How popular are polaroids among nature photographers?

[glen_johnson]

Most of the big name shooters in nature photography talk about making "in camera dupes." To do this successfully, you really have to be very confident about your exposure, but, as we've seen in a lot of questions, both here, and in the regular Q&A forum, a lot of folks aren't that comfortable with their exposure selection. Even some of the guys who most might consider "hot shots" talk about extensive bracketting.

 

<p>

 

My question is, "Do 35mm nature photographers use NPC Polaroid backs for static nature subjects or landscapes?" If no, why not? It seems like the guy trying to nail a static subject and make in camera dupes would be a natural candidate for polaroids.

[bobatkins]

Short answer: No, I've never heard of it being done (but I suppose

someone, somewhere has no doubt done it).

 

<p>

 

Nailing exposure isn't very difficult most of the time. Most nature

pros are shooting slides anyway. I'm not sure how a Polaroid would

help you nail an exposure on Velvia. I'm sure they don't have the same

exposure latitude or dynamic range.

 

<p>

 

Besides, it's 35mm. For under $10 you can bracket the hell out of

a subject and get a load of dupes in less time than it would take

you to shoot one Polaroid, not to mention the extra gear you have to

carry around (and pay for).

[brad_mills]

I see no benefit of going through the trouble and expense of doing this for nature. I've done it for indoor basketball shots, but that was to verify the lights we were using in the rafters were on and aligned.

 

<p>

 

For nature static shots, usally its not too difficult to get the exposure. For wildlife shots the conditions and such are changing so much I don't see the benefits of doing the test and having the animal walk out of the area.

[dan_smith]

If you are going to go to the trouble to use a Polaroid for nature work you go to 4x5 so the Polaroid that is excellent then becomes an original image, much more than just a check of lighting, etc. A number of large format shooters use Polaroids. Doing so with 35mm would be lunacy at best in the field. With 20 sheets of Polaroid often in the neighborhood of $60(USA) you could shoot an extra 3-5 rolls of 35mm film instead and bracket all over the place. Yes, this wastes a ton of film and any decent photog doesn't have to do so but it would still be cheaper and much quicker than polaroid. After all, if you are going to carry an extra camera with film & polaroid back, change bodies and proof much of anything, why not just use large format in the first place? Most experienced shooters don't rely on bracketing or would even consider Polaroid when in the field. Bracketing only comes into play at the 'edge of light', and Polaroid would seldom be needed then as the light would normally be of short duration.

[ShunCheung]

With modern built-in light meters, exposure isn't that much of an issue most of the time. In those tricky situations, just bracket. Moreover, if you shoot wildlife, in most cases, there simply isn't time for Polaroid because a few second later, the shooting opportunity could be gone.

 

<p>

 

Polariod is more useful for indoor commercial shots. In those cases, you have all the time in the world and you want to check out all sort of potential problems such as reflections, etc. etc.

[john_song]

Polaroid aren't THAT useful when you trying to judge the exposure and color. I only use them on a medium format in a studio to check the light ratio(not the exposure) between the ambient light and the flash light. A lot of nature shots require long exposures and Polaroid don't do well under long exposures; or extremly short exposures for that matter(color shift, incorrect exposure and etc).

[altaf]

I use polaroids for a few reasons in the field.

(1) i like to have a record of where ive been adn what i shot on roll film, this lets me write down exposure info immediately and location etc... Its much easier to keep track of than if i write it in a notebook frame 02 of roll 04 velvia etc....

(2) Sometimes its nice to give a couple away to the curious or someone that posed for me in a picture, just a nice litttle thank you. It's usually very much appreciated.

(3) If something does happen to the original roll while processing and they claim its exposure error, its always nice to have something to show the clerk at the lab exactly what exposure you used and that it was not your screw up but the labs (only to be used when they get snotty)

 

<p>

 

My 2 cents

[ederkes]

Admittedly, a polaroid back has limited usefulness in nature photography, but I sometimes use a polaroid back on my second Nikon F4 body. I don't use it for static subjects though, because you can easily bracket those types of shots if necessary. I use it for multiple flash images of insects in flight, for multiple flash shots of hummingbirds, and for images of moving subjects in tricky lighting conditions. Before I started using a polaroid back,I once shot 4 rolls of film of wasps landing and taking off from a nest- only to find all images had a distracting shadow and were overexposed. Bracketing was not a good option either, since only a handful of images had a wasp properly focused and positioned in mid-flight. I've found the exposure of Polacolor Pro 100 polaroid film to correspond quite well to Fujichrome 100 slide film for flash exposures and routine photography. It doesn't work well for long exposures of several seconds or more (which is a shame because that would be another excellent use for polaroid backs).

