TLR recommendations?

auntiemaryscanary said:
What have I got wrong here? Am I right in thinking severe underexposure? Only 1 of the 12 seems anywhere near right (house- greenhouse) and one or 2 others may be saveable. I think I dev'd the Fomapan 100 correctly for 6.5 mins in ID-11. The light was poor when I took these but something is seriously amiss. I'm off to check I didn't have my light meter set for 400 or something.

View attachment 375270

View attachment 375271


View attachment 375272

Positive is I got it onto the spiral easily and I got the start line on the backing paper in the right place for the 1st time! Good job I went with my cheapest film.
Click to expand...
Yes I would suggest a serious metering issue of at least a couple of stops ( which would relate to a 400 as against 100 asa meter setting)

EDIT, dont forget there are many other camera/ user errors to consider too such as shutter speed, aperture or filters
 
Last edited:
Asha said:
Yes I would suggest a serious metering issue of at least a couple of stops ( which would relate to a 400 as against 100 asa meter setting)

EDIT, dont forget there are many other camera/ user errors to consider too suc
Click to expand...

Thanks @Asha . I'm now 99.9% sure it is a 2 stop metering issue. The light meter I used was set to 100 asa. I've held up the light meter used today plus a different one (that I've used in the last 2 weeks that I've been happy with) side by side around 2 feet from a household light bulb and taken readings.

Bisix 2 recently purchased from a reputable camera company and used today/yesterday:

IMG_20221204_210348134.jpg

Sixtino:

IMG_20221204_205946232.jpg

Once or twice whilst using the Bisix today I thought that's quite a high shutter speed / f stop combo for a dull overcast day on 100 asa film but trusted the readings... Won't be using the Bisix again!
 
auntiemaryscanary said:
Thanks @Asha . I'm now 99.9% sure it is a 2 stop metering issue. The light meter I used was set to 100 asa. I've held up the light meter used today plus a different one (that I've used in the last 2 weeks that I've been happy with) side by side around 2 feet from a household light bulb and taken readings.

Bisix 2 recently purchased from a reputable camera company and used today/yesterday:

View attachment 375279

Sixtino:

View attachment 375278

Once or twice whilst using the Bisix today I thought that's quite a high shutter speed / f stop combo for a dull overcast day on 100 asa film but trusted the readings... Won't be using the Bisix again!
Click to expand...
Maybe you can return the Bisix for a refund?
 
Asha said:
Maybe you can return the Bisix for a refund?
Click to expand...
It crossed my mind. It seemed accurate against other meters when it arrived, perhaps I've knocked it, who knows. It also has a rear calibration screw.

Anyway I've been in the cupboard and got out the Weston V and a Leningrad 4 and I'll compare them against the Sixtino tomorrow in natural light.

Today's lesson is don't rely on a single meter and if I've not 2 meters with me at least do a Sunny 16 sense check.
 
auntiemaryscanary said:
It crossed my mind. It seemed accurate against other meters when it arrived, perhaps I've knocked it, who knows. It also has a rear calibration screw.

Anyway I've been in the cupboard and got out the Weston V and a Leningrad 4 and I'll compare them against the Sixtino tomorrow in natural light.

Today's lesson is don't rely on a single meter and if I've not 2 meters with me at least do a Sunny 16 sense check.
Click to expand...
If my gut feeling tells me that something doesn't add up with what the meter suggests, i generally go with whqt i feel based on sunny 16 and expeienc.

I generally use a lunasix and have on moe than one occzsion not had the dials aligned correctly.
 
auntiemaryscanary said:
It crossed my mind. It seemed accurate against other meters when it arrived, perhaps I've knocked it, who knows. It also has a rear calibration screw.

Anyway I've been in the cupboard and got out the Weston V and a Leningrad 4 and I'll compare them against the Sixtino tomorrow in natural light.

