Polaroid is dead, long live digital.

March 2, 2009

I had my first “official” editorial shoot a few days ago.

One of my goals for this year was to get into doing portraiture.   I finally have a portable kit (sorta… my main camera is a mamiya RB67 which makes a Hasselblad look like a child’s toy)  and I was running out of excuses not to do it.  When a woman I’ve known for a while needed new publicity photos I jumped on the opportunity.

Lux Alptraum with the NJoy "Eleven"

Naturally when working with strobes outside of a studio the modeling lights are often too dim against the ambient light to give you a good idea of what’s going to happen when you pop the lights.  If you’re going to use film for a shoot, what you get on that negative is god’s little mystery until you pour out the fixer and pull the film off the reel.   Until you’ve had years of experience and can clearly visualize what the results are going to be you’d like to take a little peek under the curtain and make sure what you’d like to get is in fact what’s going to show up on the negative.

Let’s discuss the technical issues with this photo.   You’re taking a picture of someone with an Internet job who never sees the sun.   Pale skin with dark hair.  She’s a former roller derby girl so she’s got muscle and you want to get that across as well.  This is a woman that can knock your ass into the third row while wearing wheels on her feet.  So I want some directional light to give her physique some dimensions.

Then she picks up a chrome toy the size of a little slugger.  So you have the possibility of specular highlights.

I don’t think a light meter is going to cut the mustard here.  You want a Polaroid.  But Fuji Peel apart is $1-2 a pop these days and the subject has to sit there while it develops.  Yeah, she gets a door prize to take home but you need to get out of there soon.

Lux @ Babeland

This is where digital really shines and I see no reason why chimping can’t be a successful part of working with film.    Being able to pop off a few shots, check your exposure, identify any problem shadows or distracting elements and then switch the PC cord over to your main camera is invaluable.   This will immediately identify any issues with your equipment (something isn’t plugged in, a slave isn’t seeing the main flash, etc) and give you more information to work with.   Being able to use a light meter is important but if you can use a histogram that’s even better.

An added benefit is being able to email samples to your subject that day or the next day with minimal effort on your part.   This makes the client happy and gives you more time to get your film developed and scanned or printed.

One of the underlying themes I see go through any past time is shameless masochism.   The typical formula is “real X don’t use a Y, they Z”.   I’m sure you’re familiar with the concepts.

Many of these chestnuts are good practice.

Photographers should be comfortable using a meter.  They should be able to look at a scene and spot any issues that will have consequences as to what shows up on the negative.   If a subject is backlit, if there’s glare off a reflective surface, if your contrast range is immense, or if its simply just too dark to take a shot.   Experience will teach you what these hazards will do to your shot and how to avoid them.   There’s no need to take a test shot when you’re squinting into the sun, you know your subject will be in shadow with a blown out background.  If you can’t move, the usual remedy is fill flash.

Chimping is a great way of making sure your remedy worked.   If you’re adding light to a backlit scene, make sure it balances.  If your contrast range is too great for your media, take a shot and see what its going to look like with the sky blown out or your subject turned into a sillouette.   I see the use of a digital camera in these situations as a great boon, not a crutch.

Naturally this isn’t anything that snapping off a Polaroid couldn’t do just as well.  The trouble is when making sure costs you $2 and takes 30-60 seconds, you’re less inclined to do it.   I find that the $2.30 per 120 roll of Fuji Neopan that I only get 10 shoots off of is expensive enough.  I’m more than happy to use my Canon G9 once, twice, and then a few more just to be sure.

Posted in Technique