Karl Blessing wrote:
I wouldnt use a DSLR in terms of color and such, as its not going to represent what film you are shooting, not only that the LCD on the back of digital camera are pretty poor for judging exposure unless you are strictly using the histogram. Also least the polaroid will give you more a true reprensation thru the actual lens you will be shooting with. If you are using the DSLR to judge exposure, you might as well just get an actual light or flash meter as they will be more accurate (cheaper and less cumbersome to deal with too).

Makes sense to me. Thanks Karl, and great port, BTW. Nice to see someone around here can shoot something other than women in lingerie. ;-)

Scaramanga wrote:
I occasionally use a Nikon SLR and my client wants me to use film for an upcoming project. I've become accustomed to using an NPC Proback II to check lighting and exposure when working with an SLR, but I've always wondered if a digital camera might not provide a better source to check these things. Sure, the DSLR's chip is going to interpret color and light slightly different than Provia or some other chrome film, but that's true for that funky Polaroid film too. And instead of looking at a stamp sized image to proof, I could be looking at a computer monitor. Any thoughts about this?

Several photographers have switched to shooting their proof shots with a DSLR and using a small inkjet printer to proof rather than a polaroid back.  The shooters that I know that do this all use Hasselblad H1s and switch backs from digital to film during this process (just like switching from polaroid to film).  The primary reason is it is cheaper than buying polaroid to rent the back for the shoot and print the inkjet prints.

These proofs aren't for color ever...neither have polaroid ever been for color.  They are to check lighting and primarily for composition.

Karl Blessing wrote:
I wouldnt use a DSLR in terms of color and such, as its not going to represent what film you are shooting, not only that the LCD on the back of digital camera are pretty poor for judging exposure unless you are strictly using the histogram. Also least the polaroid will give you more a true reprensation thru the actual lens you will be shooting with. If you are using the DSLR to judge exposure, you might as well just get an actual light or flash meter as they will be more accurate (cheaper and less cumbersome to deal with too).

Karl-
You wouldn't use a polaroid to check for color either, so the argument that polaroid is a superior proofing tool is flawed.  I am nearly 100% digital now, but until January of this year I used film, both 35 and medium format, for magazine and catalog assignment for years.  I regularly used Polaroid (and later Fuji instant film) to proof for my film.  I had Polaroid backs for both my Hasselblads and my Nikon system.  After a few thousand rolls, I could tell the strengths and weaknesses of Polaroid as a representation of what the film will be like. 

Polaroids were never effective to test the color balance between the light source and the film or focus.   It simply does not have enough resolution.  It is effective in determaining composition, exposure and light balance (levels) between different light sources.

I have found that digital however, especially using the same lenses on both bodies, with practice is more effective in proofing for film.  The contrast range of a digital file is much more like film than a Polaroid is.  The fact that you can scale the view to examine detail further trumps Polaroid.  Polaroid is only available in a few film speeds, whereas digital files can be captured in a wide variety of ISO.  I did several 35mm film shoots where I did all of my testing, proofing, and warm ups with digital and switched to film when I had achieved the look I was after.  After a few initial tests, I was able to establish an exposure compensation factor between the film I was using and the digital file.

Polaroid is effective for many types of proofing, but they were always much more contrasty than film and the accuracy of exposure was dependent on consistant care in developing time and handling.