Douglas Photo 78 wrote:
So you plan to use your D700 to meter the scene and use those setting on your Mamiya? If that is the case then I do not think it will work the way you want it to. First, your D700 meter will not be reading the light the same way because you will not have identical lenses on each camera which will probably change the way the light is seen by the filter. (someone correct me on that if I am wrong). Secondly you will learn that different films expose differently and you will need to meter differently for c-41 vs E-6 vs B&W. If you only have a waist level view finder then I would recommend getting a hand held meter to use, they can be relatively inexpensive, and there are used ones out there.

Thanks for your input.

At the beginning I will only ask to get close enough in the original exposure. I have no room at all for a dark room so another side of that plan of mine is to have the images scanned by a pro lab here and bring everything to my computer, and finish the files sorta like I deal with my RAW data now.

gl-amour wrote:
I recommend saving your hair.
You can rent digital MF instead.

I will play with that at some point but for now I want to learn the film ways.

tenrocK photo wrote:
I am a firm believer that digital technology is now on par in quality with film and is cheaper to operate, so that is what I learned how to shoot with.
With that being said, I can't afford to buy a digital MF kit, hence this latest purchase.

tenrocK photo wrote:
At the beginning I will only ask to get close enough in the original exposure. I have no room at all for a dark room so another side of that plan of mine is to have the images scanned by a pro lab here and bring everything to my computer, and finish the files sorta like I deal with my RAW data now.

Reading between the lines in your OP, I'm getting that even though you believe digital is on par with film, you don't believe FF digital is on par with MF film.  Adding in your followup, it sounds as though you must believe that scanned MF film is still superior to FF digital.  I'm curious whether you've really thought that through.

If you don't have and love a darkroom and enlarger I don't see the rationale for shooting MF film.  MF is too small to contact print and once you scan it you've essentially got the equivalent of a nice jpeg.  You're either going to present them digitally, print on an inkjet, or make digital negs for contact printing.  At that point you will have lost all advantages over just shooting FF digital. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to talk you out of film.  I have my own darkroom and I shoot both digital and MF and LF film and I think it's wonderful for someone to add film to their repertoire.  I just don't follow the logic behind the implication that MF film is superior to FF digital when you take your own darkroom out of the equation.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
There are a few things about film, one is the exposure in terms of the exposure index shifts about an f/stop depending on the film and what you desire in terms your taste and film qualities. So If you do not have a lot of experience with film bracket. The big thing will be to make sure your ISO is same setting in the D700 as the your film. Also I would not use a variable f/stop lens but a consistent f/stop lens.

Film is good but make sure you have a good scanner not a flatbed with a film attachment.

If you are doing strobe then I would use a handheld meter.
F/stops on quality lenses will not change. So a 50mm f/stop is the same as a 135mm f/stop no matter the brand or format.

The 3 lenses that came with the kit are:

210 f4
80 f4
45 f2.8

I have several constant aperture lenses for the Nikon as well so I will be sure to use those as well. Thanks for the heads up.

As for ISO, 160 and 400 seem to be fairly available for the films so that's what I will start with and go from there.

I also plan on learning in natural light first before moving on to strobes.

BTHPhoto wrote:

tenrocK photo wrote:
I am a firm believer that digital technology is now on par in quality with film and is cheaper to operate, so that is what I learned how to shoot with.
With that being said, I can't afford to buy a digital MF kit, hence this latest purchase.

Reading between the lines in your OP, I'm getting that even though you believe digital is on par with film, you don't believe FF digital is on par with MF film.  Adding in your followup, it sounds as though you must believe that scanned MF film is still superior to FF digital.  I'm curious whether you've really thought that through.

If you don't have and love a darkroom and enlarger I don't see the rationale for shooting MF film.  MF is too small to contact print and once you scan it you've essentially got the equivalent of a nice jpeg.  You're either going to present them digitally, print on an inkjet, or make digital negs for contact printing.  At that point you will have lost all advantages over just shooting FF digital. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to talk you out of film.  I have my own darkroom and I shoot both digital and MF and LF film and I think it's wonderful for someone to add film to their repertoire.  I just don't follow the logic behind the implication that MF film is superior to FF digital when you take your own darkroom out of the equation.

At this point, I believe the feel between a 12 MP FF digital and a 645 film is different. Time will tell if I am wrong on that. If so, it wasn't a big investment to find out and I still got a very decent set of tools to learn something that can help me progress in some way.
As far as the quality difference, if any at all, that you outlined, I'll take your word for it and will see for myself soon enough

Question: can the output of a scan be done in a more flexible file format that jpeg?


Thanks for your input!

tenrocK photo wrote:

Thanks for your input.

At the beginning I will only ask to get close enough in the original exposure. I have no room at all for a dark room so another side of that plan of mine is to have the images scanned by a pro lab here and bring everything to my computer, and finish the files sorta like I deal with my RAW data now.

What I was getting at with referring to the different types of film is that you will expose differently for different types of film; for negative you will meter and expose for the shadows but for E-6 (slide film) you will expose for the highlights. I like shooting film but especially 4x5 because I get to slow down and be super detailed   about composing the shot and really explore the subject that I am shooting. 

on a side note, to process B&W you don't need a darkroom, once you put the film in the canister you can do everything in your kitchen or bathroom.

