Stephen Perera

now here's a man with real experience...thanks for coming in on this....

no problem man....you did say a valid thing.....but I will say about tech....I started using a Mac in 1988 in my final year of my degree course in Graphic Design at Harrow School of Art (now part of Westminster University) - with loads of darkroom and photography hours done..... and Ive used Photoshop since it was invented and then Lightroom and all the rest of it......so Im in a great position to comment on the fact I now find myself in front of a computer way more than back in the day when I scanned perfectly exposed, professional quality photography shot on e.g. Fuji Provia on my drum scanner for use in my brochure designs for clients......so I never left film and continue to use it now for the big jobs 'cos its just all so much easier if you have a patient client!!!!!! shoot, send the film to lab, get scans, done (although in my case I shoot, then develop all my BW or colour negative film and scan myself on my Hasselblad Flextight 646 scanner)....no hours spent trying to make the highlights look nice let alone skin tone hahaha So I guess Im talking about the rabbit hole I find myself going down into cos of all the tech .....too many variations and options open...too many RAW versions and implementations etc....its frustrating

karel.....its not a thread to knock anything or anyone and cinematography isn't for me cos there's no way at my age of 53 with my film mindset and where Im from Im going to work in this industry nor do I pretend to be one but I enjoy using my Aaton 16mm and I produce stuff both paid and personal on it using my chosen medium, film.... I'm just questioning whether its all become too thick with tech and whether cinematographers will be required to be more tech than art these days.....its a valid question to ask

I guess I AM saying that Robin ....as a non-DP or 'amateur' in here but with a solid background of 34 years in film photography, using light metres and the zone system and all the rest of it......I've found it IS a lot easier and less work for me to shoot film (16mm) than digital.....but the thread is meant to be about people missing the word for the trees due to all the massive amount of extraneous kit and tech associated with digital

the essence of this thread is to sit back and question if you've all gone down the rabbit hole of the technology of digital or not....esp applicable to lower levels of people shooting moving images where you own a lot of cameras and computer stuff....its not another film v digital thread....personally as moving images is not what I do for a living but rather 'another skill' of what I do for a living and Im able to choose my medium I see this all the time around me......

.....as an observer and reader of this forum and the UK one hosted by Geoff Boyle it seems you are all just too concerned with the whole world and complexity of shooting digital (those of you that don't touch film) and what a sensor does or doesn't do and what a camera does or doesn't do and whats connected to what and what the monitors show and the IREs and the false colour and the this that and the other and the post processing raw and the amount of GBs it takes up and all the drives you need and all the big time computers you need and the LUT here or there and the this and that and everything.....and then there's 2K 4K 6K 8K......em......ok.......it seems to me like there's the trees and there's the woods......I'm certainly not a DP to make such a sweeping statement but that's what it looks like to me.....yes I know...bit of a cheeky post but hey.....seems like I'm a generator of....drama these days haha

you should also read about what was done on The Lighthouse where they used Double X but with a filter to make the 'reds' darker

Nik and Trick (UK) sell the D96 developer and F6 fixer for that film...made by Bellini https://ntphotoworks.com/product/bellini-d96-fixer-f5-kodak-double-x-package-deals/ Also....Eastman Double X has little latitude in my experience.....I used it on this personal project and my exposure had to be within like 1/2 stop to be 'on'....this is MY experience with the film.....not saying its universally correct for everyone as I guess depends how you light it etc. I particularly found that for exterior shots you have to be spot on with the metering esp. in bright conditions with the sun full on. I rated it at 250 iso like Kodak says and for me this is accurate. I lit the main close-ups with a Multiblitz V6 LED light on a rectangular soft box....the bed and shower scenes with the light coming in from an Arri Plus 1000w tungsten and the beach part with bright sun In my experience, using Double X is like using E6 film when it comes to metering....but what a beautiful beautiful stock it is.... I did this with it....Cinelab London processed and scanned for me.

Hey Tyler would welcome anything to do with film coming my way!!!!

hahaha good one

OK as the original thread creator can we stop with the personal and get back to the theme....I say this respectfully to all.....I am a 'learner in here and look to this place for knowledge and inspiration....(for any Brits in here I have the big red L stuck to my back) P.S. the only advice I can offer is related to my limited experience with 16mm film on an Aaton I own and my 34 years doing film photography mainly on Hasselblad......I can talk about using handheld metres and the beauty of Kodak Portra etc etc haha......

