Jump to content


Photo

Grainy, Saturated, Contrasty - 7285?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Nick Bentgen

Nick Bentgen

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 February 2007 - 01:26 AM

Hi all,

I'm shooting a short on 16mm soon in dynamic sunlight conditions in the desert (dawn, midday with harsh sun, and sunset) with a limited ability to fill (plenty of movement, mirror boards and small frames for bounce for more static shots.) The look I am going for is quite akin to Danny Hiele's work on Kanye West's "Touch the Sky." (This video has been covered several times in this forum, but I can't seem to find what stocks, processes Hiele employed.) The final image (ending on video - for now) would ideally have heavy grain, relatively high saturation (esp. in blues and reds), high contrast with just a little detail in the muddy blacks.

Is it bad/illegal to link to Chris Milk's Website, which displays "Touch the Sky"? If so, please let me know immediately and I'm sorry for the mis-step.
<http://www.chrismilk...D=03&ref=&rel=>

The production has allotted money for a color correction of some kind, and many friends more experienced than I have suggested that I shoot 7218 or another neg stock with a heavier grain structure, lighting relatively flat and pushing the saturation and contrast up in the transfer. But I wonder if the look might be more authentic (less "done-in-post" looking) if I were to shoot 7285, perhaps push a stop or a stop and a half for more grain, and use a Varicon to take down apparent contrast (as reversal might be too contrasty) and make the blacks more muddy. I feel like shooting and pushing 7285 with a varicon might approximate the look more in-camera, but I am also less free to manipulate in post.

I was hoping some of you might be able to weigh in. I am pretty inexperienced when it comes to reversal. I have money allotted for a test, but funds are limited, so my questions follow:

When rating reversal for a transfer direct to video, is it best to overexpose as in negative? I know the way silver is washed away is different when rendering a positive image, but I am unclear on this, as a thicker negative helps xfer to video but I have the impression that reversal is a different ballgame. Is there a thick positive and a thin positive? How does reversal react to under and over exposure and how does this relate to a transfer to video?

What happens to the grain and saturation when 7285 is pushed one and two stops? Will 7285 render a heavier grain if pushed? Will this kill me in terms of contrast?

Is it worth it to try to shoot 7285 in a harsh sunlight or a low light situation in order to take advantage of its saturation? Will its limited latitude kill me?

Thank you in advance for any responses. You guys are one of my favorite resources.
  • 0

#2 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 February 2007 - 11:45 AM

I have not actually shot this stock (except in still form E100VS) so probably shouldn't answer but have shot lots of reversal - I absolutely would not overexpose it (unless for the effect of a little hot exposure).

There is limited latitude with this stock and I suspect the push won't help either.

(It's not illegal to shoot film at the box rating BTW, with reversal there's a reason Kodak gives one..)

I think it's limited latitude won't "kill you" but it will constrain you which you can use creatively or be screwed by, your choice :D --- I always **liked** the limited latitude of Kodachrome (esp. the kind of black crush effect where the color falls off to a kind of monochrome) -- but for that reason Kodachrome & other projection contrast film stocks are not "take what's thrown at you" stocks but rather demand a proactive approach.

-Sam Wells
  • 0

#3 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 07 February 2007 - 05:46 PM

E100G (5/7285) is one of the finest-grained E6 films in Kodak's lineup, utilizing all of the state-of-the-art T-grain technology that is found in the Portra and Vision 2 lineups. You will probably get grain that is tighter than EXR 50D if not the '01 stock. The way reversal works, it's developed first as a higher-than-normal contrast B&W negative first, silver from that image is bleached out, taking the denser, exposed grains out with it. It's then developed in a second developer that has embedded color developing agents to develop the remaining silver halides into silver with attached dies, and then the silver is bleached out and the remaining dye image is fixed (not always though, as some people feel there's no silver left to bleach; it's more of a precaution) and stabilized.

This has the consequence of leaving finer grain for a given sensitivity. THis is why a lot of magazines insist(ed) on E6 film over C-41. C-41 & ECN-2 are much better in terms of latitude, but suffers more in terms of graininess assuming you're shooting the most modern E-6 compared to the most modern negative film.

You DO NOT want to overexpose reversal film, ever, if you're going for standard processing developing. If you're going for the ghost or "help I'm a bleeding amateur that doesn't know what an f-stop is to save my life with this darn super 8 camera!" look, then overexposure is a great tool ;) For optimum exposure, you must shoot it at the rated film speed on the box, or at most 1/2 of a stop under that rating, which has the effect of making for a more saturated strip of film because the initial silver "negative" is weaker and the remaining silver halides form more dense color as they activate more of the color couplers. If this were B&W reversal film, I think that slight overexposure would actually have the effect of making the emulsion more grainy, maybe blocking up the shadows a bit more too. However, with dyes, especially those in E6 emulsions, the dye clouds will actually blend together giving the illusion of solid color in the subject (and the reality of solid clouds of color upon close examination of the reversal film).

Any other questions about slides, feel free to ask away. I've never processed E6 personally, but I've shot quite a bit of it for the times I'm feeling "artsy" or when I am shooting historical events and want to pretend I'm a National Geographic correspondant :lol: I think I've shot E100G a few times, or at least the Elite Chrome 100 (the same thing, just aged differently).

A further word of caution: DO NOT OVEREXPOSE '285 IF YOU WANT A GOOD STRIP OF SLIDES! Another thing you should take notice of: the rule with negative is that you want to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, or print for the highlights, I forget. With reversal it is expose for the highlights and keep the shadows within two stops of the highlight's exposure if you don't want dense detail-less blacks.

One final comment, hopefullly something that someone can answer here: I don't want to call '85 film that's been processed "negatives" as obviously they are positive, and I know "slides" isn't really the correct word either, because that implies cut pieces of reversal film stuck in cardboard or plastic mounts and "slid into" a projector, so what is/was the proper terminology for the 100 feet of '85 I get back from Spectra properly supposed to be called if I don't want my filmmaker friends to think of me as a lowly still photographer? :rolleyes:

~Karl Borowski
  • 0

#4 chris milk

chris milk

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 11 February 2007 - 07:28 AM

7285 over exposed 2 stops, pulled 2 stops.

best,
the horse's mouth
  • 0

#5 Bryan Darling

Bryan Darling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Director
  • Sacramento, CA

Posted 11 February 2007 - 03:59 PM

One final comment, hopefullly something that someone can answer here: I don't want to call '85 film that's been processed "negatives" as obviously they are positive, and I know "slides" isn't really the correct word either, because that implies cut pieces of reversal film stuck in cardboard or plastic mounts and "slid into" a projector, so what is/was the proper terminology for the 100 feet of '85 I get back from Spectra properly supposed to be called if I don't want my filmmaker friends to think of me as a lowly still photographer? :rolleyes:

~Karl Borowski



Camera original(s) or original(s).
  • 0

#6 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 12 February 2007 - 01:32 PM

Thanks Bryan, now I can play myself off as having actually shot '85 in a movie camera :-) Would camera positive work too? Or is that just going to be more confusing?

Edited by Karl Borowski, 12 February 2007 - 01:33 PM.

  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 February 2007 - 01:48 PM

Thanks Bryan, now I can play myself off as having actually shot '85 in a movie camera :-) Would camera positive work too? Or is that just going to be more confusing?


I haven't heard that term "camera positive" for reversal-shot material -- I've heard "camera original" or "reversal original".
  • 0

#8 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 12 February 2007 - 06:26 PM

Why thank you sir :-)
  • 0


Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Glidecam

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider