casey tompkins

Thanks for the reply Karl. I wasn't trying to compare printer lights to digital units or points in photoshop... I wouldn't even know where to start if that were the case. The digital comment at the end of my post was merely a comment comparing the process of adjusting prints digitally compared to photochemical. Anyways, I completely agree with the advantage of shooting with filters is that they are "done", that an also I am not planning on scanning the negative so I need my print to be as close to how I shot the negative as possible. I'd send it back and ask for a third print timed to grey card but I have simply lost faith in getting the results I am after. Also, I want to use this event as a learning experience so I have a better understanding of calling my own lights even in situations like this.

Not to make matters more difficult in your camera decisions, but, you said your director wanted a grainy look. When it comes to low budget, I understand where you are coming from but noise generated on a digital camera is not comparable to film grain when it comes to achieving a particular look and overall feel in your images. Take it from Public Enemies... a period film that was clearly shot on digital that, at least for me, removed me from the story due to the digital look of the images. I am not sure about how adding "grain" in post will achieve the effect you and your director are looking for but I can assure you that shooting at a high ISO on a digital camera to get increased noise in place of true film grain will be counterproductive in achieving your desired look and feel.

The reason for this question arose after getting two bad prints of a negative back from the lab. I will be sending the negative back for a third print and this time, instead of requesting they time to grey card, I am going to call my lights. Essentially, the lab, rather than basing the printing lights off my grey card, has printed out the color in my negative that was created by a tobacco filter I was using. To clear up any misunderstanding, I did not shoot my grey card with the tobacco filter on. Here is my question. When calling my own lights on a print, is there a printer light combination that is equivalent to a tobacco filter but that does not change the brightness of the print? For instance, if the first print's exposure was dead on but they timed out my tobacco filter, is there a known combination of printer light adjustments that I could adjust my first print's lights to without effecting the brightness of the print. Say, -4 in red, +1 in green, and +3 in blue.... or something along those lines. It's interesting how in modern digital color correcting it is just a matter of clicking a button to apply common filter effects to an image, but, to my understanding, there is no literature available that discusses the relationship between printer lights and lens filters. Thanks in advance for any advice/discourse. Casey Tompkins

I agree with you in part, although, there is much more to filmmaking than getting your hands on a Red camera. A four year program provides a much stronger foundation for a student in the arts. As cinematographers we are not simply technicians. Perhaps I am just standing up for the four year program I am in (Columbia College Chicago) but, I still find I'm lacking the time to study all areas of the arts in order to have the eye and knowledge to eventually make long lasting, important images. And along the way I get to take classes on photo theory, image optics, image design, camera seminar (where we are trained on nearly every 16mm camera, and a range of 35mm). All the while shooting and crewing on projects almost every weekend. Don't get me wrong, I can't wait to shoot on Columbia's Panavision, but my Philosophical Issues in Film course started the buzz in my head to keep thinking and reaching for meaning. Blah, Blah, Blah... im done. Good luck on getting into AFI next fall. Hopefully I will get the chance to see all of you the following year!