Today's lesson is don't rely on a single meter and if I've not 2 meters with me at least do a Sunny 16 sense check.
Click to expand...
Might be a stupid question (if you haven't got one) but couldn't you use your digi camera for an exposure reading? And with the latitude of neg film can always add a stop for luck.
 
excalibur2 said:
Might be a stupid question (if you haven't got one) but couldn't you use your digi camera for an exposure reading? And with the latitude of neg film can always add a stop for luck.
Click to expand...
I have a digi camera but it is on permanent loan to my mum. I prefer a stand alone light meter (or 2 now!). When it gets as light as it's going to today I'm going outside to check my 3 other meters to see if they seem accurate. When I'm at my mum's I'll check the light meters against mine and my mum's digi cameras for further re-assurance.
 
auntiemaryscanary said:
I have a digi camera but it is on permanent loan to my mum. I prefer a stand alone light meter (or 2 now!). When it gets as light as it's going to today I'm going outside to check my 3 other meters to see if they seem accurate. When I'm at my mum's I'll check the light meters against mine and my mum's digi cameras for further re-assurance.
Click to expand...
In case you have forgotten the best way to compare (test) film light meters is to point them at a Kodak grey card and if you have a colour printer can download one...but they are small in size so the next best thing is grey paving, green grass even blue sky ( o_O ) and these are roughly accurate.
A strange thing about very old camera meters is:- as a quick check for exposure I know by sitting at a certain postion and pointing the camera at the light bulb I get a reading, well the light bulb is the older version that looks like twisted worms and very old camera meters give a wrong reading but in daylight give a correct reading.........and can't work out why as light is light.
 
Following exhaustive testing (thanks @excalibur2 for the tips) the Bisix 2 appears the least accurate

IMG_20221205_144442027.jpg
(All tests done at 100asa - Random was at a tree and sky)

The Bisix 2 is 1 stop under and in real life conditions 2 stops under so that is going to be put away for now.

I think I will use the Sixtino as the main meter with the Soviet as a spare in the camera bag. The Weston can be the spare spare - the dials are bit loose.
 
auntiemaryscanary said:
Following exhaustive testing (thanks @excalibur2 for the tips) the Bisix 2 appears the least accurate

View attachment 375334
(All tests done at 100asa - Random was at a tree and sky)

The Bisix 2 is 1 stop under and in real life conditions 2 stops under so that is going to be put away for now.

I think I will use the Sixtino as the main meter with the Soviet as a spare in the camera bag. The Weston can be the spare spare - the dials are bit loose.
Click to expand...
With some old cameras and esp ones that I've subsituted 1.375v to 1.5v battery...I've just changed the ISO on the dial to agree with known accurate cameras for accurate exposure. Well if you find the Bisix 2 convenient to use and going to use the same ISO film you could do that. Of course if you change to a different ISO film you might have to recalibrate or check if accurate at the new ISO. Anyway worth checking if the Bisex 2 (or any meter) is accurate over a range of exposures with an adjusted ISO.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
A strange thing about very old camera meters is:- as a quick check for exposure I know by sitting at a certain postion and pointing the camera at the light bulb I get a reading, well the light bulb is the older version that looks like twisted worms and very old camera meters give a wrong reading but in daylight give a correct reading.........and can't work out why as light is light.
Click to expand...

Actually, it isn't. "Light" comes in different wavelengths (which we perceive as different colours) and neither meters nor our eyes are equally sensitive to all wavelengths equally. Our eyes respond much more to green than to blue for example, and unlike some insects not at all to UV. Meters are the same; and when you come to modern bulbs without a continuous spectrum (some wavelengths not present) all it takes is a significant mismatch between what the bulb emits and the meter responds to to create an erroneous reading.

When silicon blue cells came out for metering with faster response times than the CdS meters they replaced, it was also revealed by the marketeers that CdS meters were overly sensitive to red (which is why metering with a red filter over the meter will result in underexposure compared to doing the same thing with a yellow of green one).
 
StephenM said:
Actually, it isn't. "Light" comes in different wavelengths (which we perceive as different colours) and neither meters nor our eyes are equally sensitive to all wavelengths equally. Our eyes respond much more to green than to blue for example, and unlike some insects not at all to UV. Meters are the same; and when you come to modern bulbs without a continuous spectrum (some wavelengths not present) all it takes is a significant mismatch between what the bulb emits and the meter responds to to create an erroneous reading.

