Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,747   Posts: 1,670,486   Online: 737
      
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789
Results 81 to 89 of 89
  1. #81

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    558
    I must say, the Polaroid comment is very good, one I hadn't thought about, but like Bill says, makes a lot of sense. I've seen it in action. I wonder if people (and I'm not calling any names here) who are adamantly against the kind of workflow I outlined WRT digital cameras are/were also against the use of Polaroids for figuring out the correct exposure (although I guess even then, where Polas came in handy the most was in a studio setup with tons of lights & flash action were also on the table, and may not be as applicable in field photography scenarios, which is what I'm really all about).

    Again, I can't thank everybody who is contributing to this thread enough. Even if I don't respond to every post, I'm reading it and trying my best to absorb it.

    I've already started carrying around the Luna Pro on my shoots :-)

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228

    Why use a light meter: somebody persuade me.

    Thanks guys, I think the really knowledgeable photogs would set up their lights, set what they assumed the correct settings were, take a Polaroid, adjust, take another... Maybe started out with a meter, but not always... Heck outside on a normal day, with enough experience who needs anything but the camera.

    But that's part of what the OP might be missing.

    When you have a fully digital workflow, you forget about learning to eyeball a scene and remember previous settings because you just snap a pic and adjust, but with no real sense of what you might get before the click and check.

    You learn a lot from going slower, making every shot count because you can't see what's happening till its developed.

    Experiment... Leave the digital at home, just take the meter, see if you can get good and consistent resultant and you might learn something too.

    Good luck!


    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #83
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,801
    Old commercial guys liked me used Polaroid, yes, but we certainly didn't base our exposures off of it. It served several purposes, mostly for client cooing and composition discussions. I never once based an exposure off of it, nor do I know any contemporary who did. I suppose it may have provided some validation of an exposure, if one felt like doing the math, but it was different enough that mostly you spent time explaining that the actual trans wouldn't look like the Polaroid.

    I could see a d cam used as a Polaroid, what I can't see is basing exposure on something with about three stops of latitude when your exposure on film could fall anywhere in that three stops or more and still be more appropriate to what you might want. That's possibly giving up an awful lot of printing range. Its like looking at the possibilities through a crack. I can't explain it better than that.
    That's just, like, my opinion, man...

  4. #84
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,019
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    With studio lights I always meter the set and it works well, no Polariod required.

    Polaroids or chimping can help me catch problems like remotes or sync devices that aren't working right but that's not the only way to skin that cat, it's not a necessity.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,885
    You write that in present tense, Mark. Are you still using Polaroid products successfully? I would have epected all you wrote to be past tense... except the chimping part.

  6. #86
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,019
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Very little, but yes some Fuji instant on occasion on the old RB67. As Jason said its mostly for having a conversation with the sitter, not about exposure.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  7. #87
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,139
    Images
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    Old commercial guys liked me used Polaroid, yes, but we certainly didn't base our exposures off of it. It served several purposes, mostly for client cooing and composition discussions. I never once based an exposure off of it.
    This also makes a lot of sense...

    Without trusting the exposure, you can check all kinds of things. The lights are in the right place, no unfortunate shadows... Have a chance to catch things that you can see in the photograph that shouldn't be there, like backdrops in the wrong place. Just "see" if the picture has a chance to work at all.

  8. #88
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    This also makes a lot of sense...

    Without trusting the exposure, you can check all kinds of things. The lights are in the right place, no unfortunate shadows... Have a chance to catch things that you can see in the photograph that shouldn't be there, like backdrops in the wrong place. Just "see" if the picture has a chance to work at all.
    Yes, exactly right.

    I think what is missing here is a photographers interpretation of a particular emulsion. I don't expose any two emulsions the same way, even if they have the same box speed. If you are really going for it, you need to know your film, and accurately predict its behavior, so above all I need an impartial tool. A histogram or image from a chip with a different response than the emulsion isn't impartial, in fact it's likely to be wrong. Luckily, the film can forgive this, but you will never get back what isn't there, which is the likely case, to my thinking.
    That's just, like, my opinion, man...

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228

    Why use a light meter: somebody persuade me.

    I still use Polaroids for my RZ67 shoots, as said to test lights and make sure rhe look is as expected, but you're also right, the having to explain how it's not the same as the end result image can annoying if they (client) don't understand.

    Side note, I just used my light master tonight to take a picture of the Christmas tree, it helped me to expose the tree as the in camera meeter might expose darker as not to overblow the tree lights and lose detail in the leaves so I used my light meeter no digital...




    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin