Why I do not use flash meter.. Do you?

breal101 wrote in post #9343149
I have to disagree on a couple of points, first it didn't take three days to get a test shot, it took the worlds longest minute (later 90 seconds). The time it took to process a polaroid. Many of us can make an educated guess for a starting exposure with lighting gear we have used for any period of time. The OP shoots tethered to a computer as I do as much as possible. Generally I can get the lighting set with one additional shot beyond the first. Clients love having the computer to view the images as they come in, some use me just because they're offered that advantage. The computer also offers the opportunity to use the densitometer to set exposure across the image. When shooting interiors using HDR or modified HDR as I call it because I also use flash as part of the exposure it's especially helpful, a blown window will influence the histogram but can be ignored when measuring with the densitometer because it will be replaced with a properly exposed image and combined later. I just need to get the part of the image I'm going to keep properly exposed and ignore the rest.

I used to never judge density or color on a polaroid just comp and shadows. And we would send test 4X5s to the lab to see how their run was going that day. It would take usually less than an hour to get transparencies back and we would adjust filtration and exposure per the test run.

I ALWAYS use a flash meter. It saves time and takes all the guess work out of the process. Its great for NAILING ratios and most of the time I don't have time to be screwing with adjusting ratios in the shoot.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #9343893
I used to never judge density or color on a polaroid just comp and shadows. And we would send test 4X5s to the lab to see how their run was going that day. It would take usually less than an hour to get transparencies back and we would adjust filtration and exposure per the test run.

I ALWAYS use a flash meter. It saves time and takes all the guess work out of the process. Its great for NAILING ratios and most of the time I don't have time to be screwing with adjusting ratios in the shoot.

The lab must have been very close to you, dry to dry E-6 is about 40 to 45 minutes. We didn't use the closest lab because they were inconsistent. The one we used was absolutely anal about quality control and never strayed much. They let me look at the control charts any time I asked too. As long as the emulsion was the same I never worried too much about color or density inconsistency. Judging a polaroid was as much an art as a science, it was just a confirmation of what we already knew. Keep in mind that I'm talking about shooting tethered, even with a calibrated laptop there is some brain biasing involved because they never match the calibrated studio display. That's why I shoot by the numbers. The printers I work with do much the same thing in pre- press, they may glance at the histogram but they're all over the image with the densitometer. If they're happy I'm happy. The flash meter is an extra step I don't need with my style of shooting, if others need it fine but I don't for the most part.

breal101 wrote in post #9344203
The lab must have been very close to you, dry to dry E-6 is about 40 to 45 minutes. We didn't use the closest lab because they were inconsistent. The one we used was absolutely anal about quality control and never strayed much. They let me look at the control charts any time I asked too. As long as the emulsion was the same I never worried too much about color or density inconsistency. Judging a polaroid was as much an art as a science, it was just a confirmation of what we already knew. Keep in mind that I'm talking about shooting tethered, even with a calibrated laptop there is some brain biasing involved because they never match the calibrated studio display. That's why I shoot by the numbers. The printers I work with do much the same thing in pre- press, they may glance at the histogram but they're all over the image with the densitometer. If they're happy I'm happy. The flash meter is an extra step I don't need with my style of shooting, if others need it fine but I don't for the most part.

Yeah it was close and these were tests to test the how the labs machine was running that day. The tests had little to do with emulsions we bought in bulk with the same emulsion. It was more to test the lab that day. 1/8 of a degree or even a slightly different mix on the developer could cause the color to shift and the density to change and we were working with very picky art directors.

All I can say is to get my ratios perfect before I shoot the meter is one of the most valuable tools I have and I use it every time I use my white lightnings or travelites.

Polaroid was expensive and time consuming--even 30 seconds per exposure could seem interminable when you were working with live subjects. I don't know anyone who depended on Polaroid for basic exposure determination--it was more of a final check after determining exposure and ratios with a meter. It also proved whether all lights and the camera were operating properly.

Shooting 4x5 transparencies, the Polaroid was used by me as a final check for unwanted visual elements in the frame. It was never used to check exposure, as the exposure outcome was affected too much by time and temperature.

Wilt wrote in post #9345311
Shooting 4x5 transparencies, the Polaroid was used by me as a final check for unwanted visual elements in the frame. It was never used to check exposure, as the exposure outcome was affected too much by time and temperature.

Yep, I never relied on polaroid for anything more than shadows and composition, maybe to see the ratio, but even then the contrast of the polaroid was much different than that of the film.

Polaroid had uses outside of exposure, if you read my earlier post I said I lived with a meter around my neck back in those days. But if you shot enough of it you learned to read it, B&W polaroids that held highlight details indicated underexposure for film of the same speed. When the highlights started to blow you knew that was very close. From there you followed the three rules of photography: bracket, bracket, bracket. Film was a lot cheaper than a reshoot.

breal101 wrote in post #9345547
...the three rules of photography: bracket, bracket, bracket. ..

Im so glad thoes days are pretty much over. I absolutley hated shooting with a bulk back. But it made sense on a lot of situations. Looking back it was a killer knowing you would send that much film through a camera knowing you would throw 3/4 of it away as soon as it is developed.

We would shoot a sheet of 8X10, process it in Dektol, squeegee it, & slap it on a viewer.

We had our own lab in the studio, too. But later when I was out of town, there were a lot of good reasons for bracketing heavily.
Bracketing with film. Post #27

PhotosGuy wrote in post #9349049
We would shoot a sheet of 8X10, process it in Dektol, squeegee it, & slap it on a viewer.

That's real he man stuff Frank, no fancy dan polaroids and that PITA processor for you guys.

Back in my college days we were always running on deadline and used a foul little solution of super fast developer called HC-110.

It had a pretty good developing range of around 68F - 80+ depending upon how loud the editors were yelling. We kept the solution happy by throwing it some raw meet twice a week. I believe that was the substitute for replenisher. But it did last a while so we didn't have to whip up a new batch too often.

We used the 110 concentrate as a one-shot developer. "They" paid for it.

True in our case too..... although I think my skin may have paid for it pretty well back then.....

PhotosGuy wrote in post #9350993
We used the 110 concentrate as a one-shot developer. "They" paid for it.

I loved HC-110. At 1:32 it was a pretty nice developer, easy to mix and use as a one-shot. You just had to have one of those very small graduates and make sure you used some of your developer make-up water to rinse it out.

When I worked on a paper in the early 70s, we didn't use daylight tanks. We used 4x5 dunk tanks. There were several light-tight developing booths with developer, stop, and fixer in the dunk tanks and a bunch of stainless reels and stick hangers. Oh, and the ubiquitous Gralab timer. We just loaded the reels in the dark, put them on a stick, and started dunking and timing.

The rooms did have a green safelight, so if we had pushed the exposure index 'way the heck beyond the meter's limits, we could very quickly check the film in what might be mid-development to see if there was an image building up.

When I was in Honololu, I was in my f/64 phase. The tap water ran at a constant 70 degrees year 'round--no thermometer needed. Now, that was paradise.

Adams used a special dilution HC 110 with tri x 320 professional that he claimed gave him more range. That film/developer combo when you look at the film curves the curves come straight up with very little toe. in other words a good deal of detail in those very dark areas where other film/developer combos wouldn't have detail. When you look at most B&W film/dev combos film curves they all have much more of a toe.