When silicon blue cells came out for metering with faster response times than the CdS meters they replaced, it was also revealed by the marketeers that CdS meters were overly sensitive to red (which is why metering with a red filter over the meter will result in underexposure compared to doing the same thing with a yellow of green one).
Click to expand...
Well I bow to better knowledge but film camera meters (dunno about digi) can't see colours only shades of grey but as you say if different wavelengths of light can affect meters then that explains the difference taking an exposure reading from say tungsten bulb to energy efficient modern one that confuses very old camera meters in my example.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Well I bow to better knowledge but film camera meters (dunno about digi) can't see colours only shades of grey but as you say if different wavelengths of light can affect meters then that explains the difference taking an exposure reading from say tungsten bulb to energy efficient modern one that confuses very old camera meters in my example.
Click to expand...
There again it could simply be user error :exit::LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I bow to better knowledge but film camera meters (dunno about digi) can't see colours only shades of gre
Click to expand...
Where on earth did you get that from?

Both Selenium and Cadmium Sulphide cells are sensitive across a similar spectrum to film and the human eye. There are different levels of response at different wavelengths but these are irrelevant in general use.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Where on earth did you get that from?

Both Selenium and Cadmium Sulphide cells are sensitive across a similar spectrum to film and the human eye. There are different levels of response at different wavelengths but these are irrelevant in general use.
Click to expand...
Information I picked up over time re film camera meters can't see colours but see them in shades of grey......Holywood film producers used to use a special filter to see (by eye) what the camera meter sees for exposure, but have no idea how they get exposure readings these days.
 
excalibur2 said:
Information I picked up over time re film camera meters can't see colours but see them in shades of grey......Holywood film producers used to use a special filter to see (by eye) what the camera meter sees for exposure, but have no idea how they get exposure readings these days.
Click to expand...
I've never heard that before...

There were (and still are) viewing filters that you can use to effectively strip awsy the colour from a scene to let you see approximately what a black and white film will record.

Light meters do what it says on the tin, and measure light. Light comes in different intensities, and all the colours of the rainbow (plus loads of others we can't see) but one thing it doesn't come in is grey. Colours are product of our brains; the real world of light has wavelengths and intensities.

You can fairly easily dig out graphs showing the relative sensitivity of various types of light meter cells, our eyes, and different films.

I can't quite see how a Hollywood producer would translate his vision into an exposure, even if a special filter could (very cleverly) adjust simultaneously to balance human spectral responses, meter cell spectral responses and film spectral responses.
 
Asha said:
There again it could simply be user error :exit::LOL::LOL::LOL:
Click to expand...
:) It's possible and all a mountain out of a molehill as some of these old cameras meters seem to take time to "warm up" and think I have allowed for that...anyway it's only a rough check at night before daylight test, as even my latest cameras don't exactly agree the exposure.....but as mentioned my very old camera meters are way out compared to daylight test. But hey who takes shots of energy saving bulbs o_O:rolleyes:
 
StephenM said:
I've never heard that before...

There were (and still are) viewing filters that you can use to effectively strip awsy the colour from a scene to let you see approximately what a black and white film will record.

Light meters do what it says on the tin, and measure light. Light comes in different intensities, and all the colours of the rainbow (plus loads of others we can't see) but one thing it doesn't come in is grey. Colours are product of our brains; the real world of light has wavelengths and intensities.

You can fairly easily dig out graphs showing the relative sensitivity of various types of light meter cells, our eyes, and different films.

I can't quite see how a Hollywood producer would translate his vision into an exposure, even if a special filter could (very cleverly) adjust simultaneously to balance human spectral responses, meter cell spectral responses and film spectral responses.
Click to expand...
Well stephen we are going around in circles as I posted "light is light" whether a scene (or a shot of a light source) from tungsten, energy efficient, LED or road lights or whatever is reasonable we will still get a picture on film...ok for colour might need some work in Photoshop.
 
excalibur2 said:
Information I picked up over time re film camera meters can't see colours but see them in shades of grey
Click to expand...
Post a reference backing that assertion up and I'll look into it - but I rather doubt there is such a claim.
 
Well sorry for side tracking a TLR thread and just AAMOI to wrap it up:-
SRT101b with mercury battery, reading from pointing at:- energy efficient bulb. way out, computer screen 2 stops out, tungsten bulb way out and for my grey paving (roughly near a 18% grey card it was spot on, Also my Weston III was way out pointing at a energy efficient bulb and tungsten light.......but all my later cameras roughly agree with each other.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
That is, regretably, incorrect.

