Jason Reimer

Thanks fellas, great tips! While we're at it, any wide angle primes in particular you'd recommend, and if so, about what should one expect to pay for a decent one?

Thanks, Zac. Eventually, I'd like to work up to something a bit higher end, as I've seen the prices on Arri and others coming down, just not far enough yet. And for now the things I'm thinking of can be a bit more raw. I ran across the films of Ben Rivers recently and it was liberating to realize that you can make something simply and it still be compelling. For now, it's a chance to experiment somewhat cheaper and get my hands dirty with motion picture film, coming from medium and large format stills and artist book making. Good tips, though, thanks again!

I'm looking into buying a K-3 on Ebay, and was wondering what people's experiences have been like buying them there, from sellers in Eastern Europe and Russia. Anything to look out for in particular? My goal is to end up with a body, a couple of lenses, and a Super 16mm gate. I've seen the American website that sells them converted already, but it's just more than I can afford right now, so I'm hoping the Ebay route is actually feasible.

Just saw this the other night, and while it wasn't my favorite PTA film, I loved the look of it. I thought David Mullen was right on about the look they got (40's & 50's large format documentary photography). I don't agree that THE purpose of large format film always has to be ultimate sharpness, there are other characteristics of it that are nice too look at as well, and it's always nice to see someone try something a little different visually and not adhere slavishly to any particular convention. The still photography that David was referencing is a very different look from what Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and the like were doing at the time, but they were both beautiful and valid approaches. I think we all have things we'd love to see in a movie theater, and if more films were being made with large format film, more of our particular likes might be satisfied. I for one would love to see more like this, maybe something like The Prestige done with some big cameras, maybe some black and white large format, some really gritty 16 or 35mm black and white, you get the idea. Mix it up, experiment, recreate older looks, just have fun and make something good. And I'm sure everyone here would pay good money to see a David Mullen western or sci-fi movie shot with large format! (Just now I was reminded of the first time I saw Casino Royale in the theater, and how badly I wanted to see the whole film shot like the first 5 minutes were. Wouldn't that be great?) PS- I too loved Freddie's department store meltdown, the whole look of it was great! The lighting, the camera movement, the attention to detail in the store and the customer's clothes. And it made me want to track down a nice fast Aero Ektar lens for my Graflex, put a little tilt on it with the lens wide open on a few sheets of color film and make some dreamy images. Inspiring work by Mr. Malaimare.

This is the last thing I'll add to this particular discussion and that is that you're characterizing my motives and my experience (and Keith's, it would seem) when you just don't know anything about either my motives or my experience. There simply is no way to rationalize ad hominems against people here. For your own sake, and I really mean that, as odd as it may sound when realistically I don't know you either, but seriously, you shoot yourself in the foot when you attack people personally and read all sorts of things into their statements that just aren't there. You and I actually probably agree on quite a bit here, but at this point, why would I want to get into it any further? The reason I say you shoot yourself in the foot is that you actually probably have a lot of useful knowledge about all sorts of aspects of the industry to share (right off the top of my head, I'm thinking of the great link to all of the large format theaters around the country that you posted in the Dark Knight Rises thread; I truly appreciated that), but again, give me a reason why someone should want to wade through the bile to get at it. But life is short and I just don't see the benefit of getting into tit-for-tat pissing contests and having to diagram my sentences or lay out syllogisms for people in order to not be misinterpreted. And again, I'm not saying that to be a d*#%, I just feel you could truly benefit from someone pointing that out, and should we interact on other threads, I'll pretend none of this ever happened. I really hope you go on to shoot some amazing projects that you love, things that remind you why you got into this in the first place, on whatever format you feel is the best choice, and I'm going to go back to shooting things I enjoy or things that help pay my rent and I'm going to keep enjoying them, whether it's with my 5D or my RB or my Sinar F or the Deardorff or my cell phone or the 16mm project I'm working towards, making cyanotypes and toning them with tea, or working in the darkroom, or whatever, just making the best images I can with whatever particular tool I care to use, and no one gets an apology for any of that. Enjoy the rest of the thread, folks.

Karl, I've interacted with you before in other threads here on and off over the years and you were always very personable, so I'm not sure why the venom now. I have never passed myself off as a "decision-maker" for the industry, and I'm pretty certain that no one on this forum has ever taken anything I have ever said as being authoritative. To the extent that anything I have ever said has ever made any sense, great. If not, fine, people here are big kids, they can sort it out for themselves. I don't think you need get so angry because I made an observation, so take it easy. I honestly think most forum members here would get along great in person, sharing a pint or whatever, and you're probably no exception to that. I just don't see the need for things to be so heated on an internet forum, particularly given that you know zero about me. Is that cool?

Nice to see one of our forum members representing. Keep us posted when you have a full trailer up. You did a great job with the teaser, it definitely presented an element of intrigue.

Thanks Vincent. I just ran across this article a couple of days ago, good stuff.

