matt cooke

You could try a combination of push processing (for contrast and saturation) and underexposure + printing up (for smoky blacks). So for example, if you are shooting on Fuji 8553 you could rate it at 800-1000asa, rather than 250, develop with a push 1 process and then print up for correct exposure. Just be careful not to let your shadows go too dark while shooting or you may miss some details. I would suggest shooting on 35mm if the added grain produced by the pushing and under exposure are a worry for you. Hope that helps.

If you are in a studio light it from above with several space lights.

Wow David, those photos are really great. The strange thing is, that after being conditioned by watching 'lit' night scenes in numerous films, they almost look fake, or as if you did shoot them day-for-night. very interesting. Thanks for posting them.

Hey Rob! Good to see you here! If you can do it on the neg then why not? I have some tests somewhere that I shot a couple of years ago with pull process - so give me a call/email if you want to see them and I'll try to hunt them down. I Even did it with some super 8 Vision2 neg - looked great! The real good thing about pulling the neg is that you can get away with using less/no fill light, which can come in useful in small locations... matt

Hi, Yes, at Higher speeds you will sometimes encounter flicker from small tungsten sources. To my understanding it is better to use larger tungsten units when shooting at higher frame rates as there will be less risk of flicker. What size source at which frame rates will be safe, I'm not completely sure. I hope that the post house can fix it all for you. Looked great btw. Regards, Matt

Hi Tony, On a 35mm short I shot about 2 years ago I over exposed a particular take by 5 - 5 1/2 stops and the lab corrected for this. The result was (to my memory) very grainy/noisey and degraded - but not outrageously so. If its a degraded image you are after, it might be worth giving that a try? Of course this also affects saturation & contrast too.. Best, Matt Cooke.

Hi, I think that Dominic is correct. Sounds like the colourist 'corrected' your rushes during the TK. This is not a mistake on the lab's part, unless you had given them specific instructions. I think it important to attent the TK, especially if you are trying out things that are un-tested. This reduces confusion if the results that you get are not what you expected and allows you to communicate your intentions to the colourist. Given the resultant added density that the bleach bypass process gives you I find that the best results are obtained by underexposing by a stop. Maybe worth trying next time... All this being said, the grading process should allow you to re-build the look that you first intended. And although post created bleachbypass effects never quite match up the the real thing you should be able to get reasonably close. Hope it works out, Best, Matt

Soho Images should do a 1 light to DV or Beta for you, however, on such a small amount of stock, what you get back might be a bit rough and ready, but if the purpose is to test your camera then it should not be too much of an issue. Personally I prefer to use Todd AO in Camden, but that usually costs £250/hour for attended TK. I am not sure if they will process 100' either, but worth giving them a call. I believe that NOWhere lab only do optical prints and not TK, but I might be wrong on that.

Soho Images in London used to process small amounts of stock if it is for print or TK, however I am not sure if they still do. I have given them 200' in the past, which they were happy to proccess for me. Good luck.

More of a listener than anything else, but will contibute to posts if I feel I can add anything. This is a very useful and interesting place, so I hope that I am still a member...