I want some honest feedback ;)

[Riku Naskali]

Hi, I was just messing around with video and some heavy grading with my computer. This shoot was our homework, so nothing fancy, no lighting, etc. Say what you think. I know this still really doesn't tell anything, but give me some honest feedback. It's quite rare to get some, at least from our staff teachers.

 

Graded:

 

Original:

 

Composition can be little of on those two images, since they aren't taken at the exact same time from timeline.

[Michael Nash]

What sort of feedback are you looking for? Without seeing the original image, it's hard to comment on the grading.

 

But I see an increase in contrast and a decrease of overall color saturation, which is a pretty good imitation of a skipped-bleach negative look. Here the color balance appears somewhat neutral, whereas a skipped-bleach neg tends to bias the overall color warm. By keeping the color neutral the look doesn't call attention to itself as much, which can be a good thing sometimes.

 

What kind of camera did you use? It looks nice and crisp for a video still.

[Riku Naskali]

But I see an increase in contrast and a decrease of overall color saturation, which is a pretty good imitation of a skipped-bleach negative look. Here the color balance appears somewhat neutral, whereas a skipped-bleach neg tends to bias the overall color warm. By keeping the color neutral the look doesn't call attention to itself as much, which can be a good thing sometimes.

 

What kind of camera did you use? It looks nice and crisp for a video still.

I'm looking for a general feedback, composition, etc. I think I'm going to post the original as soon as I have time, so there's something to say about the grading.

 

Yeah, I was trying to emulate sort of skip-bleach, although I improvised a little bit so the look wouldn't be so extreme :)

 

It was shot with PD-170.

[Michael Nash]

Well, composition is all about whatever you're trying to convey -- and I don't know what that is from this image alone. In general the framing looks fine; you seem to have followed the basic rule of thirds for the subject, decent headroom, balance of light and dark areas is not distracting, and so on. The fact that the black BMW is seen in its entirety makes the viewer want to include it as a subject or counterpoint to the figure in the foreground, which maybe wasn't your intention. It's not that big a deal, but you could minimize the impact of the BG a little bit by sliding the camera left and having the figure partially overlap the car. Then you may need to cheat the guy toward camera so we still see a little of both eyes (like we do from this angle).

 

The tree braches at top work well as a counter to the dark pavement at the bottom. It helps "frame" the subject a little bit and draw your eye back to the vertical center of frame, where the subject's eyes are.

 

Buzzing the BG a little more would help with separation and bring the viewer into the subject's "space" a little bit more, but depth of filed is always difficult with 1/3" chip cameras.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'd have worked hard to avoid the very hot reflection in the car windscreen and the hilight on his back. The latter would be pretty easy - a net or probably even just a flag in overcast light, but the windscreen reflection is a bigger problem. You probably couldn't fly in anything that big, so you'd have to try and treat the glass itself. Does dulling spray come off?

 

Phil

[Riku Naskali]

I'd have worked hard to avoid the very hot reflection in the car windscreen and the hilight on his back. The latter would be pretty easy - a net or probably even just a flag in overcast light, but the windscreen reflection is a bigger problem. You probably couldn't fly in anything that big, so you'd have to try and treat the glass itself. Does dulling spray come off?

I Agree, but this was a "no-lighting-exercise", so I didn't even have any lighting gear with me. Actually the highlight on back did hold some detail before I raped the image with my skip-bleach emulation :)

 

I think dulling spray should come off, but that isn't just something you would do in a public place to some stranger's car :blink:

 

I don't know about that windshield reflection, though. I think it could look really nice about three+ stops less hot. If this was a "real" shoot, I think I would have tried to rig a big overhead net/double net. Or maybe I would have used polarisation filter and "tuned" the reflection to suit my eye. Sounds like the simplest approach by far.

[Bill Totolo]

As far as lighting the only thing I might have done differently and this is totally subjective, is I would have tried to get something in the eyes. You may have been going for the racoon thing, in which case, well done.

 

As far as framing I find that big blank cement square above the car a bit of a dull void.

 

Overal it looks very nice. Can we see more?

[DavidSloan]

Composition is nice...I wouldn't have framed the white car, personally. I like the branches on the top of his head and the lighting on his face looks great.

 

Can you please post the original photo, I'm extremely curious about your skip bleach emulation-it looks absolutely fantastic.

 

Thanks. :ph34r:

[Jason McKelvey]

The PD170 has a pretty long lens, you could back up and zoom in to throw the background out a bit more, or, if space is a limitation, I would go to manual iris, open to wide open and add ND to set exposure. Also, you can get a pretty low cost circular polorizer from B&H Photo to lose the glare off the windshield. make sure it's circular... a standard polarizer won't work with a camera that has auto focus. Cool grading... keeps people guessing what you used to shoot with.