One thing that's frustrating about this is that many executives will be thinking to themselves, "See, this just proves that that old dinosaur film technology is needs to go, there's no market for it, it can't sustain itself, blah blah blah". I mean, if these companies are going out of business, there must not be enough business, right? Wrong. Polaroid thought their instant film was a thing of the past, so they jettisoned it, when actually, there was still enough demand for it for another company to come along and try to reinvent the wheel with some of Polaroid's old tools. Granted, it's now more of a niche market, but it's there, it's loyal, and it's not going away. The problem is, the product isn't as good as it was when Polaroid had it. I wonder if that will happen with Kodak's film stocks, should they ever drop it altogether? The moral of the story here is that it's cheaper for a company that owns an existing technology to just be a good steward of it than it is for a new company to come along and try to restart the same thing from scratch. Obviously, the market for film is always going to be there, but are they going to have the good sense to want to put out the effort to keep that segment of their business, even though there are more lucrative areas to get into (ie- catch up)? All I know is, it'll be a sad day if I ever don't have the option of shooting a few sheets of 8x10 Tri-X 320 and processing it with HC110 dilution H, or some 35mm TMax 3200, or some 16mm b&w like I've been wanting to do for years now :(

I like where you're going with this Adam. After reading his posts for the last 6 years or so and getting to see his reasoning and thought processes for the choices he makes, I for one would love to see Mr. Mullen get the chance to shoot a western, a war film, something in black and white, and of course, a sci-fi film (on film!) with someone of Spielberg's caliber. There's your New Year's resolutions, David :)

Phil, the last thing you want is for you news, even if it's local, to end up like our local news. I'm from San Diego, and part of the reason why a film like Anchorman is so funny is that our news really has been just like that for as long as I can remember. An absolute joke.

Look what I get for being away from the forum for a few weeks. Sounds like it was a great event! Vincent, next time you run across something of this caliber PM me so I don't miss out :/

I really hope it's true that they will temporarily switch back to 15/70. I was so pissed when I saw Inception at my formerly-IMAX-equipped theater only to find it was digital LIEMAX. Maybe they learned a lesson from that one? I'm prepared for that not to be the case, though, and I'm gonna make the drive to LA to see the real thing.

More power to you, Brian! The other day I was editing (or attempting to) some footage from my 5D, and my computer was having all sorts of issues, and I realized then the absurdity of the digital rat race. Not just cameras, but all of it. You can't keep up if you're not replacing stuff every two years, and then there's the whole issue of electronic waste, etc etc. Not that it's THE answer, but I just wanted to chuck it all and shoot something with film, whether it be motion, or medium-format stills, or the 8x10 sheets I'm gonna process tonight. Anyway, make it happen! You'll thank yourself for doing something you enjoy.

Good to hear, Peter! Where did you see it? Unless it wins an Oscar, I have a feeling it won't make it to any theaters in San Diego.

By the way, you might enjoy these, if you haven't seen them already.

I've seen these somewhere else before, but thanks for the reminder, Vincent. There are so many great ones, like the one of the Shasta dam being built, the sky in #63 (!), the portrait of the boy in #31. They're all great; makes me wanna go shoot some 4x5 color transparency of our times, while we still have the option.

As some here have said, black and white film should be around for a while, and I think one reason why it will stay is the resurgence of interest in black & white for still photography. Lots of younger kids never got to experience it and are curious, and I think they instinctively can grasp that there's just something different and really cool about it, vs the digital and video stuff they've grown up with; I see this all the time in college photo department where I work. And lots of old-timers who bailed on film when the whole still world decided to switch over to digital have gotten bored and have been picking up their old cameras again and getting back in the darkroom. Large format is even enjoying some of this renewed interest. Is it enough for a giant company like Kodak to put much thought or effort into? Probably not, it'll probably remain a niche, fine-art thing (and probably stills thing too, but it'd be nice if there was a little bit of motion stock still coming out somewhere), but I don't think it'll go away completely. It's been nice recently to be able to try out lots of different new photo papers being made by some of the eastern European companies like Foma and Adox. Should film ever die completely, that's still not the end of chemical photography, though (well, for motion pictures it would be, but not stills). There's always calotypes, wet plate, etc, that can made at home. Check out the book Primitive Photography. Regardless, though, I know that no matter what happens, it's going to make the cost of a sheet of 8x10 film get a whole lot more expensive :(

Has anyone seen this yet? I've been following it since he first started working on it, and it was a documentary on counter-insurgency called Battle For Hearts And Minds. Should be interesting on a number of levels, not least of which will be the cinematography. He shot with a 5DMkII and a 24-70 at f2.8 on a modified steadicam rig. New York Times Review

Ocean Zen, you need to edit your screen name to your actual name; they don't go for pseudonyms here.

I lived for three years in the Central African Republic where my dad was a missionary pilot, flying medevacs and teaching in an African Bible school. That country had so many of its own problems, plus poachers from the neighboring countries, and more recently the LRA and rebel groups from other countries hiding out there and causing trouble. I definitely have some fond memories of our time there, though, so I'm definitely going to have to see this one. And I'm curious what anamorphic 16mm will look like! Thanks for the heads-up, Vincent.

Vincent and David, I'm curious what you guys thought of the story and how it was told? I think I need to see it again once or twice before I make a final judgement. My initial reaction was that I just didn't like it as much as The New World or The Thin Red Line. I liked what he was trying to do and where he was going, but I left feeling slightly unsatisfied, and I'm still trying to articulate why.

The first of the reviews are coming in, and it's pretty much as one would expect, lots of division: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/the-tree-of-life-reviews-terrence-malick_n_862312.html Sounds like this one is going to be pretty overtly theological and philosophical. I appreciate the fact that Malick is unapologetic about wanting to think about the big questions, and do so on a big screen. Anything to push back on the notion that books, movies and music are supposed to be valuable or "good" only inasmuch as they are entertaining, rather than allowing some room for poetic and cerebral approaches as an option, too.

Thanks David, it's great for us to have a chance to get inside your head on these productions and see how you problem-solve. Nice solutions, from what I've seen so far!

Cool, that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for! I'll probably buy a few to test, as you suggested. Thank you gentlemen.