Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | People Photography | Join Upload & Sell

Archive 2016 · MF Film in Studio

dannyxphoto
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · MF Film in Studio

Hey guys, I'm simply looking for advice on shooting medium format film, in studio situations. I know film has a wider dynamic range than digital, so would that affect my exposure for my images? I mean, I guess I'm just looking for any tips that you guys may have. I'm shooting some fashion editorial work for a magazine. They stumbled upon some of my film stuff and asked that I shoot it on film instead of digital.

I'll be shooting 4 different models, all with varying skin tones. I'm shooting a Bronica ETRS w/ speed grip, so I'll have my pocket wizard handy. I also have two softboxes and a beauty dish. I was going to play it safe and just use Portra 160 or Fuji Pro 160. Any recommendations or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Mar 13, 2016 at 01:05 AM

Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · MF Film in Studio

Both the Fuji and Kodak are great emulsions. I would rate them more in the ISO 50-80 range rather than 160. You'll have much better negs, and you never want to under expose color neg. Hopefully you'll be able to find Polaroid. Fuji just discontinued theirs. The biggest problem, of course, is finding someone who really knows how to scan color neg.

Mar 13, 2016 at 01:55 AM

Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · MF Film in Studio

I would add that with some testing, you should be able to use a digital camera as a Polaroid.

Mar 13, 2016 at 01:57 AM

dannyxphoto
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · MF Film in Studio

Thanks peter!

Mar 13, 2016 at 02:48 AM

dannyxphoto
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · MF Film in Studio

crap, I hope this isn't in the wrong section.

If it is, could someone tell me where I should move it to?

Mar 13, 2016 at 02:50 AM

dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · MF Film in Studio

The dynamic range of the capturing medium is less important than the dynamic range of the display medium. If you're shooting for magazine reproduction, you shoot accordingly.

Things are a lot different than the old days were separations were generated directly from the camera original, which for color was color transparency. Turning over a camera ready file is much easier.

More important than dynamic range is figuring out what aspect of your film work drew them to you. I like film, but there's hardly a look that it has that can't be replicated from a digital capture if you have the post processing skills. I've had people pratter on about the magical quality of film and pointed to some of my digital images as evidence of qualities only obtainable from film.

Mar 13, 2016 at 11:08 AM

dannyxphoto
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · MF Film in Studio

dmacmillan wrote:
The dynamic range of the capturing medium is less important than the dynamic range of the display medium. If you're shooting for magazine reproduction, you shoot accordingly.

Things are a lot different than the old days were separations were generated directly from the camera original, which for color was color transparency. Turning over a camera ready file is much easier.

More important than dynamic range is figuring out what aspect of your film work drew them to you. I like film, but there's hardly a look that it has that can't be replicated from a digital capture if you have the...Show more →

Thanks man, duly noted.

Mar 13, 2016 at 11:15 AM

Evan Baines
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · MF Film in Studio

FWIW I've found the new Portra 160 less amenable to overexposure in the studio than other color neg films. Tends to be difficult to get reasonably accurate and pleasing color when overexposed by a stop or so. I used to shoot all 160 films at 80 or so, but I've shifted to shooting my portra at box to +1/3, and have been much happier with the results. I know you said you're going to be shooting Fuji, but if you grab any kodak I think this is worth considering.

I think the big thing I've found different between digital and film in the studio is that film applies its own contrast curve, where you might be used to looking at more flat digital files while building a lighting setup. I tend to find I use more fill light on film.

Mar 13, 2016 at 05:16 PM

dannyxphoto
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · MF Film in Studio

Evan Baines wrote:
FWIW I've found the new Portra 160 less amenable to overexposure in the studio than other color neg films. Tends to be difficult to get reasonably accurate and pleasing color when overexposed by a stop or so. I used to shoot all 160 films at 80 or so, but I've shifted to shooting my portra at box to +1/3, and have been much happier with the results. I know you said you're going to be shooting Fuji, but if you grab any kodak I think this is worth considering.

I think the big thing I've found different between digital and...Show more →

Thank you so much homie. I haven't developed any portra 160 yet but I've shot it and lost the roll *cries*. Would you have any files I could see?

