Using digital camera to set up film shots

[AllanD]

If it is a portrait shoot, then to me the whole process is highly interactive, because, when it comes down to basics, I want to capture the sitters vital spark and I want their engagement. I will be shooting for a printed result, hence my use of film. Setting up and losing the first few shots to digital is no loss to me in this context (in film only days I would always right off the first few frames anyway; might have well have used an empty camera). By using digital as a setup check, the people being photographed get a direct feedback re. what I am doing and they get a hint at what the end result might be. The benefit is that they will also relax and engage. To me, this is worth a few lost frames before I commit to film. Another important benefit is that it is fun! As far as exposure is concerned, all I can say is that for all practical purposes my cameras (digital and otherwise) and light meter broadly agree.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I left out a bit of information.... When I did this, I took exposure reading from D800 and increased it by one stop to use it on RB. Film does well on over-exposure but performs poorly on under. Digital is the other way around. I was using Tmax400-2 on RB. (I don't use slide films) I developed it normally. Result was detail rich negative on a tad dense side. I liked it very much this way.

Ditto on this.

For the day to day film shooting I just use a meter, but for tricky lighting situations I always bring the DSLR. The other night I photographed a drug store exterior with neon and mixed light from street lamps, right around dusk with misty rain. Would have been a real challenge with a meter. Dialed it right in with the Canon 5D.

On New Year's Eve I photographed a mid-century modern home with a 12 foot Christmas tree in a huge bay window, but brought the Polaroid back instead of the DSLR and totally regretted it. It's a real clunker to be pulling Polaroids and waiting two minutes, especially when the light is dying outside the window. About 15 seconds with the Canon and I would have had the basic exposure nailed in another difficult setup. Add to that remembering that the Polaroid is ISO 100 and the TMY is ISO 250. Where do I find that 1/3 stop on my Bronica?

Most DSLRs also have a B&W mode where you can see red, yellow, orange and green filtration previews, dial in contrast levels, etc. It's not hard to get a solid match, much better than a Polaroid. Plus you have as many ISOs as you care to shoot.

The real question is why wouldn't you use it?

 

[Chan Tran]

The ISO does not exist in digital, it just emulation.

What is ISO that it can not exist in digital?

 

[blockend]

The digital light meter on my iPhone app is excellent, much better than I expected it to be. Since my mechanical Nikon meters succumbed to old age, the app gives better exposure than the meters did.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why would one ever bother unless there is as total lack of confidence in ones abilities.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

But there's no Polaroid smell

 

[benjiboy]

I managed pretty successfully with studio photography for more than thirty years before digital photography was invented and still have enough confidence in my abilities to not feel that I personally need to use a digital preview, if other people do and have suitable digital cameras why not, good luck to them.

 

[alanrockwood]

Why would one ever bother unless there is as total lack of confidence in ones abilities.

Or possibly if using it would allow you to get the shot you want either better, or faster, or easier

 

[benjiboy]

Or possibly if using it would allow you to get the shot you want either better, or faster, or easier

It would in my case also involve the expense buying a digital SLR, and the time involved in learning how to use it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Or possibly if using it would allow you to get the shot you want either better, or faster, or easier

If I want to be sure that I get a photograph, I use film.
If I want a better photograph, I use film.
If I want a faster photograph, I use film.
If I want an easier photograph, I use film.

If I want to sell my old crap, I use digital.

 

[alanrockwood]

If I want to be sure that I get a photograph, I use film.
If I want a better photograph, I use film.
If I want a faster photograph, I use film.
If I want an easier photograph, I use film.

If I want to sell my old crap, I use digital.

I'm not proposing to use the digital camera to acquire the image, but rather as an aid to acquiring an image on film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm not proposing to use the digital camera to acquire the image, but rather as an aid to acquiring an image on film.

I am questioning the premise: why would a digital camera need to be used go take a photograph?

1. For over 150 years successful photographs have been make before the advent of the digital photography.
2. The laws of physics show that analog photographs can in fact be successfully taken.
3. Photons do not need digital technology to know how to produce analog photographs. Photons have demonstrated this millions of times. Maybe billions of times.
4. Photochemistry has been proven to produce practical film, print materials and slides in the absence of digital technology.
5. Optics has been theoretically and experimentally proven to actually produce archival photographs in the absence of digital cameras, even DSLRs.
6. It has been shown that new DSLR cameras can be come obsolete seconds after being announce and have gone on to produce land fill or become door stops, bookends, harbor jettys and boat anchors.

Jes' sayin'



:munch::munch::munch::munch::munch:

 

[alanrockwood]

I am questioning the premise: why would a digital camera need to be used go take a photograph?

1. For over 150 years successful photographs have been make before the advent of the digital photography.
2. The laws of physics show that analog photographs can in fact be successfully taken.
3. Photons do not need digital technology to know how to produce analog photographs. Photons have demonstrated this millions of times. Maybe billions of times.
4. Photochemistry has been proven to produce practical film, print materials and slides in the absence of digital technology.
5. Optics has been theoretically and experimentally proven to actually produce archival photographs in the absence of digital cameras, even DSLRs.
6. It has been shown that new DSLR cameras can be come obsolete seconds after being announce and have gone on to produce land fill or become door stops, bookends, harbor jettys and boat anchors.

Jes' sayin'



:munch::munch::munch::munch::munch:

Everything you say is true. Good for you if you don't need to use or want to use any of these newfangled gadgets, and I truly mean that.

However, none of what you say invalidates the idea that some of us lesser mortals might find some of those same newfangled gadgets useful to us as an aid to film photography.

By the way, you do use a light meter don't you?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use light meters that are parts of analog cameras or stand alone non-digital light meters that are they neither smart phone nor dumb cell phones. So you point is ... ?

And I never said that you are a lesser mortal either.

However, my contract clearly states that I can and should jerk you around. Jes' sayin' :devil:

 

[alanrockwood]

I know some professional artists who use cameras as a tool to aid their painting, sometimes even d*g*t*l cameras. For them it is a tool to aid them in their painting, nothing more, nothing less.

There's no reason a photographer can't do the same to aid his/her photography if he/she wants to.

 

[asteroid_death]

Snobbery aside, it doesn't make much sense to me to use a dslr as an 'aid' for analog. Seems like it would be more of a hindrance. At least half the fun of shooting film is doing the math and brainstorming how you want the picture to look and getting creative with it, and then anticipating whether or not you got it right. Once you know the do's and don't's you can experiment more and you get a lot of happy mistakes. I think having a dslr in my hand would zap the fun right out of it...which is also the reason I quit shooting digitally. Every picture looks the same and it's a boring, monotonous process.

Also worth noting is that the light meter on my dslr doesn't match my analog meter for exposure, or any of the ttl meters on any of my cameras for that matter. Dslrs are more sensitive to hard light, and the difference is sometimes up to two stops.

So no. If you're going to shoot analog, I say go all the way.

 

[gzhuang]

Well, another option is to load your smartphone with light metering software. Pretty accurate I would say for some of the good ones out there.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Snobbery aside, it doesn't make much sense to me to use a dslr as an 'aid' for analog. Seems like it would be more of a hindrance. At least half the fun of shooting film is doing the math and brainstorming how you want the picture to look and getting creative with it, and then anticipating whether or not you got it right. Once you know the do's and don't's you can experiment more and you get a lot of happy mistakes. I think having a dslr in my hand would zap the fun right out of it...which is also the reason I quit shooting digitally. Every picture looks the same and it's a boring, monotonous process.

Also worth noting is that the light meter on my dslr doesn't match my analog meter for exposure, or any of the ttl meters on any of my cameras for that matter. Dslrs are more sensitive to hard light, and the difference is sometimes up to two stops.

So no. If you're going to shoot analog, I say go all the way.

I knew this "professional" photographer back in the 90s. He was so "professional" that he used -- ahem -- POLAROIDS all the time to check his exposures. Jeez. What a CRUTCH!!

And that guy also shot 8x10 chromes. Some kind of real photo snob, I guess. And he billed huge day rates because no one else could create the photographs that he could with those 8x10 chromes and those Polaroids and those ungodly expensive Broncolor packs with the 1/10 stop adjustments.

Okay, so the Polaroids were ANALOG, don't you see? But digital, it's DIGITAL, man!

You use whatever it takes to make a great photograph.

 

[asteroid_death]

Okay, so the Polaroids were ANALOG, don't you see? But digital, it's DIGITAL, man!

Exactly.

 

[gzhuang]

I think Steve McCurry shot his last roll of KodaChrome using his digital camera as a polaroid back.

 

[ambaker]

I think Steve McCurry shot his last roll of KodaChrome using his digital camera as a polaroid back.

Oh the sheer horror, oh the humanity of it all...

 

[Chan Tran]

I have taken photographs with broken camera, with one shutter speed, no meter but I would not hesitate to use any tool I have that would make it's easier for me. If it's not for you then don't use it.

 

[John Koehrer]

Until you involve the computer, even the FF backs can't provide the same information a Polaroid can.

Umm, McCurry shot through the Kodachrome to imitate the use of film. Made for pretty long exposures though.

 

[benjiboy]

I think the use of digital cameras to "see" the light balance, shadows, and general distribution of the lighting and contrasts of the subject would be very useful if you already own suitable digital equipment, but as far as exposure is concerned the light meters on digital cameras are calibrated to the individual sensor on that particular camera not to film, what I'm saying that setting 100 I.S.O on a DSLR and on a film camera will give different exposure results, this was proved by an article in The British Journal Of Photography a few years ago ( a magazine almost as old as photography itself ) that I still have where they did extensive tests that conclusively proved this.

 

[wiltw]

Many Polaroid shooters on large format cameras (including me) IGNORED any 'exposure' information from the instant print...the real value of reviewing Polaroids was that it allowed you to examine the entire print slooooowly for details in the photograph which had gone totally unnoticed in the viewfinder...dust, fingerprints, stuff sticking out where it was not intended to show in the photo, but the lens's point of view caught it, for example.

A Polaroid exposure on medium format camera was rather useless with its tiny size... 43x56mm on 645 or 56x56mm on 6x6 format. Using a digital camera is no better than peeking at a tiny medium format Polaroid shot...too darned small to really find lurking junk in the image...unless it is reviewed on a monitor, not on a tiny LCD!