c_conditt

Hello Kirsty! You have some very nice shots in your reel. I would defenitely take out the text. This reel is about your work, your images and the text does not make them stronger, in contrary its destracting. Also I would love to see more of those timelaps shots, those are great. And auh... this stunt seen really hurts. Specially because you dont expect it at all and it looks very real! How did you do that? That puppet moves very human before the car hits! Maybe you can let the music make a small break when this happens? I think its such a strong image in terms of what happens in it that it feels a bit bizarr for me to see it cut the same way as all the other shots though somebody probably dies in it.

Hi.. that sounds interesting! does that mean that the usual depth of field calculation, based on circle of confusion, is not accurate at all? how can the focus fall off be so radicaly different with the same f/stop and focal lenght? this would affect the depth of field too, no? is that a subjective impression of the bokeh or is this mathematicaly profable what you tell here?

Basically, is it true, that a monitor with 256 shades of each color, can display 8 stops? if one stop is double the amount of light, does the following calculation make sense? 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256 gives us 8 stops.. the thing is, i tried that out in photoshop - but it completely does not work out. the shades from 1 to 32 are almost indstinguishable, and the last steps dont feel like natural stops neither.. where is my error? THANKSALOT!

At first thank you very much for you detailed answer & thank you also very much for your hints! I really appreciate this! So what I can conclude, on a theoretical basis the contrast ratio created by reflected surfaces dont change with the intensity of light, meaning a 20%gray card will always reflect 20% equal to the amount of light hitting it. (?)

I am thinking about a quite complicated question and no one yet could answer my question: Lets take this theoretical construct: We have a room without a window and only one point light source on the sealing, a lamp with lets say 100 watts. Lets say my stock is 200 ASA and my stop is 2.8 and I take PIC A Now I put in a new bulb that is much stronger and my new given f-stop ist 11. I take PIC B Do both pictures look the same? They should as we have relatively the same amount of light hidding the negative. --- Background of my question: My teacher told me that pic a and b will never look the same even not on black and white and also my experiene tells me it is like that. We tried to light a studiobuild room with a light that was approximetely 2pm o clock summer day. We did not reserved enough light so we had to use 3 x 2k and the atmosphere we got was maybe 5pm o'clock in the evening. Of course our eyes can determine very good the ambience situation of the light but why is it not possible to fake this on the stock by f.e. opening the iris a little bit more. Is this just a color temperature problem or are there any effects that the materials reflective curve do change with the amount of light hitting them making it impossible to fake it with different film exposure. I also read an Interview with a professional DP who answered the question: Why do we still use so powerful lights even in studio though film stock became so good even in high ISO? His answer: Because of quality. What quality? Thank you very much for joining the discussion! Clemens

Why is that? Is it just because of the short lenght of the negatives or is there an asthetical reason too? For me as a student it is not effortable to rent a 35mm camera and buy a whole role of stock just to do test. With some calculation of negative image size / focal lenght I can test the stock with almost the same results.

Where can you buy FUJI-stock in PARIS/FRANCE?

thanks a lot for your help! in fact i exposed the images with a 35mm photo camera for color and contrast tests - i know that i exposed the right side but when winding it back again on the core in the changing back i did it the wrong way. The lab doesnt now that - so i am afraid that when they are trying to wash away the rem-jet they wash off my pictures instead!

What happens when you take a filmroll with the emulsion side out to the lab? Is that a problem? Does somebody have experience with that?