Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Scott Hargis on February 17, 2013, 12:03:30 PM

Title: Film for Interiors
Post by: Scott Hargis on February 17, 2013, 12:03:30 PM
Hi All,

If this has already been discussed, please point me to the thread; I've searched and didn't find anything.

I'm looking for a good film type for interiors work. I've been goofing around shooting with a Bronica for some time now, just swapping it onto the tripod after I've built the shot with my dSLR. I recently acquired a Mamiya RB67 and would like to get more serious with this. I've done my best with Google but haven't come up with anything! I'm lighting with a combination of strobe and tungsten, and I use gels pretty extensively, and I find that my white balance is typically either in the low 3000's (late in the day) or else in the mid-4000's (mid-day).

So: what is (was?) the go-to film for this kind of thing? Actually, any thoughts regarding shooting interiors, particularly residential interiors, with film equipment would be interesting to me. Thanks!
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Rob C on February 17, 2013, 12:53:06 PM
I used to use Ektachrome 64 120 and there was also a T version for tungsten, I think, but can't be sure because I can only remember using T on 35mm; however, I think these have all vanished...

Perhaps it becomes more trouble than it's worth, today, when you mix lighting on film, unless you go b/w and cheat! ;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: ChristopherBarrett on February 17, 2013, 01:25:10 PM
I'd say 80% of my interiors work was shot on 4x5 EPN (Kodak Ektachrome 100 Daylight).  This was a rather desaturated stock.  The more colorful stocks were hell in mixed light.  EPN gave us a more neutral point to start retouching from.

I always thought it looked like shit, though.  Have I mentioned how much I DON'T miss film?

64T was a much nicer stock but hated any daylight contamination.

I can't even find Ektachrome on B+H's site now.  Wow.

Were you thinking chrome or neg?

Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: FredBGG on February 17, 2013, 01:38:56 PM
Modern negative film is a far better choice.
These film stocks are derived from motion picture film and are designed for color grading in post,
either digitally or in the print process.
Portra and ektar.

However for interiors I would not go with a camera without tilt shift.

A 4x5 camera would be far better or maybe a Fuji gx680 that has tilt shift from 50mm to 500mm.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: ACH DIGITAL on February 17, 2013, 02:15:02 PM
I agree with Fred, negative film gives you far better DR and with a good scanner you would get excellent results, plus they are still available.
I would bet on Hasselblad Flextight scanner to do the job. The results from this scanner type is very placid to the eye.
ACH
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Kirk Gittings on February 17, 2013, 02:20:48 PM
You never explained why? I shot film for 27 years  for A&I and wouldn't bother now for any foreseeable reason. In my last few years of shooting film I shot Fuji negative film exclusively, scanned it in house-forgiving in mixed light, reciprocity easily manageable and good DR.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: TMARK on February 17, 2013, 02:23:48 PM
64T because the reciprocity failure allowed longer exposures.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: David Eichler on February 17, 2013, 04:21:03 PM
I'd say 80% of my interiors work was shot on 4x5 EPN (Kodak Ektachrome 100 Daylight).  This was a rather desaturated stock.  The more colorful stocks were hell in mixed light.  EPN gave us a more neutral point to start retouching from.

I always thought it looked like shit, though.  Have I mentioned how much I DON'T miss film?

64T was a much nicer stock but hated any daylight contamination.

I can't even find Ektachrome on B+H's site now.  Wow.

Were you thinking chrome or neg?



 Was really glad when EPN arrived. Always found EPR too cool. Even preferred EPN to Kodachrome for medium and small format. Personally, if I were shooting color film these days it would be color negative, for a wider tonal range and generally more flexability, since printers are now geared for digital and you are going to hand over a digital file, regardless of whether your capture starts with digital or film
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Scott Hargis on February 17, 2013, 06:13:39 PM
Awesome. Thanks for the replies, everyone. Definitely thinking negs.

