Anyone use digital to "Proof" for film shooting?

I've got an all digital wedding AND another all film wedding coming up back-to-back in

Miami next week.

 

So, I have to lug both with me on the plane (Canon 1Ds & EOS 1V). While I can back up the

digital camera with a film camera (then scan the negs), I can't do the opposite, so I'll also

have my Leica's in tow (my back's aching already ; -).

 

Anyone use a digital SLR at a wedding to test a shot for general exposure and read the

histogram as a sort of "electronic" polaroid?

I've heard that suggested many times. However, unless you have really radical lighting conditions, if you are studying the light and using a light meter, I'm not so sure that it's worth the time to do digital proofs for film shooting. You can use a light meter to average the highlights and the shadows in a scene, and be done with it.

Oh goodie Steven, something else to carry ; -)

 

And what about on camera flash which will constitute about 80% of the shots?

 

The way I was thinking about it would be to shoot a test shot to get the right light balance

between Manual Mode on the camera for ambient, and TTL flash for the subjects, both @

the same ISO as the film, and then shoot away (the lighting at receptions rarely changes in

over-all intensity).

Marc,

 

Load up your film camera and then do some testing. Shoot a given shot digitally, then transfer the exact exposure settings to your film camera, and take exactly the same shot. Then examine your negs (or slides) to ensure that the exposure is the same for both cameras.

 

After that's established, then you'll have to decide if it's worth taking the time to take each shot twice. That's up to you. It would be cumbersome, but the piece of mind might be worth it. If nothing else, you could use digital just to test each different lighting pattern you use.

Maybe I am oversimplifying things, or just naive, but if you meter the ambient lighting at the reception with a spot meter, and you get a reading of 4.0, set your camera in manual mode to 4.0 for correct exposure of ambient light. Then, the thing to avoid for your flash setting is to NOT allow it to overpower the ambient light, so you can use TTL and underexpose the flash output between -1.0 to -2.0 stops for proper balance. I guess the digital camera proof would be valuable to make minor adjustments in the flash fill balnce, but you have been doing this for a long time, so it should come intuitively to you, not true? Your final image will at least be in the ball park of correct exposure, and any adjustments can then be made prior to printing.

 

Oh yeah, so you can either cary a 2 pound digital camera over your shoulder, or an 8 ounce spot meter in your pocket! I will chose the spot meter! ;-)

Steven, I don't carry, assistants carry. I shoot. They carry. It's called equitable division of

labor ; -) Besides, I was referring to traveling on the plane... where, unfortunately I do

carry.

 

Also, I wasn't proposing shooting EVERY shot twice. Just the establishing one to get the

light balance down pat. I've been surprised with digital on occasion and immediately fixed

it. Film doesn't afford you that luxury.

 

Actually, I'm to lazy to do any of this anyway. I think I'll just take the Leicas... which I'll

make my wife carry.

 

(oh, oh, hope she doesn't read this).

Digital "Polaroids" will work provided the indicated "ASA" of the digital matches your meter, or you know how much it differs. The times that I've used a 10D it seemed to be more sensitive than the indicated ASA rating. I would meter with the IV and transfer the settings to the 1Ds and see how it comes out. You have some time to run some science fair experiments with the digital against the film camera's meter to determine what compensation, if any, is needed.

Same lens, same tripod mount, same subject, same ISO on both cameras (film in the 1V

for correct reflectance):

 

Dead nuts the same meter reading. Not surprising given they're the same camera.

Why??

 

You appear to have been around long enough to get 99% of the metering

correct so why add the extra step of digital polaroids?

 

If you shoot film and have the digital with you and find a real tricky

situation then that maybe justification but generally it wouldn't be worth

the hassle.

 

Or have you got so used to using the 1DS and instant feedback you are

losing your bottle when it comes to film? ;-)

 

M.

I have a different "why" question. Why are you shooting some weddings film and others in B&W? Are you offering this choice to clients? If so, why? I have never had a client ask what I shoot, but if I did, I would respond that I use the best tools for the job, and then show them prints of my work. I am completely digital now, and I see no reason why this would matter to a client. I can understand carting around a Leica with 6400 B&W for creative purposes, but you're 1Ds should blow away your film results.

Correction: I meant to ask, why are you shooting some weddings in film and others in digital? Sorry.

"Why". You appear to have been around long enough to get 99% of the metering correct

so why add the extra step of digital polaroids?"

 

The only "Why" I ask is... why did I ask this question?

 

Maybe just to get a different, more practical question out there than:

 

"If a Bride had two navels, would it be ethical for for a photographer to refuse to shoot it,

and would an Art Photographer do a better job of exploring the mystic relationship of one

navel to the other?" Post all images you have of Brides with dual navels, EXPLAIN your

motivations and be quick about it".

 

"...but you're 1Ds should blow away your film results."

 

Not film from a Leica M it don't ; -)

 

The all digital job is due to economics.

 

The all film job is for another photographer who wants film and silver prints. A concept I

fully understand.

I still can't grasp the Leica fascination. I've compared an M4's slides and prints to images from a D2H, F5, Mamiya, etc., and I don't see the benefit. They do make good paperweights;)

Thanks Rich, yet another good use for the Leicas in addition to making excellent images.

 

Different strokes for different folks.

Marc: Hey, instead of "dual navels", you could explore the differing qualities and characteristics of "innies" and "outies"! :)

 

Duane

But don't you think the profusion of indepth, incisive, challenging

questions that seem to proliferate in this forum are enough to keep to tax

the brains of the rest of us?

 

:-)

 

M.

BTW.

 

Although I don't shoot weddings we seem to have similar expensive

habits.

 

1ds and Leica.

 

Opposite ends in the technology stakes but both at the same end of the

quality ladder (I can hear the knives being unsheathed as I type this....

Ouch!).

 

M.

Not to mention at different ends of the weight scale Mark ; -)

"I still can't grasp the Leica fascination. I've compared an M4's slides and prints to images from a D2H, F5, Mamiya, etc., and I don't see the benefit. They do make good paperweights;)"

 

The benefit is in how you see and shoot with them. Leica M's produce images with a different 'feel' to them...Technically a D2H or F5 might be on a par with an M, but they don't have that indescribable (sp?) something that an M gives you.

Interesting that you point that out Jeff. On another thread I mentioned to Kevin how when

I layout all the images from a wedding, a disproportionate number of the best shots are

with the Leica Ms. My wife has noted that also. Who knows, it's all subjective. Maybe it has

to do with the feel of film and how Leica lenses render available light in such a signature

manner.

 

I think I'll start a separate thread on this subject... or maybe not... or maybe... or maybe..

: -)

How many people feel like Robert Capa, ready to storm a beach, when you're holding a Lecia? I think the attraction is mostly in their mythical reputation. However, auto bracketing, AF, spot metering, and 8 fps would be a nice addition. It's that 1/50 flash synch that keeps me from trying to make a living with it.

Oh I don't know Rich, I love entering a wedding reception hall feeling like Robert Capa or

HCB, or Inga Moriath, or Robert Doisneau, or Luis Castaneda, or Alexander Rodtschenko,

or Erich Salomon, or Eisenstaedt, or Andre Kertesz, etc. They managed to pull off a couple

of okay shots without all the electronics.

 

Not implying the M is the end all, it has its limitations. Shooting in low available light isn't

one of them.