shooting 4x5 blind?

[Schunn99]

Hey All,

I have a couple of questions for y'all older large format photographers.

I am shooting 4x5 at school at the moment and Since polaroid is no longer making instant film, our art dept. no longer stocks it. I am practically shooting blind. Also I have noticed my light meter is underexposing 400 iso film when I shoot at f/32 or below. My light meter is set to 400 iso. for example I shoot a scene in our school lighting studio at f/64 @ 2 seconds according to my light meter reading but, when developed the film's underexposed.
Any suggestions?

Also to large format photographers, any suggestions on shooting blind without the use of polaroid to check exposure before shooting film?

thanks
Scott Hunnicutt

 

[Alex Hawley]

Scott - Fuji still makes instant pack film and its pretty good stuff. Works with either the Polaroid 405 holder or the 550 holder for the true 4x5.

 

[keithwms]

Scott, the exposure problem sounds like a reciprocity issue. Or is it bellows factor?

 

[JBrunner]

Could also be a speed issue. Have you established a correct film speed for your developing regimen? Throw in minor reciprocity on top and you got thin. I know they'll be like 8 billion suggestions. First I'd check the meter. Then I'd check the shutter. Then I'd establish true film speed. Then I'd look at all the other stuff. In the meantime, I'd shoot for thick. You can work with thick.

 

[Ian Grant]

Scott, a great many of us shoot LF blind and never use Polaroid or the Fuji instant film. I've been using LF since 1976 and have only ever used Polaroid twice to check a lighting set-up.

Once you know your equipment, films, meter etc then you aren't shooting blind at all because you have sufficient confidence to pre-visualise what you are shooting anyway.

As others have said you may be running into reciprocity failure, but also you must be using artificial lighting and often films behave differently compared to daylight. At one time Ilford & Kodak listed a speed for daylight and a slower speed for Tungsten lighting, sometimes a stop slower.

Ian

 

[Vaughn]

Basically what Jason said, though at 2 seconds I am assuming that you are the "shutter". The only thing I'll add is that shooting "blind" will help you to see. Burn some film and it will come right.

Vaughn

 

[2F/2F]

It is likely a reciprocity failure issue. It is also likely that the standard variations are also at play. Meters, shutters, processing details, etc. However, since the problem is only popping up when you are using tiny apertures and hence long exposures, I think reciprocity failure is the main culprit.

You are not shooting blind at all. You have a meter, which is more than most people had when they made some of the greatest photographs ever. Polaroid is good for previewing the composition and lighting, but fairly useless as a check of exposure; especially when you get into long exposures. I have only ever used Polaroid when I want a Polaroid, not as a substitute for a meter. It is a shame to see it gone, but you don't need it by any stretch.

 

[Akki14]

When I saw the topic line, I thought you needed help with range focusing and using a 4x5 press cam with a wire view finder and such. You're not shooting blind, you're just shooting. This is how film works. I've only ever used a polaroid back in one workshop. I can see how they can be helpful but they are not essential. Learn to take good notes, maybe make sketches so you know what is in that film holder. I bet bellows factor is coming into play especially if you're shooting a still life or a close up portrait. Check out JBrunner's Bellows Factor with Bacon video and print out his bellows factor measuring thingy from this page. After a while, you'll just note how far out the bellows are and you'll get to thinking, gee that looks like I'll need to add 1 stop, or maybe even 2 stops to my meter reading.

 

[Daniel_Buck]

I have no problems shooting without polaroids, maybe because I never used them in the first place. I would do some exposure tests to see how your meter performs. It may not be an exposure issue, but rather a developing issue (if it also happens with shorter exposures). Either way, you can compensate by either more exposure, or longer developing.

After you get a feel for how your meter handles and your developing looks, I would hardly call it shooting blind

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

If your light meter was off it would be off across the board. It could be your shutter, reciprocity failure of film, bellows extension factors.. 2 seconds is on the verge of reciprocity failure, depends on the film though. TMX and TMY I think are more resiliant of reciprocity failure. 4-6 seconds I believe but don't quote me on that. There is a chart out there and there is a formula to figure it out for most films, just gotta google it.

I've never had the luxury of polaroids. I'd take your meter and compare it to another meter or the meter in a 35mm camera. See if it compares and how far it deviates.

I've had a meter that was 3 to 4 stops off but was consistently off by the same amount every time.

I originally thought you meant sight-impaired, in which case I was going to suggest a pinhole 4x5 (or 8x10!) or one of those wideangle lf cameras!

 

[removed account4]

hi scott

bracket your exposures a bit
and see which one looks the best.

good luck.
(i always shoot blind)

john

 

[Bruce Watson]

IMHO, shooting polaroids is a crutch. Not having your crutch means you'll have to learn how to better control your own workflow to produce properly exposed film. It'll take some effort, but it's clearly doable. There's a huge number of LF photographers out there that have never used instant film for anything. Sadly this is one reason Polaroid exited the film business while Ilford and Kodak continue on.

I have never used any kind of instant film. Instead I learned the Zone System and practiced my ass off. Now I typically make exactly one exposure for any photograph I make, and I very, very seldom miss on exposure. My process is accurate, repeatable, and nearly automatic. I still screw up more often than not, but it's the bigger issues like my artistic vision (or lack thereof), not the craft of exposure and processing.

It all comes down to exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights. In the end, it really is just that simple.

 

[singram]

I figured out what "shooting blind" means. It means not having a LCD screen and a histogram on the back of the camera to check exposure

All kidding aside, a friend of mine that does a lot of large format work uses a small digital camera that has manual controls, to shoot "Polaroids" so to speak of the scene before shooting film. Mainly to check the light, and an approximation of cropping and dof.