Jump to content

The Love Witch


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

For wider shots, fill was the one thing that was sometimes a soft bounce to reduce contrast. It wasn't that different than older movies who often put lots of Tough Spun type diffusion on a fill light.

 

For close-ups the key was so frontal that I didn't use fill so much as I used an eye light, sometimes an LED light on top of the lens, or a Dedolight or 150w fresnel scrimmed down, often with a black wrap snoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Thanks! If you have any BTS photos of setups that you're allowed to share I'd certainly love to see them :)

 

I'm over in India for a Bollywood feature at the moment (which is a whole different kind of style!), but when I get back home in September I've got a quirky little romance to shoot which includes a couple of film-within-a-film sequences that we want to give a classic '40s/'50s Hollywood look to - so this is precisely the sort of aesthetic I'd love to emulate! (though I'd probably be doing mine in Black and White and 1.33:1)

 

Are there any books or resources on the classic lighting style that you'd recommend? It's such a fundamentally different style and approach to lighting than the one I've taught myself, that I think I'm going to need some help with it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I didn't take photos that included the lighting on set, I just took photos similar to the camera set-up framing out the lights. But I found one that I took as I was setting up the lights for a night exterior in a large backyard where you can barely see the lights at the top of the frame. This location didn't allow me to backlight the space but I didn't want to front or side-light this only, I wanted the lighting to radiate from the center of the backyard where the ceremony takes place.

 

So we used an articulating condor (I think a 60' arm, maybe 45') and we hung a speed rail frame so I could create a ring of lights (1K's mostly, maybe tweenies) pointed down and out slightly, with one light in the center pointed straight down over the fire. Again, since I was lighting to get an f/2.8 at 100 ASA, it was quite bright, deliberately a bit overlit. The background had a rake of daylight HMI's or daylight LED fresnels, plus one low backlight behind the big tree. The black shape in the foreground is the base of the condor, which was right next to the camera when we shot, armed out into the center of the backyard.

 

lovewitch18.jpg

 

A frame from dailies (I blurred the nudity a bit in this jpeg):

lovewitch19.jpg
The house attached to this backyard was just off-camera to the right, with some banquet tables, so I established some white light spilling from the house onto the ceremony from that direction. The opposite direction I had the blue moonlight rake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I really liked your work on, “Assassination of a High School President” (Fuji stock). I, myself, have been trying to get use to the modern Kodak stocks. The grain structure can be very tight, and you see so much into the shadows that it can be hard to achieve that classic look of films of the past in 35mm in terms of both color, contrast and grain structure. After Fuji discounted there motion stocks, some of my tests with S16mm have been favorable in achieving some of this more so than 35mm. Had you considered S16mm in your discussion with the director for this particular project? Or was that ruled out because of too much depth of field for the classic look you were after?

I’m actually a art director (in print design), but shoot a lot of analog still photography and some motion. For the analog still camera work, I scan the negatives on a Nikon scanner, and have to work really hard to get some of that ‘classic’ look from some of my images of the way I remember old films, older fashion photography, etc. As with the newer motion stocks, the new Kodak still film stocks are hard to achieve that at times. But I have had some wonderful results enough times to keep me staying on the analog path.
In the below link, much is obviously available light work, but all the studio light work was either with one tungsten fresnel, or a soft box attached to a 1K tungsten open face. The tungsten obviously had a great deal to do with helping me achieve some of that classic looks in those particular shots.
Lastly, David, glad to see you talking about a analog project, again. Always interesting to see the details of your approach and your acute knowledge of it all.
Here is a link if anyone should be interested:
— T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I talked to the director about push-processing 200T or using 500T stock to get some of the graininess of older movies, but she didn't want any sort of "degraded" look -- her main concern was getting as much color saturation out of the stock with minimal grain, hence why I used overexposed 200T stock. She also felt that being forced to use powerful lights would sort of intensify the colors by pounding objects with so much artificial illumination.

 

If Kodak still had made 100T, I might have tried using that with a 1-stop push just to get out of that flatter Vision-3 look. Or maybe have tested Fuji's Vivid stocks. However, in the end, we found that with the high printer lights we were at, the normal Vision print was quite saturated and contrasty as it was, maybe a pushed look would have been too much. And being a low-budget film, paying extra for a one-stop push on everything might have strained the budget too much. I still would have liked to use Vision Premier print stock if it had not been discontinued.

