Zone VI Upgrade to Pentax V Meter

[neil poulsen]

I just got my Pentax V meter upgraded for Zone VI. I wanted to do this before it was no longer possible. I haven't heard anything definite, but the Calumet person with whom I spoke implied that there might come a time when this is no longer possible through them.

Those who've had this done, what was your experience in using your "new" spot meter?

[Ted Harris]

You can get the meter modified by Richard Ritter as well. It is substantially the same modification, since he is the one who perfected it for Zone VI in the first place but.

[robc]

every film has a different repsonse to light. My understanding is that the zone VI meter modification is based on one of the Kodak B+W films. I forget which one. So the question is: Is it therefore calibrated to all other films? The answer is obviously no, and just like all other meters and films, you will still have have to individually calibrate meter to film to dev for the best accuracy. What you have achieved is to part with some money to get your meter calibrated for a film which has not long for this world.

This topic comes up very frequently and there is much discussion and argument over it.

look at www.butzi.net for a comparative test of the modified meter.

[Kirk Gittings]

Ted, Actually Ritter does not do modifications. He only repairs and calibrations. He has corrected this assumption three times that i remember on this forum in the past. Only Calumet does modifications.

[Kirk Gittings]

"look at www.butzi.net for a comparative test of the modified meter"

That should accurately read:

look at www.butzi.net for a comparative test of HIS modified meter

Many others including myself and Alan Ross came to the conclusion that it does make a difference.

[robc]

I have no doubt it makes a difference but I question that the difference is valid for all film types or all films within a type, eg all B+W films.

So what do Zone VI/Calumet claim is the advantage of their modification and where can I see the spec of what is done to the meter? Surely having a clear definition from them of what is done to the meter and its effect would clear up all the arguments over this.

[Mark Sampson]

The point of the meter modification is that the color sensitivity of the original meter cells was *miles* away from the sensitivity of film. By comparison, the difference in color sensitivity between b/w films could be measured in *inches*. In addition to that, another modification made is to reduce flare- generally accepted as a good idea. Picker's original rationale for doing all this was published long ago in his newsletter, complete with graphs and charts detailing the results. It's a shame that this info can't be put up on the net somewhere- at least then we all could see the whys and wherefores. Whether or not it makes any difference will still be up to the individual user, but perhaps some misconceptions could be cleared up that way.

[Kirk Keyes]

If anyone has those old Zone VI newsletters around, I'd be interested in getting a copy of the meter modification info.

Kirk

[Kevin Crisp]

I have a Zone VI catalogue from 1991 which covers the meter modification. I can scan it and send it to somebody who can put it in one of these seemingless endless posts about the modified meter. I remember the development of the meter being discussed in the newsletter but I sure don't remember charts and graphs.

[Tito Sobrinho.]

I have to look for this particular Newsletter. The Zone VI modified, was discussed by Picker and Paul Horowitz the phisicist (Harvard) who actually designed the modifications.

[Kirk Gittings]

There used to be a great little article on the Calumet Website that I can no longer find by Alan Ross.

[Kirk Gittings]

One More Time On the Modified Meter.

I have two ZoneVI meters, one was bought used and already modified, and one was bought new and later modified by Calumet. This was a few years ago. They are within 1/3 of a stop of each other across the whole range of a Macbeth. They were not before the second one was modified though I did not keep my records of my earlier tests.

Based on the scepticisim voiced here. I was nervous about the issue for my last trip. Once again for the England trip I retested my two Zone VI Modified Pentax Digital light meters for metering thu the b&w filters. All appeared well and I used this same techinque on all the film shot in England for the new book. Most every shot utilized either a number 16 or a 23a filter. I took extra care metering as the trip was so expensive and so important. The film was Across readyloads and was rated at 80. My method is to meter important shadows thru the filter (being careful to avoid rear light reflections on the filter), and place them on ZIII. Then meter the highlights thru the filter and see where they fall and determine the corresponding development. Most were normal developement but I did have quite a few =1 and +1. I would add 1/3 stop exposure for the minus developements.

In every case, with some 30 images and 90+ sheets of film the exposures are bang on.

We can argue the theoretical validity of Pickers meters, but the plain fact is that the method consistently works with his meters. It works so consistently well that I was willing to use it on this most important trip.

