PDA

View Full Version : Hand-held Meters?


newspaperguy
07-31-2008, 09:26
Those of us blessed (cursed?) with this RF addiction, at least those of us using older cameras are still slaves to hand-held exposure meters. Well, maybe not slaves... but at least somewhat dependent.

Any chance that you and Frances will take a look at the current - or at least recent - crop of what's out there, and how they strike you?

Chris101
07-31-2008, 11:08
Hey! I second that request. I have an old Luna Pro sbc. I have put 'Wein cells' in it, but I am still not convinced of it's accuracy, especially at the extremes of it's range. Me thinks it's time for a better meter. I'd like it to be inexpensive and not too small (I'd lose the Voiugtlander clip-on meter in a minute.)

Roger Hicks
07-31-2008, 13:08
Whew...

This is dependent on selling it to a magazine, on cost grounds, but I might just have a go at this year's photokina.

As a preliminary observation, though, I'll quote Garry Coward-Williams, Damien Demolder's predecessor as Editor at Amateur Photographer. I paraphrase from memory:

"How is it that everyone gets good exposures, regardless of the meter they use? Meters are often half a stop apart, sometimes a stop apart. But anyone who's any good gets good exposures. Is it latitude? Experience? What?"

I don't know, and neither did Garry. But I'll see if I can attack the question.

Thanks for the idea.

Cheers,

Roger

Chris101
07-31-2008, 13:36
... "How is it that everyone gets good exposures, regardless of the meter they use? Meters are often half a stop apart, sometimes a stop apart. But anyone who's any good gets good exposures. Is it latitude? Experience? What?" ...My guess would be that when used consistently, one makes other adjustments that compensate for meter inaccuracy.

Roger Hicks
07-31-2008, 13:43
My guess would be that when used consistently, one makes other adjustments that compensate for meter inaccuracy.

This seems more likely than latitude (except perhaps with some of the less well-informed devotees of the Zone System), but most people aren't aware of these adjustments -- and it's not just meter inaccuracy but personal metering technique, meter choice, lens flare,whether you're metering neg or tranny, shutter inaccuracies...

Cheers,

R

Ronald_H
07-31-2008, 13:52
When I got my M2 I soon figured out my shutter was way off. But also that my meter (Gossen Digiflash) was inaccurate. Confirmed on an optical test bench at my CLA guy. He commented that my meter 'wasn't off at all' according to his bench.

What he didn't know was that I trail and errored the optimal calibration to -1 1/3rd of a stop. I also bought a vintage Gossen Lunasix with adapters for SR44 cells. It is consistent with the calibrated Digiflash.

Anyway, I now can meter well enough to get good slides back. For negative film I really don't need a meter.

myoptic3
07-31-2008, 14:17
I think that most shots aren't exposed correctly. It's film's latitude and the range of exposure correction in Photoshop that brings them into approximate correct exposure. I've been reading Ansel's books on The Negative, and that guy forgot more about metering than most people will ever learn. An abbreviated zone system understanding has helped me a lot in getting better exposures from my meter. A gray card don't hurt either.

varjag
07-31-2008, 14:33
This seems more likely than latitude (except erhaps with some of the less well-informed devotees of the Zone System), but most people aren't aware of these adjustments -- and it's not just meter inaccuracy but personal metering technique, meter choice, lens flare,whether you're metering neg or tranny, shutter inaccuracies...
Roger, could it be that due to statistical nature of many of those inaccuracies, and their sheer number, they get compensated by each other to an extent? There still should be outlier cases, but not that numerous.

(Of course this takes assumption that involved errors are of same order, which is purely a speculation at this point.)

Windscale
07-31-2008, 19:46
Many of my cameras do not have built in meters. Even if they do I would not trust them as they are mainly older cameras. For over 20 years I have relied on handheld meters. I now use 2, namely a Sekonic 308B and a 308S. Both are of the same size only the readout appears slightly different. However, from time to time I will compare the two and make sure they give the same readings under the same lighting conditions. Also I will take them back to Sekonic for a checkout once every two or three years. I wouldn't go out without them. It would be nice if Roger can do a piece on them. Thanks in advance.

Roger Hicks
08-01-2008, 06:35
Roger, could it be that due to statistical nature of many of those inaccuracies, and their sheer number, they get compensated by each other to an extent? There still should be outlier cases, but not that numerous.

