How to achieve the HIGH-GLOSS, FASHION LOOK on film?

[Max S. Moore]

Hi everyone,

I recently fell in love again with one of my passions from many years ago: motion picture cameras.

After finding out that Kodak still makes film  - I am excited to shoot again soon.

I am interested in creating the HIGH-GLOSS, FASHION look - which is normally found in commercials and music videos. I understand film may not be the best choice to do this look, but I would like to try. I will be using either 16mm or 35mm, but most likely 35mm. I am thinking 250D film may be a good choice - since most of my lights are 5500K.

Is it better to overexpose or underexpose the film? I hear different opinions on this - and this seems like a crucial decision.

I decided to post this under GENERAL because it covers several topics : film stock, lighting, scanning, etc.

I am attaching samples of the high-gloss fashion look I am referring to.

Thank you in advance.

Max

 

 

 

 

[M Joel W]

A lot of this is using huge soft sources, make up, post beauty work, etc. Beyond my pay grade but presumably book lights, breises, etc. For still photography this is easier since strobes are a lot cheaper than hot lights, and they melt hot boxes a lot slower too.

Generally tungsten stocks are more flattering on skin tones, a bit more toward green (like the Alexa imo) whereas daylight stocks might go a bit more toward magenta on skin, which is less flattering particularly on caucasians imo.

I think underexposing or overexposing depends on what look you want. For film I like how overexposed tungsten stocks look printed down but there is a lot of debate even here whether you want to use an 85 filter or not. I guess for me I'd shoot 200T with an 85B, overexpose just a bit, and blast the place full of soft light.

I am probably the last person to ask lol but figured I would chime in anyway because I can't help myself.

Edited May 22, 2022 by M Joel W

[Max S. Moore]

Thanks Joel.

You mentioned overexpose a bit... Are you thinking half a stop or more?

[Max S. Moore]

Here are more examples of the look I am trying to do. If anyone has some experience, I would love to get your feedback.

 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

That bottom one seems like all post work to me. Lots of blown highlights and softness. Nothing too complicated. 

[Max S. Moore]

Thanks Tye.

I just picked up some 250D last week and I have lots of 5600K lights. I should be able to do some tests soon.

Would you overexpose or underexpose the stock?

 

[Giray Izcan]

Overexpose... 

[Max S. Moore]

Thanks Giray.

By how much?

[Tyler Purcell]

Two stops would do it, but you can also just make that look in post. 

 

[Giray Izcan]

I would overexpose by 1 stop or 2/3 of a stop.

Edited June 2, 2022 by Giray Izcan

[Max S. Moore]

The main question now is... is it overexposed in the camera or in post? Or both?

Or, is it underexpose in the camera slightly and overexposed like crazy in post?

I'm sure all the details matter. It's a science haha!

The most impressive thing from these screenshots is the fact that EVERYTHING is blue but the skin tones  are not. The skin tones are perfect. That's mind boggling!

Edited June 3, 2022 by Max S. Moore