Two Looks

Discussion in 'Film Forum' started by Davo, May 18, 2007.

  1. Davo

    Davo

    162
    May 3, 2005
    Las Vegas
    Shot film for the first time in nigh 2 years a couple weekends ago.

    Then i had a bit of a rant, in this very forum about it :p

    here are a few images from the shoot. i'll post a few images, and the rest in links so as not to take up space or make the place slow. the indoor set is Tri-X, the outdoor set is Plus-X. (try your best to ignore the line running through the entire indoor set :tongue:). oh...and all with an F5, first set with 50/1.8 set to 2.2, and the second set with a sigma 70-200, mostly at 2.8 or 4.

    01370015e.

    01370013e.

    01370009e.

    01370017e.

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/violadeity/01370024e.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/violadeity/01370021e.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/violadeity/01370018e.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/violadeity/01370016e.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/violadeity/01370012e.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/violadeity/01370011e.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/violadeity/01370006e.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/violadeity/01370004e.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/violadeity/01370003e.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/violadeity/01370002e.jpg

    01360020e.

    01360008e.

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/violadeity/01360019e.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/violadeity/01360004e.jpg
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/violadeity/01360003e.jpg

    thanks for lookin' everyone :biggrin:
     
  2. matthew.paul

    matthew.paul Guest

    Wow! These look great! Love the lighting and tonality. Just beautiful.

    Is that a scratch on the negative or just the scan? Would hate for these beautiful images to be ruined!
     
  3. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
  4. Love thses shots, the tone and the grain
     
  5. i like the second look, the technique you used to isolate your model is, for me, so much more powerful for the image, in contrast to the inside set where i see random furnishings and wall panels, that due to being in focus, take away interest from your model
     
  6. BigPixel

    BigPixel Guest

    I'm with Chris, The scratches work.
     
  7. Davo

    Davo

    162
    May 3, 2005
    Las Vegas
    thanks guys :D

    i think the scratches are from the scan, and not on the negs...'cause it doesn't show up in prints. i will hurt someone if the film itself is damaged...not sure who to blame though, since the process and scan took place in two different places, both out of my control. i'll probably end up rescanning them in june when i have lab access again (imacon, woo!). the scratches aren't nearly as bad as they could've been...they're possibly growing on me :p

    the lighting is a floor-to-ceiling window that we opened up the blinds/curtains on, and a 48" silver reflector opposing it to even things out a bit. i kept the lighting simple out of necessity (no studio access, didn't want to lug my strobes being that i was in a huge rush to get a ton of stuff done).

    the tonality, and grain...are what i love so much about tri-x...these are untouched, straight from the scan, just resized for the web. the plus-x shots (outdoor) i boosted the exposure a bit in curves, about 1/3 - 1/2 stop i think. part of shooting this film was so i could try and emulate it in the digital shots i took that day and hopefully come up with some sort of decent and consistent emulation. otherwise i may have to invest in tanks, chemistry, a scanner, and stock up on tri-x. lol

    to rodney...interesting comments. any suggestions on how you'd remedy the distraction, or is it just a preference? i was shooting at f/2.2 indoors, perhaps a faster lens more open? i wanted to keep it kind of environmental and the room, which i had never seen before i got there, was amazingly vintage as i'd hoped it would be when i talked to her. thanks :)
     
  8. Wouldn't scratches on the negs be black?
     
  9. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    Heh. Yeah.
     
  10. Davo

    Davo

    162
    May 3, 2005
    Las Vegas
    good point.

    so yeah...that's good i guess (its been a long time since i worked with film, i hadn't even considered they'd be black. lol).
     
  11. Up too late so an addendum - white line= scratch on negative top, black line = scratch on negative bottom!
     
  12. Davo

    Davo

    162
    May 3, 2005
    Las Vegas
    fie!

    now i must go back to figuring out who to be mad at :p
     
  13. yeh, first view preference. i' would not suggest you remedy, what i thought as distractions. second view, i think you got your intended environment. like the skin tonal against the wall panel in first shot, like the belly/leg shot with the floral white side and the solid brown side. second time around, the 'scratches' do not bother me, almost add character.
     
  14. The unintended scratches irk me. Operative word is unintended.

    Love the last shot! You nipped that one at the right second.
     
  15. Davo

    Davo

    162
    May 3, 2005
    Las Vegas
    thanks for responding further. i'm sure there'll be a next time...so i'll play some with it, just to see what happens. i suppose its why we all post...to bounce things off of people, and see where we can go in the future. :)


    thanks stephen :D it was an interesting afternoon...i was lying on my back with my legs in the air...wait...that sounds horrible. lol. but i was on the ground and the wind was gusting about 40mph/65kph, and so the reflector was a giant sail basically...so i had to position it with my legs while i sat in a V shape (ie: mid sit-up), and hold the camera with one hand. it was wild.

    and yes...the unintended scratches irk me too. i might bring them back to costco to have them scan one frame to check and see if the scratch is on the film or was just part of the scan, or what. clearly someone scratched it who wasn't me.
     
  16. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    You should be able to look at the film with a magnifying glass and see the the scratch.
     
  17. Davo

    Davo

    162
    May 3, 2005
    Las Vegas
    so...the saga comes to a close.

    i dropped by costco to see what the deal was...i figured an 8x12 would show the scratch. they cleaned the negs, printed a handful, rescanned, and no scratch showed up...musta been lint stuck on something, but there's in fact no scratch. woo!

    thanks everyone for the replies :D
     
  18. Some pics I like very much. Good the line wasn't a scratch!
     
  19. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    Excellent.
     
  20. gavin

    gavin

    555
    Oct 21, 2006
    I love the lighting on the indoor set.
    very good, subtle job.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Still Looking Great! Film Forum May 10, 2013
Looking In Film Forum Jun 14, 2012
'Want Some Expired Ektar 25? Look Here' Film Forum Apr 21, 2012
'I Look At This With A Different Perspective Now..' Film Forum Sep 25, 2011
Consistent Look Film Forum Sep 15, 2011