Yeah Cinelab London know how I send stuff by now...Its obvious I'm trying to light seal it when they see the mag tape all over it hahaha......BUT GOOD THING you've said this Mark....next time I WILL let them know how I just put the film in just in case!!!......and yes the roll fits in perfectly and as i said with a bit of play...a few mm all over...it can 'rattle' a bit....but of course will not affect the film.....the box is 100% lightproof when you seal the lid of course....its all solid hard plastic

Tyler, you say "sadly film on a core won't fit into a 100ft daylight box, it gets close, but alas it won't" Sorry but this is incorrect.....I have shot 12 seperate rolls of 100ft Kodak Vision 3 since I got my Aaton XTR XC and I have placed each rolled up film on its core into the same black box they came in every single time.....it even has a few mm of 'play'....what I do is put the film into the box as is......don't worry about it hitting the plastic cos the 'exposed' roll is the tail end so nothing will get ruined......and then I seal the box via the 'click-on' lid with mag tape and then place it all into a small 'black bag' for another layer of light-proof(ness) and off to Cinelab London they all go..... This is, of course, my way of doing things.....I don't re-use the white plastic film holder for example......I just put the exposed rolled up film straight back into the box as is

thats it....back on track.....the original thread being dream job what format etc

super easy to buy film and get a great lab....Cinelab London are my choice...they treat me fantastically.....and Im not even on IMDB haha

I can't comment on any of the 'arguments' here but at 53 years of age I can only state the obvious........if there were no advocates for film (celluloid) then we would all be forced to use digital whether we like it or not......and it would be like on youtube...where everything looks like its been shot by the same person and edited by the same person.....ironically we all would love to shoot big film on a dream project (the original point of the thread).....me? I'm no cinematographer and no DP but I choose to ONLY shoot moving images on film for my paid and personal projects.....I am literally willing to earn less, shoot film and feel like I have achieved something and love the look of...obv as well cos I come from the darkroom and I have used a light metre always so its where I am comfortable.......long live my Aaton XTR XC (no video tap, no film counter) and long live my beloved 16mm film!

off topic-ish.......well I am the OP so indulge me haha........just watching the APPLE TV show 'For All Mankind'...I'm really enjoying it....the storyline is entertaining and I like the historical alternative to the moon landings......but it just so......digital.....it does not immerse me into the 'world' they are creating, I'm all the time thinking about them acting and the crew around them etc........compare that to First Man which immerses me.....or Ad Astra...the same.......even with the obviously fake grain they've added.....they just don't achieve 'the look'.......e.g the full on sun moment (in S1, Episode 3) when the women are lined up with their aviator glasses (minute 23)....its so 'perfectly' digital.....anyway.....99% of the viewing public don't even think about it I guess....or do they.....I for one think an audience knows when something looks right and when it doesnt.....would be hilarious if someone actually reveals it was shot on film hahahah.....no way thats film...the Kodak colours are not there

thanks for keeping at this thread and making it great reading.....

great input from notable professionals on this thread throughout....one in which we're all going off on tangents.....perhaps My Mullen would offer up his 'dream job' to us......and what he would shoot and with which camera

I'm in no way qualified to criticise Storaro nor even anyone here but I ALSO loved Cafe Society but he took the 'magic hour' thing too far esp. in one scene where you could see it wasn't magic hour in the other parts of the frame in the exterior.....looked like MY shitty lighting lack of technique to be honest....and yes I'm just posing the question if big guns are paid to use and promote their stuff....PS whats a 'sustaining member' in here and whats whats the plus number in green? haha

...not to be dragged into the 'debate' I am in no way qualified to give an opinion on........Im wondering on whether the big DPs are on manufacturer payrolls.......I personally think that Storaro sold out to Sony and keeps going on about the Sony cameras and digital cos he's on the payroll hahaha......blasphemy indeed but e.g. Wonder Wheel....the makeup on Justin Timberlake was painful to watch in the opening scenes.....the film looked soooooooo digital........he should have shot that one on film IN MY OPINION......saying that I'm a huge Woody Allen fan (notwithstanding his alleged private life) and enjoyed the film a lot.....

...so we've all gone down the rabbit hole hahaha.....anyone want to bring it back to dream job, money no object? ....personally, the feeling I get when Cinelab London sends me a link to get my 2K .dpx Arriscans is fantastic......would never want to lose that......and as an anecdote should anyone be remotely interested......Im having my 'garden shed' rebuilt into a darkroom to get back into making traditional photographic prints of my photography! Ilford have just released new paper and new film.....Kodak are doing their thing too........ ....seems we all agree film should always be available.....long live film! thank you Mr Nolan, Tarantino, Scorcese et al

Obviously I'm in no way informed other than via IMBD but looking through his page.....Lawrence Sher - cinematographer of The Joker, shot film before 2014.....his last big film on film being Hangover Part III according to IMDb so I wouldn't say he's a digital guy Tyler. He was born in 1970 so he comes from film background....I born in 1966....people from my era learned and shot on film (albeit me stills photography Im NOT a DP or Cinematographer)

1. Stupid for me to say but have you dialled in the same iso/asa in the phone app and the light metre....its a simple mistake to make if you don't normally use light metres. I use the LUMU adapter to iPhone (mainly for colour of light as K values) and it's incident light readings are accurate to my Sekonic.....I don't use it for spot meter readings...... 2. Incident light more precise? both are accurate if you know how to use them. There is a lot of information on how to take your light metre abilities to another level.

Would be really nice to have a thread from you on experiences on the Joker film, that would make fantastic reading....anecdotes and everything and anything.....chapeau.....