I love both of them. As I've said I will use the Gossen with the dome for quick and dirty readings, or when using chromes, but use the Pentax when I find the need to get anal. The Pentax I adjust so it reads a grey card at the same reading as my Gossen. Once that is done I meter shadows, highlights, middle tones, cleveage whatever it takes. Apply the suitable high velocity fudge factor and then take my shot.
Actually before I got back into all this LF stuff I very rarely used a meter at all for B&W. After 30+ years doing this stuff you kind of get the hang of it. That's another reason why I like to keep things simple. One type of film (well maybe two), one type of paper ( well one brand anyway) and one type of developer. Ok so I tried Pyro tonight, but I haven't contact printed the negs yet.
Well, I had no idea this would be the result of my query though I have been pleasantly enlightened! The Canon negs seem to be a bit overexposed when compared to the negatives made using the exposure indicated by the Gossen. Knowing there is a difference I can make the adjustments. I prefer a 'thicker' negative be it 35mm or otherwise. My goal is to eventually be able to make exposures without a meter, but for now, the meter is there to build the foundation in the brain. I strictly shoot B+W 400. Color is of no interest to me. I have messed with the Zone system as a way to learn about exposure and development and have found what works best for me so the real critical measurements are of no real concern. Expose for the highlights.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (David Hall @ Mar 24 2003, 08:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>...wasn't the whole idea behind the Zone VI modified meter that Any Old Pentax Spotmeter's readings were off because it didn't do a good enough job measuring the color of light?
I think that you'll find that the Zone VI modifications were intended to match the sensitivity curves of black and white film. Color was a factor, but it is not entirely accurate to say that the Honeywell meter was "off" because it "did not read color correctly".
I always thought that that the Zone IV mods were nit-picking, but there are those among us who are perfectionists.
I've progressed t the point where I take the information from the exposure meter as "useful information" and use it as a base for the final settings.
In all truth, the jury is still out over whether or my "Kentucky Windage" is a good idea. Sometimes it works ... other times .... well, it is a useful "experiment".
Ed Sukach, FFP.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (David Hall @ Mar 24 2003, 11:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Donald,
Your comment above about light color and light intensity not being related...wasn't the whole idea behind the Zone VI modified meter that Any Old Pentax Spotmeter's readings were off because it didn't do a good enough job measuring the color of light?
And to those who use both Gossen and Pentax...which do you prefer? I have looked at the Gossens and they seem harder to use, especially for zone system thinking. True?
dgh </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
While I have no experience with the Gossen meter, it to all appearances seems to be more difficult for my use in Zone system usage. The Zone VI modifications orginated from the recognition that light meters (even the best of them did a marginal job of accurately metering a scene for black and white zone system photography) The modifications consisted of several internal changes. Among those were improved internal baffling to reduce the effects of both internal and external flare (effects of nearby bright sources). A couple of filters to eliminate or reduce the effects of UV and IR radiation (IR being the more problematic) and filter packs to bring the meter sensitivity into agreement with the sensitivity of panchromatic black and white emulsions. The effects of these modifications can be determined by metering (with both a modified and unmodified meter) green pine trees and also a green and a red surface. By exposing the film in accordance with the meter reading and then developing the film in the same manner the resulting prints will be the determiner of the effects of the modifications. These modifications really had no bearing (from Zone VI advertisements) on the meters sensitivity to a given color temperature of light. Color temperature really is an entirely different parameter then light intensity.
As usual, I have nothing constructive to offer, so I figured I would just throw a monkey wrench into the "color temperature" argument. (We all do what we can.)
A photography instructor, who taught for years at the Maine Photographic workshops, told me that Canon had decided that "average scenes" were not really 18% gray, but 10% gray (I assume that's darker than 18%) and adjusted their meters accordingly. If true, that would also account for a one stop difference in meter readings. Of course it might also be t-stops vs. f stops <g>...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
more monkey motion:
There are calibrations for 18% gray and if I recall correctly (IIRC) 36% gray. Maybe that is the difference? Quien sabe?
It's all academic really. Once you have done your testing you should have everything nailed down for the film/devloper/paper combinations you use. It doesn't really matter if my meter reads the same as yours etc. It only matters that I know how mine reacts to various lighting situations and I can apply the appropriate adjustments to the "suggested" exposure to obtain my pre-visualized image in the darkroom. I prefer not to trip over the roots so I can at least get to the forest, so I can photograph the tree.