That's what works for me. Have a lot of fun - that's why we do it!
using digital to get a "polaroid" from a studio scene?
-
A
- Thread starter TomStr
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Filter Set for Elmar 5cm f/3.5
- Started by Alex Varas
-
Sold Fujichrome Velvia 50 120 - 20 Rolls
- Started by 0x001688936CA08
-
Want to Buy WTB: Shen Hao or Ebony 6x17 camera
- Started by djdister
-
Sold Black Paint Nikon Fe2
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Mark,
i will keep notes for my shoot tomorrow and try to make my own conclusions, so that next time a get a better idea of how i get what i want. Or how it is not done
i use 1 film, and 1 developer so that part i've got covered. the rest will have to come as i gain some experience...
i will keep notes for my shoot tomorrow and try to make my own conclusions, so that next time a get a better idea of how i get what i want. Or how it is not done
i use 1 film, and 1 developer so that part i've got covered. the rest will have to come as i gain some experience...
About the only thing you could arrive at IMHO is a general exposure. The response of film will be vastly different. Light by the D device will give you flat looking negs, unless you make adjustments. If you are shooting chromes it will be a little closer.
I agree - I don't think the Polaroid was ever much use at nailing exposure. Its use, for me at least, was a hard copy which you could examine to fine tune your composition or, in the studio for still life and products to check your lighting and subject placement. It saved me more than a few times when I hadn't noticed a slight shadow on a product name or logo. In those situations, somehow it's not quite the same in the viewfinder.
Bob H
Bob H
Hard shadows, maybe, to a point, but quite limited because of the way negative film is metered (protect the shadows) vs. the way digital is metered (protect the highlights).
As for the high spots; flatly and simply no, digital can't help or even come close to what film can do in the highlights. If you set up your film based on digital metering for the highlights you will underexpose the film and be disappointed.
Again no, this is not practical. The digital sees differently, the sensor isn't the same size as the film size. DOF and field of view will be different.
The DOF in many still life and portrait shots may only be an inch or two deep and small digital sensors will show a much longer DOF. FOV is possible but the math needs to be perfect and you probably won't get to that precision.
Actually in studio lighting you create a small "bubble" for the subject where the strobes & reflectors are focused at the right brightness. What you are measuring and adjusting with the meter is where the "bubble" is. At the close edge of the bubble the light becomes to bright, at the far end and to the right or left or up or down too far it gets too dim.
Normally you need to think of your background being in a second bubble completely separate from the first too.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't pop a few with the digi. I'm just saying that the mediums require completely different approaches to setup.
I certainly have checked exposure with a digital camera when I had nothing else, but you just can't beat a spot meter for crucial work. I'm sure I'm not the first to say so.
When I work in studio I always make "polaroids" via my DSLR. It's helpful to get a raw image of what you're doing. Sometimes I am so concentrated on something that it's only on the "polaroid" when I see that disturbing cable in front of the image for example. For light measuring though the light meter is the only thing I trust.
Digital vs. analog polaroid with the latter being supreme is bullshit as they both differ a lot from the film being used to take the final shot.
Digital vs. analog polaroid with the latter being supreme is bullshit as they both differ a lot from the film being used to take the final shot.
So, we said the same thing, basically. Instant previews are not good for checking exposure, but can tell you something about other aspects of the pic.
If you know what a flash meter is telling you, and can visualize it as a lighting ratio, I think it is a better tool than an instant preview (digital or analog), simply for sake of speed, if nothing else.
Instant previews have their place, but should not replace metering and visualization ability IMO...nor do I think that you believe so yourself.
For those of you too young to remember, Polariod type 52 produced gorgeous prints. Most users (in particular A. Adams) treasured the type 52 as a finished product. I have some and have never been able to equal the print quality on photographic paper. You might want to find a copy of his book on Polariod. The negative produced by type 55 was wonderfully sharp and fine grained and could not be equalled for mural size prints.
Panatomic X was the first film I ever developed, in Paterson Definol as I remember. The photos were unadulterated crap....but I was so proud
Bob H
Sorry - Johnson's Definol. It was a very long time ago!!
Bob H
Bob H
Just an example which shows your point. I was attending a studio portrait workshop. I had no experience with using flashes nor with setting up light for portraits at all. So, four of five participants (including me) used b&w film and one used digital. We used that digital camera for preview and from that decided to turn off the flashes to the white background. It looked better so in the color image. But it made printing in b&w much harder because we lost a lot of contrast between skin tones and background.
