My first foray into medium format, or film at all really. Some beginner questions...

[Slandis]

I just picked up a Bronica SQ-A for a pretty good deal. I intend to shoot mostly from a tripod (landscape/night), but theres still the question of what film to start out with. I know Velvia 50 is gorgeous, but I'd like to start with a color negative since this will be my first experience shooting film stills manually. I was thinking of starting with Portra 160 or Ektar 100, unless someone has a better film to suggest? I love the tungsten cast of Fuji 64T but I just found out it was discontinued. What are you all shooting in its place these days?

As for metering, I don't have a light meter yet. Since I mainly want to do landscape photography, I was thinking of going with a dedicated 1˚ spot meter (Pentax?) and using the zone system. I'd imagine I'd want a comprehensive meter with incident function in the future, but as a college student on a budget (I'd guess no more than 1 or 2 rolls per month), ~$130 for a Pentax spot meter is a lot more attractive than a $300+ Sekonic spot meter. In the meantime, all I have is the lightmeter app on my iPhone.

Finally, tripods. Let me start by saying I understand the basic concepts of tripod support applied to video (my main source of income), and I realize photo tripods are less demanding, yet I still can't seem to decide on a cheap set of sticks. Considering how little budget I have to shoot film currently, I'm wondering if its worth it to buy a set of legs under $100 or simply buy a 75mm half ball adapter for my trusty Miller Solo DV CF legs. I see a lot of people recommend Manfrotto stuff, but based on my experience with their products for video (Kubrick-esque pans at 200mm+ in sub zero weather), Manfrotto is junk. Again, since photography has a different set of requirements, I wouldn't be surprised if its a completely different case for stills. I would assume that a $35 Dolica tripod would do the job with my Bronica as long as I used both mirror lockup and a remote shutter. Any insights?

 

[Tuffythepug]

A few thoughts on your main points. Congratulations on your acquistion of the Bronica SQ. You'll love it. I very recently picked up the 645 version. the ETRS. I was fortunate that the person I bought it from had lots of Bron. equip.and gave me some extra stuff; The best part was that he included the AE-II metered prism finder. This meter seems to be pretty accurate with the ISO 400 bw film I'm using. Of course the spot meter and applying zone system techniques would be the ideal.

I've been doing ok just taking my reading off of an 18% gray card and guesstimating where that would fall in any given composition. The ease of using the metered finder makes it a good investment in my opinion. Maybe you'd be able to find a good metered finder for nearly the price of a spotmeter alone. Also, when using filters, which I do a lot for b/w, I don't have to remember to factor in the adjustment to exposure for each one. A 25A red requires 3 full stops of increased exposure. The metered finder solves that for me.

Re. color film. I haven't shot any color film in any format for quite a while. My color shots are always digital.. .. B/w is 35mm or 120.

The only thoughts I have on tripods is to use a good one and use it on landscapes whenever possible. like you didn't already know that

 

[amolitor]

I'd just use the tripod you've got already, with the cheapest adapter you can find that will let the camera screw on to it. If you're doing landscapes, being able to easily pan the thing around is irrelevant -- the landscape's not going any place. If you lose the light fiddling with the tripod, come back tomorrow -- it's the landscape photographer's way. If you wanted to work fast and efficiently, you wouldn't be shooting film -- the POINT is to slow down and be meditative, right? Medium format's not really a 'whip it around and nail the moment' sort of format anyways.

 

[amolitor]

For a light meter you might consider using a body you'd already got. If you have anything with a center weighted or "spot" metering mode, you can just use that.

Zone system's not really going to fly with color anyways, you can't do the development side of it. You can place tones, though. While 1 degree spot meter is the best tool for that, you can get 95% of the way with a center weighted 35mm body, or DSLR, with the longest lens you have lying around.

 

[Helen B]

To avoid having to carry two tripods when doing both stills and video on location I simply use my 75 mm Miller for both. Though I have a 75 mm bowl adapter, I often just mount the still camera on the fluid head, except for large format cameras, which I mount straight onto the bowl adapter.

