| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/07/2006 11:52:37 AM · #1 |
Hi all,
I've got a question regarding the settings (aperture, ISO, shutter speed) on my digital SLR vs. my older Pentax manual 35mm film camera. Basically, I'd like to be able to shoot both digital and film from time to time. Is it possible to set up a shot (night shot, let's say) with my digital and use that to experiment with the camera settings, so that I can best determine how long the exposure time should be, etc., and then use the same settings on the 35mm to achieve the same (or very similar) results?
I'm hoping there's an easy way to do this so I can use my dslr almost as a preview for what the film might produce. Does that make any sense??
I recall reading/hearing that the focal length multipliers (??) are different on dSLRs than on regular 35mm film cameras, but I don't know if/how that influences exposure.
Any info would be great! Thanks!
-Mike |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 11:59:10 AM · #2 |
They should be the same. Light meters don't have digital or film or format settings - 30 seconds at F11 at ISO 200 should be the same on all cameras and film, with all lenses.
I's recomend taking a few shots as a test, probably blow off a 24 shot roll at various setting to compare the two.
Why would you still be shooting film? You and about 4 other people still do. Is it lonely shooting film? LOL
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:04:57 PM · #3 |
| There is something called reciprocity failure with film that affects exposure when the shutter speed gets fairly long (I think I heard it starts in the 1/10th area). Maybe google it to get a little more information, but I think the exposure will still be in the manageable range even with slide film. |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:06:56 PM · #4 |
They should be roughly the same, as far as exposure goes. So as long as the ISO setting on the DSLR matches the film you are using in the other cam, you should be good to go.
You *might* find that there is a small offset in exposure. Many Canon DSLRs, for instance, are about 1/3 stop more sensitive than indicated. your cam is not likely to be much further off than that. You'd probably never notice it in real-life shooting. |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:17:35 PM · #5 |
thanks guys. the reason I'm looking to shoot some film is because it gives me a wider selection of lenses at this point in time. I've only got the two kit lenses that came with my evolt, and new lenses are expensive, especically given the limited selection for my camera body (it was a gift from my gf... I was planning on getting a canon, but she beat me to it and got the olympus instead. I'm happy with it, but wish I had more of a selection of lenses!)
With my Pentax, I've got a wide angle, stronger tele, and a handful of other lenses that I collected from my uncle. Not to mention we still have an old B&W enlarger in our basement (dad and uncle were art majors in college), so I can go old school if I want.
Ultimately I'm just looking to experiment and learn as much as possible. I'm really getting into the hobby now, but want to develop my skills and build a strong knowledge base and foundation, rather than running out and buying a bunch of accessories, thinking that spending money will instantly make me a better photographer.
Sound like the proper approach? |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:31:30 PM · #6 |
i use the digital for previewing my film work all the time
been quite happy with the results
the downside is the film camera is missing the 'iso selection' knob ;)
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 12:53:16 PM · #7 |
As Madman points out, there's an issue of "reciprocity failure" with film. All film materials suffer from this, some more so than others.
In a nutshell, reciprocity failure means that when you go past a certain length of exposure, the film no longer responds in a linear manner. For example, in architectural photography with 4x5 Ektachrome film, our "bracketed" exposures would look something like this in long-exposure interiors at night, like in restaurants, like in this shot made between approximately midnight and 6 AM:
Calculated exposure, based on light meter readings, was f/22 at 15 minutes;
Calculated exposure, figuring in reciprocity failure, was f/22 at 45 minutes
Bracketed exposures were f/22 at 15 minutes, f/22 at 45 minutes, f/22 at 3 hours
These aren't exact figures, it was over 20 years ago I made that shot, but the principle obtains.
SO, the bottom line is "You can't rely on the dSLR to function as a light meter for very long exposures, expecting to transfer the data directly to a film exposure."
What you CAN do is do some test exposures beforehand, to compare reciprocity failure between your digital and film results. From this you can build your own chart, like so:
Assuming color film "X", dSLR exposure times of 1, 10, 100, 1000 seconds = "X-film" exposure times of 1, 15, 200, 3000 seconds (or whatever your results show you).
We did exactly this for Polaroid 55 P/N 4x5 film, which we used to proof both our setups and our exposures on these very long shots. We knew exactly the relationship between long Polaroid exposures and long Ektachrome exposures. The polaroid film suffered much less from reciprocity failure than did the Ektachrome, you see...
R.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 01:57:07 PM · #8 |
Very cool stuff... I see what you're saying about the relationship not being linear as time goes on. I suppose the best way to learn a lot of this is through trial and error, so the more I get out and shoot the more clear things will become. Thanks for the quick lesson...
