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.