Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: fredjeang on March 08, 2011, 02:50:58 pm
-
A question of Justinr in another thread about skin tones, that I realised I could not answer surely, made me think of posting this here.
It's a thread about skin tones before the post production stage.
It would be nice to have experienced MF users comments on the impact that lightning has on skin tonality.
Why differents skins seems to react differently under the same light source and what are the tricks to get a quite precise skin tone before post production?
What are the mistakes to avoid when 2 talents are in the same frame with very different skin tones and you want to unify? Is it only pp or there is something to do about it on the shooting stage.
Also, a BC recent post pointed the differences between camera brands on skin tone render.
The importance of the make-up artist is really to that point or not that much? (I had experiences with different make-up artists, some very experienced and could never decide if their apportations on that topic where or where not the most important)
Thanks
-
A question of Justinr in another thread about skin tones, that I realised I could not answer surely, made me think of posting this here.
It's a thread about skin tones before the post production stage.
It would be nice to have experienced MF users comments on the impact that lightning has on skin tonality.
Why differents skins seems to react differently under the same light source and what are the tricks to get a quite precise skin tone before post production?
What are the mistakes to avoid when 2 talents are in the same frame with very different skin tones and you want to unify? Is it only pp or there is something to do about it on the shooting stage.
Also, a BC recent post pointed the differences between camera brands on skin tone render.
The importance of the make-up artist is really to that point or not that much? (I had experiences with different make-up artists, some very experienced and could never decide if their apportations on that topic where or where not the most important)
Thanks
Hi, Fred...
Is it best to get the subjects to pose with no make-up and do and tidying up in post?
Dick
-
Hi, Fred...
Is it best to get the subjects to pose with no make-up and do and tidying up in post?
Dick
Hi Dick,
I don't know,
I've never worked in a studio without a talent not being heavily maked-up.
-
I'd also like to hear inputs regarding this. Nailing skin tone (pun most definitely not intended :) ) is one of the toughest challenges I have in post.
Is it best to get the subjects to pose with no make-up and do and tidying up in post?
Can't really imagine a situation where that would be desirable unless lack of make-up is the subject of the photographs (http://models.com/feed/?p=3747). Even the expensive models with flawless skin benefit from make-up, and doubt they'd even go in front of a camera without any. The shoots where models look "natural" generally require most extensive make-up of all.
-
Interesting point. From a video perspective there is no choice as everything has to be just so for the camera and particularly now everything is on HD. Having worked on a big location TV series in the UK for the past three years all shot in HD I have to say that it is far better to start with all the makeup on and do the minimum in post. Filming on HD means that taking the stills for PR are the same - full makeup and minimal post. We were very worried when we moved from standard video to HD how our presenter and contributors would look but it has not been a problem. Soft lighting and good camera skills have solved most problems.
-
After getting as far as possible with lighting and good models I suggest you check out capture ones skin tone consistency tool. It will gently (or aggressively depending on your preference) push the "off" skintones tirades your target skin tone. It will make two models match much closer and remove inconsistency from within each models skin (purplish hands, reddish nose, olive neck).
For phase one and leaf backs capture one provides "skin tone profiles" that you can change to in lieu of te standar flash and tungsten profiles.
You can then set capture one to apply these settings while you shoot so all previews/client-galleries etc already have the enhanced/corrected skintone. Of course the file is still a raw so you can change your mind later.
-
After getting as far as possible with lighting and good models I suggest you check out capture ones skin tone consistency tool. It will gently (or aggressively depending on your preference) push the "off" skintones tirades your target skin tone. It will make two models match much closer and remove inconsistency from within each models skin (purplish hands, reddish nose, olive neck).
For phase one and leaf backs capture one provides "skin tone profiles" that you can change to in lieu of te standar flash and tungsten profiles.
You can then set capture one to apply these settings while you shoot so all previews/client-galleries etc already have the enhanced/corrected skintone. Of course the file is still a raw so you can change your mind later.
I was about to mentionned how I find C1 very good on that aspect but as it was more a "before post" orientated thread I prefered not. But you are right, as you mention there is actually a setting in shooting to apply for viewing, so we're not yet on the pp stage, thanks for that precision Doug.
-
For me, it's always about seeing the models before the shoot if possible, checking to see if there are any irregularities in the skin, and working with the makeup artist to see how far we can get if we need to fix something. I once shot a girl who developed a deep purple bruise on her leg from falling on a runway a few days before I shot her. She was fair skinned but the makeup artist did a pretty damn good job on concealing the bruise:
http://www.terencepatrick.com/#/PORTFOLIO/EDITORIAL/6
I processed that in C1 v6 and the skin tone editor did help a little.
-
Fred,
I rely heavily on the MUA and then tweaks in post. A good MUA can just about cover any blemish and imperfection in skin, in terms of tone. Texture is a different matter which requires the healing brush. The trick to good skin is a good MUA who can really see colors. I found a really good MUA, then I married her and now she refuses to work in the biz. This was my mistake. In all seriousness just about every good, I mean real good, MUA is a colorist. They have to match and extend the model's natural skin tones, essentially emphasising what is already there, assuming a nautural catalogue/beauty kind of look.
