Crediting both Kodak and Fuji

Jarin Blaschke · March 4, 2005

I photographed a short film that was almost completely shot with 35mm Fuji stock, except for one flashback scene where I used pushed 5245. The Fuji stock was greatly discounted, even much cheaper than it normally is but the Kodak stock was apparently given to us free of charge (I think only 2 thousand feet, if I remember correctly). The producers want to have the Kodak logo, since they gave us free film and there is no official icon for Fujifilm, but essentially, the film was shot on Fuji stock - it was an aesthetic choice on my part. Lisa Miller at Fuji was great in getting us a great deal, and I mentioned that she be credited but they don't think that they should mention what company she represents, instead just having her name in the "thanks" portion of the credits. Is it a rude gesture to both Kodak and Fuji if we credit both companies near each other in the credit scroll? Should we not mention Kodak at all, even though they gave us a few thousand feet of free film? Or not mention Fujifilm, even though it was used for the vast majority of the film for its subtly different look?

Edited March 4, 2005 by JarinBlaschke

David Mullen ASC · March 4, 2005

I photographed a short film that was almost completely shot with 35mm Fuji stock, except for one flashback scene where I used pushed 5245. The Fuji stock was greatly discounted, even much cheaper than it normally is but the Kodak stock was apparently given to us free of charge (I think only 2 thousand feet, if I remember correctly). The producers want to have the Kodak logo, since they gave us free film and there is no official icon for Fujifilm, but essentially, the film was shot on Fuji stock - it was an aesthetic choice on my part. Lisa Miller at Fuji was great in getting us a great deal, and I mentioned that she be credited but they don't think that they should mention what company she represents, instead just having her name in the "thanks" portion of the credits. Is it a rude gesture to both Kodak and Fuji if we credit both companies near each other in the credit scroll? Should we not mention Kodak at all, even though they gave us a few thousand feet of free film? Or not mention Fujifilm, even though it was used for the vast majority of the film for its subtly different look?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a FujiFilm logo. Just put both Fuji & Kodak at the end. Kodak would understand -- I don't think they want to take more credit than what's due to them. I'm always for more accuracy in credits.

Mike Williamson · March 4, 2005

Jarin, could you tell us a little bit about the film generally? I'd be interested in hearing about which stocks you used, camera package and so forth. Also, it would be great if you could talk about the quotes you got from Fuji, although I understand if you don't feel that you can do that.

As far as credits go, I'd agree with David that you should credit both companies. Both gave you support, so it seems only fair that both should be acknowledged.

Jarin Blaschke · March 4, 2005

It was shot last summer, just north of New York City in the suburbs. It's a drama about a girl who witnessed the drowning of her brother's girlfriend and her attempts to confront these issues, as well as her fear of water by taking scuba diving lessons. It was based on a short story. The film should run 14 minutes with credits.

I don't honestly know what they got for rates on film stock - I just remember the producers raving about it. I just found out today that they actually got the Kodak stock for free.

The camera package was donated by Panavision New York - I wrote them a long letter about why I love the camera system and had used them before, was about to use them again in LA for real money, etc. and that I wanted to remain loyal and consistent in my choice of camera. Otherwise, the film would have almost certainly shot super16.

The package was a GII with a set of Primos and a 1.4x extender. No zoom. I don't believe we had an on board monitor or any other real 'extras' aside from the usual video tap. We shot standard 1.85. There were literally three shots to shoot underwater at a public swimming pool during a full shooting day and then some abstract underwater imagery to shoot the next day at a murky beach in Staten Island. Amazingly, Panavision also donated a housing-ready Panavised 35-III for the weekend to acomplish this. A Hydroflex with flat lens ports shipped from LA, but to save money, they did not order an on board monitor, and for the swimming pool footage, I had to operate from a tiny viewing hole, through a few layers of glass and my snorkeling goggles. The postage stamp sized image was not unlike the image one would get from a disposable camera. For the shots at that filthy Staten Island beach, I simply put a lens on the camera and operated blind at waist/chest level, improvising the focus but shooting around I think a T8. Once the 400 feet was up, we went home.

I wanted the film to have a very cool, lush, rich image with especially saturated blues and greens - almost evoking water all the time. The lead had very fair, almost porcelain skintone that worked very well. The yellow to magenta end of the color spectrum was avoided in art direction. The flashback scene is the only slightly warm scene - a conversation between the girl, her brother and his girlfriend around a fish tank. That was shot with 5245, pushed one and a half stops and rated at 64. A very light pro-mist was used (1/8 or 1/4, I don't recall)and gratuitous amounds of back light. I think it was about +8 incident. The girls' faces are lit by the bounce from one another. The translucent water in the fishtank glows very well, leaving the fish floating in an aura. The film print should give me the first real indication of how much the diffusion milked the shadows and halated the highlights.

The remainder of the film was shot on Fuji 250T, uncorrected in daylight for particularly vibrant blues and greens. It was rated at 125 for extra richness and in combination with the Primos (always clean), should create some rich contrast on the print to enhance the soft, directional lighting. Scenes around and in the swimming pool where she first attempts to dive were rated at 250 and pushed one stop for even more contrast under a pleasant skylight and applied negative fill, again with uncorrected color - even underwater. This scene was shot handheld and with a narrow shutter to evoke discomfort, starting at 120 degrees and progressing to a 75 degree shutter, with the 35-III hydroflex footage shot at 45 degrees. This produced particularly beautiful bubbles underwater.

The abstract "memory flash" imagery that I had to operate blind was again Fuji 250T, rated at 250 and pushed two stops for intense saturation, contrast and a bit of grain, hinting at cross processing without being obvious about it.

DavidSloan · March 5, 2005

Sounds like you did some interesting stuff, Jarin. Maybe you can share some images sometime.

Good luck.

John Pytlak RIP · March 5, 2005

Is it a rude gesture to both Kodak and Fuji if we credit both companies near each other in the credit scroll? Should we not mention Kodak at all, even though they gave us a few thousand feet of free film? Or not mention Fujifilm, even though it was used for the vast majority of the film for its subtly different look?

I have seen "joint credits" when both films were used.

You can reduce your guilt by only buying Kodak film in the future. ;) :D

DavidSloan · March 5, 2005

Jesus John, you never let up, do you!

John Pytlak RIP · March 5, 2005

John, you never let up, do you!

In Rochester, they say Kodak people have "yellow blood". The people who work on motion-picture films are especially dedicated and enthusiastic about Kodak products. :)