Here is the Alan Ross article I could not find before.

http://www.calumetphoto.com/ctl?PAGE=Controller&ac.ui.pn=common.ShowParent&spName=FADIRECTMODMETERART

Beyond this I don't know what else to say. I know from teaching workshops that the biggest error people make with this method that results in wildly fluctuating exposures is not paying attention to the reflections on the rear of the filter when metering. The question is permanently settled for me personally. Mine work exceptionally well.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Thanks Kirk, this is interesting and as always Alan teaches me something.

I use a Zone VI modified meter and find it works very well. I do have issues when I am filtering the sky however. It seems that no matter what filter I am using ( I tend towards the orange and deep yellow) my skies get blocked up and printing them is difficult. I tend to photograph late in the day and go well into the evening after the sun goes down, so I used to think that perhaps the time of day had something to do with my problem, but after reading what Alan wrote I think I might test and see if it may be the meter.

The meter was recently calibrated by Richard Ritter but my problem had been going on before this work was done.

Do you have any thoughts as to my issue?

Thanks

[Kirk Gittings]

To me the big issue with filter factors has always been preserving shadow detail, and the above approach does preserve shadow exposure. I have not had your problem with skies, BUT I tend to under develope my highlights a bit, for scanning purposes and because I prefer the "look" of grade 3 silver papers as my standard instead of grade 2.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Thanks.

My filtering method is the same as you describe as is my zone method. I guess I will just need to play with it a bit more and figure it out. There are no shortcuts to testing that is for sure.

Thanks again.

[Michael Kadillak]

I have two calibrated Zone VI Pentax spot meters and have not found a reason to take them out of their case in the last year since Sandy King turned me onto incident metering using the BTZS system. Talk about opening my eyes. Plus, it takes now takes me less than 1/3the time it previously took me to arrive at a spot meter exposure combination. As a result, I feel that I am more productive as a "part time" photographer.

My engineering background taught me a very long time ago that the answer to any computation cannot be any more accurate than the least accurate input. When you consider the inaccuracies we all deal with in arriving at exposure determinations such as meter and lens flare let alone "interpretative" issues of tonalities in the Zone system by potentially less than experienced Zoners, I came to the conclusion there is no reason to complicate the process to any degree beyond that which is minimally necessary. Took me a long time and much frustration to arrive at this juncture, but I am damn glad I finally found my way home.

Now I can focus (no pun intended) on making quality images wth less baggage as I was previously carrying with the Zone system.

Cheers!

[Kirk Gittings]

Michael,

I was not advocating that the method above was the only way or even the best way, simply that those who have argued that you couldn't accurately meter through the filter with the modified meter are simply wrong.

Having said that, I can't imagine how you were using the Zone System that was all that complicated or slow. Anyone who has seen me work, know that I work extremely fast and I am no genious or math wiz. I have to work fast as I am always chasing rapidly changing lighting situations. Now of course, I get a ton of practice, as this is what I do for a living, but there is nothing complicated or slow about the Zone System if you stick to the basics. You can complicate it immensely if you wish, but you don't have to and I don't.

[Kirk Gittings]

For instance, my approach uses two quick meter readings through the filter (important detailed shadow and important detailed highlight), place the shadow reading on Zone III on the meter ( see where the highlight reading "falls" and make a mental note of the developement N, +1 or what ever to get it to Zone VII [usually]), I then set the exposure, make the exposure, remove the film, make a notation on the film sleeve for development, repeat on another sheet and move on or wait to see what happens with the light for awhile.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Kirk,

I agree, it takes me a few seconds at most to calculate my exposure. I guess I could save a second or two but heck, LF is not the fastest thing in the world anyway so a few seconds to make a reading is not so bad.

There are so many methods out there that the important thing is to find one that works for you and stick with it. I do think that the Zone System has gotten so far off the origional intended path that it can be confusing to some folks. I find it very easy but that is not to say other methods are not as good if not better, it just works for my way of thinking.

Using a Zone VI modified meter takes even more guesswork out of the equation and I think the investment in having the meter modified is well worth it. There are to many well known and well regarded photographers who feel the Zone modified meter is beneficial for me to disregard it.

[Michael Kadillak]

Kirk,

I agree, it takes me a few seconds at most to calculate my exposure. I guess I could save a second or two but heck, LF is not the fastest thing in the world anyway so a few seconds to make a reading is not so bad.