Kirk: why? 'Cause I learned photography, pretty much, shooting digital and I think I'm lacking something because of it. It's important to me to learn the craft. I think it makes me more well-rounded as an artist. I see it as personal development. I don't expect to be shooting film commercially.

I also think a technical camera is in my near future but I want to screw around with it for a while before I invest 5 figures in a digital back.

So -- I had been thinking Provia (which was my favorite film when I was goofing around shooting 35mm back in the 90's), or Portra 160, or Ektar 100. Sounds like maybe I'm on the right track...are they really not making Ektachrome anymore??
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: K.C. on February 17, 2013, 08:36:23 PM
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorReversalIndex.jhtml?pq-path=1229
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Kirk Gittings on February 17, 2013, 10:07:43 PM
Scott I think that makes great sense. A good move.
Here is a Fuji daylight color neg shot-no filtration-just globally color corrected in scan and tweaked in PS. Probably 30 secs or so. Shot for the architect and oddly enough ran in Architectural Digest. But if you really want to learn discipline shoot chromes.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Kumar on February 18, 2013, 12:12:39 AM
I shot Fuji color negative film exclusively (Reala 120 and 160-something 4x5) for the last 7/8 years of shooting film. Great for mixed lighting, long exposures, scanned well.

Kumar
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: DanielStone on February 18, 2013, 01:43:59 AM
Color Neg:
Portra 160 or Portra 400, both are super fine grained. Both are a treat to scan, and have SOOOOOOOO much dynamic range, its nutty.
Both are derived from motion-picture technology(really the forefront of film tech r&d now, stills has to take a back seat), and LOTS of money and time has gone into making these two films some of the best ever made, period.
Fuji has basically exited the c/n film market here in the USA, not sure about the EU. Reala 100 is still available in some shops here, in 120 format. Its a nice film, but Portra has more "options" for digital post IMO.

Chrome:
If you want to shoot chrome(slides), I'd use Provia 100F. Kodak IS NOW NO LONGER MAKING E-6(REVERSAL) FILM. PERIOD.
Provia has basically NO reciprocity failure, so using Tungtsen->Daylight(80A/B/C) filters is much easier, and less math has to be done to get a correct exposure :)
*Personally, I've always found that an 81A(slight warming) filter with Provia really helps keep the shadows/lower density areas from going blue.
Chromes are wonderful when DONE RIGHT(that means gelling lights, or doing multiple exposures gelling the lens appropriately for each light source(say, tungsten balanced recessed, but fluorescent under-the-cabinets lighting), etc... Its tricky to do, and takes lots of patience and practice(and being very light footed not to kick the tripod), but when done well, the results are really worth it. Film has done the work for you, and with a good scan and some small amount of post, you can save yourself some money, and time.

As others have mentioned, color neg film has more "oh shit" room, to a limit. I've found that with Portra 160/400, I can overexpose approx *6* stops, and still have a *somewhat* usable piece of film. 1 stop of overexposure is EASY to deal with(actually out to +3 is pretty easy to deal with), and +1 helps keep shadows from going bad(although I can pull a -3 neg back in digital post and still have *something* somewhat usable, although far from ideal, shadows are sh** though, and muddy)

Chrome is kind of "old school" now. NO TUNGSTEN BALANCED SLIDE FILM IS STILL IN PRODUCTION. What you have now is old stock if any is still on store shelves. No sense in following that lead, unless you're just interested in trying it, just to try it.
Fuji T64 *was* really nice, and takes that twilight blue light(see Kirk's post above) sky and makes it nice and saturated. I always found it a bit more "snappy" contrast-wise than Kodak's EPY(64t), which had a more neutral(IMO) palette.

Not a lot of options out there now like 10yrs ago film-wise, but what's still left can DEFINITELY do a TREMENDOUS job of getting you hi-def final results. If you're interested in committing to shooting some film for jobs, and want/need perspective control, the Fuji GX680 system, or a 4x5 camera w/ sheet film or a rollfilm back will give you the best options in terms of perspective control. And a 6x7/9->4x5 sheet when drum-scanned properly can yield HUGE files, that's if you "need" it. A DSLR w/ TS lenses these days seems to be the norm, and it seems to be more than enough quality-wise for most out there.

