Pentax spotmeter modifications
RMG
spotmeter modified by zone VI? Any ideas to the cost? Is it worth the
price if one is using the zone system?
thanks!
Michael Mutmansky
RMG wrote:
> Does anyone know if it is still possible to get a pentax digital
> spotmeter modified by zone VI?
Yes, you can get it from Calumet. (www.calumetphoto.com)
> Any ideas to the cost?
If I remember correctly, about $600
> Is it worth the
> price if one is using the zone system?
>
Well, that's the debate. Some people say yes, some say 'no way'. I
bought one and have gotten more consistent B&W results since then, so I
figure it's worth the price of admission.
>
> thanks!
You're welcome.
---Michael
Ralph W. Lambrecht
money. The regular Pentax Digital Spot was fine for Ansel and it is fine
for me.
Ralph W. Lambrecht
RMG wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if it is still possible to get a pentax digital
> spotmeter modified by zone VI? Any ideas to the cost? Is it worth the
> price if one is using the zone system?
>
> thanks!
fredd_...@my-deja.com
lamb...@btinternet.com wrote:
> Yes, from Calumet in Chicago, but I don't believe that it is worth the
> money. The regular Pentax Digital Spot was fine for Ansel and it is
fine
> for me.
> Ralph W. Lambrecht
I agree! The Weston was good enough for Edward and it's good enough
for me too!
Besides, what happens if you want to shoot chromes? Isn't the Zone VI
modification aimed at making the meter "see" light/color the way B&W
film does? And, since I brought that up, exactly which B&W film is it
suppossed to "see" like? Tri-X ? What if you shoot T-max or Tech Pan
or......
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dick Weld
less than 1/3 stop difference, so operator practices would probably nullify
any difference.
Dick Weld
Michael Mutmansky
What did you check it on, a gray card? You should get
_exactly_the_same_ reading with two separate meters on a gray card.
Now go out and check the meters with red or green filtration, or on
colored subjects. You will find significant differences in the meter
readings. If you want to have a conversion chart with you and manually
apply conversion for every color, then by all means, use a regular
meter. The Zone VI has that conversion built in. It's just a more
advanced tool that isn't necessary to make good images, but it does
eliminate a certain amount of variability in the making of negatives.
And yes, I use a different meter for chromes.
However, most people don't operate with any real level of precision in
their B&W photography. As they say... Horseshoes, hand grenades, ...and
photography? I am trying to obtain a higher level of consistency and
quality in my negatives, and the Zone VI meter helps in that manner.
---Michael
Dick Weld
on a gray card and a number of other different solid colors... and there were
not significant differences in any situation.
I agree that many B&W photographers do not operate with a great deal of
precision. In my case, however, that is not true. My cameras, lenses, and
meters are all calibrated by densitometer... as is my printing process. If I
shoot a specific value, I know that's what I'll get on paper.
Dick Weld
Ralph W. Lambrecht
differences with mainly the red filter. With TMax films however, the non
modofied meter gave the better results and the modified meter was 3
stops out. This may be different with Tri-X.
I have spoken to many other photographers. Most did not share my
experience, but some did. I have not experienced any advantage from the
modified meter and can not recommend it.
Ralph W. Lambrecht
Jean-David Beyer
>
> Michael is right. As soon as I used the modified meter, I saw only big
> differences with mainly the red filter. With TMax films however, the non
> modofied meter gave the better results and the modified meter was 3
> stops out. This may be different with Tri-X.
>
> I have spoken to many other photographers. Most did not share my
> experience, but some did. I have not experienced any advantage from the
> modified meter and can not recommend it.
>
notice the difference in filtration all that much, since most things
in nature are not highly saturated. I like it because it has about one
stop less flare than the unmodified one (additional field stops,
mainly, but perhaps their "ultra black" coating is really better than
the regular stuff).
If one meter is 3 stops off, at least one of those meters needs
serious recalibration.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey
^^-^^ 5:15pm up 5 days, 43 min, 3 users, load average: 2.26, 2.15,
2.10
Alec Jones
of green follage, in sunlight. That's the type of situation where the mod.
meter excels.
