Using digital to preview lighting before shooting with MF

I have a Hasselblad with 80mm and 150mm lenses and would like to

take some 1 and 2 person B&W portraits using one strobe with

umbrella (or softbox) and 1 or 2 reflectors (probably white

foamboard). I would like some feedback on the idea of using a

digital camera to preview the lighting setup prior to making the

shots with B&W 120 film. I would like to do this in lieu of using a

polaroid back. Anyone have experience with this? I plan on buying a

digital camera for this purpose IF it's been tried with good results.

Here are my choices (if feasible):PLEASE COMMENT (or recommend)

 

1)Buy a digital with a sync cord socket?(If so, which camera?)

 

2)Buy a digital with a hot shoe and buy an infrared trigger to go on

it, and disable the built-in flash.(If so, which camera?)

 

3)Use my 35mm with B&W chromogenic and take it to the one hour lab

to get "preview" prints.

Hi Blake, I've done what you described and it worked pretty well. I too have a 503CW with a PME-45 metered prism viewfinder. I found the meter in it to be about 1/3 stop off from my Canon 10D. Anyway, I'll take a stab: 1) The 10D has a synch cord socket. 2) The 10D has a hot-shoe and you can buy an infrared trigger and disable the built-in flash 3) To me, you might as well get a polaroid back off ebay than do this. A few more thoughts: Don't ever go by a digital camera's LCD screen to judge exposure - they're notoriously innacurate. DO use the digital camera's histogram; it can be invaluable. Make sure the digital camera you use has the same ISO setting as your film because it'll make life much easier. Lastly, since I bought a decent B&W inkjet printer (HP 7960) I don't miss shooting B&W film at all anymore and have gotten amazing prints from my 10D color images converted to B&W. Only fly in the ointment is that the HP only prints up to 8 1/2X 11". Best wishes . . .

Blake-- It seems one aspect of this system you are trying to control is cost. Forget that! Be prepared to spend at least a grand on the camera. I have digital cameras that I test lighting with, and they have proven invaluable. With architectural interiors, I have to shoot several tests to make sure I get the lights balanced as critically as I want them to be, and the digital has certainly saved a lot of Polaroid costs. Emailing comps to remote clients or to fast jobs for newspapers has helped make up the expense as well.

 

Get a good digital camera, and it will do more for you than you are thinking about right now. The EOS 10-D as mentioned before would be good, as would the latest offerings from Olympus (high-end) or the Nikon SLR's.

 

Forget consumer-grade cameras. They will be a kluge to use in your applications (trust me, I struggled with one for a while before prices on the better ones became reasonable). Get one with absolutely full manual control and a PC socket, or it will drive you nuts and take up your time. Again, a thousand dollars U.S. will be the minimum you will spend, and if you choose right it will be worth it. I have an Olympus E-20N, and it has served me extremely well for the past two years, often in just the circumstances that you are outlining. Since Olympus has come out with new cameras, these can be gotten quite reasonably, and you may want to look into them.

 

Best of luck. -BC-

The Digital camera will only tell you if you are in the ballpark with Exposure. You can tell

something about the lighting that way though.

 

It is faster than Polaroid....more expensive though. You would have to shoot a lot of

Polaroid to equal the cost of a body ($1,000) and lenses that are similar in focal length to

your Hassy lenses....plus memory cards, card reader, photoshop....

 

A D70 or Canon Digi Rebel would be the minimum camera.

 

Get a Digi Camera if you want a Digi camera. I do use one (Nikon D100) to quickly show a

shot to clients, but I DON'T base my exposure on it.

 

As for option #3....you want to wait One Hour to see if your lighting is correct?

 

jmp

I use a Canon G2 with a Nikon AS15 - though I've found that digital is usualy 1 to 1 1/2 stops faster than most films (of the same "asa" under studio lighting)and has a different look (particularly in the shadows), for important shoots, I still use Polaroids along with the digitals - since the G2 only closes down to f8 I also keep a few ND filters handy.

I often use my Canon A70 to check lighting, and it's a fabulous tool- cheaper then Polaroid when you take dozens of test shots. Very fast payback on your investment.

 

But don't rely on it for exposure- use your meter. There is a 1-2 stop difference between the display brightness and the correct exposure on my Canon.

 

You can put a Wein Safe Synch in any hot shoe to provide a PC connection. On my A70 I just use a piece of paper or small mirror to throw the light toward the slaves on the main flashes. Sometimes I use the built-in flash as a fill.

 

There is a good argument for going with D70/DReb or better: you will probably start shifting to a pure digital workflow.

I use a Fuji S602Z Pro to do this sort of thing for my RZ67. I don't use it for the exposure, that's what my Sekonic is for, but I do use it to run a quick check of the light balance and to make sure I haven't done anything stupid. If I want an exposure check, I can shoot a polaroid.