Polaroid: Is digital a nice replacement?

[carl geyer]

I have recently been carrying a Nikon D300 in lieu of Polaroid to check exposure in the field and, more importantly, to check composition. There are some caveats such as bellows extension factor. However, it really helps compositon. I often use film more sparingly. Some nuances with digital are important. I always use a custom white balance. The histogram only relates to JPEG and not camera Raw. Finally, prints from film even after a scanner and custom IT8 targets for color management are far more pleasing and accurate. I think the two worlds complement each other. For the time being I am still convinced that film is the way to go for LF.

[BarryS]

I have a D300, but have never had any desire to lug it around with my LF kit. It's a heavy beast for an accessory! To me, a spot meter tells me everything I need to know about exposure and a cardboard frame seems a lot handier (and lighter) for scouting comps, but more power to you if you have a system that works for you.

[carl geyer]

Q.-Tuan Luong caries a Canon with his LF outfit. In my back I carry a 4 x 5 Canham, 6 x 9 cm back, a ready load system , Pentax spotmeter, 4x R loupe, 80 and 150 mm lenses. If I need telephoto, I use the 6 x 9 cm back. I use a 28mm lens on the D300.

[Nathan Potter]

Carl, I've used a digital camera intermittently over the past several years to survey the composition of a scene but it never seemed particularly useful. Now I just look and look, without aids, (sometimes with no camera) until I find a suitable subject. I've pre- calibrated my film so exposure is by 1 degree spot meter where I survey the brightness levels of the scene and record them for subsequent N+/- development with B&W films.

I tend to work slowly taking at least 1/2 hour for a 4X5 image of static subjects. While traveling I'll average only 2 images per day but they come in bunches where I''ll do six in one day then none for three days. I've simply gotten much more selective over the years so that now I'm pretty much dissatisfied with the composition and interest in every subject I encounter, in which case the digital survey camera is non-functional.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[carl geyer]

I didn't know where to place this thread. I think that carrying a digital camera does have a role in the workflow of LF. Rather than spend 10-20,000 on a scanning back, the current generation of SLF digital cameras have inherent qualities that are often overlooked. The pixels are "fresh" and not spoiled by film and, later scanning. The Bayer function of smoothing pixels usually affects edge detail. I rather like soft focus. If I were to buy one more lens for my LF, it would probably be a SF lens. The Cooke lens is only available on the aftermarket. I tend to only take 20 images a year. The D300 sometime satisfies the urges which would be spoiled by the LF process. In the end, I think it is important to try for the great image.

[Bruce Watson]

I have recently been carrying a Nikon D300 in lieu of Polaroid to check exposure in the field and, more importantly, to check composition.

If you are convinced this is the best way for you to work, by all means continue on. But then, why bring it up if you are already convinced? So I think you aren't exactly convinced after all, and you want some input. I can't think why else you'd start this thread.

My input would be to leave the other cameras (and instant film) at home. They are, for lack of a better description, a crutch. They are keeping you from mastering the craft of LF photography. So lighten your load by trading the digicam and the instant film for a one degree spot meter.

Read up on the Zone System and it's variations and put what you read into practice. I find it's not at all difficult to hit my exposures right on the money very nearly every time. I rapidly came to the point of exposing just one sheet of film for any scene that didn't include any motion blur components and most that did. It really is just a matter of exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights. And there's no better tool available for determining exposure for the shadows than a one degree spot meter.

As to composition aids, I can think of nothing that helps composition quite like seeing it all upside down and backwards on the ground glass. Quite a nice tool, well worth mastering.

[cjbroadbent]

I'm with Bruce Watson on this. Polaroid was too dissimilar in colour and shadow rendition to be anything but a dangerous distraction. What's more, I shot 5x7 when I had clients - just to avoid the hassle and argument. I never shoot tethered digital for the same reason. Somehow you've go to feel the light by just looking at it. Looking at polaroids and small screens makes for indecision and vanilla lighting.

[Larry Menzin]

I've been using a D200 as a light meter for 8x10 since 8x10 instant film is long gone. Great results and it helps me document my exposures.

[Ben Syverson]

I still say, if you know how to interpret an RGB histogram, you'll get 1000 times more information from a DSLR than you could ever get from Polaroid.

[jvuokko]

The idea of using digital camera instead of polaroid is good. I bought four years ago digital camera for that purpose. However, i noticed quickly that it wasn't useful for me.

Composition - I see no difference. Ofcourse you can use it for finding good place for camera, but you can do that without it when you are familiar with your lenses.

Another thing that i thought that would be useful was ability to see roughtly how scene would render to B&W. But again, zone system was already in my backbone so it didn't give any advantage.

I gave the digital camera to my wife, i had really no use for it.

Mainly I need polaroid only for making sure that depth of field is properly placed, there is no vignetting caused by lens hood, no lens reflections etc.
The digital camera did not gave that information. Polaroid will give.

Ofcourse polaroid has it's limits also. For example, winter. Polaroid is pretty useless when there's -10 degree celcius.

Some kind of adapter for digital camera - or even cellular phone's camera that allows to photograph image from ground glass would be nice, though.

[JBrunner]

I got over feeling the need to Polaroid for LF long ago, but if I was still of a mind to work that way, I might do what you are suggesting, however, I find less is more in my kit these days. I'm often amazed at the amount of junk carted around by newly minted LF'rs, but I think you kind of have to try to have it all before you evolve into having just what you need.