Use Digital to learn film?

Can I use digital to become a better film shooter? I would like to

learn two things really well; flash exposure and light-painting. The

turnaround for film is too long and the per-exposure cost discourages

wanton experimentation.

 

I was thinking of using a Canon DSLR to try to learn the basics of

flash exposure. My question is, will it translate to film? If I shoot

a DSLR at ISO 50, will that same exposure come out right on Velvia?

Also, how should I compensate for focal length multiplication? Should

I spring for the full-frame DSLR so I won't have to worry about it?

(This will be a one-week rental, not a purchase).

 

Thanks.

> Can I use digital to become a better film shooter?

 

Definitely yes. But the problem is afterwards you won't like to come back to film ;-)

 

There is no ISO 50 on most of the DSLRs. But yes, exposure should be the same wether you shoot ISO 100 with a digital camera or a film camera. There are slight variations though between manufactures what they think is ISO 100. But basically it's the same.

 

> Should I spring for the full-frame DSLR

 

Can you afford? I don't think that's necessary. You know that for example in case of a Canon 300D/10D/20D a 20mm lens has the same angle of view as a 32mm lens on a film body. That means, if you want the experience of a 85mm portrait lens for example, you have to put a 50mm lens on the DSLR.

Exposure depends only on the time of it, the f stop and the emulsion/sensor setting.

 

A 1/250 sec f/11 100 Iso shot - if it is well exposed - will be so on every camera with these settings.

 

Focal length factors do not affect the duration of exposure, the f stop, nor the sensitivity of the capturing medium, so no worries there!

 

Of course if you crop on a DSLR by the factor of 1.5, you can change the brightness relative to a full frame picture and your exposure may be off a bit. But a DSLR is a rather usefull (expensive) exposure meter.

 

Why do you not want to learn to use the exposure meter of the film SLR, thought? Normally the exposures on an F100 come out 100% right out of the box in A or P or S or M mode with matrix metering. Other cameras likewise.

 

What is your real desire here? To become a zone system expert? Why?

Yes, you can learn to shoot film better with a digital camera. But, in my opinion, you should buy a camera that is easy to use in manual or in a semi-automated mode, such as shutter or aperture priority. Just try to be a bit disciplined. Explore aperture setting effects on depth of field for day or two. Then try playing around with motion and shutter speeds. Just experiment in a controlled way, and don't vary too many things at once. And, of course, try different lighting situations, such as backlighting, to understand when exposure compensation is needed.

 

Don't shoot in program mode and then gaze at histograms (although you will need to check histograms for exposure). The camera will vary too many things for you to quickly grasp what is happening.

 

Have fun.

 

Robert

Rick, I dont have an answer. But I read your posting carefully enough to understand the

question. You're specifically interested in two techniques, light painting and fine-tuned

flash work. I agree that these techniques seem complex enough to benefit from immediate

feedback. Some of us might be great note-takers, and some are not. To record actual

methods of light painting would require a sketch artist, with a great memory and sense of

time. It should be a lot faster and easier to experiment with a shot, chimp the results, and

modify the method. The film alternative demands plotting your experiments 24 or 36 at a

time, then waiting days for results. There has to be a better way- and now there is. I

haven't tried light painting yet, but maybe I will when I get a digital with bulb exposure

capabilities. Much the same can be said about other experiments with flash(es). This

seems like taking advantage of digital's strengths.

With film, I don't think the wait time for processing is days. Most places have offered 1-hour service for years. And if you take in your memory card to have prints made, it's usually the same answer: "Come back in an hour."

I definatly think this there is a lot to be gained using a DSLR to learn how to take better pictures.

 

I have had my D20 for a coupe of weeks , because of the instant feedback on the histogram I have become mutch better and more confident with exposure compensation and its effects which I will now use on my EOS 3.

 

I am also shooting at 5fps for Nature work which I would never do in the past due to cost and I am also experimenting with Flash bouncing and lighting setups for stuido work.

 

All in all a very good learning tool.