(Of course this takes assumption that involved errors are of same order, which is purely a speculation at this point.)

This is almost certainly a fundamental truth, though there are some errors that tend to be heavily skewed, i.e. slow shutters are a lot more common than fast ones. I did a piece on exactly this some 4-5 years ago for Amateur Photographer, and indeed, most errors do tend to be +/- 1/3 to 1/2 stop. But I did give an example of two cameras I own where the same fim could be rated more than 2 stops differently and still give identical densities.

There are also a lot of people who have learned to compensate for truly lousy exposures in the darkroom or when scanning/post processing. Amusingly, some of them think that their wildly eccentric practises are evidence of their accuracy at all steps in the process.

Cheers,

R.

dmr
08-01-2008, 06:42
This is dependent on selling it to a magazine, on cost grounds,

Hey, if you write it for Shutterbug, I promise I'll buy a copy. :)

Meters are often half a stop apart, sometimes a stop apart.

One thing I would like to see, and might suggest for your article, is a sidebar on what is used to set the standard for what they are measuring, and {dreaming i know} hints on how you can check your meter for accuracy.

JTK
08-01-2008, 07:22
I use a Gossen Digisix primarily. Dead accurate. It matches my Minolta Flashmeter IV's ambient readings at all light levels and in "normal" light levels it matches my two Canon F1s (both CLA and adjusted specifically to match the Minolta). By "match" I mean within 1/2 stop either way, for the most part, metering off the back of my hand (which is about 1/2 stop brighter than neutral grey).

Digisix is an excellent meter...it looks like junk because of its plastic, but that makes it light and makes it capable of withstanding virtually any abuse.

Digisix eats batteries...you have to carry a spare and I advocate removing the battery when it's in disuse..bad design, should be capable of shutting off.

Digisix is annoying in operation because it wants to give you the time and temp (really!) and it has an alarm clock function. Ridiculous. Still, as a meter it's exceptionally good (have used mine for 4 years).

Gumby
08-01-2008, 07:44
Part of the issue has to do with whether the interest/concern is a meter's precision, or accuracy. Also, an agreed definition of what "proper exposure" really is. Often these types of questions/comments/evaluations can't reach consensus on the basic terms.

Roger Hicks
08-01-2008, 08:25
Part of the issue has to do with whether the interest/concern is a meter's precision, or accuracy. Also, an agreed definition of what "proper exposure" really is. Often these types of questions/comments/evaluations can't reach consensus on the basic terms.

You are absolutely right, which is why Frances and I wrote the book 'Perfect Exposure', also translated into Spanish and French.

A major problem with exposure is that a lot of people know a certain amount about it; assume that this is all there is to know, regardless of how much or how little they actually know; and fiercely resist studying any of the real sensitometric theory behind it, because they think they already know it all (and because some of it can be quite hard).

Cheers,

R.

Gumby
08-01-2008, 08:42
Agreed... it is virtually impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who is convinced they "know it all", especially when there is resistance to listening to real data.

What some folks don't realize is that an exposure meter doesn't really determine exposure... it just gives data that is suggestive of an exposure. Whether relying on detailed knowledge of sensitometry, or relying on the many degrees of latitude in photographic processes, this remains a fact that many simply don't understand or can't accept.

There has been a lot of books/articles written about exposure over the years, but this aspect of meter usage seems to be largely overlooked by many readers/students.

Roger Hicks
08-01-2008, 08:51
Agreed... it is virtually impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who is convinced they "know it all", especially when there is resistance to listening to real data.

What some folks don't realize is that an exposure meter doesn't really determine exposure... it just gives data that is suggestive of an exposure.

My all time favourite was arguing with an otherwise knowledgeable photographer who was convinced that if you metered a grey card, there would automatically be enough detail in the shadow areas.

I asked him how the meter knew how much darker the shadows might be than a grey card.

"Well a grey card is Zone 5," he said, "So a shadow is always 3 stops darker..."

He would not accept that there is a difference between a misty day (brightness as low as 2:1) and a church with sunlight streaming through the window, where it can hit or even exceed 1000:1 between a sunlit white flower and the beams in a dark corner of the roof. I had him in mind when writing

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20subject%20brightness%20range.html

Then there are those who are convinced that an 'average' subject reflects 18% of the light falling on it; those who are unaware of the flare factor assumptions built into the ISO standard; those who are unaware what flare is...

Cheers,

R.

Windscale
08-01-2008, 09:09
I use the 'incident light' reading of my handheld about 99% of the time and do some mental adjustments based on those readings. I think this way I can get the right exposure easier than using 'reflected light' measurements where heavy reliance must be placed on the reflected surface ( which is normally not a grey card).

Sparrow
08-01-2008, 09:16
I’m flattered Roger, but you are misrepresenting my opinion there I’m afraid

Regards Stewart McBride

Solinar
08-01-2008, 09:18
Did the photographer with the grey card try an incident reading?

Cine photographers will film daylight scenes at night under artificial lighting because of the contrast ratio encountered under real daylight conditions, especially in summer. So, I'd be happier shooting on a misty day.

usagisakana
08-01-2008, 10:21
You are absolutely right, which is why Frances and I wrote the book 'Perfect Exposure', also translated into Spanish and French.

A major problem with exposure is that a lot of people know a certain amount about it; assume that this is all there is to know, regardless of how much or how little they actually know; and fiercely resist studying any of the real sensitometric theory behind it, because they think they already know it all (and because some of it can be quite hard).

Cheers,

R.

A very useful and well written book that is. If anyone wants to learn more about exposure I would heartily recommend it.

oscroft
08-01-2008, 10:56
I had him in mind when writing
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photo...s%20range.html
Hi Roger,

That's an excellent piece - everyone who thinks they know about exposure should read it (as should everyone who doesn't - so that's, er, everyone :rolleyes: ). The story of the guy with the grey card is really funny :D. And I've just ordered a copy of "Perfect Exposure", because even though I've been doing it for 40 years now, I know I still have plenty to learn about the subject.

But back to the subject of the thread, I've also wondered sometimes - I know meters vary in accuracy and precision (I've used plenty), and I know shutters vary too (ditto), and I then read people saying things like "Kodachrome must be exposed to within 1/3 stop accuracy". And I also read that some people prefer to expose KR at ISO 80, or whatever. And the same goes for other films - different people prefer to expose at different speeds, develop for different times, etc.

I'm sure at least some of that must be down to differences in equipment accuracy and precision, and it really reinforces the idea that you need to work out a process (consisting of film, exposure, development, etc) that works for you.

And interestingly, I've just shot a lot of KR64 (at ISO 64) in Thailand in my M6, and it generally looks ever so slightly underexposed. The last time I shot KR64 there was in my Pentax SP500, and at ISO 64 the exposures were fine. Maybe in my M6 I need to rate it at ISO 50?

Roger Hicks
08-01-2008, 11:07
Hi Roger,

That's an excellent piece - everyone who thinks they know about exposure should read it (as should everyone who doesn't - so that's, er, everyone :rolleyes: ). .. The last time I shot KR64 there was in my Pentax SP500, and at ISO 64 the exposures were fine. Maybe in my M6 I need to rate it at ISO 50?
Dear Alan,

God bless 'ee and keep 'ee, kind sir. And yes, re-rating to 50 is not unlikely, as old Pentaxes (at least in my experience) tend to expose, shall we say, generously. For the others:

Windscale: ANY metering system works well if you know how to interpret it, and I'd agree that incident is one of the easiest to interpret.

Simon: no, I'm not misrepresenting you as I was not talking about you.

Andrew: Not gonna matter much, if you know how to use a grey card. (Amazingly many don't, even though they think they're really clever). But incident is easier and (in my view) better.

Usigasakana: thanks to you too for the kind words.

Cheers,

Roger

oscroft
08-01-2008, 11:50
God bless 'ee and keep 'ee, kind sir.
And the same to you sir!

And yes, re-rating to 50 is not unlikely, as old Pentaxes (at least in my experience) tend to expose, shall we say, generously
That's interesting, thanks.

Something that has also struck me is that the stated exposure latitude of a film is not the end of the story. People can say you have 1/2 stop latitude with this film, or a 2 stop latitude with that film, but without knowing the lighting I think that's close to meaningless. Here in the north of the UK, for example, I've rarely had poorly exposed colour transparencies - not always perfect, but almost always usable. But in Thailand it has always been a lot harder getting good exposures - the greater the contrast range of the light, the harder it is to keep the two ends of the scale within useful range, and so the less the useful latitude.

