Jump to content


Photo

Beach Exterior...models


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Dave Plake

Dave Plake
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 88 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Oahu

Posted 02 July 2005 - 05:54 PM

I am shooting 35mm exterior of models on a beach. I need to make the models and their clothing look excellent. I am contemplating using both 5245 iso50 and 5246 iso250. Both daylight balanced films... does anyone know the difference between the 5246 and thew vision 2 5205? Anyway... am wondering if anyone can offer advice on just making them look good. Filters, lights etc. Should I shoot backlit and use a gold flexfill and blow out the background? Should I use promist filters? Obviously all very subjective and I am just welcoming any and all opinions on the matter. The landscape shots I must also get are not the problem for me. Just lighting the models. Any suggestions would be great!
Cheers
  • 0

#2 Tomas Koolhaas

Tomas Koolhaas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • los angeles

Posted 02 July 2005 - 06:29 PM

Hello,
As you stated these are very subjective questions, but here goes.
I haven't used 5246 but I have used Vis2 250D, I shot a good looking girl with it and I did a Bleach Bypass at CFI- It looked AMAZING. If you are doing glamour shots I don't recomend you use any type of skip bleach process. I would say that Vis2 would probably give you better results because it has better latitude, saturation, finer grain, and the nicest skin tone rendition I have ever seen on any fim stock. To how you should light the girl(s), There are two types of imagery that I connect with models on beaches, Theres the quite bright evenly lit golden sun setting look (often backlit the bounced back into the faces with a gold reflector), then theres the low-key cooler look of when the sun has already set (which is used in much print fashion photography-Calvin Klein and lots of perfume ads), I used to prefer the first look, but recently I shot a beautiful girl with the sony F900 about 30/45min after the sun had set with no reflectors or diffusion filters, I just had her facing the direction were the sun had just set and shot her in profile, then had her turn so the sky gave her a soft side light and it looked very sexy and had a beautiful cool blue/pink color to it that was very flattering to the girls skin.
If you do use a reflector to bounce the sun onto a girls skin try to make sure it is not too hot on their skin, as nothing ruins beauty photography than a girl squinting with a bright sheen on her skin from a reflector thats too close and bright. I would recomend using something bigger and softer than a flexfill and getting further away with it.
Good luck.
Tomas.
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 July 2005 - 07:55 PM

Most of these models are beautiful in almost any kind of light...

However, most women in general look better in frontal light, so you'll notice that beach models are often shot either facing a low setting sun, front-lit, or shot in backlight so there is only soft reflected flat light on their faces. I guess the only type of light that is avoided is noon overhead light, and even then, if you have the model looking up into the sun (like when lying on the beach) it's a front-lit effect and can look fine.
  • 0

#4 Dave Plake

Dave Plake
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 88 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Oahu

Posted 02 July 2005 - 10:50 PM

anyone know the difference between 5205 and 5246 kodak?
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 July 2005 - 12:45 AM

anyone know the difference between 5205 and 5246 kodak?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


5205 is slightly lower in contrast, with less intense reds (the Vision-2 look), finer grain and slightly sharper -- overall a "cleaner" or "smoother" looking stock with more neutral color response. 5246 is a little "snappier".
  • 0

#6 Dave Plake

Dave Plake
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 88 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Oahu

Posted 03 July 2005 - 07:47 AM

5205 is slightly lower in contrast, with less intense reds (the Vision-2 look), finer grain and slightly sharper -- overall a "cleaner" or "smoother" looking stock with more neutral color response.  5246 is a little "snappier".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Mr. Mullen...thanks for the info... I like the "snappier" look I think, however do you think that the 5205 is better at representing the skin of the models? Also do you recommend the Cooke S4 primes, or the Zeiss high speed PL primes?
Thanks!

anyone please feel free to answer!
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 July 2005 - 12:37 PM

I don't think there's enough of a difference between 5205 and 5246 for you to worry about for a telecine transfer. I'd probably get the 5205 just because it's newer, finer-grained, etc. and add whatever snap I wanted in the color-correction.

As for lenses, again, for something to be telecined, I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference (Zeiss Super-Speeds versus Cooke S4's) although I'm sure that a commercial shooter like Geoff Boyle or Tony Brown will disagree. But when I'm shooting movies for TV release only, I don't sweat so much over the subtle differences in prime lenses as long as they are generally good, not crappy.

I'm not sure why you need Zeiss Super-Speeds for a day exterior at the beach though. Cookes might be slightly more flattering, having a softer contrast, but I'm thinking more of older Cooke Panchros S3's & S2's and their softer look.

You could always use a little diffusion though if a lens is too sharp.

I haven't really shot with the Cooke S4's though so what do I know. If you're shooting right into the glare of the ocean, you may prefer the flare from these lenses (or lack of flare) compared to a Zeiss Super-Speed. If I'm shooting models as the sun is dropping, I might prefer using a good zoom lens on the camera to be able to change shot sizes quickly and grab things.
  • 0

#8 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 03 July 2005 - 01:41 PM

As for lenses, again, for something to be telecined, I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference (Zeiss Super-Speeds versus Cooke S4's) . 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Hi,

I've only had the budget for S4's on 2 jobs, but wow they blow away the Super Speeds. Wide open at T2 they are so clean and beautifally sharp. They look fantastic just through the viewfinder. I used them 1 stop wider than I would have on SuperSpeeds, in the T2-2.8 range. The focus scales are also so much better than on my own set of Super Speeds.

Stephen
  • 0

#9 Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 July 2005 - 06:28 PM

I haven't used S4's either, but they are optimised for performance wide open, which (unless you go for the dusk approach) you won't be using them at on a 250D stock, obviously - so *perhaps* that's something to take into consideration?

They're probably pretty bloody good well up the range though, to be fair...

And, that said, the same will be pretty much true of superspeeds I would image (Mr. Mullen?!) - so maybe not a big deal at all.
  • 0

#10 oscar jimenez

oscar jimenez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF PANAMA

Posted 05 July 2005 - 09:13 AM

if you use 46 or 05 stock, keep in mind: shutter angle at 45 all day + Nd or Pola.
Unless you enjoy working at a T 8 or 11 on prime lenses. Ill go for ULtra Primes.
What if you use 5248?.
  • 0

#11 Dave Plake

Dave Plake
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 88 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Oahu

Posted 06 July 2005 - 03:54 AM

if you use 46 or 05 stock, keep in mind: shutter angle at 45 all day + Nd or Pola.
Unless you enjoy working at a T 8 or 11 on prime lenses. Ill go for ULtra Primes.
What if you use 5248?.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I'll be at a 15 degree shutter the whole time and will be shooting a lot of slomo. I like shooting wide open because I hate depth of field. The less the better, so I'll be wide open with nd's even with 250 stock. ON a slightly unrelated topic I also need to decide whether I'll be shooting super 35 1.85 2.35:1 or 1.85 tv safe. Any suggesstions? I have shot super 35 2.35:1 and it went to DI and it looks great, but any thoughts?
  • 0

#12 oscar jimenez

oscar jimenez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • PANAMA, REPUBLIC OF PANAMA

Posted 07 July 2005 - 03:03 PM

Well, I'll stick with 48, in beetween, less ND's, I like the punchy image you can get out of that, like the 74 stock, punchy!!!.
  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

CineLab

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

The Slider