Film lattitude

[Mario C. Jackson]

Hey guys last night during shooting, I use pretty much practical lighting. I was shooting pretty much at a 1.3 the entire day. Being that I have Kodak Vision 2 500T, I really wanted to see how it handle practical lighting. Sometimes I complemented practicals with a light source but alot of the time I didn't. My question is what do you think this is oging to look like in print. I pray that it looks good and natural.

Thanks Mario C. Jackson

[Stephen Williams]

Hey guys last night during shooting, I use pretty much practical lighting. I was shooting pretty much at a 1.3 the entire day. Being that I have Kodak Vision 2 500T, I really wanted to see how it handle practical lighting. Sometimes I complemented practicals with a light source but alot of the time I didn't. My question is what do you think this is oging to look like in print. I pray that it looks good and natural.

Thanks Mario C. Jackson

 

Hi,

 

Did you take any meter readings? You could easily be overexposing at that stop!

 

Stephen

[Mario C. Jackson]

yes i did and everything was at T1.4, T2, or T2.8.

Mario C. Jackson

[Stephen Williams]

yes i did and everything was at T1.4, T2, or T2.8.

Mario C. Jackson

 

Hi,

 

I often work with practicals. Its an easy and economical way for to work, and with practice the results can look very good.

 

Please post some frames.

 

Cheers

 

Stephen

[Mario C. Jackson]

I definetley will just give me some time.

Mario C. Jackson

[Michael Nash]

My question is what do you think this is oging to look like in print.

 

That's almost impossible to say without knowing what the scene was and what kind of practicals they were, how far away they were from the subject, and so on. It sounds like you had enough exposure, so you should be okay there. 52/7218 has a lot of range, so chances are you'll see plenty of detail in the highlights and shadows.

 

But as far as it looking "natural," it all depends on the difference in brightness between the practicals and the subject. If you have only one table lamp and expose for the incident light on your subject at the far end of the room, then the practical will appear unnaturally hot. But if there is more of a mix of light sources and your subject is closer to them, then you've got more incident light on your subject relative to the brightness of the practicals. Then things will appear more "natural."

[Mitch Lusas]

The only problem you might encounter would be shooting that wide open on the lense. At 1.3, you might encounter barrel distortion. But if your readings were in that area, you should have something. Two questions arise. One noted by Michael:

 

But as far as it looking "natural," it all depends on the difference in brightness between the practicals and the subject. If you have only one table lamp and expose for the incident light on your subject at the far end of the room, then the practical will appear unnaturally hot. But if there is more of a mix of light sources and your subject is closer to them, then you've got more incident light on your subject relative to the brightness of the practicals. Then things will appear more "natural."

 

If you dimmed down, or used liquid dimmer, that would provide pleasing results (ala

American Beauty). The second question is whether you allowed/wanted contrast between practicals. In American Beauty, for instance, darkness filled the gaps between 'practical' light sources. That sort of contrast adds a richness to the environment.

 

Usually, I've found it safer to shoot with less light for night scenes. Especially, with 7218. The film responds well when rated at 400asa.

 

All-in-all, don't fret now. Wait for the results, and definitely post. If nothing else, it's always interesting experimenting with 'practical' only lighting.

[Sol Train Saihati]

If you're on 35mm then should'nt be much of a problem, however if it's 16mm it may start to edge toward the grainy side, but then again 16mm 500T is usually a bit grainy anyways... :D Respect due for shooting in natural light, it takes a lot of balls to walk onto a location/set and tell the sparks to put all the lights back in the truck. I'm sure that many of our peers (especially those who shot on 16ASA stocks) would have jumped at the chance to try it.

 

I may start a riot by saying this, but Lost in Translation is without doubt one of the most beautifully shot films I have ever seen and often lit without extraneous sources. Who needs digital to see into the dark, when stocks and lenses are getting this good?

Edited October 25, 2005 by djdumpy

[Mario C. Jackson]

Thanks very much guys. I am finding out alot now that I love practical lighting. It adds a sort of richness that is almost unreal. The most I do is add a light or to to compliment the practical or to pop up the contrast in certain areas. I really wanted to experiment with this stock and so I did. I will definetley post some pictures once I get the results back from the lab.

Thanks Mario C. Jackson