Gossen vs. Sekonic meters - don't mix em

[bglick]

Hi Dan.... well there is one big difference..... 810 is about $20 per exposure, vs. 35mm at about $.30 per exposure? So 35mm brackets are about $1 vs. $60 for for 810. In my world, that is a big difference..... and that was the difference I was referring to, as, each emulsion comes in every format.

[Mark Woods]

Thanks Kirk,

I know what you said isn't because I'm a Pasadena boy too. We should get together for a beer or coffee, your choice. (Tea too!)

A color temp meter solves a lot of problems if one thinks about the film as being a composit of 3 (or a multiple of 3 -- i.e., 2 Red, 2 Green, 2 Blue emulsions, or 3 of each. Usually this if for color neg and the different emulsions are high speed to get a base exposure, and the other emulstion are slower in speed and are designed to smooth the transitiions from bright to dark in that color). The color temp meter tells you the exposure each emulsion is being exposed to given the color of the light. This sounds abstract. All it really means is if you want it warm, shoot it warm, but you'll have big problems if you want to print is cool since there won't be enough information in the blue layer to give you a good image. Printed cool, the image will be grainy and have all the artifacts one would associate with a thin neg. BTW, this is for negs, not chromes. But the chromes will benefit from a Color Temp meter too if one wants to be consistent or replicate a look one shot before. Like an afternoon warm look, but it's the middle of the day in the shade of a hill or building. Match the color temp with filters. (I use the whole 81 series plus an 85 C and 85 B to achieve the results I desire. BTW, be careful with ND's since some brands will shift the color temp warmer about 300* K/ND .3).

Kind Regards,
MW

[Mark Woods]

Hey Bill,
Thank you for your kind words, but I'd like to mention that in my line of work, that use 35mm film, but shot at 24 fps, exposure is critical. And I can't bracket! With the cost of production rangeing from $3K - $10K/hour, I don't think the producer would tolerate bad or mis-exposed film. I do LF as a release from the stress of my work, and because I truely enjoy B&W. Besides I really enjoy this forum and what good would it be if I only lurked and didn't shoot B>)

Enjoy what you shoot, it's all good!

MW

[Jeff Conrad]

Jeff, have you tested your meters in the rear of a veiw camera and stopped
down the aperture over a range and determined how linear they are?

I tried something like this years ago with an MF camera, resting a Pentax
Spotmeter V against the film rails, with and without an interposed ground
glass. The results weren't very good, suggesting that something wasn't
linear. I took the meter and the camera and lens to a service center (as
luck would have it, the same person who took care of Ansel Adams's
equipment). He was skeptical of my test method (I forget the exact
reason); we checked both the meter and the lens with his Kyoritsu tester,
and both the meter and lens seemed fine (linear within 1/3 step or so).
Apparently the problem was my technique; in any event, I haven't tried it
since.

I probably should have mentioned that both of my meters (an
unmodified Pentax Spotmeter V and a Zone VI Pentax digital) have been off
by as much as a step when I've taken them in for calibration. The people
doing the cal usually have been able to adjust them to within +/- 1/3 step
or better at each of the calibrated light levels. I've resigned myself to
at least having each meter checked every 2–3 years; often they check
out fine, but sometimes they need adjustment. Which reminds me ... the
digital is overdue.

[Witold Grabiec]

Are we looking for a perfect meter here, that will give THE results we're ALWAYS looking for? I don't believe it's possible. It starts with film/developer manufacturing incosistencies, our metering techniques, repeatability of meter's aim at the target value (the real one within the scene) etc.

I suppose in a perfectly controlled space with lots of high tech gear it is possible to build a meter that will get close to exactness (someone) devised. But once placed in another enviornment, it is no longer exactly possible to repeat it's actual capability. To me the bottom line is maintaining the meter so it gives CONSISTENT output and test with your own procedure/materials (and occasionally recalibrate/restest as required).

[bglick]

Mark, I wasn't suggesting that 35mm shooters are immune to exposure issues, but my point was, with the smaller format end of photography moving to digital, which has the huge advantage of histograms, its mainly the very LF shooter who agonizes over wasted exposures. If I shot 16x20 film, I would agonize even more over these issues :-)

Jeff, thanks for sharing that story.... it makes me wonder...but the test, done correctly, seems near perfect, hence why I struggle with the test being faulty? But again, I assume NOTHING!

Witold, as I have mentioned above, I agree, the process of exposure can never be perfect, but eliminating shortcomings of a meter can only increase your chances of good exposure. I have never subscribed to the adage, "if you can't get it perfect, then forget it." I would be very happy with 95% success, if I started with only 85% success.

[bglick]

While I am in, obsessive Compuslive mode on meters. I took my 7 year old Sekonic Dual Spot F, which is a spot only meter, but it's perfectly designed for easy usage.... of course, Sekonic discontinued it shortly after the dual meters came out.

Anyway, I took the newer Sekonic 608 dual meter in spot meter mode, set both at 1 deg spot, and in 5500K degree light, from EV 6 to EV15, 80% of the readings were either identical or within .1 stops. The other 20% never differed more then .2 stops, or +/- .1 stop per meter. This demonstrates two meters, from the same maker, calibrated to the same source, are near identical in readings throughout their working range and differing life spans. (of course not always true, as failure can occur, variance in chips, etc) I am willing to bet, they would also read the same when exposed to varying color temp light. This is further evidence how accurate light meters can be, and from the Gossen / Sekonic tests, how error prone they can be when exposed to color temps in which the maker never exposed them to. Once again, it would be so much easier for the maker to test the meters once under different color tempertures and include a "corrections" chart with the meter.

[george jiri loun]

You got it , at last.

[bglick]

Marc, this was not the issue throughout this thread. My only point about the two meters is, there extreme accuracy to each other. But when using the Gossen and the Seknic and reading 2 stops apart, its obvious, they both can't be right. Therefore, this proved nothing, except, if you want two meteres caiibrated to the same source, buy the same make of each. But your comment makes it sound like, if two meters read the same, then the reading is accurate. It's obvious from this thread, this is a false assumption.

But even so, all meters from the same maker do not match so perfectly. Recently, I took a new Sekonic Twin Mate vs. the 608, it measured 1 - 2 stops different, I returned it. The two Sekonic spots, 608 & 778, where much more expensive meters, hence why they probably cross checked so well.

[george jiri loun]

Bill, get it right - if you want 2 meters be exactly the same in their measuring buy two identic meters. It's as simple as that.