Alec
"Ralph W. Lambrecht" <lamb...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3A26EA...@btinternet.com...
> The meter is not out in general, only with the red filter against a blue
> sky. I must question the color calibration of the modified meter. It
> seems to make assumptions, which are not always correct.
> I'm better off with the regular meter.
>
> Ralph W. Lambrecht
Ralph W. Lambrecht
fredd_...@my-deja.com
"Alec Jones" <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> If you want a real test, compare the modified vs unmodified meter's
reading
> of green follage, in sunlight. That's the type of situation where
the mod.
> meter excels.
>
> Alec
That seems rather like stacking the deck - check the meter in an
application in which you know it does well, rather than checking it in
an application you use in your regular routine. That is what/when you
will use it, in your day-to-day work.
Granted, for some people green foliage in sunlight may be their day to
day use, but it isn't everyones.
Alec Jones
better:
because it is consistent
because it is accurate
because it is better w/filters
because it is precise
because it prevents flare better
because it is better w/blue skies
because it is better w/green follage
Yet, you think that's unfair and "stacking the deck" because it doesn't meet
your "regular routine". May I be so bold as to suggest your "regular
routine" must be pretty weird to not be affected by all those advantages?
fredd_...@my-deja.com
"Alec Jones" <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> OK, let me get this straight. So far, we've heard the modified meter
is
> better
doesn't meet
> your "regular routine". May I be so bold as to suggest your "regular
> routine" must be pretty weird to not be affected by all those
advantages?
Oh, by all means Al, be suggestive! I love a little double entendre'
with my coffee!
I was responding to a specific suggestion, yours, and yours alone - not
the claims made by previous posters. As written your suggestion is
rather falacitious.
By analogy, if I am considering purchasing an automobile, and my need
is general, all purpose use, it is rather silly of the dealer to
suggest I examine his 4wd 1-ton and onluy consider it's ability to get
about under adverse conditions where there are no roads. I have over-
looked it's fuel mileage, turning radius, stopping distance, etc. etc.
etc.
Need I point out we have also heard that:
"The regular Pentax Digital Spot was fine for Ansel and it is fine for
me."
"And yes, I use a different meter for chromes."
"I checked my non-modified Pentax against a friend's Zone VI meter...
there was less than 1/3 stop difference, so operator practices would
probably nullify any difference."
"As soon as I used the modified meter, I saw only big differences with
mainly the red filter. With TMax films however, the non modofied meter
gave the better results and the modified meter was 3 stops out. This
may be different with Tri-X. I have spoken to many other
photographers. Most did not share my experience, but some did. I have
not experienced any advantage from the modified meter and can not
recommend it."
"The meter is not out in general, only with the red filter against a
blue sky. I must question the color calibration of the modified meter.
It seems to make assumptions, which are not always correct."
I'm better off with the regular meter.
Ralph W. Lambrecht
excels with green, but lets me down in blues through a red filter has no
value to me.
Also, a meter calibrated and optimized for Tri-X is of no use to me. I
don't use such film.
Ralph W. Lambrecht
Alec Jones wrote:
>
> If you want a real test, compare the modified vs unmodified meter's reading
> of green follage, in sunlight. That's the type of situation where the mod.
> meter excels.
>
> Alec
>
> "Ralph W. Lambrecht" <lamb...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:3A26EA...@btinternet.com...
Ralph W. Lambrecht
The meter was consistant, but consistantly out.
The meter has shown large error with some filters, mostly red.
The meter is better with flare, but not significantly.
I don't understand the difference between accurate and precise, but in
my experience it has been neither.
If it works for you, fine. It doesn't seem to work for everybody.
Live and let live. Follow the light.
