dave olden Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) "It's video, you don't need a light meter!" (I didn't see him until a year or so later. He meekly told me he'd finally bought a light meter). --Dave Olden Edited August 11, 2011 by dave olden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Now I found this guy on another forum who tries to teach me that one must open up aperture i.e. correct exposure if one moves the camera further away from subject. :blink: heh - I remember the time when thoughts like that crossed my mind - they are the outcome of just starting to learn light theory as it pertains to exposure and so on... But in my case, and I think any sane persons you might when you hit that little bit of illogic take a step back and re-think rather than spout it out as fact to the nearest Finn It's funny how people get caught up in theory and don't apply it the reality of the world around them, something sensed by a VERY accurate sensor - your eye ... The next step is to learn how your eye and film are different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Cooper Posted August 14, 2011 Author Share Posted August 14, 2011 A film lecturer telling her class that super 8 film is available in 100ft lengths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 The look of Kodak isn't warmer BECAUSE it's in a yellow box. If you shoot identical scenes on Kodak and Fuji, and correct a grey card back to neutral, the fuji tends to have trace magenta in the face with the other tow colors neutral, the Kodak is almost more of an orange. There are subtle differences between the two. I think the "box" analogy is just an easy way of remembering it. I've never heard it said "because" they are in those colored boxes that is what caused the differences. Of course we're just talking about ECN here. VNF, E-6 is/was a whole other ballgame. The Kodak Ektrachrome line of films was always aimed at being more nuetral (often with a blue bias or a cool look) whereas Fuji was more vivid. Even 5285 is pretty tame compared to Velvia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 14, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted August 14, 2011 Some of the Fuji and Kodak color neg differences in color though are just due to the color of their color masking, which has to be corrected for first to find out how close to neutral the stocks are. If you are set-up for Kodak's color mask, as most places are, then Fuji film comes up with a color bias, it's not that it has that color bias designed into the stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Matthew W. Phillips Posted August 15, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted August 15, 2011 Re: The guy in the video earlier. You can smell a hack a mile away if they say "With film, it's a little hard to know what you're getting..." Do you know what you're getting? I sure as hell do. I bet Conrad Hall was surprised every day he looked at dailies, 'My God, I had no idea it would turn out like that!' Not one bit of it is guess work. That poop doesn't hold with me. I have to disagree with this one. I love film but you cant always be sure. During the shooting of LOTR: The Return of the King, Peter Jackson mentioned in the special features that the ending scene with Frodo going on the boat to the undying lands had to be redone because a days worth of footage came back soft. These aren't hacks out there, these were serious pros. But crap happens. For the record, I fail to see how the bloke said anything that would warrant a harsh criticism of being a "twat." Actually, that sort of language being directed at particular people is insulting and should not be tolerated on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Some of the Fuji and Kodak color neg differences in color though are just due to the color of their color masking, which has to be corrected for first to find out how close to neutral the stocks are. If you are set-up for Kodak's color mask, as most places are, then Fuji film comes up with a color bias, it's not that it has that color bias designed into the stock. I mean corrected to neutral on a grey card. I want to say that Fuji neg. masks have less yellow in them. Problem with Fuji is/was that the mask densities were far more inconsistent from stock to stock than Kodak. This may have changed, though. Almost the opposite is true with their intermediate films. One wonders if this is due to trying to contribute as little generation loss, contrast buildup as possible, even within a single color layer, so "adding the opposites" in the color mask might help keep grain buildup down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Cooper Posted May 9, 2018 Author Share Posted May 9, 2018 "Nobody uses manual exposure anymore. It takes too long." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Frisch FSF Posted May 14, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted May 14, 2018 "There is only one correct place to put the camera for any given scene" BS. There are literally thousands for any given scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 (edited) "Nobody uses manual exposure anymore. It takes too long." "No-one resurrects 7-year old threads." Edited May 15, 2018 by Mark Dunn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 15, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted May 15, 2018 I remember on a low-budget 18-day feature I had a distant wall in a house momentarily visible when a character comes through a door. The wall was lit with a tweenie and before we rolled, I ran over and closed down the top barn door to create a cut on the wall... and then the gaffer stopped everything and took the barn doors off of the tweenie and called for a grip, c-stand and a flag to "do it the right way" -- all for a shadow on a wall that would only be visible for a few frames when the door swung open and then closed again. And it looked the same with the flag as it did with the barn door cut, only I lost five minutes doing it "the right way". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 (edited) Asking someone if they shot manual focus or manual exposure is stupid. (still photography) Edited May 23, 2018 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 "No-one resurrects 7-year old threads." Hey, people are still asking how to recreate Autochromes from the turn of the century. 7 years is no big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Cooper Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 "For wide angle tracking shots, you need a fast autofocus lens with image stabilization. 12 , 14 mm maybe" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris J. Zahller Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 The thing the "fad of the moment" people never grasp is there are a lot of young people out there who really enjoy "Old School" techniques and appreciate what silver can do for an image. There is some humor in watching the kids shoot film with 60 year old cameras while using their iPhones to run photographic calculator apps. I know some folks who have been shooting film since the orthochromatic days who are happy to use the phone calculator apps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 I know some folks who have been shooting film since the orthochromatic days who are happy to use the phone calculator apps. You do know that Kodak stopped making ortho ciné film in 1930, don't you? Your 'folks' must be getting on a bit. Perhaps there were more of them around when the post you reply to was made exactly 8 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris J. Zahller Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 You do know that Kodak stopped making ortho ciné film in 1930, don't you? Your 'folks' must be getting on a bit. Perhaps there were more of them around when the post you reply to was made exactly 8 years ago. Clarification: There are a couple of nonagenarians on the large format photography forum who have been shooting since their pre-teens. One of them is still quite active on the forums and still goes out with his LF rig. They were shooting with sheet film and small and medium format roll film, not cine film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 (edited) "Don't take pictures of people without their permission." Edited May 31, 2018 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Cooper Posted June 1, 2018 Author Share Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) I was once enquiring about a Bolex H16 with 10mm lens in an underwater housing with dome port in a shop. I was doing a fair amount of scuba diving during that period so there was certainly the potential to get some good underwater footage of the local marine life. I asked the shop owner that I guess you'd probably prefocus the lens before placing the camera in the housing. The shop owner replied, saying that's no need to do that because it's a wide angle lens. Gosh sorry, my mistake. I was under the misguided assumption that if most of your subjects (fish etc) were say 3 - 4 feet away from you, you'd prefocus the lens to about 3 or 3.5 feet or thereabouts (before venturing underwater.) Or alternatively hyperfocal focusing. But no need to do that at all due to the near infinite depth of field provided by this lens which will magically solve all potential focus issues regardless of settings or circumstances. By using this guy's logic, the lens could probably be set to any random focus distance and it wouldn't matter. So let me see....if you were shooting at f3.5 and your subject was 3 feet away and the lens was focused close to infinity, everything would be fine huh? No problem! Edited June 1, 2018 by Patrick Cooper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now