Have fun with it, you will be very happy with the results.

Douglas Photo 78 wrote:
So you plan to use your D700 to meter the scene and use those setting on your Mamiya? If that is the case then I do not think it will work the way you want it to. First, your D700 meter will not be reading the light the same way because you will not have identical lenses on each camera which will probably change the way the light is seen by the filter. (someone correct me on that if I am wrong). Secondly you will learn that different films expose differently and you will need to meter differently for c-41 vs E-6 vs B&W. If you only have a waist level view finder then I would recommend getting a hand held meter to use, they can be relatively inexpensive, and there are used ones out there.

I use to shoot Polaroid to check my over all exposure AND shadow detail.  Digital pulls that out so much more than film that I think you may get misinformed there.  Regarding exposure changes, It seems to me a 1/3 stop variation in digital can seem like a 1/2 or greater variation in film,  again due to the amount of shadow detail digital can pull out.

This is just based on my experience...and it's been a while since I compared exposures between digital and film.   Good luck!

tenrocK photo wrote:

Thanks for your input.

At the beginning I will only ask to get close enough in the original exposure. I have no room at all for a dark room so another side of that plan of mine is to have the images scanned by a pro lab here and bring everything to my computer, and finish the files sorta like I deal with my RAW data now.

Outside of E-6 slide film, the latitude of negative film is typically such that the process you've chosen should get you close enough. As others have said, you can and probably should fine tune as you learn your film or films. It's been often discussed that ISO on DSLR sensors is not only not exactly equivalent to film ISO, it can vary between manufacturers and even between DSLR models from the same manufacturer.

For that reason I hemmed and hawed for a long time before finally getting a used DSLR as a substitute for my Polaroid back. I have a handheld meter, so I use the digital largely to look at shadows and light falloff more than metering, but it works reasonably well.

KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:

I use to shoot Polaroid to check my over all exposure AND shadow detail.  Digital pulls that out so much more than film that I think you may get misinformed there.  Regarding exposure changes, It seems to me a 1/3 stop variation in digital can seem like a 1/2 or greater variation in film,  again due to the amount of shadow detail digital can pull out.

This is just based on my experience...and it's been a while since I compared exposures between digital and film.   Good luck!

I also shot with a Polaroid back to verify exposures; what I was getting at was using one camera that has a different lens than the one being shot with would not be as reliable as a handheld light meter. Use the digital camera will probably get you in the ballpark for an initial exposure.

gl-amour wrote:
I recommend saving your hair.
You can rent digital MF instead.

I shoot medium format film all the time and never feel the need to pull my hair out...

tenrocK photo wrote:
Thanks for your input.

At the beginning I will only ask to get close enough in the original exposure. I have no room at all for a dark room so another side of that plan of mine is to have the images scanned by a pro lab here and bring everything to my computer, and finish the files sorta like I deal with my RAW data now.

You need a darkroom to print; you do not need a darkroom to develop your negatives.  Assuming you are shooting black and white you can store everything you need to develop your negatives in a big shoe box.  Color is a bit more difficult in that you need to keep everything up to temp (high) during the process and it can't fluctuate.  Other than that, color processes are standardized (whereas B&W is not) so that side of it is easier.  Still you can store everything you need to develop B&W, C-41 and E-6 under your bed.

For B&W and C-41, your exposure will be just as it is (or damn close) for your digi cam.  Some of it comes down to how the camera's meter works vs a handheld meter (12% vs 18%).  If you work with a handheld meter and film and digital cameras you can calibrate your system for consistency.  For E-6 you may prefer to underexpose a tad for more saturated colors (or you may prefer not to, you need to experiment there to see what you like best).  The advice to bracket is good.  I don't know what camera you bought, but if you purchased one that has bellows focusing (do any of the 645 cams?) you will need to account for bellows extension when shooting close up.  All the new films scan very, very well. 

You went with the smallest MF film possible.  I would have advised at least 6x6 or 6x7.  If you find you really enjoy the process and results, you will probably want to move to a larger negative (or positive) size.

tenrocK photo wrote:
I just came across an opportunity to purchase a MF film kit (Mamiya 645 Pro TL) and I took it.

I am a firm believer that digital technology is now on par in quality with film and is cheaper to operate, so that is what I learned how to shoot with.
With that being said, I can't afford to buy a digital MF kit, hence this latest purchase.

The plan is to use my D700 to read the scene and transfer the settings to the Mamiya. I know that I will force myself to slow down and watch each frame carefully before pressing the shutter, although I don't really spray and pray as it is.

Are there any misgivings or pitfalls to this approach?

Please help a film newb keep the remaining hair on his head

I do this with my D700 and RB67. While the settings won't be exact, you'll be in the ballpark. It will take a little testing to learn how to jump back and forth but I say go to it and have a good time!!

gl-amour wrote:
Nikon's 12MP FX is already an obsolete comparator so your experiment is fatally biased.

WTF are you talking about?