Sorry for the rambling on, but I'm an ardent film user, and love to see others "coming back"(if you can call it that, testing the waters maybe???) to film. Its quality is even better than when most moved to digital capture 5-10+ yrs ago. There are many reasons why film still has advantages, and for architectural/interior shooters, IMO , the most important one being: YOU DO NOT GET COLOR SHIFT when you do tilts/swings/movement(just some light falloff if you exceed the IC of your lens) like you do with digital, and with digital post, you basically have ENDLESS options. 4x5 cameras and lenses require(generally) less "technical bulls***" to worry about, and IMO, film MAKES THINGS LOOK BETTER. Not as clinically sharp, like many digital people want(think they need), but it has a "roughness" but still smooth quality that helps create something different. Also, moiré is basically ELIMINATED(even film can show it sometimes, sometimes some fabrics can optically create it, although its very rare in my case).

Shoot film while you have it easily available. If you think it'll make your work better, or help your work stand out amongst your competition, do it.

Have fun, first and foremost!

-Dan

Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: artobest on February 18, 2013, 05:41:21 AM

Shoot film while you have it easily available. If you think it'll make your work better, or help your work stand out amongst your competition, do it.

Have fun, first and foremost!


Well said.

Scott, to be honest, I think you've chosen the wrong forum to ask this question. People here get defensive and edgy when the subject of film comes up. APUG might be a better place to start.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Rob C on February 18, 2013, 09:46:59 AM
Well said.

Scott, to be honest, I think you've chosen the wrong forum to ask this question. People here get defensive and edgy when the subject of film comes up. APUG might be a better place to start.




Hmmm... can't say I've noticed that.

Anyway, I'd agree with the expressed opinion that the best way to get it together with film is to work with transparency.

As long as you have a good incident light/flash meter, set up a single shot including both some exterior as well as interior detail, and make detailed notes of the readings in different areas, tranny allows you to see far more rapidly than digital where you have blown it and where you are on the button. Why? Because if you look at the product on a proper, professional lightbox, you won't be abe to fake it or make mental compensation for what you have actually achieved.

Colour negative is simply too wide in latitude, and deciding on exposure correctness on a colour negative sitting in front of you requires genius, much more so than with b/w negatives!

Rob C
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: amsp on February 18, 2013, 10:30:11 AM
Like others have said already, Portra handles mixed lighting very well so that's definitely the easiest route, and if you want to use transparencies you'll have to do a lot of work to balance lights with gels etc. Also, apug.org is a great resource for anything film related.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Scott Hargis on February 18, 2013, 10:40:11 AM
Well said.

Scott, to be honest, I think you've chosen the wrong forum to ask this question. People here get defensive and edgy when the subject of film comes up. APUG might be a better place to start.

Well, so far I think I've gotten pretty earnest, honest, and most importantly GOOD advice. But I'll look at Apug.org, as well. I hadn't even heard of that before, so thanks!

Thanks for all the great replies, this is just exactly what I was hoping for. I'll post some results although it'll be a while, unfortunately. Lots of shooting coming up, not much time for experimenting.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Scott Hargis on February 18, 2013, 10:47:21 AM
I think the most interesting aspect of this for me is the question of chromes vs. negs. I had originally thought the answer was clear -- negatives give a higher dynamic range and allow for more latitude with scanning and re-touching.

But of course my goal here is not so much to produce an image that satisfies my client (I'll have delivered the digital images LONG before I ever get the film versions back from the lab), but instead it's to grow myself as a photographer. And in that respect, transparencies might well be the better way to go.