-m |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 02:13:23 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by ralphnev:
the downside is the film camera is missing the 'iso selection' knob ;) |
This was the largest change in thinking I found between film and digital.
Besides; there was a manual ISO knob => rewind, reload, take pic, write down frame, rewind, reload, roll forward (careful of the light) counting from prev count, add 1 for safty and pray :-) I always found it easier to just burn the rest of the roll and reload - less steps :-) |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 02:19:25 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by ralphnev:
the downside is the film camera is missing the 'iso selection' knob ;) |
This was the largest change in thinking I found between film and digital.
Besides; there was a manual ISO knob => rewind, reload, take pic, write down frame, rewind, reload, roll forward (careful of the light) counting from prev count, add 1 for safty and pray :-) I always found it easier to just burn the rest of the roll and reload - less steps :-) |
That's why God gave us medium-format cameras with interchangeable backs :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 11:27:31 PM · #11 |
For those saying the exposure time should be the same on film vs. digital ISO ratings...it's not accurate.
Digital ISO does not work the same as film ISO.
As the ISO rating of film increases, so does it's sensitivity to light.
The sensitivity of a digital image sensor does not change, instead, the camera magnifies the available light in the image. In reality, this degrades the image quality moreso than just buying higher ISO rated film, and the exposure times will not be exactly the same.
You can get rough estimates, I just wanted everyone to make sure they knew that it wasn't the same. And the way ISO reacts in digital cameras is going to be different for every model. There is no standard as there is in film sensitivity. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 12:15:26 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by ralphnev:
the downside is the film camera is missing the 'iso selection' knob ;) |
This was the largest change in thinking I found between film and digital.
Besides; there was a manual ISO knob => rewind, reload, take pic, write down frame, rewind, reload, roll forward (careful of the light) counting from prev count, add 1 for safty and pray :-) I always found it easier to just burn the rest of the roll and reload - less steps :-) |
That's why God gave us medium-format cameras with interchangeable backs :-)
R. |
Or 4X5's with film holders...
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 12:33:44 AM · #13 |
The exposure will vary, so you have to pay attention to a few things...
The digital sensor is smaller than the film plane, so the film camera will have to be setup at a different focal length than the digital camera. Both cameras must 'see' the exact same scene in order for the exposure values to be transferrable from the film system to the digital.
Example:
If you set up two camera bodies side by side on tripods, one being film and the other digital, and attach a 50mm lens to the digital body, what you see through the lens will be a good bit less than when you move that lens over to the film body. When you put the 50mm lens on the film body, you may very well see light sources in the wider angle view than you did on the digital, and the meter readings will be different because of this...
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 02:16:34 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The exposure will vary, so you have to pay attention to a few things...
The digital sensor is smaller than the film plane, so the film camera will have to be setup at a different focal length than the digital camera. Both cameras must 'see' the exact same scene in order for the exposure values to be transferrable from the film system to the digital.
Example:
If you set up two camera bodies side by side on tripods, one being film and the other digital, and attach a 50mm lens to the digital body, what you see through the lens will be a good bit less than when you move that lens over to the film body. When you put the 50mm lens on the film body, you may very well see light sources in the wider angle view than you did on the digital, and the meter readings will be different because of this... |
But by the same token, assuming he has created a set of "equivalencies" he can actually use the digital cam plus a telephoto as a spot meter, so to speak, concentrating on the most critical area of the scene. That's how I'd do it... If it's a long exposure shot, it must be a dark scene. There must be an area of it I want to be sure is properly exposed. I'd zoom in on that area, find the right exposure, and then transfer that, adjusted by its predetermined equivalence, to the film camera.
When we used the 4x5 polaroid film, we could use a loupe to magnify the area we were most interested in, and we'd judge our exposure on how that part was rendered... Then from that calculate our film exposure and let 'er rip.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 11:46:07 AM · #15 |
With digital photography, the "common wisdom" is to expose to the right. I've heard that with film, its better to "expose to the left" because of the way film works.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 12:20:34 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
There is something called reciprocity failure with film that affects exposure when the shutter speed gets fairly long (I think I heard it starts in the 1/10th area). Maybe google it to get a little more information, but I think the exposure will still be in the manageable range even with slide film. |
I thought that on most current films reciprocity failure was greatly minimized so that it is nearly negligible.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2006 02:20:49 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by jpeters:
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
There is something called reciprocity failure with film that affects exposure when the shutter speed gets fairly long (I think I heard it starts in the 1/10th area). Maybe google it to get a little more information, but I think the exposure will still be in the manageable range even with slide film. |
I thought that on most current films reciprocity failure was greatly minimized so that it is nearly negligible. |
Most of the newer films are good for a few seconds at least. You also get some colour shifts resulting from reciprocity failure, like Velvia going green. |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 02:48:42 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by hankk:
With digital photography, the "common wisdom" is to expose to the right. I've heard that with film, its better to "expose to the left" because of the way film works. |
By "expose to the left" you mean underexpose?