And the same applies to something as generally forgiving as Tri-X. In British light I would rarely doubt my ability to get well exposed Tri-X shots. But in Thailand it's different. I can easily exceed its latitude, and so I find myself obsessing about writing notes about the lighting on the film cans with a Sharpie (and worrying about how to develop it when I end up shooting high contrast and low contrast shots on the same roll).

But it's all good fun :D

Roger Hicks
08-01-2008, 12:33
People can say you have 1/2 stop latitude with this film, or a 2 stop latitude with that film, but without knowing the lighting I think that's close to meaningless. Here in the north of the UK, for example, I've rarely had poorly exposed colour transparencies - not always perfect, but almost always usable. But in Thailand it has always been a lot harder getting good exposures - the greater the contrast range of the light, the harder it is to keep the two ends of the scale within useful range, and so the less the useful latitude.

And the same applies to something as generally forgiving as Tri-X. In British light I would rarely doubt my ability to get well exposed Tri-X shots. But in Thailand it's different. I can easily exceed its latitude, and so I find myself obsessing about writing notes about the lighting on the film cans with a Sharpie (and worrying about how to develop it when I end up shooting high contrast and low contrast shots on the same roll).

But it's all good fun :D

Absolutely true! I think you'll find with Tri-X, though, that while generous exposure (+1 stop or a little more) will give you dense highlights, you'll still be well within the latitude. i.e. you won't be on the shoulder. You may need grade 1 or 0, but you should still be able to print wet. Whether or not a scanner can penetrate the maximum densities is another matter.

Cut the dev time for the Thai pics by 10-15% and the contrasty ones should print fine on grade 1-2 and the flat ones on 3-4.

Cheers,

R.

weser
08-01-2008, 12:44
I am considering using a light meter (with spot meter). Thinking of buying a Sekonic L-758DR. Apparently, it's the first light meter for digital photography that can be profiled to match the sensor of one's camera. The M8 in my case.
The thing is pricey of course. Not only the darn meter but also the additional Exposure Profile Target one needs to do the profile programming.

Anyhow, is it really necessary to get such a tricked out thing when shooting digital or would an older model (with spot meter) be as good.

What do you think? And which model/brand would you recommend?
Thanks.

oscroft
08-01-2008, 12:48
Absolutely true! I think you'll find with Tri-X, though, that while generous exposure (+1 stop or a little more) will give you dense highlights, you'll still be well within the latitude. i.e. you won't be on the shoulder. You may need grade 1 or 0, but you should still be able to print wet. Whether or not a scanner can penetrate the maximum densities is another matter.

Cut the dev time for the Thai pics by 10-15% and the contrasty ones should print fine on grade 1-2 and the flat ones on 3-4
I'm only scanning these days, sadly - no room for a proper darkroom (but I do keep wondering if it's possible). 10-15% less dev time sounds like good advice, thanks - I'm sure I need to get thinner negs from my Thai shots. I'll be back there in September for another couple of months and should probably not take any film with me but just use up what I have in the fridge there (my wife keeps complaining that there's less and less room for food!), but I'll at least take some APX-400 (I've just got some from an eBay seller) and some Tri-X. And I'll go for less development.

Thanks again,

Roger Hicks
08-01-2008, 12:56
Anyhow, is it really necessary to get such a tricked out thing when shooting digital . . .

No. ANY meter will give good results when used with even a small amount of understanding. True, Pentax publishes compensation factors for pure colours but pure colours are pretty rare.

For digital, an incident meter will probably work better than spot. Like tranny, DNG's latitude is almost all on the side of underexposure: overexposure wil 'blow' highlights very smartly indeed. With neg, the latitude (which is significantly greater with most films than with tranny or digi) is almost all on the side of overexposure.

Unfortunately the bits of my site that go into metering in detail are subscriber-only ($30/year) so I can't link them and I'm hesitant even to promote them here; I try to promote only the free bits.

Cheers,

R.

oftheherd
08-01-2008, 12:56
The first light meter I bought for myself was a Sekonic Auto Leader. A relatively inexpensive reflective meter that had a high and low setting. I was actually pretty useful and accurate. Next I got a Sekonic L28c2. Although is has a reflective mode, I never felt it worked well that way. As an incident meter and for reading contrast, it was great, until I dropped it the last time. The it only worked when held sideways. A later one I picked up on ebay is pretty nice, but frankly, not as accurate as the first.