I already do most of my color correction in the field (my PA says that my gel organizer is "the most awesome piece of DIY gear" he's ever seen, haha!) so I'm not really daunted by that. And as Rob C says, just toss it on a light table and you know immediately if you've done it, or not. More to think about...

Thanks again, all. I really appreciate it.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: TMARK on February 19, 2013, 03:04:06 PM
Scott, I vote for neg. for one simple reason:  negative film looks different than digital.  chromes come too close for digital.  every photo in my book shot on chome looks just like well shot CCD digital.  Negative film just looks different.  whatever you do you will have a good time doing it.  Please post results!

T
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Scott Hargis on February 19, 2013, 08:18:24 PM
TMark, absolutely will post a few. But I'm away for the next few weeks, so it'll be a bit.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Scott Hargis on March 26, 2013, 06:59:27 PM
Well, here's an example. One (the darker one) is shot with a 5dMii and a 24TS -- it's a flat stitch. I'd estimate that it's about 70% ambient, 30% strobe. If memory serves, the strobes were gelled about 1/2 CTO. This is a workshop photo, so don't judge it too harshly; I've got way too much going on during workshops to make quality images!

The lighter one was shot on a Mamiya RB67 with a 50mm lens (note the barrel distortion: yikes!). Same lighting setup, and the film was Kodak E100. The color came back incredibly warm; I've imported this into Lightroom and messed around with the temp/tint sliders and also the camera calibration sliders in an attempt to find realistic color.

I'm also not sure these were made on the same day. I was in this place on three separate days, and built the same shot on all three days. I can't seem to find the date/time exif on the film shot, haha!

All I can say is -- I've got mad respect for anyone who can do this and keep the color consistent when shooting mixed lighting! I'll keep at it. I can see that this is going to make me much better at assessing color and correcting it in the field. I feel like my digital camera is much more forgiving, even without messing around with RAW adjustments. My digital "straight-out-of-camera" images don't show this level of color cast.

Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Ed Foster, Jr. on March 26, 2013, 07:36:15 PM
Scott,

Well, there is a nice "feel" to film images. Seeing these brought back memories of the days of extensively using chromes and the PIA we would go though balancing emulsions only to have to repeat the process for every new order of different batch numbers. At least 4 x 5's provided a starting point for corrections. Of course all the correcting in the world doesn't help much at times with mixed lighting and casts.

I do think you are right though, it helps ones in-camera digital thinking.

Ed
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Kirk Gittings on March 26, 2013, 09:16:07 PM
 
Quote
My digital "straight-out-of-camera" images don't show this level of color cast.

One of the reasons I wouldn't think of going back to film for my commercial AP.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: DanielStone on March 26, 2013, 11:46:47 PM
.....

The lighter one was shot on a Mamiya RB67 with a 50mm lens (note the barrel distortion: yikes!). Same lighting setup, and the film was Kodak E100. The color came back incredibly warm; I've imported this into Lightroom and messed around with the temp/tint sliders and also the camera calibration sliders in an attempt to find realistic color.

......

Just out of curiosity, how has your "E100" been stored, and which "E100.." emulsion were/are you shooting? There were a few:

E100G, E100GX, E100VS, E100SW, etc...

E100GX and E100VS were more warmtoned, especially E100GX, which was like E100G, but with an 81A-81B filter built into the film...

Also, chrome has a tendency to go magenta/reddish(especially in lower tones, like shadows) if expired a few years past-date. Especially if non-refrigerated or frozen during storage.

So don't go blaming the film just yet, there may be some "culprits" in the mix, just so we're all understood ;)

-Dan
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Scott Hargis on March 27, 2013, 11:12:56 AM
Busted! It was expired film. Stored in the fridge, but several years past it's date. And, it was E100VS. So I guess that explains the magenta/warm issues.

Stay tuned. That was the last of the expired film, and I've made it a priority to get at least one film capture per shoot this year. Really appreciate the comments here.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: amsp on March 27, 2013, 12:52:30 PM
Busted! It was expired film. Stored in the fridge, but several years past it's date. And, it was E100VS. So I guess that explains the magenta/warm issues.

