Large format pre-shots

Ron789 said:

Where do you guys get Polaroid 4x5 film for $2 a pop? The only current offering that I've been able to find is New55, at 75 Euro ($88) for a 5-pack, i.e. $17 per pop.

Click to expand...

the post in which that price is referred to was made in 2005 ...

Ah... you're right.
So I guess it's realistic to say that Polaroid is no longer a viable option today. As Momus mentioned, spending a few extra sheets of film is an option.
I have experimented with a digital (yes..... digital) camera side-by-side with the analog camera, doing a preview with the digital camera. And then trigger both at the same time with a double cable release to check the actual shot. Of course the images are never 100% identical, but most of the time close enough.

Ron789 said:

Where do you guys get Polaroid 4x5 film for $2 a pop? The only current offering that I've been able to find is New55, at 75 Euro ($88) for a 5-pack, i.e. $17 per pop.

Click to expand...

Notice the dates on the posts talking about Polaroid at $2/sheet. Those are from 2005!

The only time I've used tesy shots is with studio lighting to check the balance and effects of the lighting and when Polariod film was chaep this was feasible, these days a DSLR is a better option.

Composition and exposure though don't need test shots that's about knowing your equipment composing on the GG screen and having a light meter you can trust and use properly.

Ian

For focus/exposure/lighting/composition, I stage my large format shots with a digital camera. Since I'm working primarily with 8x10 Impossible film, sometimes I'll use a Spectra or 600 frame taped inside the holder if I need to test film response.

So Polaroid (instant) proofing is not currently a workable option.

Digital (gasp) has been mentioned. What are the pros and cons of proofing with a digital camera? Understanding that framing will not be identical.

Drew Bedo said:

So Polaroid (instant) proofing is not currently a workable option.

Digital (gasp) has been mentioned. What are the pros and cons of proofing with a digital camera? Understanding that framing will not be identical.

Click to expand...

The ISO settings on a digital camera are not true ISO settings - while ISO 200 on camera X is 1 stop less sensitive than ISO 400 on the same camera, if you set three different brands of camera side by side, set their ISO dials to 200, and point them at the same subject, you will get different readings for the actual exposure, sometimes by as much as a whole stop. You can use your digicam as an overall lighting and composition proofer, but you'll still need to break out your hand-held meter and meter for your strobes (or hotlights) after you're done. And of course, you can't use it to gauge depth-of-field in the scene because you're using a wildly different focal length lens.

Drew Bedo said:

So Polaroid (instant) proofing is not currently a workable option.

Digital (gasp) has been mentioned. What are the pros and cons of proofing with a digital camera? Understanding that framing will not be identical.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned above the advantage is being able to check lighting, particularly in a studio. I never found Polaroid reliable for checking actual exposure and never use any form of proof outside of a studio setup.

A DSLR is no help checking sharpness etc when using LF particularly when using movements.

Ian

bvy said:

For focus/exposure/lighting/composition, I stage my large format shots with a digital camera.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why I typed focus. It makes no sense to test focus with a digital camera for a large format shot. Otherwise, if I'm starting from scratch to set something up, I might put my digital camera in the spot of my 8x10, with a roughly equivalent ISO and focal length, just to get the overall framing and modeling and lighting in the ballpark. Then I'll move the real camera [wink] into its place and make refinements from there.

A DSLR lets you check composition and lighting to an extent, as long as you bear in mind that the response of the sensor is something like color slide film. If you're shooting negative film in the camera, then you can use a higher contrast ratio.

Like Polaroid, you need to calibrate it to that it works for your application, and maybe figure out what kind of post-processing you can set up (if the shooting situation allows for it), or HDR/bracketing, lets you approximate the look of the film you are shooting, and then you still may have to make some corrections in your head, based on how the image looks on screen. Maybe it's just easier to know the working EI and exposure range of the film you're using, meter accordingly, look at the groundglass for composition, and go with it.

narsuitus said:

What are you using to perform pre-shots to make sure your exposure and composition are correct?

Click to expand...

My eyeballs!

4x5 Polaroid is history now, as far as having a range of stocks that are suitable for proofing a particular film (and it was no magic bullet - you did have to test and know how different, say, tungsten polaroid rendered vs. your final 320T film). But it was great for checking overall light balance, looking for odd little reflections or things you didn't spot through the ground glass - and getting client signoff.

I did a lot... I mean a LOT... of illustrative product work, with 5 or 6 or more lights and tons of reflectors and products layered on sheets of glass and so on, in the pre-photoshop era - I might have 3 or 4 exposures on one sheet with focus and lighting changes between pops. There was absolutely zero chance of doing that sort of work without polaroid. It was a big part of my business (even for straight shoots, the cool stuff got me the work). I also did a lot of that work on 35mm pushed to all-hell for the pastel-like grain (320t and 2000iso is yummy stuff, or was) and would then dupe those onto 4x5 or 8x10 velvia in my enlarger - again, Polaroid under the enlarger saved me a fortune at the lab and tons of time. (The lab: "Nobody can dupe on Velvia"... Me: "Oooh, a CHALLENGE...")

In this era, I'd say, do extensive tests with a digital camera to match focal length and rendering (via lens choice and picture profiles) and use that on-set before going to film. You won't have movements and so on, but better than nothing. I still use digital for film shoots with props and effects to get an overall sense; I have some stock of Fuji 3000 roid and I'll use a stack of 4x4 NDs to get in the neighborhood as well (for MF, not 4x5). And, helpful hint - most modern digitals have an HDMI out - mod up a VESA mount and stick a 20" or larger monitor (computer monitor with HDMI or an HDTV) on a wheeled stand so you can really inspect the shot (or if you have clients at the shoot). VERY handy. If you camera won't display on your TV, get a $10 powered HDMI splitter (amazon, New Egg, etc), which tends to kill any copy protection.