5203 (50d) pull process

[James R Blann]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm shooting a short soon and due to budget reasons have a selection of stocks that have to be used. I was wondering if anyone had experience of a pull process on 5203, 1 or 2 stops. We're going for a pastel, soft contrast look which i've seen great examples of on Kodaks' faster stocks but was wondering how it might come out on 5203 as it seems naturally more vivid and contrasty. The kind of look is seen in the Gordon Parks image below (something comparable in an exterior).

 

cheers!

[James R Blann]

Hi all,

 

As there wasn't a response here it may be that there weren't many examples to show for the question. The finished product is below; I thought someone might be interested to see it. I ended up over exposing between 2-3 stops and pulling 1 on the first section of the film. I wish i'd gone further now but as it was a cloudy/rainy day it was tricky to get exactly what I was after on the exteriors. The perils of shooting in the UK!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Your real name is Empire Junior?

[James R Blann]

Haha no, I made this account quite a long time ago after buying an Empire Junior camera; my real name is James Blann. Less exciting, I know.

[David Mullen ASC]

You should update your User Profile with your real name, and until then, at least sign your posts.

 

Roger Deakins did something similar for "Courage Under Fire" -- he overexposed 200T and pull-processed it for the desert war flashbacks, I think it was a 3-stop overexposure and a 2-stop pull? I don't recall. Anyway, it looked very creamy and pastel, and this was pre-D.I.

 

"Dark Shadows" had a more subtle version of that look, from shifting the blacks to cyan in the D.I.

[Miguel Angel]

I quite liked the final product.

 

A very interesting idea short short - film which a very good rhythm and classy actors.

 

I didn't see your posts, had I seen it I would have posted some photos I took on Kodak still film where I did something very similar.

 

Anyway, a quite nice job, well done!

 

Under my point of view, the only thing I could say something about is the camera movements, which were sometimes very hand - heldish if you know what I mean, otherwise, it is great, and the short - film's narrative is fabulous too.

 

Thanks for sharing it.

[dio zafi]

Hi all,

 

As there wasn't a response here it may be that there weren't many examples to show for the question. The finished product is below; I thought someone might be interested to see it. I ended up over exposing between 2-3 stops and pulling 1 on the first section of the film. I wish i'd gone further now but as it was a cloudy/rainy day it was tricky to get exactly what I was after on the exteriors. The perils of shooting in the UK!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw4K3jKTU1k&index=6&list=UUkU7qfV3iD-oxB7CGVWUsdg

 

STUNNING!!! CONGRATULATIONS!

[Dan Finlayson]

Beautiful work!

 

I read somewhere that Adam Arkapaw overexposed 5203 1 stop and pulled 1 stop for the exterior material set in 1994. He also used old panavision ultra speeds (the pvintage lenses I think?) to cut contrast as well.

[Dan Finlayson]

^^^ On the show True Detective - don't know how I omitted that from my post!

[Albion Hockney]

Can you some explain or link to an explanation of how over exposing cuts contrast? is this just contrast in the shadows that it increases because I would think the overexposure would leave less room in the highlights and you could potentionally reach a clip point.

 

Along with this my 2nd question does the pull process actually increase latitude of the film stock?

 

 

This is very much the opposite of the digital process (underexposing and pushing usually leads to increased latitude in highlights...atleast thats how 800ISO on the RED works). I don't get to shoot much film but hopefully soon.

 

 

the images you created look great btw!

Edited September 28, 2014 by Albion Hockney

[Dan Finlayson]

Can you some explain or link to an explanation of how over exposing cuts contrast? is this just contrast in the shadows that it increases because I would think the overexposure would leave less room in the highlights and you could potentionally reach a clip point.

 

Along with this my 2nd question does the pull process actually increase latitude of the film stock?

 

 

This is very much the opposite of the digital process (underexposing and pushing usually leads to increased latitude in highlights...atleast thats how 800ISO on the RED works). I don't get to shoot much film but hopefully soon.

 

 

the images you created look great btw!

 

The overexposure has much less of an effect on contrast than the chemical pull-process. Overexposing is done to achieve the desired density on the negative despite the shorter development time.

 

If you define latitude as usable range of exposed tonal values on the negative, then yes, you are increasing the latitude by pulling. You are not changing the dynamic range of the film stock, just the range of tones than you deem acceptable in terms of grain. I think I read somewhere that Kodak recommends with vision 3 and modern scanning tech to not pull or push to effect the EI or dynamic range (this can be easily manipulated digitally) and rather to use these tools as a stylistic choice.

 

I think you could make the argument that in the case of True Detective, pulling the film probably saved the production money - DI time probably would work out to be more expensive than getting the look straight on the negative.