Peter Anderson

Most likely I misheard the 'week starting' bit, I'm sure she said from the 25th - Either way you'll find out if you get offered an interview.

I ended up phoning admissions to find out when to expect a reply. Yes, the 12 people who are invited to the 3 day workshops are shortlisted from the interviews. From what I've heard, in the past they interview around 40 applicants but I suppose that changes greatly year by year.

Invitations for interviews aren't going out until some time next week and interviews are being held the week starting 25th June. So theres still hope!

Yeah, the 3 day workshops take place around september I think. The 12 people that attend are reduced to the 6 who are finally accepted onto the course. The interview stage is apparently quite relaxed and the real scrutiny goes into the initial applications and the final workshops. Let's cross our fingrs and hope for some good news - I'll be quite happy just to get an interview, at least it means they liked some of my work. Good Luck!

I haven't heard back yet. I have a friend who applied for producing and its the same for him. I want to remain optimisitic but as more time goes by I feel the chances are getting slim of getting an interview.

Looking at Kevin Zanit's Bleach bypass tests it didnt seem like there was an excessive amount of additional exposure created when not compensating for additional density. With the latitude of slow film couldnt anything but gross overexposure be saved during grading? Does the latitude of stock greatly decrease when bleach bypassing?

Thanks Freya, that made complete sense. Ive decided to go for the bleach bypass. Its pretty nerve wracking because i didnt have money of time to do any tests - All i could manage was a hashed attempt at skip bleach with 35mm stills and a home developing kit. The results aren't perfect but im confident the lab, with its refined processes can make a much better job of it.

How much faster do you rate your stock when going for a bleach bypass on the negative. Where all the tests above rated normally?

Ok that makes a hell of a lot more sense for me. Just a couple of quick questions though - It sounds like incident readings should be failsafe but what about settings that arent under normal illumination. For instance If i wanted a silhouette against a normally lit backdrop should i incident meter the backdrop, incident meter the silhouette and close down appropriately or go for a reflective reading and use the zone system? If i was to incident meter the silhouette and make no adjustments it would expose it normally and the backgroud would blow out - Is that right?

This is where i get confused. I understand 35mm photography and in turn reflective metering using the zone system but incident metering isn't as clear for me. If i want a brighter exposure should i just incident meter a darker part of the scene or meter my key light and open up. As i understand it an incident reading gives the correct amount exposure for a 50% grey card but Im never really happy with incident readings - I find they result in dingy images. Is this why it is recommended to rate film stock slower? - compensation for incident readings? I hope that made some sense.

I just realised my definition of 'metering normally' can be very different to other peoples. For normal causcassian skin tone I usually incident meter and then open up 1 stop (correct me if im wrong).

Have you got any examples of that short film I could look at David? So if i want the look in that photo, underexposing by 2/3rds and metering normally should work? Unfourtunately we can barely afford a professional grade so we have to limit the amount of work that needs to be done in post - Im holding out for our producer to get a free grade at a post house looking to train there new staff.

Just been to the lab to check out some examples of the bleach bypass. It looks spot on and exactly what i want to go for - I totally understand your point about the grain being inherrent in its look David, i feel a little foolish for worrying about it. I couldnt get any screen shots because of it still being in production but the photo below is close to what it looked like. Should I still be rating my stock a stop faster to approximate this? (250D @ 500). Id be tempted to only go 2/3rds of the way to 400 because i do want an overexposed look. Could i have some advice on metering and exposing with a bleach bypass in mind - However trivial it may see.

I am a student and this is my first 16mm shoot which is why i may seem overly aprehensive. The budget is completely maxed and we're relying a lot on freebies and the generosity of those with experience to help out on what is currently a very ambitious project. If i could have secured any more tests on stock i would have but believe me, its an option that has been exhausted. Also, Ive not been talked out of anything but I wouldnt feel confident going ahead with something i have limited knowledge of - My intention with the topic was to get as much information as possible.

ok so not an easy question to answer - and it seems i was naive in thinking that it could be responded with 'a lot' or 'a little'. My budget is fully stretched and i wont be able to test so It looks like ill have to forego the process. It feels like a shame to miss the opportunity to get experience with a negative process - Faking it digitally doesnt have nearly the same appeal and feels like a compromise in my exploration of cinematography.