Walter Graff

Macbeth will work fine as does Gamma and Density charts: http://www.gammaanddensity.com/products/tcontrol.html

> Was this a situation where you "worked around" the still photographer's > lighting and session workflow? Yes it is a workaround in a sense but also a solution in another. I could set up what I want and shoot in between but I like the behind the scenes look combined with beauty shots and since the guy has a light set up that is diffuse and does the trick, I use it. >If so, I believe this is similar to > another shoot you recently did; I believe the model was featuring blue > jeans? Yes. I do lots of fashion and love this look. > I'm also curious to know which camcorder you shot with, such as 1/3" DV > or "larger" imager/format, which cam model, I rarely ever use a 1/3 inch camera unless I want to write an article on something a need a real world example to demonstrate the article or I need a certain look, or I need a very small camera for a particular shot. In my circle 2/3 inch is the norm and minimum in any format. You are looking at down converted Varicam in the clip. Sometimes I shoot Beta, DV, HD, it depends on what it is for and how I feel that day. > and was the decision to use > B&W made before or after shooting? In this case, before. This was to match the print campaign which is BW > Also: What will be the primary delivery mode/environment for this > piece, such as broadcast, point-of-sale, AKNY internal marketing, > internet, and so forth? This will play in the AK main showroom on LCD monitors. It will be looped on a DVD for that purpose. I save little using HD for it, but that was the only camera I had that day as my SD cameras were out so used it. As for makeup, it is very important. Makeup cleans up the edges on people. Too much and they look overdone (but you might want that), and none and they can look raw, which might be the desired effect too. Luckily in this case I am working with one of the worlds big models and she has a team of hair and makeup that make my job easy. But I should also add that theses days in the still world, they actually don't do as much with makeup as they did in years past in many cases. Since so much of the finished product is retouched, they don't lock themselves into anything with makeup. And sometimes they are actually going for a more real, raw look and do very little with makeup. Some days I work with models with big shaving cuts on their legs and face, huge zits and all sorts of other things that no one worries about because it all gets brushed out. It's sort of like an analogy to shooting video. I do as much as I can in camera but know that post production offers me a lot of additional options. In this case if I showed you the raw footage you would have seen that I was white balanced for 3200k and the light was about 24 making her very orange but did not care as color was not an option.

What I like best about the examples in this thread is that no one is going overboard. The shots in the coffee house are a perfect example. Using what exists to make reality more real. Same with the sauna shot, two lights worked wonders. I always start everything with one fixture and if need be go to two, because it often seems that's the way most things work. I just finished producing something for clothing designer Anne Klein. I used one light and it wasn't even mine. It's a 100 watt bulb found in a still photographers flash bank. And after looking through the lens, I decided it was all I need to produce what I needed. It's all about motivation and that single lamp did what I needed. Some folks bring a bunch of lights to shoots and seem to need to set them up because they have them. But I have spent my life taking pictures in my mind of all sorts of situations I have been in so that when I am in the situation of needing to recreate it I can draw on it. Of all the shots in my head most of them are a single source. And in the end it mostly seems I need a lot less to create a lot more that way. Life is like that, and I don't think I want to upset the balance unless I want someone to think I lit something. A few stills to show what a 100 watt light bulb can do: And here is the whole video if you care to view http://www.bluesky-web.com/akny-final.mov

"In an all Kino-lit environment, I generally don't have color problems. When mixed with other lights, I find that they are 1/8th of some gel correction off, i.e. the Kino 32's need a 1/8 CTO or 1/8 Minus-Green or something to match tungsten lamps better, or the Kino 55's need a 1/8 CTO to match an HMI." I think you said it best here David. I find kinos or any other fluorescent from your local hardware store with a good color rendition work best by themselves and not in mixed situations with other fixtures of various types without some sort of correction. I never liked the light of a flouro on its own. Just don't like the way they throw photons.

MAny people have trouble with fluorescent fixtures such as kino. As nice as they are, they simply can not be trusted. I've seen their fixtures drift all over the place. Most folks complain about the pink tone. Actually I've had more consistent luck with flouros I make myself. Instruments, yes but you need a few thousand bucks and a computer. In the field, it can be a guessing game.

