Tom Norris Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I love really blown out punchy photography, and am wondering what would be a good film to use to get this effect?: and some more examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM96bQkJ-mc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rakoczy Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 5285/ 7285 is a nice start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Norris Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 thanks! I know that 7285/5285 is meant for outdoor/exterior shots, but could it also be done indoors and still get a good image? in example, does this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS0ecdawM4U look like it was shot with 7285/5285 stock, or would I want to use something else for indoor shots to get a similar effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rakoczy Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I have used 5285 indoors... it is done all the time. No need to look at Film as 'outdoor' or indoor'.. but rather it's Speed (iso) and Kelvin Balance (color temp).... and work in that realm (i.e. order Tungsten or HMI Lamps accordingly). You can also do a ton in Post... but Reversal Film will get you headed in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Norris Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 does anyone know the equivalent of 5285 for a still slr 35mm camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted January 29, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted January 29, 2009 Kodak reversal still film I'm not sure which would match up with 85 the best, but there are a few to choose from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Ratner Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 My guess is that the funky, unrealistic effect in the first link was done in post, regardless of the stock used. (Didn't check the other links. The first was enough) Like, it didn't matter what filmed they used--they just maxed color saturation and contrast in post, which is okay for a minute or two--but anything longer, and it's just annoying and all wrong. Can you imagine watching a feature film that looked like that throughout? But otherwise, I agree. I love those dynamic colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Umm, maybe *50* -85? :P According to the late John Pytlak, it was the same stock as E100VS (5085 edge code) the vivid-saturated version of the E-series Ektachromes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted January 31, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted January 31, 2009 Umm, maybe *50* -85? :P According to the late John Pytlak, it was the same stock as E100VS (5085 edge code) the vivid-saturated version of the E-series Ektachromes. Ahh, I was unaware. I've shot all of the E series film at one point or another, but I'm very bad at paying attention to edge code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Shore Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 you could also try Fuji Vivid 160 T. Still a neg. stock, but with leanings toward the contrast and saturation of reversal. Also, you'd be surprised at how much punch you can get from force processing. You can look here for an example: Stock was 5246 250 D. For the punchy, saturated poop, I pushed the stock a stop and a half but left the EI rated at 250. The other parts are a full skip bleach on the neg. (rated at 400). Hope that helps. Bobby Shore DP LA/Montreal www.bobbyshore.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Shore Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 alright, so apparently the link doesn't work... you can go here for the example: http://bobbyshore.com/usta.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Ratner Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 alright, so apparently the link doesn't work... you can go here for the example: http://bobbyshore.com/usta.html BOY, was that GOOD!!! MUY bueno! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Norris Posted January 31, 2009 Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 thanks guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now