Jarin Blaschke

No! Ignoramus! I’ll look for it. I shoot 8x10” film almost exclusively myself, including family photos, so it’s all a serious downgrade when I shoot a movie. Those 18x22” contact prints Carleton Watkins made are something else. The more difficult the medium makes the photograph, the easier it makes the print. I’m astounded at the lengths Watkins, O’Sullivan and others had to take to make a mammoth plate photograph in wet collodion in their conditions. A photograph, on fragile glass, on an emulsion that becomes insensitive a few minutes after it is mixed from scratch... mixed in total darkness, in a makeshift tent in absolute wilderness, all 22 inches of image without dust or irregularity of coating. Processing is conducted in haste but perfectly in wilderness. Then the fragile glass image travels on wooden wheels over wilderness for months without breaking or becoming clouded in dust. The Ether and other exotic, volatile chemicals travel similarly for months without fire, explosion or suffocation of the proprietor.... THAT’S PHOTOGRAPHY. j

One of these days I'll ask Fotokem whether their B&W machine could handle 65mm. A recurring fantasy of mine. 65mm Tri-X would be the ultimate medium. If one could make it work with finicky pyrogallol developer, the perfect moving monochrome image.

Nah, panoramic molton bounce for me 🙂

Well a slower film is always going to "outperform" a faster one. 250D is certainly cleaner and sharper than 500T. I aim to shoot night exteriors on our next film on 200T and 250D, but we're aiming for a "toothy" sharp film.

Mr. T was probably in an off mood or has spent too much time in too many interviews over the last 10 years arguing some point about shooting film, maybe he lost track of the argument he's trying to make. There are countless examples of how ASA 800 or 1600 has made certain DPs lazy or lack expression and intention in their "lighting." Look around at current trends. However, that particular day, chose the worst possible example: Roger bloody Deakins??? We all say silly things from time to time. - I think it's very reasonable to expect a professional cinematographer to work within 15 stops of latitude, and place 9 stops of tones within a finished frame. How much do you need? - I personally like both Blade Runners. - My kooky stab at why tungsten stocks tend to be sharper than daylight stocks is that silver halides inherently only see blue light; they need sensitizers to record green, and even more to record red. At least in black and white, at a given speed, an ortho film is sharper than a pan film, and to take it further, an infrared film is softest and grainiest of all. Tungsten stocks are more sensitive to blue light, which may have something to do with needing to "stretch" their capabilities. But color negative film is above my pay grade - any and all are welcome to shoot down such gibberish theories. -Jarin

Ha - yes, Lawrence in Arabia probably has the same grain as a film shot on 35mm today. I once heard a Kodak rep claim that 35mm 5298 has the same grain as 16mm 5219 - that seemed a stretch, but who knows. Recently I found that the real difference is sharpness of the presentation format - Fotokem states that even though 35mm negative is about a 4k format, a 35mm contact print brings it down to 2k. My recent tests of print vs DI confirmed this subjectively - it was obvious although I wasn't counting lines. After a few years away, it was almost shocking how soft a 35mm print looks to our 2020 eyes. However, while much softer, the print has a tonal depth that puts digital projection to shame - DCP looked like bath water by comparison. Albeit sharp bath water. The best of both was a 70mm print, of course. Boy oh boy. Sharp and smooth and rich all at the same time: you could fall right into it. So that's where watching Lawrence of Arabia as a 70mm print really pays off. According to Fotokem, a 70mm print from modern 65mm is about 5k, although the subjective result transcends numbers. My experience seems to validate 35mm to 70mm blow-ups; I previously didn't understand the point. Aaaanyway: I'm sure the effort to make a modern stock truly look like a 1960s stock would take some gymnastics: underexposure, pushing, flashing red into the shadows, maybe an expensive round of IP/IN to reduce latitude and sharpness. The biggest period effect is brought from what you guys focused on: production design, costume, make up and lighting style. The published MTFs show 50D as a less sharp stock than 200T. My tests subjectively back that up when I look at two extracted TIFFs side by side. Now we really digress.... 🙂 Jarin

Yes, 5248 was a pretty one. More recently, aren't the early and mid PT Anderson films all on slow stocks as well? After shooting a whole movie at ei50 and 80, shooting night work at 125 doesn't seem so ridiculous anymore - that's the aim for the next movie. Shooting at that speed will also retain more color when shooting fire. Did you not shoot 50D for your day work? There is a clear difference in grain, but interestingly I find the '13 to be sharper. J

