Nick Thompson

Thank you all for the all the helpful info. I definitely think that, just from experience as a viewer, shooting in LOG has influenced a trend in the look of video to be very flat, low-contrast, often with lifted blacks. It seems that even though people shoot in LOG knowing that they have to then correct it in post, they get used to the look and softer, flatter looks become more and more common. I can't tell you the amount of low budget music videos or corporate work I've seen where it almost seems like they shot it in LOG and then forgot to correct it, or barely corrected it at all. Obviously any sort of look can work sometimes, and going for something flat, low-contrast is sometimes the right thing to do. But it seems very ubiquitous right now. The colorist for my movie sent me back initial stills with slightly lifted blacks because he said that almost every client he works with asks for that. As I said, sometimes this is a cool look, but not to this extent, in my opinion. It'll probably shift in the next few years, though. About ten years ago, when film look presets started to become widely available for consumers or low-budget work, there seemed to be more of a trend for overly crushed blacks and high contrast/saturation in an effort to get that 'film look.'

Thanks Stuart and David. So I take it from what you said Stuart that if your shadow details are all right above total black, there are details there, but printing them up won't look good/right (lots of grain, lifted blacks, the contrast will be off)? This makes sense to me from experience but I want to confirm that's what you meant? Thanks for the clarification that it's actually a 1/3 stop underexposed, this makes sense. So in the later years, was part of the reason Willis rated his stocks slower than normal and printing down to achieve better blacks since the I.B. prints were no longer made? Assuming he's rating lower than normal and developing normal rather than pulling, why develop normal and print down rather than pulling? I assume that there could be a bunch of different reasons for this but I wonder what it might be in this case, just as an example. Would developing normal but printing down result in more contrast than pulling? Nick

Hi all, A lot has been said about Gordon Willis keeping things dark, of course, but I have a question about what he means in a couple interviews about The Godfather when he says he underexposed the whole negative half a stop. Excerpt from first article: "Do you underexpose just to keep from getting detail in the shadows and then print up for the release print? Because I would think it would make your flesh tones go too dark. No. As I said, I pick a printing light for the movie and I work to that light. I don’t print up or down.' - https://ascmag.com/articles/flashback-gordon-willis-asc-interview-at-afi-part-i Excerpt from second article (film he was using was rated at 100): 'I’m exposing at ASA 250, and having the film pushed one stop in the lab, which means that, theoretically, I’m underexposing half a stop. The truth of the matter is that I like the look of that result. It appeals to me because the film becomes more translucent. You can see through the colors, rather than having them just sticking on the screen. Because the fog level is raised slightly in the pushing, the material tends to have a kind of foggy, not-quite-there look which, at times, is quite nice. Doesn’t this method leave very little latitude in printing? Exactly. It means that once I’ve got the basic quality I want on the negative, the lab can do very little to jerk it around...They can’t print it up, for example — and that’s exactly why I expose it that way. Film material is designed to be printed in one range and one range only. I don’t like giving a lab the flexibility to print it up and down, because sooner or later someone, somewhere, in some little room will decide that it should be a little more this way or that. He’ll straighten it out for you. Everything will be just perfect — and it will be a disaster.' https://ascmag.com/articles/on-loacatiom-with-the-godfather-a-discussion-with-gordon-willis I'm wondering what he really means by saying it's all underexposed by half a stop. Is it really all underexposed, or is it that something one would usually base exposure off of, like faces, are exposed half a stop lower than most DPs would expose them, and he's just explaining his aesthetic preference in a weird way? While Willis often liked things dark, he'll still have bright highlights in some of his shots, and as he says himself in various interviews, he uses the whole dynamic range of the film, so how is it really underexposed? I don't understand why he would be rating the film at 250, metering to expose it normally, and pushing it only to 200 rather than rating it at 200 but just metering for everything to be half a stop lower. If anyone can help me understand what he's saying, I would appreciate it. I shoot still film sometimes but I don't develop myself and know very little about the development process. Thank you very much. Nick