I have been enlarging for 50 years. I have used a number of methods to estimate time setting. Paterson and Ilford have meters to help with this time consuming task.

At B&H: Ilford EM10 : $24.00 Paterson EM1030: $110.00

At my age, convenience is worth a few extra bucks; but if the Ilford machine does the same thing as the Paterson, I would hate to think I would kiss goodbye to $86.00.

Has anyone any experience with these meters ?

Thanks Bruce Karnopp

-- Bruce Karnopp (karnopp@umich.edu), January 28, 2002

Answers

You should also consider the Zonemaster II from RH Designs in England. Their exposure meter is incredible! Go to their website at www.rhdesigns.co.uk Since I have the Zonemaster, I do not need to do band test most of the time. By the way, I do not work for them...

-- Toan Nguyen (toan.nguyen@videotron.ca), January 28, 2002.

Yeah and the zone master will set you back about 500 if I remeber correctly. As good as their equipment is.....I think I will stick with testing on paper. I used the EM 10 and frankly found it a waste of time....I did not save any paper or time with it. I dont know about the paterson one, so maybe it is better.

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (jorgegm58@prodigy.net.mx), January 29, 2002.

There doesn't seem to be much functional difference between the two. The Ilford meter uses a Cds cell, I believe, while the Paterson meter has a Silicon photodiode. Apart from that, I don't think there's much to choose between them.
Most of Paterson's electronic darkroom aids started life as Philips products. Paterson took them over when Philips pulled out of the darkroom market, and have now gradually withdrawn most of them from sale, which is a great pity.
I have a Philips PD2030 meter-timer, which saves a LOT of time. It uses a similar sensor to the EM1030, but the meter is coupled to an enlarger timer; very convenient and remarkably accurate.
If you can find one of those 2nd hand, either Philips or Paterson badged, it'll save you more time than either the EM1030 or Ilfords little metering wand.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), January 29, 2002.

My experience is that the most useful meter is one that easily reads shadow and highlight areas and which can be quickly calibrated to your tastes and whose readings are easily tweaked from session to session to accommodate variations in print characteristics. My favorite was the Heathkit-Mitchell, long out of production. It was basically a galvanometer with a sensor wand. I now have an RH Designs Analyser Pro (see theRH Designs web site). Much more complex, It does what it is designed to do but is not all that easily tweaked and still requires my making test strips, especially when printing portraits. However, I haven't as much experience with it as I had with the Heathkit, and this may affect my assessment of it. The meters I found most useless were the little gadgets that merely flashed colored lights as they were placed here and there in the image or which did not meter highlight and shadow separately but tried for some over-all reading.

-- Keith Nichols (knichols1@mindspring.com), January 30, 2002.

I use a analite meter that I picked up used for $10. It is a bit of a time saver, as I use a diffuser under the enlarging lens and get an average reading. With a decent negative, I make the first work print at Grade 1 1/2. The meter usually gets me very close to the correct exposure time on the first print. I don't use the meter for anything else. The Ilford meter will work the same way.

-- Gene Crumpler (hassieguy@att.net), January 30, 2002.