 

We had done a short film in 16mm together about twenty years ago in this style but with more of a 1940's art direction / wardrobe.

 

I think the main thing I discovered is how much contrast / how deep the blacks are when you print a movie from the original negative at high printer lights -- the look is much richer than what digital projection can achieve, even if you color-correct for that look. We did find that in the photochemical prints, the greens weren't as saturated as with the digital version, and the deeper blacks came at the expense of some loss of shadow detail, but in general I think the 35mm print is closer to the feeling that the movie wanted to express than the DCP will be. It's been traveling around the world to festivals, mostly projected from the print, but when it gets a small release in the fall, it will probably be a DCP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The 16mm short film we did back in the 1990's (I shot the stage work, about half the movie was also shot on location without me.) It was basically a CalArts student film though I had already graduated by that point. Just me and a friend doing all the electric work and then me behind the camera (probably one of the school's Eclair NPR's):

 

http://www.lifeofastar.com/hypnotist.html

ysLI86tcq1DvfSFXf68ck6kywTp.jpg

 

Here's a clip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

Thank you for the reply back. Regardless of any sort of limitations you may have encountered with the limited availability of stocks these days, the film still has a great feel. And there are some beautiful shots in the trailer that achieve that intended look, for certain (even if I understand the director had a certain agenda in some for the character of the look, as well). I’m looking forward to a blu-ray release to look it all over in more detail.

Also, as you say, a portion of the contrast, color and look is being lost in the DCP. I can very much visualize the difference in my head.

Another question, you state that you “may have tested Fuji Vivid stocks” for the film. Is there still a source that you personally know that has rolls off Fuji Motion stock? I know for awhile it was available in the U.K., but I have yet to see any surface in the Los Angles area in any significant quantities. And as far was I know most, if not all, of it is gone in the U.K. from that particular source.

Lastly, I noticed the following link on the companies website that bought the rights to the film. Again, looking forward to the release.

http://thelovewitch.oscilloscope.net

And just as I was finishing typing the above, I saw your post of the 16mm short. Really beautiful / wonderful. Thank you for sharing. That is amazing. Reminds me of Hitchcock’s ‘Rope’ a little in terms of the period, color and mostly one room staging. That was shot in the early / mid 1990’s? Kodak EXR stocks?

-T

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

That short was probably shot on Fuji 250T though maybe Kodak EXR 200T -- I used a lot of Fuji 250T stock in film school from 1988-1991 (because I wasn't a fan of Kodak's 7292 320T), though by my last year when I had better budgets on student thesis films, I was mostly using Kodak EXR 50D and 100T for 16mm work; those stocks were first released in 1989.

 

EXR 200T came out in 1992 and I became a big fan of that stock, as well as the newer versions of Fuji 250T. It took a long while for me to warm up to the 500T stocks, maybe not even until Vision-1 500T came out, though I was OK with Fuji's Super-F 500T stock in the late 1990's.

 

When I started shooting 35mm features in 1992-93, I used Agfa for a couple of them -- I really liked the look of their new XTR-250 stock when it was rated at 160 ASA. But Agfa was always a bit too soft for 16mm work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the information, David. When you find the time, and if you happen to know if any of the Agfa features you shot (I'm not sure if you are referring to "indie", or 'no budget' features) are available on DVD, I would be interested in seeing the look of that stock. But, of course, I realize the digital transfer of any home video release may have not been made off of the original negative and may have been telecine'd all over the place if any copy of those features exist. Thanks — T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I did two features on Agfa XTR250 and XTS400, both ultra low-budget. Only one is on DVD, titled "Ritual", and it's only a 4x3 interlaced-scan telecine transfer:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Ritual-Clarence-Williams-III/dp/B0002IQGQW

 

The subject matter is fairly controversial, involving incest and it has some male nudity. It was shot in 15 days in an all-white mansion in Malibu with an all-black cast, with a monochromatic production design, so the Agfa stock seemed like a good option. Trouble is that the movie was so low in budget that it ran out of money in post and sat unfinished for more than five years, so even though it was shot in 1993, it wasn't released until after 2000. It was only my third feature. Some frames from the DVD:

