Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 113
  1. Collapse Details
    #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,978
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Watson View Post
    Kodak is reputed (as in, I've seen and read some of the studies in the literature, but it's been decades and I don't have any idea where to find it now) to have actually produced a neutral color negative film. As in, really, really, neutral -- no color casts at all. A nearly exact match to nature. And... no one liked it. And I mean zero people liked it. In double blind tests, it never won.
    When I first started printing my B&W stills, being a US photographer pretty much meant that I went out and bought a box of Kodak papers. At the time I was a member of a cooperative lab, and saw a number of other people printing and getting a 'blacker' black, which to me looked good... but the Kodak paper always seemed to be 'warm/browntwinge', ostensibly based on 'market research'... I switched to Ilford which is what the other people were using. The last paper I used was Oriental's "Seagull"... never went back to Kodak. At the time I was actively printing, I did not meet any one who used Kodak B&W papers.

    The Wife shot Kodak color for years, but after using Fuji for a test shoot in the late 80's, she switched... and when Fuji came out with a DSLR we bought into their S series at the time... for some reason their 'color' balance appealed to us.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    131
    Default
    if we're talking motion picture, t.v. and commercials…kodak is everywhere…also for starting a show reel…cheaper than an alexa and post…and stunning images that people (clients) connect to emotionally..


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #83
    Senior Member David W. Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    La Petite Roche
    Posts
    6,742
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by niki View Post
    if we're talking motion picture, t.v. and commercials…kodak is everywhere…also for starting a show reel…cheaper than an alexa and post…and stunning images that people (clients) connect to emotionally..
    I don't know where you are getting that shooting film is cheaper than shooting with an Alexa?

    I happen to know from personal experience that shooting 35mm film vs shooting Alexa on an equivalent project, that film takes more time and money. We rent an Alexa for a week each month for a particular client that we formerly shot on 35mm. Seriously, the client is super happy with the time and money they save getting their project to air. And the image from the Alexa looks great.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #84
    Senior Member jamedia.uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Birmingham UK
    Posts
    601
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by combatentropy View Post
    This thread is cursed or something. Everyone is saying basically the same thing but act like there are two sides and are arguing with each other.

    Film is very fine.
    But video is nearly there.
    Plus it's easier and cheaper.
    So most people now use video.
    But still some people use film.
    And probably always will.
    The end.
    It is the penultimate line that is the problem there.

    The point that the film advocates miss is that it needs and industrial process and factories to make film. The problem is we are very near the point where, no matter the artistic viewpoint, the accountants and businessmen owning the factories that produce film are going to close them down for pure business reasons. In fact several big (former ) film producing companies have already done that.

    The only discussion is whether there will be enough volume of film usage in the future for any commercial production of film. It is looking unlikely as all the high volume of film users have stopped.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    yeovil uk
    Posts
    1,455
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by j1clark@ucsd.edu View Post
    While the term may have been popularized recently, there has always been manufacturer's differences in how their respective color materials responded, and some people preferred Kodak over Fuji, or vice versa, for that difference.

    Canon 'color science' for their DSLR cameras have always had a tendency to have a 'yellow cast'... don't know why... other than the Canon engineers 'like it' and the Canon customers like it... Early on the digital Nikons had a 'purpleish/violet' twinge. etc...

    While these may be 'graded' out, they have a tendency to have residual effects, especially when trying to match cameras.
    Strange i moved from a Canon DSLR to a GH2 but disliked the overall yellow color look so i went back to Canon which i would say is more red orienteted


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #86
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by David W. Jones View Post
    I don't know where you are getting that shooting film is cheaper than shooting with an Alexa?

    I happen to know from personal experience that shooting 35mm film vs shooting Alexa on an equivalent project, that film takes more time and money. We rent an Alexa for a week each month for a particular client that we formerly shot on 35mm. Seriously, the client is super happy with the time and money they save getting their project to air. And the image from the Alexa looks great.
    One would have to have a mighty high ratio indeed for the Alexa to be cheaper...I would say an irresponsibly high ratio. But if that is the case, I guess they should shoot Alexa (or maybe not shoot at all but rehearse instead!)


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #87
    Senior Member David W. Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    La Petite Roche
    Posts
    6,742
    Default
    The client pays a 3 day rental for the week. We get the entire XT kit & zooms for $3K.

    That $3K would buy what, about an hour 1/2 of film. How many 10 hour days do you think that would cover?


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #88
    Senior Member 16mman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    108
    Default
    One of the cool things I recently discovered is that shooting with a Canon DSLR is a very similar experience to shooting with an Eclair 16mm camera in film school. You've got the same basic controls, similar lenses etc. That's what's so cool about video tech these days. It so closely mimics motion picture tech. If film went extinct I'd be sad but I wouldn't be heartbroken.

    That being said, when I want to shoot a super quirky or spooky short film, I often turn to 16mm and Super 8 because there's a quality to it that takes a lot of work to get in post. I'm talking about the grain, the jitters, the flares between takes. It's all doable in digital but there's something magical to me about just letting the light sensitive chemicals, dust and a poorly maintained vintage camera equipment do their thing. I think that film is quickly becoming a "special effect." Companies like Pro8mm cater especially to Hollywood productions that need a 1960's newsreel or creepy home movie footage. Maybe that's how the medium will survive.

    Steve Daniels is a good example of what I'm talking about. He uses Super 8 film for a very particular kind of short film style. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv5RoMxGAbE


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #89
    Senior Member David W. Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    La Petite Roche
    Posts
    6,742
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by 16mman View Post
    One of the cool things I recently discovered is that shooting with a Canon DSLR is a very similar experience to shooting with an Eclair 16mm camera in film school
    Really? In my mind they are a wee bit different.

    Here is an old pic of me shooting with one of my 5 Eclairs from many years ago.
    Attached Images Attached Images


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #90
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by David W. Jones View Post
    The client pays a 3 day rental for the week. We get the entire XT kit & zooms for $3K.

    That $3K would buy what, about an hour 1/2 of film. How many 10 hour days do you think that would cover?
    Where are you getting a complete Alexa kit and glass for $3k a week? Most houses I have seen are $1,500/day with no glass.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •