Hybrid shooting - Is this a thing?

[Jack Bulkley]

About 2 years ago I got a used D800 and some decent lenses and started working on my photography. Then about 6 months ago I got a F5 so I could try film with the same lenses. But I had to work myself up to actually use some film. I am treating it as too precious. It has helped for me to compose and take test shots with the D800 set to the same ISO as the film in the F5. Once I find something I like I switch the lens to the F5 and make some photos. I expect to grow out of this stage but I was wondering if other people do this. It seems related to taking Polaroids in the past as part of setting up studio sessions. Do other people do this? Is there a name for it?

Headed for retirement and more time for photography,
Jack

 

[BMbikerider]

That sounds very long winded way to go about it. The F5 is a good camera almost certainly built to a better standard than you D800 and setting the same ISO on either camera will or should give you similar results. There is no real need to use one then swap it over to a second camera. The F5 meter still has to be improved and your D800 whilst a newer camera will have no significant changes.

It often surprises me that people will spend a vast amount of money on a digital camera body which will be changed in a couple of years or less for the latest all bells and whistles digitaldevice and then think a roll of film is expensive? I just don't understand it.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

There's nothing wrong with using a digital camera for test shots. I shoot 4x5 and 6x7 and do the very same - folks have been doing this for years and its really not terribly different from when we used Polaroid backs - though you'd want to be sure you are using the same focal length and ISO settings and even then be aware of variations in format/perspective and so on. I also scan my negatives for proofing before going into the darkroom to print for reference. I've not heard a name for these practices, and if there isn't one here's a chance to coin a new term- like Digital Previewing or something else.

Michael

 

[darkosaric]

Final print is most important. As well as the journey to the print and fun. There are no rules .

And welcome to the forum!

 

[Ces1um]

Nothing wrong with doing it that way at all. That being said, your camera's meter works well and at worst you'll always get a fairly usable shot. I wouldn't sweat it and just try a roll by itself without the camera. If you're really worried about the cost of a roll, just shoot some cheap kodak gold or superia and that way if you completely blow it (which really is highly unlikely) you're only out a few bucks. It might be good to look up some rules about when not to trust your meter (like in snow or back lit subjects) but you'll always get an image.

 

[jeffreyg]

I use film and digital depending on the circumstance. I also use my phone camera along with whichever I am using because the GPS in it records the location so I don't have to take notes. I agree that it is the image that counts. Some of my film capture images are with a pinhole camera.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://wwwsculptureandphotography.com/

 

[nmp]

There's nothing wrong with using a digital camera for test shots. I shoot 4x5 and 6x7 and do the very same - folks have been doing this for years and its really not terribly different from when we used Polaroid backs - though you'd want to be sure you are using the same focal length and ISO settings and even then be aware of variations in format/perspective and so on. I also scan my negatives for proofing before going into the darkroom to print for reference. I've not heard a name for these practices, and if there isn't one here's a chance to coin a new term- like Digital Previewing or something else.

Michael

I think it was called Proofing. Polaroid even designated their Type 54 film as proofing film whose exposure characteristic was matched to ISO 100 Chromes.

 

[bdial]

I had a recent studio project that involved a very difficult lighting set up. Doing all the initial shots on digital was extremely valuable. In my case, I used a flash meter to meter the film shots and used manual settings on the digi which I adjusted based on the results.

 

[jim10219]

I've done that for large format shots many times. Only you can't switch the lens over. I've also done that for studio portrait shots or long exposures to make sure I've got the lighting and exposure right (although with long exposures you also have to factor in the reciprocity failure of film that digital doesn't have). Sometimes the modeling lights will tell you one thing, but the flashes will give you something else. So it's nice to have a quick sample you can double check on.

However, for everyday shots with a 35mm film camera, I've never done that. No need. Film isn't cheap, but it's not ridiculously expensive either (especially if you can afford an F5 and D800). For 35mm film cameras, I compose through the viewfinder, and meter the scene. I've got enough experience to know what the exposure will need to be based on what my meter says, and when not to trust it. But if there's any doubt, I'll bracket the shot. And for some things, like IR photography, I always bracket the shots.

The reason why I'm much more likely to do a test shot on large format, is because with the price of film and developing, I could be looking at close to $10 a shot. Also, due to the price of film, the quality of digital, and the ability for instant feedback, if I'm doing a photograph for money, I always use the digital. I might use a film camera as well to supplement the digital, but always take backups with the digital just to make sure I got the shots that I needed. Film is for fun. I prefer film. But I know it's limitations and work within them.