So that's why - I've gradually noticed that film stocks have become more "natural" looking over time, most rapidly since the EXR 90s. I thought it was a softer palate in general but perhaps it's particularly the endless highlights that make it look more lifelike. It has been very interesting to come back to film after a long absence, and to now shoot comprehensive tests that I was utterly unable to do in my indie days. I learned a lot about Double X on the Lighthouse and I've gone in depth with the color stocks on The Northman. It was no surprise that Double X (1959 technology) has a lot less shadow latitude than Alexa, even shocking in its limitations. However, I expected a Vision 3 to behave radically different. In the end, from strictly a shadow latitude standpoint, the difference is less than I expected. It certainly has more shadow detail than Double-X, but so far looks like less than what I was used to with Alexa. Indeed, David, where film truly shines (aside from the overall subjective beauty) is in the highlights. This bounty of highlight information makes me inclined to shoot 5219 at ei250 and 5213 at ei100 or 125 to shift some of that extra latitude down the scale. I've come to like lighting for a less sensitive medium with a narrower sweet spot. It's partially a reaction against the no-light grunge aesthetic that's been going on for a while, but most of all I enjoy working a little harder to develop my craft - to force me to bring more intention to each shot. . Aaanyway... I digress! It's funny how film loves light , craves it- the more the better, while digital cameras are a bit like vampires and can't handle a sunny day. J

With grade applied, I find -4 1/2 gives texture on ECN film for sure (200T)- it's my night exterior fill level. It's gone by -5 though. Double-X peters out at -4 with my exposure, processing and grade regimen. I do underrate my color film by 2/3 to 1 stop though. Your results may vary.

Willis Toland Deakins Chivo Storaro Savides

I will always use lanterns, regardless of budget. They are omnidirectional, which is a fundamental property you can't fake - at least in the way I like to use them. It's not a substitute for bounce light and bounce light is not a substitute for a ball. They have very different properties. The only exception is if you had a ball at a distance and bounced a light into it! Bounce light is usually softer than lantern light and still puts light in one general direction. An omnidirectional source looks sourcy, and that is it's strength. Coming up through indie film, a sourcy, implied lamp around the corner was a trick to give a crappy white wall some interest. It at least had a gradient to look at and lead your eye somewhere. I put them very close to the wall and play with the distance from the surface in tandem with the dimmer to get the fall-off and reach just right. Even now when I usually have good walls I still just like sourcy interest. Personally I definitely would use, and have used a 500W in a lantern - you then get to use the thickest, most luscious fabric you can: the thickest, fluffiest, twill molton fabric, or go warm and unbleached with irregular tea stains. Or you have the latitude to go warm via dimming. It's also nice to use a 500W lantern as an omnidirectional "streetlamp" for night exteriors. I like to go to fabric stores in the fashion district and pick out fabrics I'm not normally offered in the film industry. One of my quirks. For fill light, a lantern or ball would not be my choice - it's just too much of a distinct source. That's where bounce light wins. J

...only if your expectations are flexible. 😕

Hi: After a bizarre career experience, I was suddenly available to shoot Richard's small film, which felt like a cleanse. He is always pleasure to work with, and is just a good human being. In life, I simply like to be around good people. I was a consultant for the darkroom scenes and enjoyed teaching people about this process that recently has become exotic. One fun thing to try was the 1.5:1 aspect ratio - that of a 35mm still camera. In the end, I prefer composing in 1.33 or 1.66 though. Because the analog photographic experience is a central part to the movie, I endlessly prodded to shoot it on film. Endlessly. Sadly, in the end, some production mysteries prevented this from happening. I tried to keep it simple: just show things directly but with intention. The camera moves often, but hopefully feels subtle and streamlined and direct rather than fancy. It's not the bloody headaches I go out of my way to create on an Eggers film. I also have a secret, fuzzy-wuzzy, nostalgic and feel-good side that is nice to indulge on occasion. -Jarin

I'll disagree here. With exceptions, TV is generally not a director's medium and is not even interested in the pretense. There is much more to look at than money.

In my experience, television is more created by committee than film, and creative people are much more interchangeable, which is not my inherent way to work. I need a clear and focused and consistent approach, and otherwise become lost in generality without consistency and decisive creative rules. Film more often allows me to be my fussy and overly-precious self. For now. That said, my one successful television endeavor was an episode of "Servant," which encouraged originality and wore its single-camera approach as a badge of honor. It was great, and I took my time beforehand in designing the episode as best I could. My other real TV experience was obsessed with quantity of shots rather than quality. At one point the line producer was grabbing the camera and grabbing who knows what, material that was completely out of my hands but would have my name on it, which is a breaking point for me. We had our differences, the producers were actually very lovely people, but not a good creative match and I soon stepped out for the benefit of all. J