The photo electric cells respond to all wavelengths of visible light. Exposure meters were generally calibrated against an 18% grey card, which corresponded to an "average" scene in terms of monochrome film. I think this is where the misunderstanding is coming from.
Click to expand...
Well there are many sites that are wrong then re camera meter seeing in shades of grey and not colour...... also maybe DSLR meters are more accurate (in seeing colour) than film camera meters, which could explain answers. But to me, in the beginning, it seems logical to produce meters that only see black to white in shades of grey and that is why Kodak produced a 18% grey card and not red, blue, green etc one.
 
Last edited:
Later cameras may be digital, and possibly take the reading from the signals from the actual pixels which, by virtue of having red green and blue filters over each site effectively measure through three colored filters and average. This may be better at dealing with discontinuous spectra. I don't know if my assumption is correct as to how the metering works nor whether this would make a difference.

I still maintain that simply as a matter of physics you can only measure intensity of light and its wavelength. Grey light simply doesn't exist. It might seem logical that meters would only measure grey because the first colour photograph was only produced nearly 40 years after the first photograph in 1826, and commercial colour processes weren't available until 1902 (or 1904 - can't recall exactly - look up Autochrome). I suspect most meters were made after this date.... In fairness, our eyes have two different types of light receptors, one of which effectively kicks in in dim light and is not colour responsive (which is why everything is grey at night). The physiology of the eye, and how we see colours is very off topic though.

The 18% grey card is itself only the result of pressure on Kodak to make it 18%, rather than the 12% that meters are (according to the standards) calibrated for (you have to dig through the figures to realise that this is what they actually come down to) and that's why Kodak give the instructions to turn the card at 45 degrees to the light simply to reduce the overall figure to give the correct result. See Ctein Post Exposure for more details.

This will be my final post on this topic in this thread - sorry for the digression.
 
StephenM said:
Later cameras may be digital, and possibly take the reading from the signals from the actual pixels which, by virtue of having red green and blue filters over each site effectively measure through three colored filters and average. This may be better at dealing with discontinuous spectra. I don't know if my assumption is correct as to how the metering works nor whether this would make a difference.

I still maintain that simply as a matter of physics you can only measure intensity of light and its wavelength. Grey light simply doesn't exist. It might seem logical that meters would only measure grey because the first colour photograph was only produced nearly 40 years after the first photograph in 1826, and commercial colour processes weren't available until 1902 (or 1904 - can't recall exactly - look up Autochrome). I suspect most meters were made after this date.... In fairness, our eyes have two different types of light receptors, one of which effectively kicks in in dim light and is not colour responsive (which is why everything is grey at night). The physiology of the eye, and how we see colours is very off topic though.

The 18% grey card is itself only the result of pressure on Kodak to make it 18%, rather than the 12% that meters are (according to the standards) calibrated for (you have to dig through the figures to realise that this is what they actually come down to) and that's why Kodak give the instructions to turn the card at 45 degrees to the light simply to reduce the overall figure to give the correct result. See Ctein Post Exposure for more details.

This will be my final post on this topic in this thread - sorry for the digression.
Click to expand...
Just AAMOI as Asha is mainly interested in B\W the nearest filter to see by eye a colour scene in B/W (couldn't find what old Hollywood film produces used)..was IIRC something like a sepia?, which I sent to him, and I assume it would show what colours were e.g. darker or whatever to adjust for exposure.....dunno if he used it or of any use.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well there are many sites that are wrong then
Click to expand...
That is a given.

It is not unreasonable to assume that any site, like history, is more or less bunk.

Anyway, to get back on track, here's a happy TLR user at work...

Kirsten with Rollie Magic.jpg
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Just AAMOI as Asha is mainly interested in B\W the nearest filter to see by eye a colour scene in B/W (couldn't find what old Hollywood film produces used)..was IIRC something like a sepia?, which I sent to him, and I assume it would show what colours were e.g. darker or whatever to adjust for exposure.....dunno if he used it or of any use.
Click to expand...

Yes I still have that filter somewhere .

It kinda offered a monochrome rendering though far from what I would expect or indeed obtain using b&w negative film .

Not sure if it is sepia ….. I’d have to dig it out and read it’s reference.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top