[patrick_chase]

It seems to me that if you have time to shoot a Polaroid, look at it, make adjustments, and reshoot, then you should also have time to spot-meter all of the important parts of the scene and figure out where you want each of them placed tonally. In that case, you shouldn't need to bracket much anyway (assuming that you thoroughly understand the characteristics of both your film and your meter).

 

<p>

 

In my experience, bracketing is something you do when time constraints force you to rely on full-scene metering, whether averaged or "evaluative". If that's the case, then you really don't have time for a Polaroid anyway.

[glen_johnson]

Here are some other reasons for not using a polaroid back with a 35mm camera, either for nature, or for other subjects. These comments are related to the EOS 1N and NPC Pro Back II.

 

<p>

 

1. NPC will tell you that you can mount and dismount the back in 10 seconds, but they won't tell you that you will fog film every time you do this, unless you've shot the whole pack.

 

<p>

 

2. The NPC back blocks the on off switch, so you have to turn the camera on and leave it on until you open the back.

 

<p>

 

3. The NPC back won't close unless you remove the rubber eye cup.

 

<p>

 

4. You can't get your eye close to the finder once the NPC back is in place.

 

<p>

 

5. Polaroid film is temperature dependent. Changes in temperature and development time have an impact on the image. On a hot summer day you might need to rate the ISO 100 Polacolor at 200, while in cooler seasons you may need to rate it as low as 50 AND increase development time by 50%. If you're trying to nail something within a third of a stop, Polacolor isn't the way to go.

 

<p>

 

6. Here is a real show stopper. The fiber optic bundle for the NPC back that matches the EOS 1 doesn't really produce a very sharp image. Even under examination with a 5.5x NPC loupe, the images are really fuzzy... even with sharp lenses and tripod mounting. If you want to check out depth of field with one of these, good luck. Of course, I suppose there is the possibility that the one I tried out is a dog... but it was enough to sour me on the idea.

 

<p>

 

7. Another minor aggravation is that you lose the quick control dial. Of course, as those with 1N's know, you can transfer the function of the quick control dial to the main dial by hitting the compensation button before moving the main dial, so this isn't too big a deal.

 

<p>

 

As others have suggested, it looks like a back would be good to avoid gross exposure errors, or gross mistakes in things like shadow placement. You don't even need the loupe to see this stuff.

 

<p>

 

As for cost, the film is really cheap compared to what was suggested above. You can get a 10 pack of Polacolor Pro 100 type 679 from B&H for $10, and you can put two 35mm images on each sheet, so you can do 20 "proofs."

 

<p>

 

I've decided not to keep this little toy. Its sort of neat to be able to look at lighting, but that's what light meters and experience have helped me with for 30 years, so the back isn't really necessary.

 

<p>

 

If it weren't for the fiber optic bundle, i.e., if the film plane for the polaroid pack were at the same point as the film plane for the real film, then I think the images would be sharp, and I would probably be more supportive of the backs. As it is, there is too much tolerance, or else the fiber optic bundle has significant losses, or else my sample was defective.

 

<p>

 

Incidentally, B&H basically forewarned of the problems, but NPC insisted that there wouldn't be any. I think NPC is a little overly optimistic about the function of this product.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I use Polaroid in 35mm, medium & large formats.

1.) The new Polaroid emulsions match the current films much better than before, no they don't look like chromes (which I mostly shoot) but they are a very close in terms of ISO.

 

<p>

 

2.) I use these tools to check a number of things: that the equipment is working (including flash, and camera body) as well as light positioning and composition, and that a shoot meets a client's expectations and approval. Before I recently acquired a brand new NPC back for my Nikon N90s bodies at an obscenely low price, i used the 35mm Polachrome film and hand cranked processor. The ISO 40 film was a good match for RVP.

 

<p>

 

3.) The images formed by the 35mm NPC back are as noted above, fuzzy, they are also small. Still they are good proofs that things like slaved flashes are firing, the sync is working and that i haven't forgotten something like having the right amount of fill or that I have the right degree of filtration or the best placement of placement of a grad filter.

2.) In medium and large formats Polaroid is extremely addictive because of the quality and the instant feedback. The 4x5 Type 55 produces a good quality B+W negative. A few years back I worked on an ad campaign for a local TV station where the concepts would be thought up in early afternoon and had to be entirely produced including photography, copy, typesetting and production work (this was just before photoshop and desktop scanners) completed by 6pm. Type 55 to the rescue, especially since most of the photography was shot on location.

 

<p>

 

However none of this answers your real question. In some ways the answer to you is that you are right it might be a boon. On the other hand it is faster and and probably better to shoot a variety of exposures and compositions rather than rely on a single interpretation.

[mark_mitchell]

Wow, a question close to my heart ( Dad left me about 40 old

Polaroids including a '51 Model 95 & '52 Model 95a). I've thought of

using a Polaroid for 'instant composition' determination, but haven't

given thought to an NPC back. Has any one else found it useful to

tote a Polaroid around?