I have a boxfull of "old" meters (as well as many cameras with built-in meters).
The only two which actually agree with each other are my Gossen Lunasix-3 and my Gossen Lunasix Pro-F .
Despite this, most of my exposures are quite acceptable.:lol:
Modern (negative) films are amazingly tolerant.
It's been said before in other threads but, whilst the 'sunny 16' method works well in some climates, it doesn't hold here in the uk (and, I'd guess, the rest of northern europe).
Originally Posted by OldBikerPete
Of course, not intending to disparage a technique that clearly works well in places like Oz and the US. Simply a heads up for anyone from northern europe thinking of trying it.
It's not a technique I'd use but, if you must calibrate a meter, I like i-c racers suggestion of using the film to 'backwards calibrate'.
It reminds me of something said to me by one of the boffins at Ilford, during a get together of the 'Ilford Master Printers', when I asked him a question about making film speed tests towards a zone system... "Why on earth do you want to do that? If you develop our films according to the instructions, they're already accurately calibrated."
Not sure I fully agree with him, because each photographer works under slightly different conditions, but it certainly gave me pause for thought...
Doesn't even work all over the US, Sunny 16 for me is Sunny 11.
Originally Posted by jerry lebens
Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
Don't give up too soon on that Luna Pro. I have used a Luna Pro F for years, and love it. I actually prefer using it to my L-608. I got enamored a while back with digital readouts, spot metering, and AA Zones and paid a bunch of money for the Sekonic, and I'm sorry I did. The Luna Pro F's instant analog F-stop under/over exposure indication and ability to see the entire range of available optional apertures and speeds at one glance is so simple and fast to use it puts the fancy L-608 to shame, at least in reflective mode. Great meter. Mine reads less than 1/3 stop different than the L-608 under quick and dirty reflective use, which is how I usually meter with old cameras anyway. And in the reflective mode it's FAR easier and faster to use than turning the L-608's cumbersome optics sideways and pushing buttons right and left, and then turning the thing back and studying a readout to see what happened. Angle of view is pretty wide, but so what? Unless you really need spot metering for zone work or do a lot of studio work and need automatically accumulated and computed flash readings, the Luna Pro F is plenty of meter.
If you have a local camera repairman, he should have a gizmo that puts out a known light value and can quickly test the accuracy of your meter.
I am beginning to resent being referred to as 'half-fast'.
Whatever that's supposed to mean.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
i have never used the exact meter you are using, but have a lunapro sbc, and it is a great meter.
years ago mine ( really my father's ) died and it was sent back to bogen to be fixed, it cost a bunch of $$
back then, but it has been 25 years since and still working perfectly.
are you using it with the ambient dome off the sensor and using it as an ambient meter ?
fresh batteries ?
sunny 16 is a good way to measure light as oldbikerpete suggests ... but as mark also mentions in a lot of places it is sunny 11.
do the test, take notes, run some film through your camera,
and calibrate your meter as mentioned in the manual.
there should be a little screw in the back so you can change the position of the needle
once you decide if it is a little off.
good luck !
I've also got the Luna-Pro F, and I did need to have it recalibrated when I bought it second-hand.
The issue was nothing to do with the electronics or sensor, but the printed scale inside the rotating ISO/ASA speed dial had become misaligned by about 6 stops!
This must have happened with wear and tear and caused it to become unstuck. Got that fixed and it works fine.
Worth bearing in mind though, you wouldn't have that problem with a meter with a digital readout
To calibrate any meter, it must be compared with a known standard. This is what they do when you send your meter to any repair facility (or the manufacturer). So all you really need to do is compare the meter to any meter you have that you know is correct.
Where can you get, or borrow one? All you need is a device that contains a light meter and is self testing for accuracy.
Maybe this is what digital cameras are for? You can meter a scene, take an exposure and check it for correctness, and use the verified exposure to check your meter. Then you can use your meter knowing the settings are correct. Hopefully.
Hi Barry, you don't say in your post what reason you have to believe that your meter is inaccurate in the first place, are you getting poor exposures ?
Regarding sunny f/16, I think the rule states that you use f/16 when the sun is exactly behind your subject, and the implication probably is your "flat" subject, like the façade of a building.
When the sun makes an angle with your subject (let's say 45° on one side) the you have to open more. I also find that generally speaking a clear sunny day wants 1/125 @ f/11 with 100 ISO film. If you take a picture of some tridimensional object (a face, a statue, a vase of flowers) you compensate always a bit for the part which a bit more in the shade.
I would only use f/16 if the sun really is perpendicular to the focal plane. When I measure a marble building lit by the sun I get around 1/125 @ 22 + 3/10, which make me calculate my exposition "for the highlights" exactly at f/11.
So although the sun is the same star for everybody (Italy, England, US, summer, winter, etc. a clear sun always has the same luminance) I agree that f/16 is a bit too close generally speaking.
If you use slides, I'd rather use a trustable lightmeter. For negative film outdoor in sunlight, you basically don't need a lightmeter at all (just calculate mentally and open 1 stop as a safety margin)