Manfrotto make a wide variety of tripods, and I wouldn't write them all off as junk by any means. They aren't Ronford Baker, but neither is Miller. The best stills tripod is probably an RRS, but they are quite a lot more expensive than Manfrotto. I wouldn't bother with a cheap tripod - it has to do more than simply hold the camera in about the right place. It should be able to hold it rock solid when there is a breeze.

If you want a cheap meter you might think about buying an incident meter first. Although I carry a Sekonic L-758DR I use it mostly as an incident meter for landscape work. It is more important that you know how to use the meter you have. You can do Zone System metering for B&W with an incident meter.

For film, try the Portra 160. It has enormous dynamic range - particularly in the highlights, so don't be afraid to set the meter to EI 80, or even lower, when using it for landscapes.

 

[compur]

And, be sure to send me all your Manfrotto junk for proper disposal.

Seriously, as Helen says, Manfrotto's still photo gear is usually quite adequate as long as it is properly matched to your equipment and application.

 

[Slandis]

For a light meter you might consider using a body you'd already got. If you have anything with a center weighted or "spot" metering mode, you can just use that.

Zone system's not really going to fly with color anyways, you can't do the development side of it. You can place tones, though. While 1 degree spot meter is the best tool for that, you can get 95% of the way with a center weighted 35mm body, or DSLR, with the longest lens you have lying around.

Does metering for digital sensors translate that easily? The only digital stills camera I have is a Lumix GH2, and I've honestly never even explored the stills side of that little beast. Also, the ISO values are in integers of 100's, so I'm not exactly sure how I'd meter for, say, Velvia 50 or Portra 160.

To avoid having to carry two tripods when doing both stills and video on location I simply use my 75 mm Miller for both. Though I have a 75 mm bowl adapter, I often just mount the still camera on the fluid head, except for large format cameras, which I mount straight onto the bowl adapter.

Yeah, I figured that for in the off-chance that I bring both, I can just mount my Bronica on my trusty Sachtler Cine DSLR head using a QR plate. But most of my uses with this camera will be summer hikes and such. My carbon fiber Miller legs are practically weightless, and solid as a rock, they just happen to be bulkier than photo legs generally are. While I know using these legs with a half ball adapter will produce best results, I just wanted to know if there were any suitable and less bulky alternatives. If not, no biggie.

If you want a cheap meter you might think about buying an incident meter first. Although I carry a Sekonic L-758DR I use it mostly as an incident meter for landscape work. It is more important that you know how to use the meter you have. You can do Zone System metering for B&W with an incident meter.

The reason why I'm hesitant to buy an incident meter at the moment is because I want to do landscapes. It is my understanding that using an incident meter involves putting the lumisphere in the same light as your subject, but there's no way for me to do that when I'm posted up in the pitch black separated from my subject by a quarter-mile of dark trees. Even for daytime hikes, the light from peak to peak tends to vary drastically, so again I don't see how incident could be of any help here...unless I'm missing something?

For instance, how would I meter something like this using incident without walking a quarter mile just to take a reading?

don't be afraid to set the meter to EI 80, or even lower

Stupid question, but the ISO setting on the Bronica only affects the metering prism, correct? As in, it has no effect on the camera's basic function of opening and closing? So using exposure index is a matter of setting your light meter differently?

And, be sure to send me all your Manfrotto junk for proper disposal. ;-)

Don't worry, every set of legs I bought ended up in the trash after only two years.

 

[Helen B]

For instance, how would I meter something like this using incident without walking a quarter mile just to take a reading?

I don't think you need any kind of lightmeter to paint a picture that doesn't represent real world lighting.

That would, however, be difficult to measure using an incident reading because of the unknown illumination of the distant groomed slopes. Light varying from one hilltop to another doesn't usually cause problems, especially as incident meters can also be used for reflective readings. This was shot using reversal film (which is very picky in terms of exposure), and I didn't feel the need for a spot meter:

One of the advantages of most incident/wide reflective meters over spot meters is that they are usually more sensitive, and more useful at dusk/night. You might have a problem using a spot meter for the scene you refer to because of the low sensitivity.

What is your budget for a stills tripod?

 

[Slandis]

I don't think you need any kind of lightmeter to paint a picture that doesn't represent real world lighting.