Stay tuned. That was the last of the expired film, and I've made it a priority to get at least one film capture per shoot this year. Really appreciate the comments here.

That would do it, yes  ;D Also, the E100 series was known for being somewhat warmer, and E100VS the most warm and saturated of the bunch. Try Provia next time maybe?
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: DanielStone on March 27, 2013, 04:21:35 PM
I've found that E100G shot @ 80, and then PULLED 1/3 stop in processing gives a nice shoulder(highlights) vs 100asa ratings and "normal" developments. A little bit more information in the shadows(not much more, but just a bit), but the highlights(carefully metered mind you) are placed right where I want them on the exposure scale.

But since E100G isn't being made anymore :(, Provia 100F @ box speed if you want a bit more "pop" color-wise, or rating it @ 80, and them processing -1/3(just like the E100G) helps "mute" the colors down a tad.

Fuji can also go a bit blue w/ underexposure FYI, so having a slight warming filter(say an 81A) can help balance things out pre-digital post/scanning. It just makes things easier in the end IMO ;)

Mr. Collins explains it pretty well in this video here(starting about 1:35 in):

http://youtu.be/ekRet4v2LR8

best of luck!

-Dan
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Scott Hargis on March 27, 2013, 05:14:19 PM
Cool. I'll have a go at the video later tonight.

Provia was on the short list, but based on earlier comments I bought a pack of Fuji Reala, which is in the camera right now. I'll have some results from that soon. (I really need to be less precious about film. Takes forever to finish a roll. Maybe I should bracket a little more.)

Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: rethmeier on March 28, 2013, 12:06:54 AM
In my early film days, I shot  Kodak 64T  and used filters for colour balance.The reason for the 64T was the long exposure times.
Later I only used Fuji Provia and the Fuji 64 T stock. Towards the end of my film use I switched to using Fuji Color Neg 160 asa .

I really like the way it scanned and it also gave me excellent exposure latitude.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Jeffreytotaro on March 28, 2013, 08:42:27 AM
Just scanned this one quickly, but I didn't see a mention of Fuji NPS and NPL. Are they still available? Color Neg films that handled mixed lighting and especially fluorescent really well. Once these came out I virtually stopped shooting chrome on interiors unless it was all one light source. Sorry if this was already mentioned.....
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: DanielStone on March 28, 2013, 06:56:08 PM
Just scanned this one quickly, but I didn't see a mention of Fuji NPS and NPL. Are they still available? Color Neg films that handled mixed lighting and especially fluorescent really well. Once these came out I virtually stopped shooting chrome on interiors unless it was all one light source. Sorry if this was already mentioned.....

NPL is long-gone
NPS is now gone :(. Great film, but only available on the Japanese market it seems now (now called 160"NS")
http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=29&products_id=474

Here in the USA, Portra 160/400 is now the "standard" affair for color neg, Fuji for chrome(Kodak killed E-6 last year)

-Dan
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: aviv1887 on March 28, 2013, 11:14:28 PM
I used to shoot AD images on the Fuji 64T aswell because it was more forgiving in pushing and creating less color shifts/casts compared to Kodak.  I'm with Jeffrey that when I switched to NPS colorneg it would push certain problems with nasty color shifts out of the spectrum.  I just was asked to shoot something on 4x5 again not to long ago and couldn't believe all the flims and polaroids had completely disappeared.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Scott Hargis on April 10, 2013, 02:12:31 PM
A few results coming back....here's a side-by-side comparison. Film version is the 8x10 (with switchplates on the walls), shot with Fuji Reala on a Mamiya RB67 with a 50mm lens. I've corrected some barrel distortion, and rotated the image slightly to make up for my crappy field technique and cheap lens. And, I cooled down the white balance about 6 points in Lightroom. Otherwise, this is a straight-out-of-the-scanner image.