 

[Jack Bulkley]

Thanks for all the feedback. I am old enough to have some patience with learning things, but I am getting used to the slow pace of feedback from shooting film. From my first roll I learned a couple of things. Pay more attention to the horizon. It is not so easy to fix. Keep better notes and get through a roll faster, so I can remember what I did. I have a few cases of trickier lighting where the exposure was enough off in the prints that it was an issue. It seems experience (and bracketing) might be what is needed. At least for now, I like having at least a few digital images for reference. I have a roll of black and white at the lab where I have much better notes (aperture and shutter for every shot). I either have to get used to the waiting or setup to develop it myself.

I also use my iPhone to record location. Usually both with a GPS track and reference photos.

 

[dkonigs]

I had a recent studio project that involved a very difficult lighting set up. Doing all the initial shots on digital was extremely valuable. In my case, I used a flash meter to meter the film shots and used manual settings on the digi which I adjusted based on the results.

Yeah, this is a case where it makes perfect sense. Getting all the nuances of a lighting setup right can take a ton of trial and error, and "Test Polaroids" are no longer a thing. I've done the same when tinkering with my own simplistic setups (which still have annoying hotspot/darkspot issues).

 

[Ariston]

I did something similar when I was learning to use a handheld light meter. I would meter the scene, then use my digital camera in manual mode to see how it turned out. Although I don't carry a digital camera with me anymore, it is an invaluable tool for learning. So much easier than how it used to be... develop the film to see now you did. Do what works best for you.

And welcome to Photrio!

 

[Luckless]

I've found using a digital camera to be a valuable tool for my film work at times, but lately it has often ended up in the form of reference/scouting efforts more than anything.

Being able to grab some snapshots of something I like, then go back to more carefully consider possible composition options, has been handy.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Using same lens on film and digital, same way is very convenient.
F on any F, EF on any EF, R and M on any M. As long as it is matching negatives, sensor size cameras.
I have EOS film and digital, M film and digital.
But I don’t use same at the same time. I don’t have time for double effort.

 

[darkosaric]

For me waiting for the result, and not seeing the results immediately is not a flaw, but actually advantage of using film. You can better select good ones against bad ones after some time, when emotions of the scene and shootings are gone.

 

[locutus]

I find this most useful for 5x4.

When I shoot portrait sessions on large format I always check the lightning on digital first to verify exposure and fills. Too much of a risk to screw up and leave someone disappointed.

Fir lf landscape or architecture I'm familiar enough with how to meter for it and critically have the time to do so.

So yeah, it's a thing.

 

[Pioneer]

I'm sure I'll eventually work this all out, I usually do, but it is always nice to have some advice from those who are currently doing it. As may be obvious, I feel a lot more comfortable working with 35mm and even 120 film than I do using large format. I did some 8x10 work last year but am not yet happy with the results, even at the contact print stage. Some of the issues could be with my printing but I'm pretty sure my negatives aren't as good as they should be to get decent prints. I am a big Weston fan but he is in no danger of being upstaged by my pathetic results.

For those that are using a digital camera as a polaroid for their large format work, it would be interesting to get some input on your process. I started using a small digital camera to preview my 8x10 work before I expose the sheet but haven't really had the kind of success with it that I would like. Are you evaluating your resulting exposure on the small digital display screen or are you looking for a specific histogram result? In addition, are any of you using the digital camera to help determine where best to focus on your landscapes?

BTW, if this is hijacking the thread I have no problem starting a new one, just let me know.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yes, it's perfectly legitimate to use a digital camera to preview an image before shooting on film.

Bear in mind that the response of the sensor is going to be more like color slide film than color or B&W negative film. You may be able to adjust the contrast settings to make a preset on your digital camera that's closer to the film you're using, but it won't be exact and takes some practice to see how it works.

If you're using a filter with B&W film, shoot in B&W mode and use the same filter, or adjust ISO setting on the digital camera to avoid exposure errors. Remember, it won't look exactly like the film image as you may decide to print it. It's just an approximation and takes some practice.

If you're shooting a larger format film than the digital camera, don't forget about bellows factor or your film will likely be underexposed unless you are shooting landscapes focused at or near infinity! If you're shooting large format portraits or tabletop setups, the exposure difference is significant. One option in this case to spot check exposure in different parts of the LF image is to use a sliding DSLR adapter on your LF camera, and you can shoot at the same ISO setting as your film, but it helps if you can focus on the rear standard to adjust for the difference between the DSLR focal plane with the adapter and the film focal plane, without messing up the rest of your camera setup.