[rollei_list] Re: Weston Master (was f16)
- From: "redleica" <redleica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:34:13 +0000 GMT
I would like to interject with what I believe are valid insights, I have been
thinking about the popularity of Weston Light Meters and besides the robust
build and long battery free life, which I believe are both very advantageous:
the favored status may stem from the fact that users are not just avid
photographers but also avid collectors.
There would apper to be no user advantage maybe design advantage but this does
not translate into creating better photographs necessarily.
Although one collects and and does use famous German branded cameras and lenses
this is because they are the best of the catogory and hence make the most
beautiful images.
I know that beautiful is a subjective evaluation but I'm sure there is at leat
a modicum of agreement on this issue as we are after all Rollei users.
Not to labour the point further I shall refrain from further comment on this
issue.
-----Original Message-----
From: "john" <raga@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:49:32
To:rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Weston Master (was f16)
I recently had a Weston Master II and a Master IV recelled by QLM;
they are in exact sync with each other; and with a Luna-Pro SBC and a
Minolta Flash Meter IV (with the II set to Weston 320 for 400 ASA
film).
However before recelling, the II, while usable, was reasonably linear
but reading about a stop slow...over 60 years it had lost some
sensitivity; on the IV the cell was more or less shot. Conclusion:
there is no more accurate, more reliable, or more enjoyable to use
meter than an up-to-spec Weston Master II. (Its Newark build quality
is better than the Japanese IV.)
--John Wilton
ragarecords.com/photo
>
>From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:48:28
> I have several meters, mostly pretty old, which generally
>agree. The one that doesn't always is a Weston Master II. I
>think this is because it has a much wider acceptance angle
>than the others. Also, it seems to me (and others with
>Westons can check this) that the meter reads right when set
>for about half the Weston equivalent of the ISO speed. I no
>longer have the standard Weston used. The usual rule is to
>use the next lowest Weston speed to the ISO speed but this
>underexposes by about a stop on all Weston meters using the
>original Westons speeds.
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Thanks for your message,
God bless You.
Marvin.
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