 

As an aside, I have been wanting to try a Tiffen soft contrast filter. It's supposed to work the opposite of of a standard contrast filter by reducing the highlights and leaving the dark stuff and shadows untouched. If it works like the literature says, it may work like a low knee setting and avoid blowouts. I'll let everyone know if I get my hands on one.

 

jason

[Greg Gross]

Hello Jason,

Have not heard anything about using soft contrast filters. You know you can

use different grades of neutral density filters. For everything(techniques) of

photgraphy there are about 101 ways to do it. How do you like your PD-170?

Its no slacker you know, but a lot of so called experts don't know that. I will

try out your soft contrast filter with my PD-170 when I get a chance. I just got

back from location(indie movie).

Happy shooting!

 

Greg Gross,Professional Photographer

Student cinematographer

[Michael Nash]

Well I think the burned-out highlights are part of what give the skip-bleach-neg look its character. So the hot spot on the subject's back, the hot windshield and the dark eyes all seem part of the look to me. Personally I kind of like it for this shot. I'm sure the original image had more detail in those areas, except for the windshield.

 

But this just goes to show how subjective cinematography and composition is. You'll never get the same answer from everybody (just like movies and art in general).

 

I spent all day today shooting more reality TV stuff (no lighting, capturing what's there), and my simple solution to objectionable hot backgrounds is simply to frame as much of it out as possible. A slight hot spot in part of the frame is "pretty," but a glaring hot background is "ugly." The threshhold between the two is pretty subjective. So my solution today was to zoom in really tight on the person speking so the hot background didn't take up as much of the frame.

[Jason McKelvey]

How do you like your PD-170?

 

We have an older PD150 that we still use on ocassion, was great for what we were shooting, but we use the SDX900 as much as possible.

 

Hey Niku, did you guys consider a DVX100A when you bought the PD170? For production work, I'd choose the DVX100A for the 24P, if it's run and gun, I'd choose the PD170 only because it has auto gain on the audio, and better low light recording. Other than that, they both make a great picture for the size and cost.

 

jason

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Regarding framing-out the nasties, I find myself doing this all the time and I think it's one reason why you get all these huge facial closeups in independent film. They wouldn't work in the slightest on the big screen, but on a video monitor it's a quick way to avoid your nasty location or production design. Also being zoomed in means that your backdrop is liable to be soft. But you do see it a lot.

 

Phil

[Michael Nash]

I think it's one reason why you get all these huge facial closeups in independent film. They wouldn't work in the slightest on the big screen, but on a video monitor it's a quick way to avoid your nasty location or production design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's also a lot easier to light closeups than it is to light wide interior shots when you're on a tight budget (not enough equipment or time). But sometimes I think young directors tend to gloss over the importance of using the setting and wide shots as a part of the visual vocabulary; a way of telling the story. I've heard statements from neophyte filmmakers that the closeups are really what's important, and they often seem to think that they're somehow skipping to the good stuff by skipping over the wide shots. In my opinion they're just short changing the audience of the chance to buid up empathy for the character and the situation they're in.

 

My opinion anyway. Mini rant over. :P

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

See, if I were on this location and that had to be our shot. Those cars would have to go. That's the best way to deal with those reflections. If the black Bimmer had to be in shot I would have it turned to eliminate said reflection. I had a guy towed once to get rid of his car. :D I need to go to church...

[Guest fstop]

It's also a lot easier to light closeups than it is to light wide interior shots when you're on a tight budget (not enough equipment or time). But sometimes I think young directors tend to gloss over the importance of using the setting and wide shots as a part of the visual vocabulary; a way of telling the story. I've heard statements from neophyte filmmakers that the closeups are really what's important, and they often seem to think that they're somehow skipping to the good stuff by skipping over the wide shots. In my opinion they're just short changing the audience of the chance to buid up empathy for the character and the situation they're in.

 

My opinion anyway. Mini rant over.  :P

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hee-hee hee-hee- being brought up on David Watkin and having a bit of old fashioned taste when it comes to lighting, I've NEVER had this problem- this weekend I shot 60-70% steadicam all in one room- my operator was AMAZING btw, and he's gonna go far- I had a 575w HMI bounced off of foamcore/muslin/paper plastered to the ceiling to fake the ambience of rigged flo strip lights- I shot so much with a wide lens at about 20-30mm most of the time, so much so that halfway through I FINALLY went to a 50mm and higher just for variety! LOL I think I am unique in that respect (and I have fantastic operators who I like to take charge of the composition themselves).

 

I do blame lower light levels on sets for much of this contagious close up stuff. It;s only natural. The heat from Tungsten lamps is a drawback and the slightly less sauna-making HMIs annoy the sound guy with their singing, but if those are the only drawbacks for bigger lights, so be it.