Victoria Secret video

What do you mean they 'don't make mistakes?' I bet they were there for a long time before they got that one minute of usable footage. Nothing in that tells me otherwise.
 
Cassius said:
What do you mean they 'don't make mistakes?' I bet they were there for a long time before they got that one minute of usable footage. Nothing in that tells me otherwise.
Click to expand...

'they' as in Victoria Secret and their marketing agency, not necessarily the film crew. Who cares if they did a thousand takes just to get that perfect one. that's what great companies and great artists do, they keep trying until they produce what they want.

The right girl with the right lingerie, with the right environment and lighting to create that youthful, innocent and clean natural beauty with heavy doses of subtle sex appeal. Not to mention the 'you never get to see everything' framing and focus, along with that soft camera movements, and slow motion.

You guys don't think it's perfect? With the exception of a few shots, which I'm sure are done on purpose, she is perfectly softly lit. Colour balance is perfect. the overexposed areas are the white walled backgrounds and windows which naturally are supposed to overexpose in day light. with all the white walls bouncing natural day light off of each other onto her, she is just so perfectly lit. The whole video looks like a moving photoshoped still. nothing is left to chance. A friend of mine commented that it is nothing special since it's all straight cuts... I think that's the beauty of it. Carefully assembled, perfectly shot clips do not need fancy transitions.
 
bwwd said:
? Its overexposed heavily ,i dont like the look at all.
Click to expand...

Compare the main video with these behind the scene footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1ngOPnY6A4&feature=related

the backgrounds are less overexposed so you can see them. You think that's better? The girl is less glossy and all the buildings and furnitures and stuff behind her are distracting.

Edit: you can see the camera at :59 of this behind the scene video... what camera is that? it looks digital... its not Red is it?
 
While we're at it, looks like a Cooke S4/i too... just sayin'. It looks as if the focus scale is neon green or yellow. Either a master prime or cooke s4/i. It also seems the focus scale is 'guarded' in an oval cutout, another cooke feature.

Picture 8.jpg
Picture 10.jpg



Maybe it's a 150mm
S4-150-df__96ppi.jpg

(notice the cutout 'oval guard' that is only on the camera right side of the lens... the side showing in the picture.)
 

Attachments

  • lenses_cookes4primes.jpg
    lenses_cookes4primes.jpg
    40.3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
I've shot a bunch of those for VS (the behind-the-scenes) and they are just work - glamorous-sounding work but work never-the-less.

And the overexposure comment is just silly, clearly someone didn't learn the basics of shooting fashion videos...
 
See, I misinterpreted what your phrase meant. That changes things. Yes, they definitely know what they're doing, and that video- among others- is worthy of study. The high key lighting is great, I've always been a fan but am not yet very good at it. It's definitely perfect- as anything representing a company of that magnitude should be. They've defined the landscape for these kinds of things, and they've done it well.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
I've shot a bunch of those for VS (the behind-the-scenes) and they are just work - glamorous-sounding work but work never-the-less.
Click to expand...

You are my hero!! Would you happened to know which production company/agency did this shoot?

Also I wonder... how did the director direct the models? Do they give specific choreography or do they just go "roll around" or "walk that way" and see what they get?
 
Most of their behind the scenes work is done by Madoffs Production. The guy with long hair is their regular catalog photographer. The way it goes that the photographer shoots the model with video picking up b-roll (where the model doesn't have to look into video's lens) then when photographer is finished the video takes over and the girl looks into video's lens. The models are pro so they know how to move gracefully.
 
I dont need to learn the basics of fashion videos to tell that i dont like overexposure in any kind of form ,videos/photographs.It just does not look good and if it happens i would prefere to move somewhere else to avoid it and dont leave white holes.Overexposing is not a style for me.
 
bwwd said:
I dont need to learn the basics of fashion videos to tell that i dont like overexposure in any kind of form ,videos/photographs.It just does not look good and if it happens i would prefere to move somewhere else to avoid it and dont leave white holes.Overexposing is not a style for me.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if it is your "style" or not, most fashion photography is "high key".

If that is what the client wants, then you either give it to them or someone else will.
 
Last edited:
Even though the predomince of light levels in an image map into a distribution that isn't a common one you're used to, doesn't mean that something is overexposed.

The next two images are from a cooke lens test on 35mm film and the bottom from a feature project shot digitally. None of them are overexposed.
cooke000.jpg


cooke001.jpg


xBeach.jpg
 
craigbowman said:
Even though the predomince of light levels in an image map into a distribution that isn't a common one you're used to, doesn't mean that something is overexposed.

The next two images are from a cooke lens test on 35mm film and the bottom from a feature project shot digitally. None of them are overexposed.
cooke000.jpg


cooke001.jpg
Click to expand...

So the windows aren't called overexposed? I never went to school for this **** so perhaps I'm getting the terminology wrong.
 
macgregor stuff is not overexposed people.Idont know what you want to prove but i dislike white holes and nothing will change this.I probably would be fired cause i wouldnt overexpose my stuff so... i dont want to argue about that.
If someone loves white overexposed holes its ok with me, i dont have any problem with that, its called opinion.I shared mine,probably cause i was expecting correct exposure for my taste and i rarely complain about it watching movies from hollywood ,90% are correctly exposed without holes.
 
Last edited:
chromeboy007 said:
So the windows aren't called overexposed? I never went to school for this **** so perhaps I'm getting the terminology wrong.
Click to expand...

They are exposed for the mood of the shot... I'm going to presume that the intention is to depict 'dreamy' or some such mental state...

If I were to speak 'zone system' the intent is to 'place' the windows a zone 7-8, that is nearly the 'white of the base' in still print terms... Then with reflectors and support
lighting make sure the subject, is sufficiently lit to be mid range in the representation of the media used, in this case 'film'...

Hence, if the 'white windows' is placed by the photographer to be 'white'... they are not 'overexposed'... they are properly exposed for the mood the
photographer is aiming for...

If someone doesn't like 'high key' lighting so be it... but that lighting is used through out the 'fashion' industry, as well as various mood shots in
moving pictures...

In 'high key' lighting there may not be a 'true black' in the shot, but some amount of 'white'... and conversely... in low key lighting, there may not be a 'true' white'...
 
I noted the use of an incident light meter in the BTS video.
So I have a technical question, why incident rather than 1 degree spot meter? Not being challenging , just curious.

I have used both in my time when shooting LF stills (Not professionally I hasten to add) and applying Ansel's zone system, and found I preferred the spot meter as it told me more about what was going on.
Would it be worth using one when shooting digitally?

Not intending to thread-jack.

Oh, and the video was beautiful, and perfectly exposed for it's purpose.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top