There are so many methods out there that the important thing is to find one that works for you and stick with it. I do think that the Zone System has gotten so far off the origional intended path that it can be confusing to some folks. I find it very easy but that is not to say other methods are not as good if not better, it just works for my way of thinking.

Using a Zone VI modified meter takes even more guesswork out of the equation and I think the investment in having the meter modified is well worth it. There are to many well known and well regarded photographers who feel the Zone modified meter is beneficial for me to disregard it.

Points well taken. I also believe that there are issues with the practical implementation of the Zone system that many make more difficult than they need to. Of course being in the position of having 20+ years of experience like Kirk would provide you with a pretty solid exposure reference point to draw from. Many of us have businesses to run and families to raise and while we would like to photograph full time, it is not in the cards so we try to fit in as much of it when we can.

Many folks use meters in a myriad of divergent ways to provide them with the information they need to make exposures. In a recent View Camera John Anderson mentioned that he uses a quasi reverse Zone System and places his highlight values and lets his shadows fall where they may.

I read all of my filters with the modified meter and maintain the data on a card until I have it nearly memorized.

I have always maintain an open mind and the use of my Spectra incident meter with BTZS is suprisingly simple for me. Plus I am getting more consistent negatives and that is all that matters.

Great post!

[Merg Ross]

"The Zone System, that's a lot of nonsense. It may be a good tool for beginners, something to hang onto, but it's too involved for my taste. Any old photographer that does work all the time gets a sense of light and doesn't need it. Maybe in color it's more critical but you have a lot of latitude in black-and white. If you have any sense of light at all, if you're working all the time, know your film and your developing and so on, you don't need it. It's a barricade to creativity."

Brett Weston 1981

[Michael Kadillak]

"The Zone System, that's a lot of nonsense. It may be a good tool for beginners, something to hang onto, but it's too involved for my taste. Any old photographer that does work all the time gets a sense of light and doesn't need it. Maybe in color it's more critical but you have a lot of latitude in black-and white. If you have any sense of light at all, if you're working all the time, know your film and your developing and so on, you don't need it. It's a barricade to creativity."

Brett Weston 1981

Excellent point Merg.

I feel that the incident system is the next step beyond the Zone system with the final leg of the journey to let go of any mechanical limitation and let your visual senses take over as Brett articulated.

Cheers!

[Kirk Gittings]

Michael,

I have no desire to change, but I am always interested in other approaches to suggest to my students. Why don't you run through your method.

[Kirk Gittings]

By the way what "mechanical limitation" does the Zone System represent that must be let go of for your creativity to flow? Since when does knowing your materials and the limits to which they can be pushed limit your imagination?

[Michael Kadillak]

I will be very brief but here is how I see it.

For part time or evolving LF photographers there can be a unintentional tendency to get caught up in the process (camera movements, plane of focus, filtration, reciprocity correction, Zone System etc.) as opposed to the singular objective of making expressive images. IMO the Zone system (among other tendencies) adds baggage to this process as there can be a disconnect that comes with inexperience as to how to consistently express color into shades of grey and to effectively be capable of recognizing accurately a normal scene or a normal + or - scene in an expedient manner. I am sure that the success of the "Negative" by Adams was probably written for experienced photographers to fine tune their knowledge base as opposed to being a first read by less than seasoned people contributes to the disconnect that I am talking about. The longer the "process" takes from deciding to set up to making the actual exposure I feel that the less attention is being adequately given to what is on the ground glass which is the whole reason for making the photograph. A quality images ends up taking a back seat to a default technical success when it should be the the other way around.

Eliminating as many of these operating variables to the degree possible in the minds of the learning photographers I feel is a very important to the end result that needs to be making an expressive image. In this regard using an incident meter to make your exposure as opposed to trying to dissect the tonalities within the scene is simplier and easier to execute for the evolving LF photographer. As a function of time and as success in making excellent photographs follows hand in hand with experience I feel that is the time to integrate the Zone system into ones work because clearly there are applications for this concept and knowing how to use both systems is valuable.