 

The keeper rate has actually dropped as I shoot lots more shots but I think my technique is improving.

 

 

 

Rgs

Graham

No - it cannot be done. You either learn to shoot film or you use a digital interpretation of what it may look like.

 

You would never never use Oil paint to improve your watercolour technique. It may help your overall "painting" skills but they are not the same. If you asked if shooting digital would help your photography skills then my answer would be an uncomplicated "yes".

"The film alternative demands plotting your experiments 24 or 36 at a time, then waiting days for results. There has to be a better way- and now there is. I haven't tried light painting yet, but maybe I will when I get a digital with bulb exposure capabilities."

 

Not true. That's why you use Polaroid film. I have done lots of light painting and architectural work with multi-source lighting. Three to four Polaroids, and you have the information needed for correct exposure. As for waiting 3-4 days to see the results - my advice is to use a pro lab that turns film around in 3-4 hours. You're really inventing problems so that digital is the only answer.

<I>No - it cannot be done. You either learn to shoot film or you use a digital interpretation of what it may look like.</I><P>That's utterly stupid - more film religion nonsense. You have no control of the dyes in color film anyways, unlike a painter who can choose his oils.<P>I use my 10D all the time for previewing exposures and lighting with my RB and slide film. The narrow lattitude of a dSLR greatly helps in transitioning back and force to slide film, and for previwing flash and studio I'd rather have my 10D than a box full of lightmeters.

There is no rule.<br>

The problem with trying to learn something about film exposure from a digital camera is that you cannot be sure that the labels used on the digital camera are accurate.

 

For example, it is well known that the ISO ratings on digital cameras are no necessarily equal to the film ISO standard.

 

Take the Canon G6 point and shoot. It supposedly has an ISO range from ISO50 - ISO400 but, in fact, the real ISO range is ISO100 - ISO640.

 

The Sony DSC-V3 supposedly provides ISO 100, 200, 400 and 800 but REALLY delivers only ISO 100, 160, 320, 640.

 

So, if you try to apply a standard rule of thumb like 'Sunny 16', (which is generally defined as 'On a bright, sunny day, set at f16, shutter speed will be approximately the inverse of the film ISO'

 

With a film camera loaded with ISO100 and set to f16, shutter speed will be @1/125th on a bright sunny day.

 

But if you can't trust the ISO ratings of your digital camera, then that rule of thumb won't work.

 

Now, some digital cameras are more accurate than others but, because there are no 'standards' (as there are for film) the manufacturers feel free to fudge their ratings so that they are relative to each other but not necessarily equivalent to film ISO standards.

 

For this reason, I don't think that digital can be adequate for learning about film exposure. It MAY not translate to your film experience.

Generally you will get comparable or useful results. Film and digital do have different responses, much like different films have different responses, whether it's more/less latitude, more/less tolerance for over or under exposure, etc. (And there are matters of experience/preference with film too - like should NPH be shot at iso 320 or 400?) So it may be that you'll get close with a particular lens/camera combination and still need to fine tune with a different camera/lens/film combination.

Scott - actually, I am not rabidly "pro film" - are you "pro digital? I use both media and am sufficiently open minded to see the pros and cons of both. I stand by what I said in that digital is far more of an "interpretation" of what was photographed because of the numerous conversions that take place. From image to camera, to Photoshop, to PC Monitor and ultimatly to the printer. There is limited standardisation involved in these steps - for most camera/PC users. Colour slide film needs one conversion and colour neg two conversions. With most commercial film this can easily be controlled in a standard and consistant manner. This is disadvantage also - you have limited creative latitude (compared to digital) - but sometimes you need a verifiable representation of the subject - forensic work is probably one of the more obvious examples.

There is more to photography than just proper exposure, although exposure is important. If a DSLR helps you to experiment, then you will learn, as long as you don't vary too many things at once. And yes, film does resopond differently than digital sensors, but you will adapt quickly.

 

Just remember that this is supposed to be fun. Buy a camera and try it out. You can always sell it off later if your needs or interests change.

 

Robert