 

ritual1.jpg

 

ritual2.jpg

 

ritual3.jpg

 

ritual4.jpg

 

ritual5.jpg

 

ritual6.jpg

 

The overexposed Agfa stock actually printed quite well on to Vision print stock, which didn't exist when we shot the movie. The print timer was quite impressed by the contrast and colors, kept asking me what stocks I had used. Agfa stopped making color negative movie stocks just a year after I shot the movie, after they had just released these new stocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,
Thank you for posting the Agfa stock frames. I just ordered a used copy of the DVD on Amazon. The lighting looks amazing and very naturalistic.
No doubt the monochromatic production design / color pallet is subconsciously making me make it feel lower contrast, but it does seem closer to how I view the Fuji Eterna stocks. Though, I see your mention of overexposing, so I assume that is playing a part in contributing to that sort of milky / slightly ‘flashed’ look I perhaps see, too (non-telecine related color / contrast shifts, notwithstanding, of course)
Perhaps, the only benefit from the film sitting for five years is that you eventually got a DVD release versus a VHS for your personal library. But I imagine it must be frustrating having to wait that long when the whole crew put in such an effort and could have likely used everything for their respective reels.
For the DVD, was the 4x3 just a ‘open matte’ transfer from 1.85 center ’academy’ framing? And in those days, would they have even asked you if you would have liked to sit in on the DVD / telecine transfer?
Thanks again for sharing.
— T

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yes, I think it's an open matte transfer - I shot it in 4-perf 35mm framed for 1.85 for a photochemical finish (D.I.'s were not an option in the 90's.) After the answer print was made, a color-timed IP was struck for telecine transfer, though I suppose it is possible they used a low-con print, which was still being done back then.

 

The movie was shot with a light ProMist filter, which accounts for a little of the milkiness, combined with the Agfa stock. I used to keep notes in a journal about everything I shot after film school. Here is what I wrote in December 1994 (not 1993, I was mistaken):

 

-- 35mm, Arri-BL4S (Clairmont Cameras), Zeiss Super-Speeds, Agfa stock

-- Used Agfa XTR-250 (rated at 160 ASA) for everything except low-light night work.

-- Used Agfa XTS-400 for low-light work.

-- Used 1/4 ProMist on everything except when under a T/2.0, then used a 1/8 ProMist.

-- Because of video dailies, not sure if XTR-250 w/ 1/4 ProMist will look too grainy on big screen.

-- Used LLD filter (instead of 85) for daytime interior work.

-- Used 1/4 Coral filter to warm up scenes, had to write "Golden Tint" on slate after grey scale to keep lab from timing warm effect out.

-- XTR-250 with no filters looks like 5293 (EXR 200T). With diffusion, works best in contrasty lighting

 

-- NOTE: In January 1995, Agfa Corp. announced they would no longer be manufacturing color negative film.

 

 

David Watkin must have hoarded some of the stock because he managed to shoot most of Franco Zeffirelli's "Jane Eyre" (1996) on Agfa XT-320.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

 

I hope with all the information you have gathered, your details notes on many of your shoots and your all around technical and artistic talent, you have a book on cinematography in the works, even if it is slow going. Let me know if you do get around to it, if that is the case, and I will help you with the design.

 

—T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Premium Member

Just wanted to say another big thanks David for sharing your approach to this, and for pointing me in the direction of 'Painting with Light'. I just had to put the classic lighting style into practice for a film-within-a-film for an upcoming project, and I'm not sure I'd have ever been able to get past the complete foreignness of the aesthetic without the advice.

 

The three sequences we shot will be output to VHS and then played within the film, and we're pretty delighted with the outcome so far. It's such a magnificent style, I hope there are further excuses that allow people to preserve it somehow.

 

vBfyxSq.jpg

 

BgU5Bqg.jpg

 

XOEPmG4.jpg

 

iPZgUKO.jpg

 

2k7V2JB.jpg

 

IKd1ISQ.jpg

 

G6ibePG.jpg

 

INWHNL6.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...