Touché, but in all fairness that's exactly what it looks like in reality. What the lights aren't illuminating, the moon is.

One of the advantages of most incident/wide reflective meters over spot meters is that they are usually more sensitive, and more useful at dusk/night. You might have a problem using a spot meter for the scene you refer to because of the low sensitivity.

Sounds like I need to brush up on my metering knowledge then. So you used reflective metering for that gorgeous photo? I thought reflective readings averaged everything to 18%, which I always assumed was problematic.

What is your budget for a stills tripod?

Currently under $50. I think I'm just going to get a 75mm half ball adapter so I can use my Miller legs.

 

[Derrel]

Beginning with a Baseline reading taken at ISO 100: ISO 50 would be ONE FULL STOP more exposure needed. ISO 160 is 2/3 of a stop away from ISO 100, so 2/3 of a stop LESS light would be needed.

Today, the most common ISO values as baseline on digital cameras are 100 and 200. The sequence of 50,64,80,100,125,160,200,250,320,400,500,640,800 will encompass the vast majority of 1/3 stop ISO values one will typically shoot at with today's common camera types. Each adjacent value on the list of 50 to 800 is 1/3 of an ISO "step" lower or higher.

The SQ-A with one of the AE Prism finders gives precise, incremental HALF-stop exposure options on the shutter speed dial.

 

[Slandis]

Just got back from my first trip shooting with the camera. I ended up using the Light Meter iPhone app since I didn't want to carry another body 3 miles into the mountains. I wasn't exactly sure what I was doing, so I was wondering if someone could help me out here.

In this shot, would it be better to spot meter on the water, or the sky? Based on how the phone metered the exposure, I liked it when I chose the sky. Does the phone's reaction to the metering parallel the film's reaction as well?



In this shot, I wanted to capture the mist on the water. Was I right in metering on the mist, or should I have metered on the water in the lower right-hand corner?


Are trees off-limits assuming I don't want the image to be super bright? Or should I have gone with the grass here instead?

 

[Derrel]

What kind of film were you using? If you were shooting color slide film, the readings off of the brighter areas would probably be reasonably close to the way an iPhone "meters". And the last "light meter" sample pic, where the tree was metered and the sky blew out terribly...that "scene" is clearly beyond the dynamic range of the iPhone when a dark tone like that is the metering area...as the totally blown-out sky shows. I did not even know there WAS an iPhone light meter app! My comments are based only on looking at these few sample shots. I am "assuming" that the light meter application works reasonably close to the way the iPhone's exposure metering and focusing "Box" system works, meaning that it favors a more-brief, ie "faster" exposure, which is designed to protect the brighter tones from over-exposure, and which is thus more like the way one would want to meter with "color slide film" (or digital!) and not really the the way one would really want to (typically) meter when using color negative film.

Your first two examples show the VAST difference in exposure values in a scene shot/metered only one minute apart. The first shot, with the metering area centered down on the lake water's shaded zone totally"blows out" the brighter sky values...which would be a total disaster if using color slide film. The second example shows the meter "pegging" the highlight values about the way I would expose color slide film, by taking a narrowish angle reflected light reading off of a bright sky tone area, and then shooting at that exposure. Of course, in THAT lighting scenario, that exposure results in a silhouette...buuut....that's what it was, right??? Evening backlight in the mountains...

 

[Slandis]

meaning that it favors a more-brief, ie "faster" exposure, which is designed to protect the brighter tones from over-exposure, and which is thus more like the way one would want to meter with "color slide film" (or digital!) and not really the the way one would really want to (typically) meter when using color negative film.

Could you please elaborate on why it wouldn't be preferable for color negative? I realize slide film has less latitude and is unforgiving in the highlights, but why would this not be preferable for color negative?

I'm using Portra 160 by the way.

Of course, in THAT lighting scenario, that exposure results in a silhouette...buuut....that's what it was, right??? Evening backlight in the mountains...

Yes, the second photo is essentially how it looked in reality, and also how I wanted to expose it. I just wasn't sure if I could "rely" on that reading using Portra 160.

I realize the core of film is getting a feel for various stocks and learning with experience, it's just that I'm on a college budget and don't exactly have money to burn through film nonstop.