On: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 Joanna Plumbe wrote:- >> � You need to light-meter the set to see the actual range of lighting to set >> your mid-grey point.
> I do this as a matter of course. The point I was making is that if you do > this, the surroundings disappear into darkness, whereas film seems to be > much better able to handle the difference in contrast between the set and > the rest of the room. I also find that there are often point light sources > that are in shot, and the high intensity areas of light in front of these > sources (smoke/haze filled rooms, so it shows ++) take on a totally > unrealistic appearance. There is no smooth gradation from burned out areas > to ok areas that you would get with film....instead you get weird areas > where the sensor appears not to have been able to cope at all with the > intensity, and then sharp edges where it can cope with the contrast. Then it sounds to me like you should be using film - I will explain...<G> > >> � Then make an accurate in camera white-balance to get the colours right. > How would you suggest doing this in a situation where there is masses of > different coloured light kicking around? For example, if I did a white > balance on the last set I did, it would have thrown everything about as far > from how the lighting guys designed it to look. There is nothing on this > type of set that is designed to look white. OK, fair point....are the lighting crew lighting for film or digital capture? I suspect film - again, I will explain. >> � Is the scene lit for shooting cine-neg stock or digital video? as they are >> two totally different animals. > It's lit to look good to the human eye. Then it is film..... > I always shoot RAW files and tweak them afterwards, and I usually use the > preset tungsten WB if the primary light sources are indeed tungsten. > However, after many hours adjusting these images, either in CaptureOne or > Photoshop, it's proving impossible to get them to look anything like > reality. The sensor seems to be way more sensitive to any hint of red or UV > that's kicking around. I'm learning to look at lighting situations hyper > critically and where there's even a hint of red (barely imperceptible to the > eye) you can guarantee that any blues will be turned pink/purple. > > Any more suggestions gratefully received. Motion picture film stock is generally colour neg which has been pre-flashed with a small amount of white light to cope with extremes of contrast. If colour neg stock is overexposed it is almost impossible to blow out the highlights, and the shadows (depending how they are lit) can look after themselves. This gives a great deal of latitude during post-production to give a film 'a certain look' in accordance with the directors vision. Indeed, the film stock has to have enough exposure latitude to cope with the camera moving around on set. One of the gripes of digital camera operators is that many lighting sets look flat emotionally - with no ooomph to the lighting. This is because a digital chip has a linear response - meaning that it 'sees' all to easily into the shadows with the highlights burning out - which I believe is the problem that you describe. The result 'looks' unnatural. Film on the other hand (whether it be pos/neg/b&w or col) has a curved response similar to the eye, with a toe for the shadows, a curved slope for the midtones, and a shoulder for the highlights. This is why I say film and digital capture are two entirely different animals. Also, film lighting is made for shooting film which is relatively immune to infra-red and UV light pollution. So may I suggest that you work with colour neg stock for your on set photography, and expose for the shadows. It will not burn out the highlights, and a scanner - any scanner, will be able to handle the contrast range. After that, it is relatively easy using Photoshop Curves et al, to get the result you want. I have done quite a bit of interior available light photography with digicams, and it is great if you want funky colour, only you don't want funky colour - so use film, as digital is so totally different. Please remember that digital capture is still in its infancy, and you may be expecting too much. Having said all this, maybe a IDs/S2 poweruser can chip in............where are you Shangara? <G> William Curwen http://www.william.ws PS: sorry listmom for the length of this complex posting:) =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