The digital version has the wider aspect ratio, and no switchplates (I cloned 'em out in Photoshop). It's 5dMii with a 24TS + 1.4 extender. This one has seen some LR adjustments and of course I took out the switchplates and any other blemishes I could find, for delivery to client.

We were flagging off the windows around the corner to the right but I see that I neglected to tell my PA to re-do that when I shot the film version, hence the extra glare on the right-end cabinetry. Under-cabinet fluorescents were gelled minus green, and there's light being added in the farthest recessed spaces, as well as some for the floor and foreground where the stools are.

So, Fuji Reala works pretty good! It was slightly too warm, but not bad. I recently acquired a Sinar F1, and I've been shooting 4x5 Fuji Provia all week, so in another week or 10 days I'll (hopefully) have some of those to put up. Assuming any of them come out, haha!
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: JoeKitchen on April 10, 2013, 02:35:11 PM
Looking at these makes me think of one really big obstacle, there are so many different types of light sources we use today in our buildings.  I would assume 10+ years ago, there was just incandescent or mercury vapor, so we only had those to worry about.  Now there are those plus a few more; I think for this reason film is just not an option anymore.  It just would take too long to gel every light to the same color. 
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Jeffreytotaro on April 10, 2013, 02:37:33 PM
Nice shots Scott!
Have to say I prefer the digital version. The Reala records the wood on the island too green. I actually like the light on the cabinets in the film shot though. Thanks for the comparison!
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Scott Hargis on April 10, 2013, 02:43:05 PM
Looking at these makes me think of one really big obstacle, there are so many different types of light sources we use today in our buildings.  I would assume 10+ years ago, there was just incandescent or mercury vapor, so we only had those to worry about.  Now there are those plus a few more; I think for this reason film is just not an option anymore.  It just would take too long to gel every light to the same color. 

Joe, we spend time on pretty  much every shoot gelling lights, or replacing the bulbs. But it's worth it to get good color! And not having to light a kitchen to match the exposure on a 100-watt pendant light is pretty nice, too...

Nice shots Scott!
Have to say I prefer the digital version. The Reala records the wood on the island too green. I actually like the light on the cabinets in the film shot though. Thanks for the comparison!


Thanks, Jeff, and I agree about the green in the shadows. Probably coming from camera right, where there are windows and foliage.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Scott Hargis on April 10, 2013, 04:43:00 PM
Two more side-by-sides. Didn't do as well on these. Still with the Mamiya + Fuji Reala, vs. the 5dMii w/ LR adjustments.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: amsp on April 10, 2013, 05:07:55 PM
I personally think the film shots look much more "alive" and inviting.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: fredjeang2 on April 10, 2013, 06:01:43 PM
pffff....side by side the difference is abysmal ! (in favor to film)

The same as going into a Haute-Couture salon vs Les gallerie Lafayette.

A Little bit of Paris couture lingerie, the real one, like film:  http://www.chantalthomass.fr/#/accueil

Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: FredBGG on April 10, 2013, 08:07:06 PM
I personally think the film shots look much more "alive" and inviting.

Film somehow has a more credible look, it's probably in part because we looked at film images for years and years.....
before digital came along.

Anyway goole images :

gregory crewdson

he shoots interiors with 8x10 film...
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Scott Hargis on April 11, 2013, 12:05:05 AM
haha! Not sure if this is a compliment to my film skills, or a knock on my digital images....I shall choose to be complimented...

I actually prefer the film version of the one with the lit fireplace. The others....maybe my sensibility is skewed towards digital since that's what I'm used to.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: fredjeang2 on April 11, 2013, 04:40:31 AM
Film somehow has a more credible look, it's probably in part because we looked at film images for years and years.....
before digital came along.

Anyway goole images :

gregory crewdson

he shoots interiors with 8x10 film...
Crewdson is great.
I've been following his work for years.

 He is in the high-end art gallery market.
In this niche market, the process
And film has a big value. More the
Imagery has a craft component in
All the chain, the better. The exception
Being digital instalations. The size
Of the image is very important too.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Rob C on April 11, 2013, 09:54:00 AM
Thanks for the link, Fred. I don't really like Ms Unwerth, never did - but I do like the girls she sometimes uses. She reminds me of a weaker, female version of Helmut. A lot of her b/white work used to feature years ago in French PHOTO which I used to buy...

I sometimes listen to digital radio, Gold, from London, and they are running advertisements from the UK Foreign Office warning people driving in Spain with UK number plates or in rental cars to be careful because thieves are stopping such cars by telling the drivers that they have a problem with the car. When they stop, they mug them. It used to be flavour of the month around the Ferry Terminal in Barcelona years and years ago: boys on bikes would puncture tyres at the lights - multi-laned roundabout there - and somebody has obviously learned the lessons and expanded the operational base. Happened to people I know. Coños.

Rob C
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Kirk Gittings on April 11, 2013, 10:48:58 AM
haha! Not sure if this is a compliment to my film skills, or a knock on my digital images....I shall choose to be complimented...

I actually prefer the film version of the one with the lit fireplace. The others....maybe my sensibility is skewed towards digital since that's what I'm used to.

Of course you could give any of those digital versions the "look" of film in post. I got good at this as I oftentimes was hired to reshoot some of my earlier projects, first shot in film, now only working commercially in digital. Wanting the complete set to have the same look anf feel I never found it that hard to tweak color and contrast to get the digital to look like earlier chromes (or color negs). Personally I find it a big advantage to have only shot film for 25 years and know what that looks and feels like when I am processing digital now-that is also true for my personal b&w work.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Rob C on April 11, 2013, 01:55:08 PM
Of course you could give any of those digital versions the "look" of film in post. I got good at this as I oftentimes was hired to reshoot some of my earlier projects, first shot in film, now only working commercially in digital. Wanting the complete set to have the same look anf feel I never found it that hard to tweak color and contrast to get the digital to look like earlier chromes (or color negs). Personally I find it a big advantage to have only shot film for 25 years and know what that looks and feels like when I am processing digital now-that is also true for my personal b&w work.


Without that background I would have been lost today.

Rob C
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: TMARK on April 11, 2013, 02:18:08 PM
Crewdon uses Phase backs now.

About Crewdson, man, I just hate his work.  Images are beautiful, but the thinking behind it is sophmoric, superficial Freudian analysis of hackneyed topics.  Yeah yeah, suburban American life feels like you are downing.  So here is his pic of a suburban American house filling with water, a housewife floating in it.  Deep.  heavy.  Calculated to sell.  Come on.  This world view was addressed in 65-70 years ago in novels and documentary photography. Its contrived and easily arived at.  The only thing he did that I liked was this series of small black and white fireflies.  It's honest work without the art world, or rather, art market, bull shit.  Its a shame that Mass MoCA adopted him as their star art photographer when better art makes the pages of W every month.

The kicker is that the intro to one of his books is written by Rick Moody, who is a bloodless boring author addressing upper middle class angst in the same manner as Mr. Crewdson.  
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: fredjeang2 on April 11, 2013, 04:26:05 PM
Crewdon uses Phase backs now.

About Crewdson, man, I just hate his work.  Images are beautiful, but the thinking behind it is sophmoric, superficial Freudian analysis of hackneyed topics.  Yeah yeah, suburban American life feels like you are downing.  So here is his pic of a suburban American house filling with water, a housewife floating in it.  Deep.  heavy.  Calculated to sell.  Come on.  This world view was addressed in Its contrived and easily arived at.  The only thing he did that I liked was this series of small black and white fireflies.  It's honest work without the art world, or rather, art market, bull shit.  Its a shame that Mass MoCA adopted him as their star art photographer when better art makes the pages of W every month.

The kicker is that the intro to one of his books is written by Rick Moody, who is a bloodless boring author addressing upper middle class angst in the same manner as Mr. Crewdson.  

Curious you hate his work.

I think he is the Hopper of photography. Well, yes, cliché certainly but very well processed at all stages and honest. I bite personaly.

Upper middle class angst, well yes; for who are the current art-gallery spheres to since decades? Some time ago I met Robert Longo at his representant in Madrid. And nuclear explosions etc etc...that's what I thought also: upper middle class angst. And there was this Little shy man (he is smaller tan me wich is difficult) on the corner with a big nuclear explosion.
The same who build the BS glass arquitecture of our big cities buy those.

They rule the world.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: Rob C on April 11, 2013, 04:36:23 PM
Curious you hate his work.

I think he is the Hopper of photography. Well, yes, cliché certainly but very well processed at all stages and honest. I bite personaly.

Upper middle class angst, well yes; for who are the current art-gallery spheres to since decades? Some time ago I met Robert Longo at his representant in Madrid. And nuclear explosions etc etc...that's what I thought also: upper middle class angst. And there was this Little shy man (he is smaller tan me wich is difficult) on the corner with a big nuclear explosion.
The same who build the BS glass arquitecture of our big cities buy those.

They rule the world.



I wish they'd buy my stuff, too.

;-(

Rob C
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: TMARK on April 11, 2013, 04:37:38 PM
EDITED

Upper middle class angst, well yes; for who are the current art-gallery spheres to since decades? Some time ago I met Robert Longo at his representant in Madrid. And nuclear explosions etc etc...that's what I thought also: upper middle class angst.
The same who build the BS glass arquitecture of our big cities.

They rule the world.

Fred, you put your finger on it.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: TMARK on April 11, 2013, 04:40:56 PM


I wish they'd buy my stuff, too.

;-(

Rob C

I sold them several buildings in Brooklyn that I bought at tax sales in the late 90's. 
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: fredjeang2 on April 11, 2013, 04:43:05 PM
superficial Freudian analysis of hackneyed topics

I totaly agree on this. But it's like Descartes and his "I think so I am" and the desastrous consequences of this that we still have.

 
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: MrSmith on April 11, 2013, 05:13:21 PM
Crewdon uses Phase backs now.



He probably doesn't pay for them either. I worked for a well known U.S based photo artist who used a phase back that was given to them for a project, there was a phase camera and lenses too (that never even got taken out of the box) Reminds me of a line in one of my favourite films:
"free to those who can afford it, very expensive to those that can't".

I'm surprised phase don't make more of the art use in their marketing, the guy in the lab coat and the insipid pics are starting to grate.
Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: amsp on April 11, 2013, 05:31:31 PM
He probably doesn't pay for them either. I worked for a well known U.S based photo artist who used a phase back that was given to them for a project, there was a phase camera and lenses too (that never even got taken out of the box) Reminds me of a line in one of my favourite films:
"free to those who can afford it, very expensive to those that can't".

I'm surprised phase don't make more of the art use in their marketing, the guy in the lab coat and the insipid pics are starting to grate.

Here's some nice use of sponsored Phase equipment that as far as I know they haven't used in any marketing either.

https://vimeo.com/63175278

Title: Re: Film for Interiors
Post by: FredBGG on April 11, 2013, 07:13:20 PM
I find Crewdsons's work very interesting.
While I love documentary photographic art I like his completely constructed work.

In a sense he is a sculpter... he starts with a big chunk of something. In his case a rather plain and boring intersection for example.
He then wonders around it and sees an image in his head.

Quote
I'm not behind the camera because I feel Like.....
I'm more concerned with an image that is in my mind.
Quote

In a certain sense photographers have an eyes and see an images and capture it. This fellow looks at something quite bland and closes his eyes
and the image is invented in his head and the production process starts.

I also find it interesting how he achieves an almost complete detachment and distance in the mood of a completely constructed and directed image.

I think he would make an extraordinary portrait photographer when he gets around to it....