AgX wrote:
Outside of E-6 slide film, the latitude of negative film is typically such that the process you've chosen should get you close enough. As others have said, you can and probably should fine tune as you learn your film or films. It's been often discussed that ISO on DSLR sensors is not only not exactly equivalent to film ISO, it can vary between manufacturers and even between DSLR models from the same manufacturer.

For that reason I hemmed and hawed for a long time before finally getting a used DSLR as a substitute for my Polaroid back. I have a handheld meter, so I use the digital largely to look at shadows and light falloff more than metering, but it works reasonably well.

With a grey card and an accurate hand held meter, you can calibrate the DSLR to work as digital polaroid for film.

Remember, the meters in cameras will fluctuate in their accuracy over time and need to be serviced to remain in tolerance.  Even when they are at their peak, their manufactured tolerances are less than a hand held meter (which can also drift over time).  Best is to test and calibrate.

tenrocK photo wrote:
I am a firm believer that digital technology is now on par in quality with film and is cheaper to operate, ...

Are there any misgivings or pitfalls to this approach?

With all due respect, I disagree.  In the hands of a skilled practitioner, medium format film is capable of producing prints that are still orders of magnitude better than digital photography.  But, if the destination of your image is on the web or in medium quality magazines, digital is certainly easier, faster, cheaper, and more than adequate.

But if your destination is hanging prints on the wall, film is still king (and the bigger the negative the better).  And there is a catch:  you need to develop your own film and print your own prints; you need to learn & practice superior exposure & development controls (e.g. the Zone System, or "Beyond The Zone System").  If you intend to send out your film to a lab, you might as well stick to digital.

Finally, looking at a well crafted print hanging on the wall is a rare joy.  Digital is still a ways away from being able to create a print that rivals a good film & paper print.

Good luck.  Welcome to the club.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
...In the hands of a skilled practitioner, medium format film is capable of producing prints that are still orders of magnitude better than digital photography...

Digital is still a ways away from being able to create a print that rivals a good film & paper print.

Not in my experience.

In the hands of a skilled practitioner, the 5D3 easily equals 5"x4".

Edit: I've used a Pentax 67 since 1986, before that I used 5"x4". Guess that makes me an old timer.

Silver Mirage wrote:
Your digital camera will be just as accurate as any light meter,

http://dpanswers.com/content/tech_kfactor.php

Also, all meters can drift over time.  Both Nikon and Canon are pretty stable, but all meters, even hand held meters, can be effected by this.  Because hand held meters are designed to work at higher tolerances, when they drift they are usually still within 1/4 to 1/3 of a stop, whereas a camera's meter can drift to a full 1/2 stop or worse.

tenrocK photo wrote:
The plan is to use my D700 to read the scene and transfer the settings to the Mamiya. I know that I will force myself to slow down and watch each frame carefully before pressing the shutter, although I don't really spray and pray as it is.

Are there any misgivings or pitfalls to this approach?

Please help a film newb keep the remaining hair on his head

I looked into doing something similar with large format photography and ultimately decided against it.  Like you, I'd like to keep the hair I have left and there were other factors.

The pitfall that some others referenced as well is that every lens will have a different amount of light loss.  You may already be aware of this, but the F-stop doesn't actually measure exposure.  The F-stop is part of the exposure generated by the lens but it does not factor in the internal design of the lens and the light loss resulting from that.  Cinematographers use T-stops for exposure, which factors in both the aperture and the light loss of the lens and therefore has the true exposure value.

What this means is when you switch lenses, even if both are set to the same F-stop, you likely will change the exposure.  This may not be by much if you have a consistent group of lenses or it may be dramatic.  The only way to find out is to lock everything down, set it to manual, test and compare.  This isn't a huge deal with digital as we frequently nudge the exposure in post.  This could be done with film scans too, but if you are outsourcing your scanning you'll likely get better results if you give them consistent exposures because if they are motivated to make a profit they are going to want to spend as little time as necessary tweaking.

I would suggest to start with a static scene with the most similar portrait lenses that you have for each system and start by calibrating for their differences.  Then, change one lens at time and keep good notes.  The suggestions to get a meter are good ones -- decent meters can be accurately calibrated to your favorite film and lens combination and some may allow you to have more than one profile saved.  (Or, just keep a cheat sheet of relative values.)

Best of luck to you,

Joe

tenrocK photo wrote:
I just came across an opportunity to purchase a MF film kit (Mamiya 645 Pro TL) and I took it.

I am a firm believer that digital technology is now on par in quality with film and is cheaper to operate, so that is what I learned how to shoot with.
With that being said, I can't afford to buy a digital MF kit, hence this latest purchase.

The plan is to use my D700 to read the scene and transfer the settings to the Mamiya. I know that I will force myself to slow down and watch each frame carefully before pressing the shutter, although I don't really spray and pray as it is.

Are there any misgivings or pitfalls to this approach?

Please help a film newb keep the remaining hair on his head

I have done this on several occasions when shooting large format.  It works fine.  Just make sure any filtration on the 645 is also on the digital when metering.  And as said keep tabs on iso setting and variable aperture lenses  can be an issue