Between those two, I got a Gossen Luna Pro and a Gossen Luna Pro SBC. Both good meters. I prefer the Luna Pro in reflective mode, and the SBC in incident mode, but I think it works well in both.

BTW, I think the Chris101, the number two poster, meant he had a Luna Pro. The SBC, at least all I know, use 9 voldt batteries. The Luna Pro needs wein cells or an adaper as it used a mercury battery when new. Both those Gossens are great, especially at low light. I still think I got better exposures from my first L28c2. Probably the latter ones I have just need some calibration. I don like to test meters agains the sunny 16 rule, but I don't think they are always linear, even though they should be.

Dave Wilkinson
08-01-2008, 13:04
I'm a 'simple soul', and now as I enter my 'dotage' and take pictures mainly for my own pleasure/amusement, I rarely bother with my expensive spot meter, relying on knowledge of regular film stock, dev. procedures and recollections of similar lighting situations, etc.. In younger days, as a racing cyclist, I recall one world champion being asked how to become really profficient at cycling, replying 'ride a bike....ride a bike......ride a bike'. :)
Dave.

Ronald_H
08-01-2008, 13:18
Well, frankly, I have been photographing for 10 years. I shot digital and film. I know a lot about photography and have a good background in maths and physics. I really do not claim to know everything and am always willing to learn new things, but I'm not stoopid y'know.

But from this thread I get the strong impression that there is some underlying magic principle to good exposure that is near impossible for mere mortals to grasp. Forgive my cynism, but it's not rocket science. Or is it?

Livesteamer
08-01-2008, 13:30
Don't discount the complexity of good metering. Look at how Nikon and others do metering in an slr. Divide the screen into 1000 segments, meter each segment in three colors and send all that to the computer. If Leica could take the meter from my N90s and put it in an M body, I'd buy one. Till then I prefer my Sekonic L398 incident meter. Joe

Roger Hicks
08-01-2008, 13:31
Well, frankly, I have been photographing for 10 years. I shot digital and film. I know a lot about photography and have a good background in maths and physics. I really do not claim to know everything and am always willing to learn new things, but I'm not stoopid y'know.

But from this thread I get the strong impression that there is some underlying magic principle to good exposure that is near impossible for mere mortals to grasp. Forgive my cynism, but it's not rocket science. Or is it?

You certainly have the wrong impression as far as I am concerned, and I'm not quite sure how you have gained it.

No, getting good exposures isn't difficult: see my comment above that ANY meter will give good exposures if used with a modicum of intelligence or experience.

Nor is it especially difficult to grasp the underlying theory, though to be frank, there is little incentive to do so: it's more than easy enough on an empirical basis. And latitude takes care of a lot.

But there are quite a few people who latch onto a small part of exposure theory and imagine that it is the fons et origo of sensitometry, when it reality it may be anything from a collection of rules of thumb to a needlessly complicated sequence of shooting grey cards.

Cheers,

R.

JohnTF
08-01-2008, 15:22
A friend in LA has been using a printer/processor who worked with HCB, and he said he did a lot of compensation in the darkroom in terms of dealing with exposures. If so, he must be very good.

I will try and reconnect with my friend, there may be a reason for Roger and Frances to visit him, I can think of no better persons to chat him up.

Maybe I should use him. ;-)

Regards, John

charjohncarter
08-01-2008, 15:38
Roger, you point out the possible ways (including meter inaccuracies) a photo can go wrong. It is depressing. But here is a new one for me and my meter (Sekonic Master; 37 years old): we have been though very smoky skies here in California this summer (over a month). The glare from smoky skies has caused underexposure. not to mention ugly skies. Or maybe it is from one of you other factors.

Gumby
08-01-2008, 18:24
But from this thread I get the strong impression that there is some underlying magic principle to good exposure that is near impossible for mere mortals to grasp.

Here's my exposure formula (I'm a mere mortal also!):

(reliable meter) + (thoughtful user) + (reliable camera/shutter) + (film latitude) + (paper latitude) = decent exposure.

No magic underlaying pricnciples.

Easy enough, yes? :)

Roger Hicks
08-02-2008, 01:58
A friend in LA has been using a printer/processor who worked with HCB, and he said he did a lot of compensation in the darkroom in terms of dealing with exposures. If so, he must be very good.