Ralph W. Lambrecht
Alec Jones wrote:
>
> OK, let me get this straight. So far, we've heard the modified meter is
> better:
>
> because it is consistent
> because it is accurate
> because it is better w/filters
> because it is precise
> because it prevents flare better
> because it is better w/blue skies
> because it is better w/green follage
>
Brian Ellis
its former name) carried a two part series of articles setting forth the
results of the author's various tests with various meters, including the
Pentax/Zone VI modified meter. The second article was followed up an
issue or two later with a lengthy letter from Paul Horowitz, the inventor of
the modifications, and a response to that letter by the author of the
articles. Most back issues of this magazine can be purchased from the
publisher. For anyone agonizing over the selection of a meter and/or
deciding whether to purchase the modified version, I think these articles
and correspondence would be useful.
Those articles represent the only objective light meter testing under test
conditions by someone who seemed to know what they were doing that I've
ever seen (though I'm sure there are plenty of things that I haven't seen).
Everything else that I've seen pretty much falls in the category of "It
didn't work for me" or "It works great," etc. etc.
FWIW (not much) my modified Pentax meter. seems to function very well.
Possibly I would have obtained the same results without the modifications,
who knows. Since it's impossible to test the same meter with and without the
modifications, it seems to me that if you opt for the modifications you
pretty much have to take the Zone VI/Calumet claims for their benefits on
faith.
"Ralph W. Lambrecht" <lamb...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3A2903...@btinternet.com...
Francis A. Miniter
the charts on p. 48 of Stroebel, et al, Basic Photographic Materials and
Processes, and you will see why. The spectral sensitivity of the
materials used for light meters is uneven across the spectrum and varies
from material to material. For instance, Cadmium sulfide is much more
sensitive above 700 nm than is selenium or silicon blue. Silicon
[without the blue filter] is very sensitive above 700 but poor below 550
nm. As Stroebel points out, by adding the blue filter to the silicon
meter, you compensate for low blue sensitivity at the cost of red
sensitivity. So, when you point your meter at an object, it helps to
know what material is in the meter in order to interpret the results.
Maybe, a three windowed meter, with each window maximized for a
particular primary color and the readings correlated by computer, would
do it. But it would probably weigh five lbs. or more.
Francis A. Miniter
Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
> I need a meter which will work well in all situations. A meter which
> excels with green, but lets me down in blues through a red filter has no
> value to me.
>
> Also, a meter calibrated and optimized for Tri-X is of no use to me. I
> don't use such film.
>
> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>
>
> Alec Jones wrote:
>
>> If you want a real test, compare the modified vs unmodified meter's reading
>> of green follage, in sunlight. That's the type of situation where the mod.
>> meter excels.
>>
>> Alec
>>
>> "Ralph W. Lambrecht" <lamb...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:3A26EA...@btinternet.com...
Paul Butzi
<lamb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Michael is right. As soon as I used the modified meter, I saw only big
>differences with mainly the red filter. With TMax films however, the non
>modofied meter gave the better results and the modified meter was 3
>stops out. This may be different with Tri-X.
This puzzle me. I own (beside in camera meters) two spotmeters,
one a Zone VI modified Pentax Digital Spot and the other a
Sekonic L-508.
In my experiments with the two meters, I've been unable to contrive
a situation where I could see more than a 2/3rd stop difference
between the readings the two meters give.
Just now, during what may be the last chance we will have here in
Seattle to see blue sky, I went outside with my two meters, a pile
of filters, and endeavored to find differences.
Metering the blue sky, I get readings withing 2/10th stop (and more
typically withing 1/10 stop) while reading through the following
filters:
B+W 021 Light Yellow (wratten #3)
B+W 023 Dark Yellow (wratten #8)
B+W 060 Yellow Green (wratten #11)
B+W 040 Yellow Orange (wratten #16)
B+W 090 Light Red (wratten #25)
It's possible the difference would appear with a Wratten #29 but I
don't own one, so I can't check.
Likewise I get essentially identical readings when reading the grey
side of my neighbors house, and when reading the (green) grass
in front of my house.
It would be interesting if other people who own both the modified
Pentax and another unmodified meter could duplicate this test
and post their results.
-Paul
--
Newly updated and moved web site at:
http://www.butzi.net