Mar 13, 2016 at 05:25 PM

Evan Baines
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · MF Film in Studio

Email sent. My FTP client isn't working after an OS upgrade, so it was easier just to mail some samples.

Mar 13, 2016 at 07:37 PM

airfrogusmc
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · MF Film in Studio

If you want to get the full potential out of your film you really need to expose as close to the threshold of exposure as possible. That means the first perceivable density over film base + fog. I know the zone system really doesn't work with color but some of the basic exposure principles do apply.

My first job out of college (1986) I was shooting and doing custom printing for one of the top portrait shooters in the area and he was having a lot trouble with a strong magenta cast in all of his high key type work. I wasn't. His negatives were so dense they were bullet proof LoL.

So I asked about what he was doing. It was VPS at the time. 160 ISO. He said he was rating that at 80 and was basing his exposure on his fill light. Like most portrait photographers of the time they were always concerned about the shadows so they usually always over exposed the film. But this is to the extreme. His highlight on his white were going at least two stops off the scale. So the shoulder was completely blocking up and the long enlarging times were creating a strong magenta cast.

Anyway I convinced him to do a test with the camera, lens and film he was using to get the proper ASA/ISO. So we did the tests and I had access to a densitometer and we found that the film and the camera lens he was using (500 C/M and 80mm lens) the proper ISO was actually right at 160 ISO.

I also convinced him to expose for the key light and keep the fill for high key type work no more than 1 stop under the key light. The background with a spot reading of the white seamless should read about 3 stops over the exposure on the subject. If your subject is caucasian then face should be placed at about zone VI depending on how light or dark they are.

Sorry for the long post but the only way to know is to test but I have found that ISO/ASA are usually pretty close to the manufactures rated ISO but again this can depend largely on camera shutter and lens aperture to. In the film days there were about a 1/2 stop tolerance one shutters and and a half stop om lenses ether way so between those two variables that could be a stop or more one way or the other and that doesn't even bring in processing.

The reason why many just went over like rating 160 at 80 is to play it safe. I always tried to expose as close to the threshold as possible to get the absolute most out of the film. The results thus give you a full range negative from proper exposure that gives you more latitude and the most options when you print.

Mar 18, 2016 at 09:35 AM

Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · MF Film in Studio

Whatever you decide to do about attempting to shoot film, you should test the entire process from beginning to end to make sure that it's giving you the results you're looking for.

The previous advice on minimum exposure with color neg film, in my real world experience, is asking for problems. There are too many variables in exposure and development to shoot right on the ragged edge of bare minimum and it's too easy to, even when you think you're being exact, to end up in the slightly underexposed category, and that's a place where you never ever want to be with color negs. Remember that Kodak and Fuji say in their literature that the recommended ISO is the "minimum" required for a "good" negative under ideal conditions. Or something very similar to that effect.

If you're going to shoot color negs, are you going to have C prints made and then scan the prints, or are you going to have the negs scanned directly? Either way, you need to test that leg of the process as well. Having done both, it's far preferable to scan the neg directly, but only if your scanner operator dude (or dudette) knows how to scan color negs - and all too often, even professional scanning outfits just don't know how to get the best color neg scans.

There is a valid reason for shooting film for commercial purposes. It has a certain look to it, especially for skin tones that is generally smoother than digital, and then you've the the completely natural and organic film grain as well, which is a plus in my book.

I'd say go out and test and report back what you find. If you need the highest quality scans, PM me.

Mar 18, 2016 at 03:14 PM

airfrogusmc
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · MF Film in Studio

I shot film and processed both color and B&W custom and on machines for decades commercially and in small batches for my personal work. For absolute best results on any negative film it is always best to expose as close to the threshold of exposure as possible. It will always give you the best results. They say it's recommended because to know for sure you have to test. You can do it without a densitometer but you should have an enlarger and be printing it yourself. But the only way to know if you are over or under is to test because every camera and lens is a variable. You might find the proper ISO for say a 160 film is 80 or you might find it to be 320 or 160 depending on those variables. The key word in all of this is TEST.

Mar 18, 2016 at 07:46 PM


FM Forums \| People Photography \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.