I Pose A Discussion To The Pro's...

[57%_Burnt]

To be truthful, I have yet to discover if there are actually any pro's here, but it matters little. My conundrum follows:

Considering the difficulty of finding high-quality/slide/medium format film in today's age, i'm beginning to grow tired of bracketing and burning through a $9+ roll of film and having 3 acceptable shots.
(It bears mentioning that I live in Alabama and photographic supplies are not exactly readily available.)

I do not yet have the money to go digital on the level I would like, so an idea formulated into my head. Why not buy an older digital that would take my Nikon lenses, like a D1 or maybe even a D100 and run it straight to a monitor, at which point I can bracket with it first, and then determine the proper settings, mount the lens on my F100, set and shoot. That way I can theoretically see my shot before its burned onto film and not worry about using 6 frames on 1 image.

Now I know a good pro should be able to capture his image properly, simply by using his meter readings, eye, and brain, but this seemed so much more interesting. Therefore I ask this question:

Does this seem like a reasonable alternative to a D2X
and a breakthrough in film photography!

-OR-

Completely and utterly ridiculous.

Fire away.

 

[Rob]

It sounds promising, however, the digital sensors are smaller and at this hour of the morning I can't figure out if the metering will be the same to gain a good exposure. Hmm. Theoretically it should be as the lens at the aperture it's at lets through the light pretty consistently across the frame.

I'd bet though that the digi and film would be at least one stop away from each other, that'd be fine if it were consistent, but will it be?

Rob

 

[Artemis]

I guess technically im a pro, but there are many people better than me that perhaps technically arent pro's...

A pro is someone who earns money doing a subject, so I wouldnt say a pro knows more all the time than an "Amateur".

However, I dont think you can actually hook a digital slr up to the moniter and see what the camera see's, youll have to obviously shoot first, then check exposure and what not.

Does it seem reasonable? Id say it depends what your doing, if its not people are stuff outside of the range of your moniter your fine.
Most digital slrs have a screen on the back for after the shots been taken, why not check that?

If im correct, the D2x is a rather expensive digital slr...although im probably not correct.

Why not invest in a low budget D50 or D70, they are both GREAT well built cameras and are defenetly worth the money.
Hope I helped...

 

[markc]

First, do you bracket that much? When I first started I bracketed a lot, but found with a good meter reading, I rarely lost a shot. I might not be able to rely completely on the in-camera meter's assesment as composed, but learning the rules of exposure and walking around to meter various parts of the scene got me close enough to get a good neg. A hand-held meter can help here too.

I know you already mentioned that, but it is so much cheaper than investing in a digital camera and lugging around a laptop. It's similar to using a Polaroid back on the larger format cameras, but a lot more expensive. Plus you run into the issue that even if you use the same lens, it's going to be on a different body. Unless you spend the big bucks to get a full-frame sensor, the composition won't even match a 35mm camera, let alone a medium format one. With the Polaroid backs, everything stays the same except the film.

I think it's a cool idea, but we're not there yet.

 

[Paul Ron]

I was a pro many years ago and can tell you that you have to change your attitude towards your craft and stop thinking of photography as a fishing trip. Your camera is not a creel and you can't expect a full creel of fish every time you go out. Start thinking in terms of investment.

I take my time making a shot. I'd burn an entire roll shooting the same subject and more often than not, I'd shoot a couple rolls of the same subject. I'd bracket, try different light and wait for that moment, expose for different parts of the scene and have plenty of film to play with later in the darkroom. I've spent months waiting for the right moment, particular sky or light condition.

I'm a Zone head, I believe in making adjustments to my development as well as my exposures and it doesn't end there, you can also tone your negatives with selenium to boost contrast at carying levels. All this adjustment requires plenty of film and plenty of images to compare. It's not a crap shoot, it's done very deliberate, it's maticulously slow process. BUTTTT.... with all the time and money invested, my returns are that perfect print that will sell for $200 or more. In my mind's eye, it is exactly what I was looking for. That is the life of a pro who makes a living from his art.

OTOH... if you are a comercial or wedding or school photographer, you make your shots fast, bracket to be on the safe side but get em in like tuna. Your pictures are not museum quality, they are snapshots that fit the needs of your customer, their treasured memories, it's a package deal and you make money on quantity and speed. These don't have to be museum quality mounted, perfect prints, they just have to be abundant, clear and nicely presented, not so in an art print.

So how can you complaign about a $9 investment to make 2 photos that will sell for $200/ea?... or even $50/ea?? You did good. I maybe get one shot out of 50 frames but it'll more than pay for my initial investment, it's worth every penny to me personally. I also have many negatives to print at varying degrees of artistic creativity so my photo is not limited to one version, I have many to play with making each print unique.

 

[j_mcquillen]

Why not buy an older digital that would take my Nikon lenses, like a D1 or maybe even a D100 and run it straight to a monitor, at which point I can bracket with it first, and then determine the proper settings, mount the lens on my F100, set and shoot.

If you do decide to do it, remember that digital cameras don't suffer from reciprocity failure like film does, so if you're using long exposures, you'll need to allow a little extra light to compensate...

 

['Daniel']

I think you should just learn how to meter properly. I doubt it has anything to do with the film quality if it costs $9. It sounds like the problem is with you.