box, with simply a Zone dial sticker added, versus the internally modified ones (likewise with a sticker). The catalogs and price sheets showed both. I never bothered with his News Letters.

And there's no reason to surmise they ever calibrated any meters other than the ones they modified. They merely claim to have double-checked them for accuracy prior to shipping, which was basically redundant because Pentax did it so dependably themselves, decade after decade.

I keep on hand an essentially brand new reference meter never used except for that purpose, which is the only time I insert a battery - in order to check my other Pentax meters against, which do get used. My oldest one is so battered that it's held together with electrical tape; but it still reads correctly!

 

[Beevo]

I had some spare time and rooted through my "Zone VI" folder and found a brochure from 1985.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There you go. Note no. 4, filter packs to "match the spectral response of the film". Which film? - there are all kinds of them, including color films. I was told it was "Tri-X" - the then
320 sheet film version. How does that kind of spectral balance compare to color films, or even other types of panchromatic black and white film? That's the Achilles heel to the whole concept - specialize too far one direction, and you undermine to an extent other potential uses.

Probably not as bad in this case as the difference between Silicon receptors and older
CDs or Selenium cells; so I guess one could simply fudge the factors themselves with experience. But it would seem a lot easier just to tweak the dial a little for any number of pan or orthopan or ortho film options. Simply keeping peak sensitivity at green, like the human eye does, as well as the silicon cells used in unmodified Pentax meters, makes the most sense overall.

Otherwise, an arcane issue, since the availability of even well-used modified meters has thinned way out.

 

[BrianShaw]

The good thing that Fred did in the newletter is lay out the facts he (and his experts) believed. But one must be willing to look at them.

Here is Dr. Horowitz assessment of meters that actually inspired those modifications. Scroll to pages 356, 366, and especially 408:

Zone VI Newsletters: Issues 1 - 83 : Fred Picker : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Zone VI NewslettersByFred PickerIssues 1 - 831973 - 1995Including All SupplementsWill provide better images soon

archive.org

 

[KevinW]

That's a very interesting fact, Paul, and I don't doubt your statement... but what conclusion should we be drawing from it?

This is the era, mid-1980's, that I'm more familiar with (see page 10):

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/03951/03951.pdf

I have nothing to add about the differences between Zone VI modified vs. unmodified meters but I sure would love to get my hands on those fancy saddle leather cases

 

[Paul Howell]

OK, yeah my book is 1974 and Pentax was included, only the Soligar blue which had been released at time of publication.

 

[BrianShaw]

OK, yeah my book is 1974 and Pentax was included, only the Soligar blue which had been released at time of publication.

1974 pre-dates the ZoneVI-modified meters by almost a decade. See post #20 if you want to understand the modifications.

EDIT: Or this: https://crawfordphotoschool.com/shooting-techniques/spotmeter-shootout-1.php

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I have read that old Horowitz letter before, and it's full of Crock. Linearity at EV 17 being half a stop or more with out of the box Pentax meters? That's absurd. It isn't even a sixth stop off. And linearity is consistent through the whole range. He must have been pointing it into the sun without a shade. Routine midpoint variations between meters? - not in my 45 years of experience of them. They were all right smack on agreeing with one another, and with my Minolta Spotmeter F too. Maybe he was making loose generalities about older spot meters; dunno. But all this makes a rather jaded endorsement letter, and conspicuously so, for sake of selling optional modifications.

The whole little diatribe about designing a meter which could automatically compensate for filter factors by reading right through the filter begins on the erroneous premise that filter factors are the same for all pan films, and they certainly aren't.

Then his offer to potentially design a meter which reads directly in "Zones" rather than in standard EV increments plus a dial Zone sticker would have been patently counterproductive, especially if someone wanted to use the same meter for color photography too. More useless marketing spin.

I'm no "History Detective", but methinks this was a bit of snake oil marketing by Horowitz toward the patent medicine wagon operator himself, meant to be passed along as such, to reinforce Picker's own questionable claims.

 

[BrianShaw]

Could be, Drew, but he has credentials that few can compete so who knows.