The reason I say this is that working with black and white film and an exposure that has been bracketed - when printing I tend to go with the middle or slightly overexposed frame. It seems easier to darken than to lighten.
Message edited by author 2006-08-04 15:19:50. |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 03:03:00 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by hankk:
With digital photography, the "common wisdom" is to expose to the right. I've heard that with film, its better to "expose to the left" because of the way film works. |
Slide film, especially Kodachrome, you'd underexpose some to saturate the colors. Negative film, a slight overexpose would make the colors pop a little more.
We used to set the ISO at 32 for Kodachrome 25 and get some really nice results.
In Digital, shooting RAW lets you make those slight adjustments after the shot.
I wonder if could even load a film camera anymore, let alone get film onto a chrome processing reel! ;-) |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 03:47:11 PM · #20 |
Yes yes, all very interesting.... I just have one question.
Whats film? |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 03:50:21 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by modurn:
Yes yes, all very interesting.... I just have one question.
Whats film? |
That's what we used in the olden days, back when all they had were wood burning cameras, and we had to process this film ourselves, uphill, both ways, and WE LIKED IT!
Kids today, I tell ya . . . |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 04:01:31 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by PSUlion01:
thanks guys. the reason I'm looking to shoot some film is because it gives me a wider selection of lenses at this point in time. I've only got the two kit lenses that came with my evolt, and new lenses are expensive, especically given the limited selection for my camera body (it was a gift from my gf... I was planning on getting a canon, but she beat me to it and got the olympus instead. I'm happy with it, but wish I had more of a selection of lenses!)
With my Pentax, I've got a wide angle, stronger tele, and a handful of other lenses that I collected from my uncle. Not to mention we still have an old B&W enlarger in our basement (dad and uncle were art majors in college), so I can go old school if I want.
Ultimately I'm just looking to experiment and learn as much as possible. I'm really getting into the hobby now, but want to develop my skills and build a strong knowledge base and foundation, rather than running out and buying a bunch of accessories, thinking that spending money will instantly make me a better photographer.
Sound like the proper approach? |
here's something i found that you might be interested in. I don't know anything about pentax but i have a bunch of minolta lenses and I have been looking for a way to use them for digital. this company makes adaptors (without glass) that will allow you to use the old lenses on a Olympus evolt camera.
link
I haven't tried one yet as I still don't have a digital slr but I think i might buy the E-500 soon.
Message edited by author 2006-08-04 16:04:11. |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 04:13:54 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by briantammy:
Originally posted by PSUlion01:
thanks guys. the reason I'm looking to shoot some film is because it gives me a wider selection of lenses at this point in time. I've only got the two kit lenses that came with my evolt, and new lenses are expensive, especically given the limited selection for my camera body (it was a gift from my gf... I was planning on getting a canon, but she beat me to it and got the olympus instead. I'm happy with it, but wish I had more of a selection of lenses!)
With my Pentax, I've got a wide angle, stronger tele, and a handful of other lenses that I collected from my uncle. Not to mention we still have an old B&W enlarger in our basement (dad and uncle were art majors in college), so I can go old school if I want.
Ultimately I'm just looking to experiment and learn as much as possible. I'm really getting into the hobby now, but want to develop my skills and build a strong knowledge base and foundation, rather than running out and buying a bunch of accessories, thinking that spending money will instantly make me a better photographer.
Sound like the proper approach? |
here's something i found that you might be interested in. I don't know anything about pentax but i have a bunch of minolta lenses and I have been looking for a way to use them for digital. this company makes adaptors (without glass) that will allow you to use the old lenses on a Olympus evolt camera.
link
I haven't tried one yet as I still don't have a digital slr but I think i might buy the E-500 soon. |
I'll bet they sell a bunch of the Exakta internal mount adapter! |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 04:15:30 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'll bet they sell a bunch of the Exakta internal mount adapter! |
why is that? |
|
|
|
08/04/2006 05:10:51 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by briantammy:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I'll bet they sell a bunch of the Exakta internal mount adapter! |
why is that? |
I was kidding, I'll bet they don't sell any. I looked at the link and was surprised they had an adapter to fit Exacta lenses on the Olympus DSLR.
Kinda freaky if you ask me.
Message edited by author 2006-08-04 17:11:21. |
|