Using an incident meter reading with BTZS - Set your incident meter for twice your effective film. With your incident meter pointing in the direction of your camera, either walk into your scene and read your shadow light or emulate the shadow within your scene with your hand over the incident meter or metered in your body shadow. Record the meter reading. Record the incident reading with the meter facing the camera in full light. Subtract these two readings and add 5. This is your Subject Brightness Range (SBR). An SBR of 7 is essentially normal. A SBR of 8 is N-1. An SBR of 6 is N+1 etc. Within the Book - "Beyond The Zone System" by Phil Davis there are simple procedures written from a beginner to intermediate perspective to hone in on optimizing ones materials. Clearly fim speed is a variable as is the objective density range for the printing paper that you will be using.

After performing the flare test with my spot meter I found that I was not aware of the possibilities of inducing flare into my previous exposure computations by not insuring that the spot target was not at least three times the exposure circle within my spot meter. Not a good thing as the meter data was clearly flawed by flare. Using the incident meter takes this variable out of the equation completely. The incident system forces the photographer to "STOP" and look at the entire image and the tonalities that is represented with the eyes carefully and with scrutiny and for me I find this information easier to "learn" from for the next trip to the field. I have a much higher level of confidence in my photography with the BTZS and attribute it to improving my efficiency in the field when I am making photographs.

As a result, I feel that what Brett Weston said about the Zone System is a valid statement at least for me. Each of us has the opportunity to arrive at our own conclusion about arriving at one's exposure and as long as it works consistently, that is all that matters. The resultant image is all that really matters.

Cheers!

[Mark Sampson]

Wellll... Brett Weston learned photography in the days before light meters. And he learned from his father, the master of photographic intuition. And from everything I've read, he was an opinionated cuss to boot, not afraid of controversy. So while his statement certainly expresses a noble opinion (backed by great achievement), there's no reason to assume that it needs to be the last word on the subject, or that his is the only worthwhile method. While many great photographs have been made without the Zone system, many have been made using it as well. How the photographer figured out his exposure has little to do with the final impact of the photograph.

[Kirk Gittings]

Michael you were not a novice photographer when you got into BTZS. So you had much field experience to draw on already. The proceedure you describe does not seem any quicker than my approach and has its own drawbacks. I spent all my pre-Zone System years using an incident meter and am well aquainted with them and their limitations. They have their own problems as well. I also sat down and read all the entries in the BTZS forum related to incident metering with BTZS. It is clear that it is not always straight forward and (like the Zone System) requires some real field experience to utilize effectively. Having had many BTZS devotees in my workshops, I can say that in the beginning it is just as daunting (and slow) to students as the Zone System. Though most long term practitioners of the ZS pare it down to almost a skeleton proceedure compared to what is described in The Negative. It is this pared down version that Steve Simmons and I use and teach. I personally don't really care what people use except when they get into denying the value of the other.

Lets say this. It is clear that each system works. This is beyond question. Each can be as complicated as one desires or pared down to essentials for efficiency. Each also has achieved a cult like status that clouds the comparison.

None of this has anything to do with my initial post which simply stated that you could accurately meter through filters with the modified ZVI meter.

[Michael Kadillak]

My apologies to the original poster for getting off topic.

Points well taken Kirk. I agree that the adequate understaning one's photographic materials is in no way one dimensional or "easy". I guess if it were easy in the literal sense of the word, where would the challenge and the ability to differentiate one's self be found?

Onward!

[Kirk Gittings]

My respects to Brett Weston of course. He is a legend. But he is not a psychic. Over the years he absorbed enough technical info that it was second nature to him and required little conscious thought. I wish that ability was universal. For me I need a system to fall back on, because I am at heart a disorganized and forgetful person. Minimal as my use of the ZS is, it provides an organized structured base of methodology that I can fall back on in even my most distracted moments.

[Merg Ross]

My apologizes for interjecting Brett's opinion of the Zone System as it has little to do with Neil's query. However, Brett always stressed using the simplest means to the end without unnecessary calculations. He did use a light meter, a Weston Master, but not always. When he was at a familiar place, like Point Lobos, I never saw him use the meter. Of course, he was seldom in the position of producing results on a commercial level where perhaps more precise calculations would be necessary. Also, math was not one of his strengths as he left school after the sixth grade.

[Kirk Gittings]

I love these stories. thanks Merg.

[Gary L. Quay]

I have a Pentax Spot Meter modified for Zone VI. It has generally worked for every film I've used it on for the past 9 years. I've used just about every B&W film on the market at one time or another, and I had not even known that there was a issue over this. The results have been consistant and good.

--Gary