Shoot Reversal or Manipulate Negative?

[Marc Kroll]

I am in pre-production for a dramatic short, to be shot on 16mm. I had previously done a project for this director, shooting the now discontinued Kodak reversal stocks, 7239, 7250, and 7251. We loved the look right out of the soup, did minmal corrections. (It was the PBS series, "Slavery and the Making of America", narrated by Morgan Freeman.)

I am wondering whether I should go with the remaining 100D reversal stock, and light the heck out of it, or manipulate a negative stock to achieve the look of reversal.

 

There isn't much budget for extensive testing, so I'm open to advice, that will keep things simple and efficient.

 

Regards,

Marc Kroll

[Michael Nash]

"Simple and efficient" for a video finish is to shoot color negative and manipulate it in the transfer. For a print finish you'd have to go through more steps to get that look out of negative (not so simple and efficient).

 

It's still worth testing the negative/transfer route though. Try 100' each of a fast stock and a slower stock, to see which will give you the color and texture you like.

[John Pytlak RIP]

I agree, for a video release, you can easily get the "reversal" look in post production during the transfer from camera negative. Stock choice and exposure can be used to achieve any graininess you may desire.

 

If you want to originate with reversal, 5285/7285 are fine, but the 100D speed rating may be a limitation.

[Marc Kroll]

"Simple and efficient" for a video finish is to shoot color negative and manipulate it in the transfer. For a print finish you'd have to go through more steps to get that look out of negative (not so simple and efficient).

 

It's still worth testing the negative/transfer route though. Try 100' each of a fast stock and a slower stock, to see which will give you the color and texture you like.

 

I think it's just a video finish, but not certain. When I did the other series, it was so sweet to know that at the moment of exposure, the look was locked in, instead of doing it in post.There's nothing "wrong" with doing it that way, but there's a point where it feels like the colorist has usurped the role of the DP.