Enlarging meter?

[cyrus]

So I ended up with a nice Luna Pro meter in a case, boxed & mint. with an enlarging meter attachment. But since they run on the old mercury batteries, if you consider the cost of the MR-9 converters that I have swapped in for now, it is probably not worth it. However, before I assign the meter to my "dustplay case" I am not sure what one does with an enlarging meter. Can someone explain: Why would you need an enlarging meter?

[domenico Foschi]

It really isn't only a useless "tool", but a detriment to explore the possibilities of a negative.
The traditional strips are still the best tools to evaluate the full potential of a negative.
You can't use it as a door stop or a paper weight,...maybe a wind chime?

[Greg Lockrey]

Enlarger meters were more meant to be used by production printers where various sizes of the same negative were used. The printer once he got his reference point where he wanted it, then would check the meter if he decided to go from 5x7 to 11x14, read the meter and make his adjustment. Personally I had EV's written on my column and as I went up or down made my adjustment. That gave me a starting point that was every bit as accurate as those meters.

[ic-racer]

Can someone explain: Why would you need an enlarging meter?

Well, you don't need one. Thats why they are not very popular. It's potentially useful, but not necessary.

[John O'Connell]

Enlarging meters aren't really necessary for enlarging onto paper, but I really like mine for enlarging onto film from slides.

[cyrus]

Well, you don't need one. Thats why they are not very popular. It's potentially useful, but not necessary.

Yeah I didn't t hink so because thus far I haven't felt like I missed an enlarging meter.
Still, I guess it appeals to the gadget freak in me. I'll find some use for it -- to calibrate something, for example, in going from one enlarger to another when making multiple prints?

[Nick_3536]

I only really use my meter for colour. OTOH when I need to bang out a bunch of prints from different negatives then a meter is nice. It's not fine printing but volume work. It's also nice to get close to the right value.

I'm not a big fan of test strips. Test prints show me much more. If it's for big prints I'll start with smaller prints first.

[Doug Howk]

I have an Ilford EM-10 exposure meter. Its very useful if I'm using same paper but different negatives during a printing session - gives me an in the ball park working print that I can analyze for fine tuning. Test strips always seem like a waste of time since they don't yield information on the entire print - one good test print is better for me than multiple test strips.

[cyrus]

I have an Ilford EM-10 exposure meter. Its very useful if I'm using same paper but different negatives during a printing session - gives me an in the ball park working print that I can analyze for fine tuning. Test strips always seem like a waste of time since they don't yield information on the entire print - one good test print is better for me than multiple test strips.

I can see how it could be useful to make a "ballpark" initial print but how does one actually use it to do this?

I guess a ballpark print is good enough for ballpark printing, but if you want to fine tune it, you still have to do tests, right?

[R Mann]

I started by using test strips and have now moved on to a meter and test strip combination. I have been using a RH Designs meter for a number of years - I find the ability to quickly scan an image on the easel and be able to have a very close starting point for both contrast grade and exposure time a big plus - it has saved me paper and time over and over again. But, I still do test strips to zero in on a final print - especially if there is a lot of burning or dodging.

[photographs42]

I have the EM-10. It’s a cute little thing but mostly useless, for me anyway. As far as getting “in the ballpark” I can do that just by looking at the projected image. Even if I haven’t printed for a while and I’m a little rusty, my first test is always “in the ballpark”.

With the EM-10 it’s hard to get the same reading twice anyway.

Jerome

[Kirk Keyes]

If all enlarging meters were build as nicely and were as accurate as this one:
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/em.htm
I think we would have a different conversation. I've got one, and this weekend I used it to determine the density range of a neg I was printing, the base exposure, and then I used it to spot meter the background of the image, which I wanted to be very even in tone, and figure out exactly how much dodging and burning I needed. It turned out I needed 0.3 stops extra on one side and I burned it in, and with one test I had exactly what I wanted.

I highly recommend it.

[Brian Ellis]

I owned the Ilford meter and never used it. With a little experience it's very easy to look at a negative and get an accurate ball park exposure time and contrast for the first print.
I nevertheless still often made a test "strip" of the entire print. That occasionally gave me ideas for how to print the negative or how to print certain areas within the print that I likely wouldn't have thought of otherwise. It can also help with starting burn and dodge times. But I agree with others that doing the tests on a little inch or two wide strip of paper is usually of little help.

When I changed print sizes I preferred to use the wheel that's in the Kodak Darkroom Guide to determine the new time but the meter might have been useful for that purpose if I didn't have the Guide.

[Ole Tjugen]

I use the EM-10 all the time!

It gives the same response at different filtrations, so I can adjust the aperture to get exactly the same highlight/high midtone density with the same exposure time after adjusting filtration to change the contrast.

I've measured a step wedge once, and tested a number of different papers at a number of different filtrations with the same exposure time. That gives me a set of "curves" for each paper showing what readings on the EM-10 will give highlights, midtone and almost-black for each paper at a given exposure time.

That helps me switch from one paper to another, or one printing size to another, or one crop to another, simply by placing the meter in ONE spot and adjusting the aperture until the lights change.

In short, I consider it a very useful little thing which has saved me many times its price in paper.

[ic-racer]

Yeah I didn't t hink so because thus far I haven't felt like I missed an enlarging meter.
Still, I guess it appeals to the gadget freak in me. I'll find some use for it -- to calibrate something, for example, in going from one enlarger to another when making multiple prints?

If I had your Gossen with the attachment I would put the zinc-air batteries in it and try it out. I think there are a lot of potential uses. Off the top of my head I can see it might useful for ensuring my 'paper flash' settings are really the same as the last time I flashed paper under the enlarger (sure I record PAPER TYPE, HEIGHT, MIXING BOX, LENS, and F-STOP, but where is the darn piece of paper with all the info on it when you need it....:mad: ).

[Dave Brown]

Back in the days when I was printing several times a week, I didn't need no stinking enlarging meter. A quick look at the negative projected on my focus sheet, and I could nail the exposure and contrast 98% of the time. Those days are long gone. I print much less frequently now. For the last 10 years or so, I've relied on my little EM-10; my first print is in the ballpark every time, which is all I really care about.

On a historical note, back when I was in school (about the time photography was invented) we made frequent use of a Spiratone enlarging meter when using a stabilization processor. Since you couldn't watch the print develop, nailing the exposure spot-on was a necessity.

[robert fallis]

I use an enlarging meter, I don't make test strips once you have set the meter to your paper, then it's easy to use, and produce consistant prints, I'm also a bit tight and hate wasting paper.

bob

[blevblev]

I also use the RH enlarging meter. I do test strips too, but I find the starting point time and contrast around which to make my test strips using the meter.

http://www.rhdesigns.co.uk/darkroom/html/zonemaster_ii.html

[Mark Sampson]

I just think that the time spent correctly calibrating the meter (and the rest of the process along with it) would be better spent making prints. Inconsistent of me, I'll admit, but I find it somehow less necessary than the calibration process for film & camera.