Myth # 480

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Overall I would say when you know the film stock, you've shot it under many circumstances and know what it is capable of. When you know your equipment, you've tested it and know it functions correctly. When you know your lab and trust they will deliver you a quality negative and print, 90% of the time the process is predictable and repeatable.

I would say more like 100% predictable and repeatable. Especially shooting stills with reversal film. If you have your light meter calibrated to a particular film stock and laborotory there is no need to even shoot test polaroids. The only time I ever shoot polaroids is if the client wants to see it now.

 

When I shoot travel and leisure stills for magazines I never test a shot and 95% of the time I don't even shoot brackets. I gave up doing that because the first frame was always the right one. No worries.

 

I used to be calibrated to 6x7cm Velvia and now I'm calibrated to E100VS because I want the extra stop and like everything about the film. So what happens if conditions are really contrasty and I fear the film might "pop" too much and look garish? I either use fill or shoot at a different time of day and just maybe pull the film. I usually never use a different film stock because it would upset the system. Film, if used right, is always amazingly consistent because it is a "system" of a particular camera (meaning you know the shutter is absolutely accurate), particular set of lenses (accurate stops and known contrast), particular film stock, speed calibrated to a particular (accurate) light meter and a particular lab.

 

This is the reason for motion picture film dailies and communicating with the lab. You can get locked into a rythm with your exposure, and lighting style and know EXACTLY what you are going to get because you got your system set up for a few particular film stocks. Unfortunately you're probably the only guy on the set absolutely sure that everything is A'OK.

 

Point is, the same goes for digital shooting too. Even with the ability to watch the "final" product on set. You are probably going to be the only guy who is absolutely sure of what the final output of the tape will look like. Shooting HD 24p going to film? Shooting SD 24p going to film? Shooting SD 24p uprezzing to HDTV?

 

All require you to set up a system of image capture that goes right down through the chain to get the final image you want.

[Filip Plesha]

Shooting all the time with the same film stock,same lighting style,same lenses and everything is not very artistic,even if you are doing the most comercially oriented cinematography/photography.

 

I mean what is the point of that? People see your films or photographs and

see that you never do anything else than that,they are all the same.

I think a job like that is not a job in wich you can just sit back,crawl up

into some daily rutine and never experiment.

[Sam Wells]

Sometimes it is like a desease for me. You try out a new film,then shoot a couple of rolls, and you get an idea of its unique look,and then you start wondering how would things around you look on a piece of that film.

I always get tempted to shoot my own street and house, with every new film i try.

It is just that i know my surroundigs so well,its colors,textures and light conditions in different times of year,and day,and i just get currious how would this new film

render some well formiliar scenery.

Outside my house, in the morning especially, there are "50D days", there are "Kodachrome days". etc. I mean things will look that way. Is this a disease ? That's harsh, man ! Can't we just say occuptional hazard ? ;)

 

-Sam

[Filip Plesha]

I ment that in a positive (exagerated of course) way

[David Mullen ASC]

There's nothing wrong to sticking to one stock and a set of lenses for one's work -- some people don't look to stock and lenses for experimentation but want to keep those as constants as they experiment with lighting, for example.

 

Up until the 1980's there was only one 35mm Kodak color negative stock available at a time (except for the brief overlap of 5254 and 5247) and certainly films varied quite a bit in look anyway. Just compare "Godfather 2" to "The Towering Inferno"...

 

I'm someone who likes to dabble, mostly out of boredom, but many DP's I respect tend to stick to the same reliable tools for each production, let's say, 5279 and Cooke S4 lenses, like with many of Roger Deakin's films. Being a more stylistically varied DP doesn't necessarily mean you are a better DP, just more varied. One doesn't wish Rembrandt had painted more like Picasso now and then just for variety's sake.

[Filip Plesha]

David,he said "lighting style" allso,tha tis what i responded to.

 

I mean if you use the same style,same equpment every time then

you are very consistent in your look,and i don't think this is much creative

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

David,he said "lighting style" allso,tha tis what i responded to.

 

I mean if you use the same style,same equpment every time then

you are very consistent in your look,and i don't think this is much creative

I did not mean to imply you should use one lighting style on every subject. The reason I said lighting style was to point out that you WILL be lighting with a different style as the shot/project warrants. You might have a particular contrast ratio in mind or you may want people to always be with the sun at their backs in exterior scenes etc. because that is the style you are using for that particular movie. It is an artistic decision you make for every movie and in fact you may decide to not even have a style that is consistent throughout the same film. Either way you better know what you are doing or you could wind up digging yourself in to a deep hole.

 

Obviously you will be a much more versatile shooter if you set yourself up to use many different stocks and various equipment. Sorry, I didn't point that out clearly.

 

Me personally, as far as still film goes for the subjects I shoot, it is because most print editors prefer Velvia or the new Kodak E films. They are industry standards. Some editors, for various reasons, will even reject shots not captured on these films. And yes, T & L still photography does have a "look" that editors want to see that can be confining.

 

As for MP film I'm familliar with most Kodak stocks, intimately so with the '74,'46, '85 and '79. The big exception would be the '77. I would want to do tests before I shot with it because I haven't used it. I could know everything about the film after a short test and using it in the real world for a few days. I don't like to fly by the seat of my pants.

 

I guess you CAN choose to shoot blind if you wanted too, but then you have become what the anti-DP people claim we are. I hate when people say we are guessing at what we are doing. It's just not true. I have spent many hours deep in the night doing lighting setups to figure how to expose them various ways and how far you can push a film stock etc., etc. I'm a total cinematography geek. I've even had the cops called on me for running lights late at night in my backyard because I wanted to try something out. And that's just on my own. If I can get in some testing on somebody elses dime you can bet I'll think of something.

[Tenolian Bell]

You know how the image

is going to look like,but you don't see it.

The image is created as much in your minds eye as it is created with the physical eye.

 

I think that is a better description than shooting blind.

 

I recently saw a documentary on piloting submarines. There are no windows in submarines. The pilots cannot not physically with the eye see where they are going. They depend on mastered skills to navigate the seas.

 

They depend on sonar beeps, water depth gauges, deep sea charts, and their mastery of the skill of oceanic navigation.

 

I guess in a technical sense the crew of a submarine is blind, because you generally cannot see with the physcial eye where you are going, but they still accurately make the trip from A to B.

 

Even more they navigate and fight war, without being able to see what's going on around them.

 

I'm saying all of this to say with the proper mastery of skill certain jobs can be done without being able to see exactly what the final product will be. Ultimately the real key is your knowldge of what you are doing. The ability to previsualize in your imagination, and the skill to make that vision tangible is the real key.