Jarin Blaschke

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

David is referring to zone system terms, if you are familiar with the technique made popular and widespread with Ansel Adams. It depends on the black level, color saturation and grain you are after. Right now I am after a cleaner, richer look with the present film. I am preparing to light to 125 ISO at night so I can obtain a healthy negative with 5213. Tests have shown a real difference vs. ISO 320 with 5219. j

I saw the movie in August. The black and white had a contemporary look in its lighting. I’ll eat my hat regarding the double-X, but the super 8 has left my memory. Remind me: what sequences were those? j

As I said, Rodinal is an excellent developer and dirt cheap. 98% of the developer working solution is water... which is actually the most expensive part because it should be distilled. Would you use an unknown lens because it’s free, or use something excellent for under $1 per batch? j

With under 5 minute development, you run a serious risk of inaccurate and uneven development. Drop the temperature and dilution to at least get you to 6 minutes. Below that development time, you can not deliver dependable results... in my opinion. Extra development will not get you speed, only density in highlights, and thus contrast. True film speed is defined by shadow information, nothing else. The only exception is very high contrast expansion through development, +2 zone expansion and upward. With that kind of contrast expansion, you’ll get some extra shadow information (maybe 1/2 stop), but only peripherally next to the giant highlight boost. I don’t like dense negatives in small formats (like 35mm) because they can shoulder off and block up. A well exposed, but gently developed negative is the best way to achieve a sharp, finer grained and full tonal scale image in a small format. I don’t give expanded development to motion picture film. The negative is too small and the image degradation is too much. In my opinion it’s best suited to large format plates in still photography. J

It seems your cloud highlights have more information and separation than your shadows, which are lifted but empty. j

I didn’t see anything in “Hollywood” that looked anything like E6. Even their black and white parts looked like desaturated color neg film.

I still stand by it- 16mm is soft already, but 7222 definitely goes too far for my tastes. Mucky when compared to tri-X. I asked Fotokem to “pull” the tri-X one stop, but I don’t know what that means when you’re supposedly cross-processing. Whatever time and temp they used, it looked very good. I’m salivating to do it in 35mm one day. I do a lot of personal still photography work. I’ve never used Sprint, the classic student darkroom developer. I’d be very curious to see tri-X in Rodinal at 1+49 to 1+74 dilution. Should be very sharp in a distinctly grainy way (unlike the conventional mushy double-X grain in D96) and should straighten out the curve with lots of highlight latitude and separation. Once you dilute it, Rodinal is very very very economical and the concentrate lasts a long time. j

Thanks!!- I too was looking for you David, without luck. Maybe that’s to your benefit; I arrived 4 hours earlier from London, out of my exhausted mind. I have no confidence that my speech made any sense...

Wow - I didn't know they released it in rolls! I've only used it in 4x5 and 8x10. For Ortho+ to match the base shadow detail (the true measure of film speed) of FP4 in my preferred developer (WD2D+), it needs to be rated at ei16. I rate my FP4 at 80 or 64 though. I tend to like a full-range negative paired with a punchier, richer paper. I found that ei80 gives overly high contrast results with thin shadows under normal conditions. It's probably nice and rich for overcast days and front lighting though. This ignoramus hasn't seen any of those films.

Ha - yes! During prep, I passed around the Hemingway photo (and a couple others) to show people what our custom filter would do to skin tones before it was made. The Hemingway photo was made with real orthochromatic film, back when it was still popular for photographing certain male subjects. It would have been a much sharper than Double-X, even if it wasn't an 8x10 or 11x14" negative. Ilford (and Adox and Rollei, I think) still makes true orthochromatic film, but only in sheet sizes on a polyester base. It's very high contrast, so I find I have to rate it at ei16 and give very gentle development. Thanks for the positivity! -Jarin

Thanks for saying so! If you're shooting 16mm, I'd highly suggest Tri-X instead of Double X, which was sloppy and soft by comparison in 16mm. Rate it at 100, develop as a negative, and give it softer development . At "Normal", double-X seems to have a gigantic shoulder and does a poor job separating highlights from midtones, which your video reinforces. Better to develop less and then "print" with higher contrast. The shorter development time will straighten the characteristic curve. Or, again, just use Tri-X and develop as a negative.

Man, if you ever have a proper scan, put it up. I love the effort, but I can't tell if it's 16 or 8mm from this video. I'm glad somebody's doing this. What tank did you use? J

Well Panavision has all of them now. At least four 6x6s and four 4x5.6 filters, enough to outfit a movie. j

Well, except for the corners of the image, those mid to late 19th century photographs are actually incredibly, incredibly sharp. They were recorded onto full plate (6.5x8.5 inch) or larger glass negatives. Group photos were often made with 7x17, 8x20 or 12x20 inch “banquet” cameras. Carleton Watkins shot thousands of custom “mammoth plates” of 18x22 inches and contact printed onto sharp, glossy albumen-coated paper. Our film feels much more early 20th century to me.

Yes, the black plate is mandatory and of course we used it. The plate is also ridged, so if you use the chrome version, you get striped halation with black and white film.

Schneider custom made it to my specs, and was able to make it within a month. Panavision owns them now. It’s over 95 percent transmittance for wavelengths shorter than 570nm and then on a dime plummets to zero for everything longer. It has a hot mirror baked in so can be used digitally too.