Gast
What do you think of using lab exposure meters?
So far, I’ve been using my enlarger and a simple timer, but I have to recalculate the times every time I change the format, which is quite a hassle.
What do you make of the Jobo Comparator 100, for example?
Thanks for any advice,
Claudius
Stagirit
In itself, a timer with a built-in density meter isn’t a bad thing. It allows you to quickly analyse the density of the negative, which also changes with the enlargement magnification. But you can’t do without a test strip.
fotohuisrovo
Yes, that covers everything from a simple Comparator by FEM-Kunze right up to the Split Grade by Heiland. The latter doesn’t require any calibration and gives a result that’s 99% accurate in terms of gradient and time. It saves a lot of time and paper, but of course it does cost a bit.
Best regards,
Robert
RalphRogge
Claudius wrote:
What do you think of using lab light meters?
[right][post="5998"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
indispensable
What do you make of the Jobo Comparator 100, for example?
[right][post="5998"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
Rubbish – all that Comparator stuff is more or less scrap metal!
In my opinion, the only one I can wholeheartedly recommend is the Heiland Splitgrade, because calibration for all standard papers and films is available via software and free updates are provided, because of the incredible re-exposure and test strip modes, because it works as a transmitted light densitometer, because of the incredibly good service and (free) support from Jürgen Heiland, because it can also be used on a second or third large-format enlarger without a module, etc.
In my opinion, all this quickly justifies a price of around 1000 EUR – which may seem high at first – when you realistically consider the savings in materials and time. If you compare this to the original price of a Comparator
Have a look at how it works somewhere at a colleague’s or at Mr Heiland’s in Wetzlar – after your first prints with the device, you’ll wonder what on earth you’ve been doing in your life as a photographer. This thing is guaranteed to free up your mind for new creative ideas, because you can now use the time saved to put the finishing touches to your work. :rolleyes:
You can get a manual as a PDF for free if you download a Splitgrade update from
http://heilandelectronic.de and extract the relevant file from the ZIP.
Best regards and happy shooting!
Ralph
http://silberphotographie.de
Gast
Thank you very much for all your replies.
Yes, a split-grade table is certainly a lovely thing, but I’m currently still in the process of getting my darkroom up and running again and don’t want to invest in overly expensive equipment until I’ve established that it’s actually worth it for my purposes.
So I’m hoping that somewhere between the two extremes of ‘no light meter, everything estimated’ and ‘split grade’, there might be a measuring device that’s at least somewhat useful.
From my father’s darkroom days, there remains a Revue Automatic Timer* with a reflex probe, which at least in theory allows control of the exposure process, but due to the measuring method (light reflected from the photographic paper is, so to speak, somehow captured by a “sensor held roughly in the vicinity”) ), the whole thing yields hardly any reproducible results if the sensor had to be repositioned when changing formats.
What is the verdict on the lab attachment for Gossen light meters? I have both a Lunasix 3 and a Profisix available...
*) Something like
this:
http://cgi.ebay.de/belichtungsgeraet-mit-m...1QQcmdZViewItem
piu58
Ralph Rogge wrote
"indispensable" in reply to Claudius, Jan: "What do you think of using a darkroom exposure meter?"
Developer is perhaps indispensable. But you can manage without a darkroom exposure meter. I only use a metronome in the darkroom, not even a timer. This makes overexposure and dodging much easier; I keep count myself.
Correctly exposed negatives can be printed using the paper’s standard exposure time. This is the time at which the bare film just turns black. Once you’ve determined this time using a test strip, it remains valid as long as you don’t change the materials.
I determine the gradient visually. This is, in any case, more of an aesthetic than a mechanical question. I measure changes in density and use a calculator to convert the exposure time. I do the same for corrections where one side of the image requires a different exposure time to the other.
Roman
So:
I’ve got an old Revue-Timer with Mademoiselle on it; a Comparator 2; and a Hauck Trialux. You don’t really need any of them, but under certain conditions all three can be useful:
They all need to be calibrated – you do this once per pack of paper; it’s quite quick with the first two, but with the Trialux I always have to read the instruction manual first... ;)
However, the whole thing only works with reasonably ‘normal’ subjects (i.e. relatively balanced contrasts) that can be printed with ‘normal’ gradients; with the first two devices, you can get reasonably close to the correct exposure time, whilst the Trialux is a bit more accurate – in this case, the determined exposure time is usually sufficient for a workprint.
You should, however, forget the idea that this will save you from having to make test strips and workprints – you might need fewer, but even with a high-quality device like the Trialux, you can’t do without them.
These devices are, however, completely useless with ‘difficult’ negatives and subjects – very high contrast, pushed films, extreme lighting conditions, high print gradations, etc. Personally, for example, I take a lot of concert photos (in dark clubs with glaring spotlights...), where you’re very often ‘on the edge’ at f/1.8 and 1/30 sec with film pushed to 3200; you occasionally have to go up to grade 5 when printing, and a 1/2 sec up or down during printing has a dramatic effect, etc. – for that sort of work, even the Trialux is completely useless; I think even a split-grade would struggle there – — for this kind of work, even the Trialux is completely useless; I think even a split-grade would have its problems...
hambo
I use the Jobo Comparator as well; it works quite well. However, if you want to print an entire roll of film quickly, I recommend looking for the Wallner exposure frames or the Agfa Variomat. The Wallner goes up to 24/30, or the larger version up to 30/40. The Variomat goes up to 30/40. Which one you choose is a matter of personal preference. Wallner measures before exposure and gives a time that you can correct using the plus or minus settings. It also has several memory slots, so you can test all the gradients. The Agfa Variomat only offers you a guide number on the adjustment knob, which is determined by test exposures. It measures through the paper during exposure.
Once you’ve got the hang of them, both devices are reliable. The standard printing rules apply: if the key part of the subject in the negative is darker than the surroundings (flash head or similar), add +2 to +4. Conversely (backlighting), subtract -2 to -4. For normal brightness distribution, work without correction.
Okay, the images aren’t quite perfect. However, you can set the Wallner in 1/10-second increments, and with the Variomat, one more or less digit results in a density change of approx. 5%. So, by using test strips, you can achieve the best possible results with both devices.
Regards, Jürgen ;)
Stagirit
By the way: I’ve got an old Bäuerle BS 785 with a measuring probe lying about here, but I don’t have the instruction manual. Does anyone here happen to have the same model, or know where I can get hold of the manual?
Unfortunately, Bäuerle doesn’t have a website.
Rolf70
Hello, fellow forum members,
I fully agree with many of the comments made so far. It is entirely possible to control the exposure time using a metronome without a timer, and to expose test strips in the same way as seventy years ago, using a piece of black card that is moved bit by bit.
Heiland’s Splitgrade system allows technically correct enlargements to be produced with a minimum of darkroom knowledge – provided one refrains from dodging and burning to enhance the image effect.
Inexpensive laboratory light meters such as the JOBO Comparator or a similar device from Ilford can be of some help. In my opinion, however, the only devices that can be considered serious tools in the darkroom are those from FEM Kunze and Hauck/Kaiser, which allow for reliable spot metering plus averaging and enable precise dodging and burning. With a bit of luck, such devices can be found in good condition on eBay, and at a significantly lower price than that of a split-grade system.
On one point, other forum participants are right: anyone aiming for technically and artistically convincing enlargements cannot avoid test strips, despite all the measuring.