I've been involved with LEDS and designing applications for the last six years. I even share a utility patent. Right now LEDs have limited applications. LEDs will be more practical when emitter designs change so more output per mv can be achieved. Right now careful design with computer designed reflectors and lenses are the best options. This talk of heat and all is nice but giving up quality light for heat is a gimmick. Any $60 on camera incandescent blows away LED lights that cost 10 times as much. Just like with 24p which is a gimmick that makes folks think they are movie makers, folks think that cool looking lights will make them better at what they do. But formats and equipment are commodities and mean little. It's about human knowledge. Thats what makes someone an artist, not a brush.

Sneak peek at something very affordable and very much more realistic and usable than what is out there today. http://www.bluesky-web.com/big-eye-preview.htm And if you are attending EXPO in NYC in July, check out my instruction page.

A lot of folks ask me where they should send their cameras to be fixed when they have trouble. Lately it seems I am getting many requests, so I am sending this message out to the bulletin boards because there is one place that you will find where the quality of the service and the turnaround can not be beat . Macie video is my first, second and third choice. Roger is considered the premiere camera expert in the US and his staff is second to none. In fact Roger is the guy that companies like Sony send their stuff too when they can't fix it properly. The good news is that Roger started a program repairing prosumer cameras a few years back. Check out the extensive list of cameras he repairs on his site. Charges for repair start at about $95 and as Roger says most of the repairs on these cameras (transport problems, heads etc) cost about $300-$400 that gives you an idea of what to expect. And Roger tweaks the cameras to settings that manufacturers fail to, but should have done in manufacturing. I know in the professional broadcast world, Roger is considered the best there is. I like many other pros will not send any of my equipment anywhere else. It's nice to see that he has added these less expensive cameras as the options for repair are not great and often the manufacturers don't do justice to a repair. And at least I would trust that if Roger and his team took a look they are going to fix what needs to be repaired and not charge one an arm and a leg. And Roger is authorized to repair everything from the major manufacturers. In fact he hired away Sony's head prosumer technician so he?s got the best working on Sony at his place. I know he just started to repair the Sony HDV cameras too. So if you are looking for another repair option and want quality, convenience, and fast turnaround, for any camera from $3000-$100,000, SD to HDV to HD, I strongly suggest you call Macie video. Use my name (Walter Graff) as a reference. http://www.macievideo.com/

8 bit will do you fine. you will not see a difference in 10 bit.

Any camera in the same price range makes just about the same picture. I prefer the look of the XL2 ever so slightly to its competitors. The HDV camera in DV mode is a DV camera and DOES NOT make a better picture. For the price, you have to decide what accessories you like and features but the cameras are really all the same. See this: http://www.bluesky-web.com/dv-5-cameras.htm

Sony makes some nightvision cameras that shoot in darkness and record in DV. They call it nightshoot. Other than that in the pro world we use nightvision attachments that go between camera and lens that you can rent.

One of my favorite scenes is from the movie Fandango (1985, K. Reynolds). It's golden hour in Texas and the talent is in this little patch of old trees, the wind is blowing and the light so much alive form the leaves of the trees. It's a great looking shot in a low budget film and one of my favorite of all time.

I am offering a seminar in NYc in January 2005 for those who are new to lighting or have intermediate knowledge and want to take their lighting knowledge to the next level. It' is an all day course with lunch. I discuss many topics and do lots of set-ups. Some of the things being discussed are: What video represents electronically and how that helps you to understand its limitations White Balance Depth of Field Internal Camera Adjustments Filtration Use of Color Lighting Chroma Keys Creating Background Looks Differences in Men, Women and Skin Shades Color Considerations and Psychological Effects of Color Mixed Color Temperatures Creating a Mood and Theme Down and Dirty Techniques When You Have Little Money, No Lights, and No Budget Anything Else You Can Think of During the Q&A... If you want to learn more, visit http://www.bluesky-web.com/seminar.htm