Phil Soheili

I've read "making documentary films and reality videos" by Barry Hampe and found it very informative. With a new edition the book has changed name to "making documentary films and videos". I guess that is because the "reality" in the title gave a wrong impression. You can find more information about Mr. Hampe and the book on his website www.barryhampe.com Good luck. Phil

You might select a specific shot in order to get a more specific answer. Once you have s shot, take a screenshot of it put it in Photoshop, let PS do "set auto levels" (contrast etc..) I think the shortcut is "apple-shift-L" or on a PC "Ctrl-Shift-L". That will give you probably the best picture to evaluate the lighting. Don't know if you follow, give it a try and see what happens. To see the scene as it was "on the set" is very often "revealing the secrets". Cheers, PhS

Hello Georg, would you be so kind as to specify this little further. I am about to buy a set of superspeeds mkIII as well but what you just said made me a little nervous... Thank you. Phil

"what you are trying to accomplish when you rate stock at a lower iso" Hi Jesse, you would "rate" (I would prefer the term "treat") a film at a different speed in order to change it's latidude, it's colour rendition, it's contrast a.s.o. I once had to do a shot of a huge garage two levels under the surface and lit by a shaft of sunlight coming in in the middle. For the eye it was still "okay" but the meter saw 17 (!) stops difference between the spot where that light hit and the lowest part I wanted to have definition on in the picture. I used ILFORD FP4 125 ASA 4x5" black & white sheet film and the film "properly" treated at it's original rating would have never been able to either not burn out whites or dump the blacks so I overexposed it treating it as 25 ASA and slowing him down again in the lab (minus two stops). I wasn't so sure it was going to work at all, but I had recently read ANSEL ADAMS "The Negative" (wich is a book I will highly recommend for you to read as well) and wanted to apply the "zone system" created by him and explained very, very well in his book. In fact when I came to the pick up my negs the lab guys gathered around me showing me the print they had already made (without me ordering it) because they said it was the most beautiful neagtive they had ever seen... (this paid me for the initial moment of anxiety when first (me asking to "pull" two stops) looked at me with that look saying "why can't you just do as you are told by the package and the meter"... The negative has in fact a very "uncommon" look but this is not your final result, it's just a step towards a print, that of course needs to compensate for that "lacks" of the negative but then brings you all the detail you were looking for in the first place. I'm serious, Ansel Adams book(s) are about the best you can ever read to clearly understand exposure and make very clear for you what it is you are looking for in a negative. Best of luck and gretings, Phil - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Phil Soheili corporate portrait photographer images of Italy +49 172 7489874 Edelweiss Strasse 10 81541 Muenchen Deutschland (Germany) europhoto.us phil@europhoto.us

the bolex has that click to help you count the seconds the film is running. you can actually make it louder or switch it off completely. In the opened camera (where you load the film) just beneath the upper reel (where the unexposed film goes) is a flat lever. try to move it and find out what direction produces what result in the cllick. hope it is this noise, cheers, phil

That's easy to answer! Think the other way round: If lighting and expose had been bad and images were out of focus or simple framing was booring, who would have taken the blame? You? Then you were the DoPh. Easy, huh? Kind regs, BelM.