I will try and reconnect with my friend, there may be a reason for Roger and Frances to visit him, I can think of no better persons to chat him up.

Maybe I should use him. ;-)

Regards, John

Dear John,

A few years ago, at Arles, Frances met one of HCB's printers (maybe the only one -- I don't know how many he had, over the years) and yes, she also gained the impression at HCB's mythical ability to frame and expose all his pics perfectly was, indeed, mythical.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks
08-02-2008, 02:04
Roger, you point out the possible ways (including meter inaccuracies) a photo can go wrong. It is depressing. But here is a new one for me and my meter (Sekonic Master; 37 years old): we have been though very smoky skies here in California this summer (over a month). The glare from smoky skies has caused underexposure. not to mention ugly skies. Or maybe it is from one of you other factors.

Hmmm... Are you sure it's underexposure, or lack of contrast making prints look muddy and therefore underexposed?

Equally, if you're used to including clear blue Californian skies (clear blue sky being a pretty good mid-tone) then white/silvery skies could well lead to under-exposure when the meter 'thinks' the scene is brighter than it is.

Obviously not a problem I've ever given any thought to, but I'll discuss it with Frances and continue to ruminate on it.

Cheers,

Roger

charjohncarter
08-02-2008, 08:05
Roger, could be your OR, all I know is it was a wasted month. This one you can see the smoke in about 150 meters, and this was on the coast. Thanks for asking Frances, it's funny how much I hear/learn from her, yet she is so quiet.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3048/2678323694_8f1c7658d5.jpg?v=1216919815

JohnTF
08-04-2008, 00:43
Dear John,

A few years ago, at Arles, Frances met one of HCB's printers (maybe the only one -- I don't know how many he had, over the years) and yes, she also gained the impression at HCB's mythical ability to frame and expose all his pics perfectly was, indeed, mythical.

Cheers,

R.

Will try to post you if I get the facts confirmed. Did I read somewhere that some of the first 35mm cameras were used to test short runs of film for correct exposure, before the time of meters? Maybe a new cart/horse relationship?

My friend Gabe in LA was sending his film to a Man, so I am guessing there were more than one printer.

Regards, John

charjohncarter
08-04-2008, 17:03
Dave Wilkinson, was that 'Mike the Bike?'

Drambuie
09-22-2008, 13:42
Over the years I've 'collected' a few Weston Master Vs, plus some more modern meters. The Westons always seemed dependable until I compared them against a brand new Sekonic and then I panicked a little. One 'newish' Weston would not adjust to the range of two others - the others did not agree with the Sekonic - the Sekonic didn't agree with a Lunasix 3S which had just been serviced by Gossen. Arghh!

But, after recording many readings with each meter and plotting them as a graph the truth dawned. Each meter had different characteristics, sensitivities and spectral responses - and the perceived differences were insignificant. Once I had noted these individual idiosyncracies, and labelled each meter with its 'tolerances', I felt quite reassured that they were all quite reliable, and (more importantly) that I really, fundamentally knew that meters are only a guide and that I really should trust my 40 years of experience more.

The moral? It ain't what you've got (or buy) that really matters, it's knowing how to use it ... My excuse for forgetting this was that I was seduced by a new piece of 'precision' gear .... I should've known better.

D'oh!

Richie
09-29-2008, 11:26
I have an old Gossen LunaPro SBC that I use in low light situations where my M6 TTL's meter does not work. The M6 TTL's meter also stops working after a while in freezing cold weather. In my experience, the Gossen is more accurate, and also can be used in incident mode. But for the vast majority of situations, the M6 TTL's meter works well with B&W and color slide film.

Roger Hicks
09-29-2008, 13:45
The moral? It ain't what you've got (or buy) that really matters, it's knowing how to use it ... My excuse for forgetting this was that I was seduced by a new piece of 'precision' gear .... I should've known better.
Absolutely. Yesterday I was talking to Dr. Nasse at Zeiss about compensating for the gear you own and use; the day before, to Keith Canham (Canham Cameras) about the same thing.

ANYTHING will work if you're used to it (Keith tells the story of his first elderly exposure meter, where he rated Plus-X at 6 to get consistently good results) but too many people spend too much time with ever-changing meters, lenses, shutters, films, developers...

Standardize as far as possible. Then take pictures. As someone else (or possibly I) said in an earlier post: it ain't rocket science.

Cheers,

R.