Cheers
Ruediger
Even in digital I had to learn this lesson; a perfect, featureless, white is created by a perfectly placed overexposure.
In digital that means about 3 stops up accross the whole background, in color maybe 4-6 stops up, and in B&W done carefully with Pyro and the right film that could be as much as 10 stops up.
If I were still shooting for perfectly white backgrounds in a studio I'd probably avoid Pyro and overdevelop a bit on purpose.
Polaroid vs Panatomic-X
To the best of my memory Panatomic-X was never available in sheet film. Murals from roll film Panatomic were fine, but I don't think they equalled the Type 52 Polaroid; though you well may be correct that it was actually Panatomic.
To the best of my memory Panatomic-X was never available in sheet film. Murals from roll film Panatomic were fine, but I don't think they equalled the Type 52 Polaroid; though you well may be correct that it was actually Panatomic.
It wasn't produced as sheet film to my knowledge, but it is produced in large sized rolls (5.5 &9" wide) for aerial reconnaissance purposes, and you can cut 4x5 or 8x10 sheets from the respective roll. The rolls appear on that auction site from time to time.
There is (or was) an effort underway for a special order here:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
A bit more confidence in your own skills, and/or perhaps a bit more time taken to ponder the scene you are trying to capture, and you do not need Polaroids.
They only were usefull anyway to show other people who were not sure about your skills that you did indeed know what you are doing.
But seriously!
Reminds me of a talk given by a german photographer and advertising man (i wasn't there, but have seen it as MP3), mainly about art directors (the Alfa Romeo bunch). My memory of it is not perfect, but the gist of it is very clear.
Broaching the subject of Polaroids, and the inane demand to see (preferably many) Polaroids, he folded a bit of paper, tore it so that when unfolded again it formed a frame, held it up, and shouted (to the art directors) "there is your f***ing Polaroid!".
Very right he was.
Can you please post this mp3?
the rule of thumb that I've always come across when working on jobs as and assistant, as well as my own shoots, is: NEVER USE A POLAROID TO JUDGE EXPOSURE!!!
this is even with the newer fuji instant films, which IMO are much more accurate than the Polaroid equivalents of days past....
when I first started assisting, the first photographer I worked for told me this: "Use a polaroid to judge where your light will and or will not fall, NEVER to judge density or contrast because you'll always be wrong".
Now its been a year or two since this first job I worked on, but it still stays true: Find your personal rated speed for the film you're using (say a 100 box speed E6 film rated at 80).
I've always found and have learned with much success to back it up, that ALL color films (E6 and color-neg) should be exposed(the lighting ratios) within 1/2 - 1 full stop of each other. I have found this a terrific way of shooting, and even though this rule was developed back in the day when everyone was shooting transparencies where film had to go to pre-press, where you have a much shorter gamut of color and latitude than the film can actually handle. Its the same these days, even though the technology has improved. Film scanners that are available to the ~$1000 dollar mark crowd have much better capabilities to scan than the hi-end pre-press drum scanners of the 80's and early 90's.
My basic rule is: if you're using a studio flash, or even outdoor lighting, exposing that negative(color only in this case) or transparency right so that when you sc@n or print it, you have that 1 stop or less range.
If you have the chance, watch the Dean Collins dvd's on lighting, I have them and they are tremendous! He goes into "chroma-zones", or zone system for color photography. BEWARE: These films were done in the 80's so the long hair and funky clothing will bring back some memories. But the lighting is the same today as it was back then, albeit with some changes to style, etc... He shoots transparencies for most of the segments, being that they are all intended for print and reproduction(pre-press).
Also, on youtube, here's a video of him during a talk at Brooks back in the early 90's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OfzlIxzU7A
this is part 1, there are more if you care to watch.
he reccomends here to rate Ektachrome EPP(EI 100 BOX-SPEED) at 80, for a "hotter" transparency. This way shadow detail doesn't got to sh!+.
obviously, you have to test your films you use on a regular basis, and see where you want to place your exposure, and etc...
Personally for transparencies I usually use Fuji Provia 100f at asa80, or E100G at asa80 as well. This is in all formats 35mm-4x5(some 8x10 for personal work).
Color neg I use Portra 160vc(asa 100) and 400vc(asa 200) and portra 800(asa 400). I almost never blow out highlights, mainly due to using a split-nd filter when I can.
B&W is a completely different story altogether, and rarely its used on paying jobs, just personal work for me. Since most jobs don't want black and white files(no one really requires raw film anymore, just scans, mostly because of the "i'm giving you something tangible therefore I have to charge you sales tax on the entire job", therefore its easier to copy all the final files to THEIR hard drive, and you can pretty much bypass the sales-tax man <check your local tax laws though!!!!!>). that's the way it is here in So Cal.
Heck, just because I'm 21 doesn't mean I like spending time behind a computer fixing my scans(i hate that part personally).
I just like to do it right in the first place. D!gi+@1 is the same way, do it right in the first place, and you have less to worry about.
I shoot both, d!gi+@1 and film. Clients for the jobs I shoot(3 small editorial jobs so far, heck I'm in school right now) don't care if I shoot film or d!gi+@1, just as long as they can get files withing 48hrs to choose their selects. I just take the film to the lab, they do some proof-scans and develop, etc, and I do my basic edits, and send it to them via fedex overnight.
But this if for a different thread.
Any questions anyone PM me and i'll do my best.
this is even with the newer fuji instant films, which IMO are much more accurate than the Polaroid equivalents of days past....
when I first started assisting, the first photographer I worked for told me this: "Use a polaroid to judge where your light will and or will not fall, NEVER to judge density or contrast because you'll always be wrong".
Now its been a year or two since this first job I worked on, but it still stays true: Find your personal rated speed for the film you're using (say a 100 box speed E6 film rated at 80).
I've always found and have learned with much success to back it up, that ALL color films (E6 and color-neg) should be exposed(the lighting ratios) within 1/2 - 1 full stop of each other. I have found this a terrific way of shooting, and even though this rule was developed back in the day when everyone was shooting transparencies where film had to go to pre-press, where you have a much shorter gamut of color and latitude than the film can actually handle. Its the same these days, even though the technology has improved. Film scanners that are available to the ~$1000 dollar mark crowd have much better capabilities to scan than the hi-end pre-press drum scanners of the 80's and early 90's.
My basic rule is: if you're using a studio flash, or even outdoor lighting, exposing that negative(color only in this case) or transparency right so that when you sc@n or print it, you have that 1 stop or less range.
If you have the chance, watch the Dean Collins dvd's on lighting, I have them and they are tremendous! He goes into "chroma-zones", or zone system for color photography. BEWARE: These films were done in the 80's so the long hair and funky clothing will bring back some memories
. But the lighting is the same today as it was back then, albeit with some changes to style, etc... He shoots transparencies for most of the segments, being that they are all intended for print and reproduction(pre-press).Also, on youtube, here's a video of him during a talk at Brooks back in the early 90's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OfzlIxzU7A
this is part 1, there are more if you care to watch.
he reccomends here to rate Ektachrome EPP(EI 100 BOX-SPEED) at 80, for a "hotter" transparency. This way shadow detail doesn't got to sh!+.
obviously, you have to test your films you use on a regular basis, and see where you want to place your exposure, and etc...
Personally for transparencies I usually use Fuji Provia 100f at asa80, or E100G at asa80 as well. This is in all formats 35mm-4x5(some 8x10 for personal work).
Color neg I use Portra 160vc(asa 100) and 400vc(asa 200) and portra 800(asa 400). I almost never blow out highlights, mainly due to using a split-nd filter when I can.
B&W is a completely different story altogether, and rarely its used on paying jobs, just personal work for me. Since most jobs don't want black and white files(no one really requires raw film anymore, just scans, mostly because of the "i'm giving you something tangible therefore I have to charge you sales tax on the entire job", therefore its easier to copy all the final files to THEIR hard drive, and you can pretty much bypass the sales-tax man <check your local tax laws though!!!!!>). that's the way it is here in So Cal.
Heck, just because I'm 21 doesn't mean I like spending time behind a computer fixing my scans(i hate that part personally).
I just like to do it right in the first place. D!gi+@1 is the same way, do it right in the first place, and you have less to worry about.
I shoot both, d!gi+@1 and film. Clients for the jobs I shoot(3 small editorial jobs so far, heck I'm in school right now
) don't care if I shoot film or d!gi+@1, just as long as they can get files withing 48hrs to choose their selects. I just take the film to the lab, they do some proof-scans and develop, etc, and I do my basic edits, and send it to them via fedex overnight.But this if for a different thread.
Any questions anyone PM me and i'll do my best.
Many use that method but I say go Polaroid!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |