Digital "Polaroid"

[Mark_Turner]

At one time it was quite common for photographers to use Polaroid for test exposures before committing to exposing the final negative or transparency. Now digital photography is ubiquitous and those of us exposing film with large cameras are a distinct minority. But since large negatives can be expensive, there's still value in test exposures with something cheaper, i.e. digital.

I'm curious as to how many large format photographers make test exposures with a digital camera to confirm exposure and to check all the details in the frame.

Personally, I tend to use either my digital camera (for my professional jobs and some personal work) or my large format camera. I want to be able to trust my ability to meter a scene and see the details without an intermediate digital test exposure. At the same time, I'm very tempted to do digital tests particularly in the studio to confirm that I'm happy with my lighting.

I ask the question in the digital processing arena because I couldn't find a better forum for it.

[Tin Can]

I always use DIGI or remaining FujiRoid before I commit to real film

I have 2 human size mannequin dressed with wigs and jewelry

I need a sitting one

Sometimes I stand in using a remote

even ghosts

[Oren Grad]

I'm going to move this to "Style & Technique" as it's about digital capture as a visualization and exposure-setting aid for film.

The challenge I see is that optimal exposure for a digital capture will, in general, not be the same as optimal exposure for a film capture at a given nominal ISO/EI, and the difference will vary as a function of scene content and brightness range, so there's no simple fudge factor one could apply. This will be especially true for negative film, where one is generally exposing for the shadows, but applies to some extent to transparency film as well.

[Tin Can]

UP by TIN CAN COLLEGE, on Flickr

[Daniel Unkefer]

New Octobox 150 Test by Nokton48, on Flickr

18x24 Sinar Norma 300 Xenar F4.5 Rembrandt Lighting by Nokton48, on Flickr

Nautilus One Digital Test by Nokton48, on Flickr

Still Life Shell by Nokton48, on Flickr

Digitest Balloon Beauty Light and Fill by Nokton48, on Flickr

Kelly LF lighting Broncolor Balloon Fill Only F16 EI 100 by Nokton48, on Flickr

I never really liked the qualities I would get generally with 'Roids. Yet I burned hundreds of boxes testing shoots, it can work. In the last year I have found digi a great tool to set the basic studio lighting. It's different but so is comparing roids and real film. I like it a lot! Yes everybody works differently, that makes it interesting

[Tin Can]

Real Fuji LF

web polaroid by TIN CAN COLLEGE, on Flickr

[Jim Noel]

I'm going to move this to "Style & Technique" as it's about digital capture as a visualization and exposure-setting aid for film.

The challenge I see is that optimal exposure for a digital capture will, in general, not be the same as optimal exposure for a film capture at a given nominal ISO/EI, and the difference will vary as a function of scene content and brightness range, so there's no simple fudge factor one could apply. This will be especially true for negative film, where one is generally exposing for the shadows, but applies to some extent to transparency film as well.

I agree with Oren, and do not use digital to help determine exposure or color filtering.

[Daniel Unkefer]

SONY DSC by Nokton48, on Flickr

New Digital Lens Tester. I'm trying out things I forgot I had around. Actually this is great fun. Kinda liberating in a way. Handheld small format digital view camera testing. Good enough for some uses

[Pieter]

I find a digital camera indispensable when using strobes. The difference in focal length and sensor/film sizes plus the lack of movements at the actual size make it difficult to judge what may be happening at the LF frame edges.

[jp]

I think digital is great for judging strobe combinations too. But I know it's going to be different with film. But closer to film than my eyeballs.
I don't do much with artificial lights. Someone like Mortensen or Hurrell would probably have been be slowed down by polaroids or digital and considered them needless.

Outdoors, I do not bother. My eyeballs are attune to what I'll get with film aside from some basic metering for verification or to spare me some exposure math.