Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,299   Posts: 1,535,780   Online: 710
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45
  1. #21
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    You can, but IMO it isn't very helpful, as the way you would expose to get a decent exposure on digital is different that the way you would expose to get a good exposure on film. The way a digital sensor reacts to light is unlike most films. Instant previews for me have always been more about composition, lighting ratios, lighting placement, etc., and not about exposure or color. I even find Polaroids fairly useless for most situations, though they are great for some things.

    If you need to shoot tomorrow, and have nothing else, by all means, use whatever tools you have at your disposal. However, realize that there are better tools that you should use in the long run if you intend to keep shooting in these situations. Any flash meter will tell you much more useful information than a histogram on a digital camera.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  2. #22
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,247
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    You can, but IMO it isn't very helpful, as the way you would expose to get a decent exposure on digital is different that the way you would expose to get a good exposure on film.
    The way you expose to get a decent Polaroid is different to using slide film or B&W film. So there's little difference whether you use Polaroid or Digital for your preview image.

    The important factor is knowing your equipment, films etc, and knowing what the differences will be between using Polaroid or Digital and your chosen film.

    A flash meter or normal ligh meter is far more reliable for determinig your exposures, but a Polaroid or Digital capture can be invaluable for checking the balance of your lighting set-up, if you have that capability.

    Ian

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by alan doyle View Post
    not sure about that i believe stanley kubrick used polaroids starting on 2001
    through until his last film,eyes wide shut.
    shooting between 2000 and 5000 shots on polaroid.
    guy bourdin, richard avedon and helmut newton used a lot of polaroids all men who had great technical ability.
    Almost every photographer shot Polaroids. Even i did.

    But why?


    Polaroids should not (because they cannot really) be used as a replacement for an exposure meter.
    They are good for checking almost everything else but exposure. As a surrogate exposure meter they are very coarse, and may not do any better than DSLRs with their reported different characteristics.
    (They are much too expensive to be used as such anyway).

  4. #24
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    The things that makes studio shooting different than any environmental shot are 1-control, 2-control, and 3-control. I like to think of a studio setting as a factory floor.

    The magic of the studio is repeatability and all-weather shooting. There's a lot to learn but once you get things where you like them for any given style; the lighting, the environment, and the lenses all become standards. Like a standard printing setup for an 8x10 in an enlarger the times; f-stops, shutter times, and placement of the lights, the choice of film, camera, and lenses become nearly fixed, "X" can literally mark the spot on the floor fixed for each piece of hardware for any given style you have developed.

    The variables you need to see are are things like expression, stray hairs, and trash in the scene at the time the shutter is ready to drop. Trash in the background is a killer, in home studio sets it's things like wall sockets, light switches, wall clocks, and your spouse putting their keys and a bag of groceries in the scene while your changing from the Polaroid to the normal film. In dedicated studios it's stray cords and the clients briefcase, etcetera.

    The variables are the things a Polaroid doesn't always see, and it can't even duplicate the way your EI 25, f 2.0 setup works anyway. These problems are why I don't see a Polaroids value. The real value come from experience with the real media you want to use.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  5. #25

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Zichem Belgium
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    236
    so i can use it to check any obvious mistakes like hard shadows, verry high light spots... and i can check the composition. But otherwise it would make more sense to use my lightmeter and form an image of the end result by measuring multiple points.
    So i will use both, measure with the light meter, check digital and then make an analoge negative. I will try to keep notes of the different situations i use so i can check my negatives with the digital previews.
    This information will help me a lot tomorrow!!!
    Thanks!!!

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,067
    That's what works for me. Have a lot of fun - that's why we do it!
    "Why is there always a better way?"

  7. #27

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Zichem Belgium
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    236
    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...

  8. #28
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    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.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,067
    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
    "Why is there always a better way?"

  10. #30
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by TomStr View Post
    so i can use it to check any obvious mistakes like hard shadows, verry high light spots...
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TomStr View Post
    and i can check the composition.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TomStr View Post
    But otherwise it would make more sense to use my lightmeter and form an image of the end result by measuring multiple points.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TomStr View Post
    So i will use both, measure with the light meter, check digital and then make an analoge negative. I will try to keep notes of the different situations i use so i can check my negatives with the digital previews.
    This information will help me a lot tomorrow!!!
    Thanks!!!
    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.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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