Zone VI modification worth the cost?

[Mark Vaughan]

Hello all. I'm new to LF, and very thankful to have found this wonderful resource. I've just purchased a used 4x5 camera, and now I'm begining to "accessorize". My previous experience has been limited to 35mm format (Nikon FE) with built-in metering, which I'm planning to use as my LF meter to start-out with. But after I've begun to familiarize myself with the basics (camera operation, etc.), I'd like to learn how to apply the Zone System. At some point I'll probably want a more accurate means of metering, hence the reason for this post: I've handled the Pentax Digital Spot Meter and like it's simplicity & feel, but I'm curious about the Zone VI modifications - would I'd be better off in the long run to spend the extra money for these features (+$130.00)? Actually, the money isn't too much of an issue - I could afford to spend the extra - but I'm wondering if a person could simply use the "standard" meter and somehow learn to compensate instead? Guess part of my question results from not really understanding the fundamental principals involved. Any thoughts and advice would be greatly appreciated!

[Frank Petronio]

It's not worth it. The stock Pentax digital spot is fine just as it is. You can always learn to bump the green foilage up or down the scale once you understand the principles of the Zone system.

[Bruce E. Rathbun]

Frank is correct. The money spent is not worth the outcome. I would suggest buying a Zone VI viewing filter. A good preview of how the tones look in a monochrome world. Calumet sells them for a round $30.00 I think. Well worth the money.

[Kirk Gittings]

Frank and Bruce reflect my experience precisely. There are much bigger variables to contend with when starting out.

[Tom Duffy]

Actually, I'll take the other side of this arguement. A Zone VI meter is calibrated against the same standard as every other Zone VI meter to within 1/6 stop over its entire range. Lots of other people use them. As a beginner, it would be very helpful to read the archives of this forum or Apug.org, for instance, and read something like, "I rate tri-x at 160, place my shadows on zone IV with my Zone VI meter and develop in pyrocat HD for 8 min at 68F." If you have a Zone VI meter, at least you know that the zone IV they're talking about is your zone IV also. Short of doing your own film testing, it presents a way of eliminating some variables up front.

[Frank Petronio]

To the extent of my limited brain capacity can parse this, if you meter a grey card, the unmodified meter should read exactly the same as the modified one. And I've had several Pentax digital spot meters and - surprise - they all read within 1/3 of a stop. Considering that the meter can only read in 1/3 stop increments, the 1/6 th claim that Zone VI makes (Fred Picker RIP) is just marketing BS.

[Gem Singer]

Hi Mark,

Take a look at the Pentax Spotmeter V. It's an analog meter. Much less expensive than the digital model. It's accurate,simple to understand, and easy to use. I just looked at the K.E.H. website (www.keh.com), and they have quite a few used ones in stock, at very reasonable prices. They also have used Pentax Digital spot meters, including a few ZoneVI modified meters. While you're at it, check out the Minolta Flash meter F. It's an excellent compact spot meter that is capable of reading electronic flash, as well as ambient light. Any spot meter can be used with the Zone system. As Steve Simmons says, "it's not rocket science".

[Michael Kadillak]

The analog V Pentax meter will serve you just fine at this point in your photographic journey. Later on you can consider refining your metering requirements as the need mandates.

The issue Frank is not that a middle grey reading from any brand meter should be within 1/3 stop, the issue is linearity throughout the highs and low readings. Secondly, I like to meter through colored filters rather than use a manufacturers recommendation for a "filter" factor. I did the meter test (factory versus calibrated) many years ago and saw for myself that the new photo cell and modifications according to what I saw were in fact not a bunch of marketing BS. But I will accept the fact that perception can quickly become fact.

I want to feel confident that when I intend to maintain good detail in a shadow, I am not having to worry about it being there. As a result, I rely upon my meter to be accurate and consistent and use a calibrated backup in the closet to check it regularly. When it gets to 1/3 of a stop of error, it goes to the shop to get re-calibrated and the meters change places.

Why put all of your investment in LF equipment at risk of performing at less than optimal when you are photographing with effectively ignoring the requirement for accurate measurement of the energy from which the medium is based upon? And I am not at all concerned about a Zone V meter reading, I am talking about the critical lows and the highs. If you have never had your meter calibrated, have you ever thought of what you consider as acceptable metering? 1/2 stop? 1 stop? After all, it is just a piece of equipment.

Just my $0.02.

[Frank Petronio]

How does one calibrate a meter? The repair guy I know simply compares the suspect meter to several meters he "knows." I'm sure there are more elaborate ways, but wouldn't doing your film speed tests bear that out?

You are right about the linearity, but I've always been in the bad habit of hedging my bets at the high and low end of the spectrum (one is always going to be more important than the other) or I'd use a longer range film (or developer if traditional) in the first place. I probably waste a little more film that way, but I do get the shot.

[Donald Miller]

I've used the unmodified and modified Zone VI Pentax digital meter. My experience is that the internal filters and baffling are not a bunch of hype. The place that I find the modified meter beneficial is in materials that radiate a fairly high amount of IR radiation. Green pine trees is one of those examples. I would wager a fair amount of money that a Zone VI modified and unmodified Pentax meter will show a different reading for those types of materials.

As others have said, you can compensate for the absence of accurate metering. After all, I believe that Edw. Weston never used a meter, to the best of my knowledge. However that was then and this is now. Why not use the best equipment and materials that you can afford.

[Michael Kadillak]

There are any number of places to have a meter calibrated with the correct piece of equipment. I can think of Calumet, Quality Meters (?) in Hollywood, California and I believe that even Richard Ritter calibrates light meters.

While we all accept a certain amount of statistical variability in using mechanical or electronic devices (shutters or meters), many times the source of the variability in ones photography can be traced to the old say - The Devil Is In The Details. I pay as much attention as practical to ALL of my very valued LF equipment as it is only as good as the weakest link. That is why I also own a shutter tester and use the X Rite calibration scale for the densitometer.

For those of you that shoot predominantly chromes, I will in a similar vein as to results make a case for flare inside your camera off of any surface (wooden or metal) that is not flat black. Could have as much as 1 stop affect on the outside edges of the results.

Cheers!

[Alec Jones]

Yes, it is well worth spending the extra money.

BTW, that meter has been discontinued [both the modified and unmodified versious] so get one now. You won't ever be disappointed you did. Do it right the first time.

[George Pappas]

Mark,

It is absolutely worth the extra investment if you have the resources. Contrary to what some have contended, the modification is significant in eliminating exposure error when photographing items that reflect large amounts of IR light or if you use filters.

While many claim that this modification did not change the meter's performance was was marketing Hype, it was a genuine innovation that Fred Picker brought to the market.

Richard Henry, an objective and thorough tester, proved the meter's improved performance in his book "controls in black & whilte photography".

If you are going to buy one meter, the extra $130 compared to time saved with better precision over a lifetime of making photographs is a wise investment.

Best,

George Pappas

[Michael Kadillak]

Alec:

I am having an analog V converted as we speak and Calumet is still showing the modified meter on their web site for sale. Do you have some insider information that is not yet available to the general public?

Calumet told me that they are no longer making the 5x7 enlarger and are re-designing the head for 4x5 only applications to be out in a couple of months.

[Kevin Crisp]

I would be interested to know if anyone has had a Zone VI meter which can, as advertised, read properly through a red filter. I've had two, and both grossly underexpose negatives if used this way. Yellows, greens and oranges, no problem.

[Mark Vaughan]

Thanks to all for your prompt and informative replies. It's evident that I still have a lot to learn, and it's reassuring to know that I can stand on your shoulders, so to speak. Guess at this point I'm leaning towards the Zone VI meter - I like the idea of being able to isolate one of the varibles involved, and to have a "constant" from which to compare my results with those of others. Who knows, maybe I'll get lucky and find a nice used one to help offset the additonal cost... Thanks again!

[Frank Petronio]

FWIW, Richard Ritter does the meter modifications for "Zone VI" so I would venture that you could send your existing meters to him for an after-market upgrade. If you really feel that you need to...

Gee, Ansel figured codified the Zone System with a selenium Weston meter... poor guy ;)

[Alec Jones]

Michael said: " Calumet is still showing the modified meter on their web site for sale. Do you have some insider information that is not yet available to the general public?"

If, instead of a smart ass response he had bothered to CHECK the availability of that item, he would have seen it is unavailable, and has been, for months! Also, neither B&H nor Adorama has any either. I'd say that's a pretty good indication.

I second the recommendation for using Richard Ritter. He is a specialist in this subject.

[Ron Bose]

For the extra 150 bucks and the fact that it hangs in there at lower light levels than it's unmodified brother, I'd go for it, I did and have absolutley no regrets ....

Alec, FWIW, I didn't interpret Michael Kadillak's comment as being 'smart ass' ...

[Frank Petronio]

Michael is just smart; he has never been anything but polite on this forum.

[Michael Kadillak]

Just called Paul at Calumet and he told me a couple of minutes ago that they are currently experiencing a back order for the Zone VI modified meters so that if you ordered one right now, it would not be available to ship to you until May 31st. I also asked him to talk directly to a supervisor and he also confirmed that as far as the supervisor knows, the unit is not being discontinued, it is just suffering from sales exceeding inventories and that has been the issue for a while. They confirmed that even at its high price ($580) is still a consistent seller and they are in the business of making money so why would they drop it? (Their words not mine).

I am only interested in facts and what I have come to collect as my experience Alec and I do my absolute best to maintain a positive contribution if and when I add a comment. The ability to ask questions is fundamental in collectively improving the knowledge base for everyone.

CHEERS!

[Tom Duffy]

Kevin, to answer your question vis-a-vis metering with the Zone VI with the red filter:

Empirically, I found my pictures using red, orange and yellow-green filter were under exposed by 2, 1 and 1.5 stops respectively. yellow meters accurately.

Also be aware that this meter will underexpose by about 1 when metering in tungsten light.

Still, I find this to be better than other meters I've used, in terms of accuracy and consistancy over the range. Other reflective meters I've used underexpose in tungsten light by at least 2 stops, for example.

[Ted Harris]

I started reading this thread and my eyebrows started going up, up, up. Then I panicked and thought ...... geeeeeez my Pentax Digital Spot has been going strong for some 10++ years but maybe I should buy a backup while I can still find them. So I did some research.



Got the same info that Michael got from my Calumet contact. Found out that they are in stock a couple of places where I shop. Called pentax and was told that they have jsut been listed in the newest catalogue. "Yes," Pentax service said there is a backorder to dealers now because of the huge demand for the meter and there is a large order on the way from Japan. Now, my ears do wiggle when I hear the words 'back order' but in this case I don't think l I am going to rush out and buy one just for a backup. At least now without a whole lot more info. In this day of products we all love being discontinued daily I hate to see false info out there on products that are still healthy!



Meanwhile, to (I hope) either firmly squash this rumor (or confirm it as fact) I have asked a friend of mine who has been the head of PMA's digital section to check. His reaction was that he had heard nothing to that effect in the pipeline, not even anything on them discontinuing the analog model. I will post whatever I get from him.



In the meantime Alec, do you have any more detail. Where you read it was discontinued, who told you about it, etc?

[Ron Bose]

I have a warm and fuzzy feeling knowing that there's so much demand for the Zone VI modified Spotmeter.

I'm assuming that it's because LF is ALIVE AND KICKING, did you hear that Agfa and Kodak - ALIVE AND KICKING !!!!

[Henry Ambrose]

No one else wrote this so here goes- how about a combination meter that allows for incident and reflective readings and maybe even flash? Its nice to have choices sometimes and the longer you shoot the more I think you'll be likely to need other ways of metering. And I bet you will have this meter longer than you'll own some of your cameras and lenses, so spend what it takes to get a good one. FWIW, I like my Sekonic 508 quite a bit.

[Frank Petronio]

careful Ron - sometimes LF photography will kick you back!

[Robert Peterson]

It's an easy test to check your meter. As Fred Picker suggested, meter a number of different subjects, with and without filters, expose at zone 5. Process your film and proper proof. If they are all zone 5 your meter is fine. If not, you might consider the Zone VI meter. At the very least you'll know where you stand. My meter checked out fine and I can always retest if I notice a problem with my exposures. Saved money and know how my equipment works. Win win for me.

[Alec Jones]

My only info is observation - nobody has them - everybody says they will have them "soon". And, it has been that way for a while. I hope I'm wrong - too much good stuff has disappeared already. Somehow, I just got this feeling ..........

That's my 2¢ for now.

[Michael Kadillak]

Alec:

When you said in your previous post that the meter was discontinued, many including myself took you at face value. All we were trying to do was to get the facts and integrate this information within the context of this forum for all participants now and in the future.

To have arrive at this conclusion based upon extrapolation of bits and pieces of observational data and a "fear" component is a bit discerning. Opinions are widely diverse and are qualified as such. Facts are much more subjective and deserve validation. Hang in there. LF will be around for a long time.

Cheers!

[Bruce Watson]

Mark,

IMHO, the modification is well worth it. You are going to have enough learning curves to climb. Learning to compensate for an inconsistent meter doesn't need to be one of them. The whole point of the modification is to make the meter consistent so that you don't need to compensate for it. When you use it, you meter something and place it in a particular zone, it makes it through the process and end up on that zone -- regardless of its color, regardless of the lighting conditions. That's exactly what you want. At least, that's exactly what I want.

The other advice I've got is to buy the meter now. Don't beat your head against the wall trying to figure out how to get a TLR meter to give you useful results in LF. Painful. Inconsistent. Extra steps. It's just another bunch of pitfals you would be better off without, and it violates the KISS principle. Remember, it's much easier to learn how to do things correctly the first time than it is to unlearn bad habits, then learn the correct way.

[Mark Vaughan]

Thanks again to all. I very much appreciate the advice, as I now have a better understanding of what is involved. Considering everything there is to learn, I agree that it makes sense to get an accurate meter ASAP. I've placed an order with Calumet for the Zone VI meter (out of stock with an estimated ship date of June 6th), so I guess I'll just have to be patient until then. In the meantime, I've gone to the library and checked out "Zone VI Workshop, the fine print in black & white photography" by Fred Picker, for some more knowledge and a bit of inspiration :-)

[Frank Petronio]

Just don't get so caught up in all the Zone System nonsense that you forget to make photos. Blowing an extra sheet or two by bracketing, in order to "cover your ass" is simply a good policy no matter how devoted you are to Saint Ansel.

I don't know whether Ansel ever bracketed. Is the Pope Polish?

[Michael Kadillak]

When you are singularly a 4x5 shooter you are exactly correct in the fact that another exposure it is like reaching for another piece of tissue paper. You do not even think about it. However as the format increases (ie. your previous post on exploring ULF), this mindset is not reasonable. B&W 8x10 film is about $2.45 a pop and 12x20 is nearly $6.50 an exposure. I would be taking out a second mortgage in employing this mentality within my photography.

I try to formulate a consistent approach to photography because it can easily be translated to any format without having to mentally overcome old potentially inefficient habits. Strive for perfection right out of the starting gate and you will never be sorry.

Cheers!