I have the belief, and maybe the scientographers can confirm or deny, that strobes seem to pull out flush reds in caucasian faces. Is this an IR/UV issue? Unless an MUA uses pancake base (which is so ugly) these red tones surface on caucasian skin. Tungsten doesn't seem to have this problem, nor does HMI, but HMI has its own issues. Combine strobe with the color accurate, super sharp hi-res MFDB, and photographing (white) people becomes a REAL bitch, especially for beauty. I find that black and South Asian skin is much easier to get close to pleasing with minimal MU and post.
Tungsten really does look different. There is a roundness and a gloss on skin, which really shows in B&W film and in digital.
Remember the 1ds2? Everyone complained about the color, especially the reds n caucasian. I never had too much of a problem working with a good MUA. The main problem was that the 1ds2 posterized quickly if you didn't use lots and lots of fill, with strobes, which made correcting for pleasing skin a chore. The newer breed of DSLR's corrected this to a significant degree. The D3x is about perfect, the 1ds3/5s2 are great. I still prefer the Leaf backs when it comes to skin.
As to your question about two people with different skin, let the MUA equalize them if possible. Use extra fill, as this leads to a less stressed file for post. Or, to keep it real, grab a ProPack of Portra 400. It is really beautiful on skin out of the box, scans well too.
My favorite cameras for skin? In no particular order: Leica M8, Sony A900, Sony EX1, Leaf Aptus 22/54s/II 5, Fuji S5, MF/LF Kodak Portra NC, Fuji 160c, and a qualified "like" for the 1ds3, the 5D2, and D3x. As to older cameras, the D2x and D200 were pretty good, as wa sthe original 1ds, at least the later production runs.
-
Thanks for this precise and very informative post TMARK.
Ps: Agree about the Leaf backs. I don't know why but to me they have something special with skins, maybe the less digital of the digital backs if I might say.
-
For me also the MUA is worth her/his price in gold if she/he is good ;)
Also the foundations that are used will show up differently on camera, I've shot the same model we work with a lot once with another MUA and she looked noticably different, the MUA we work with for 90% of the time has the right stuff to be compatible with our gear I always say ;)
The leaf is without a doubt a gem with skin tones and flash, de 5dmkII is nice but looks more "plasticy" if you want, but not bad.
I also use the following procedure at the moment and must say that helps a lot.
I build a camera profile with the color checker passport from xrite which I use for the same modifiers. Every time we change sets or clothing or backgrounds I will take one shot with the data color spyderchckr.
This builds the color profile within acr.
It seems tedious to use two color checkers until you realize that one builds a camera profile and the other one does the overall color in acr.
It's just a shame that both only support dcp profiling so using them in capture one is not possible, I hope one of them changes that quickly.
-
Kodak Portra, EI at 100asa and then we're talking beautiful skin tones.....
-
Yes that's true. I like very much also the gigabit film. I thought seriously on that over and over again as you look at this old Aston Martin, and yes... but indeed I do not have the time now.
-
Wow. Lots of great questions here. Some rather difficult to verbalize.
In my beauty work (and often even in my fashion/editorial work) my goal is to maximize the tonal data in the skin. This means lighting the skin with the most amount of contrast that I can create. Usually this means a beauty dish gridded pretty close to the subject (3 feet or so). Gotta be careful not to overcook the highlights though. But with that working distance I can create good light fall-off in the shadows. Of course sometimes I use fill light and even a rim-light.
In post-processing I'm usually exaggerating the curves where it affects the skin tones the most to build good contrast and tonal range (particularly if the final product is in B&W).
Different skin tones respond differently to light because that's how light/dark works. Dark skin doesn't much reflect light but does a great job reflecting specular highlights (not sure if it's the oils or just the way the skin is made) and fair-skin reflects light everywhere blindingly :)
Your question however is a tough one to answer. Admittedly I've never shot 2 models that had opposite skin tones in the same frame... much less with a single lighting setup. It would be very difficult (if not impossible) to extrapolate the same level of information in the skin tones in a single frame lit by a single setup. You basically have to compromise (badly) to first of all expose somewhere in the middle where it doesn't blow highlights on your fair-skinned subject and yet expose your dark-skinned subject enough at the same time. Lighting-wise you have to use a light hard enough to specularly light your dark-skinned subject while not overcooking your fair-skinned subject. It's quite the conundrum. I think it's a lose-lose situation. Better to light them separately and stitch later.
From my experience working with MUA's, the good ones are great at accentuating the natural highlights and shadows as I will later light the subject. Studio lighting is very different from red-carpet/event lighting and therefore the makeup is very different. A highly skilled makeup artist will contour the face and allow the highlights and shadows to all "make sense". That's what I rely in most for make up. If the highlights and shadows aren't where they're supposed to be (assuming the lighting is right), then it's going to make for a tough retouching session later on!
I honestly don't think the camera brand has that much impact on skin tonalities. While I use a Nikon, I find that Canon's natural out-of-the-box skin tones are more pleasant to the eye. But to me it's not something that I can't emulate in post-processing anyway. I don't think there's a tremendous difference in tonal response or spectral response between Nikon/Canon... at least it's not like the difference between Provia and Portra! I find that Canon's natural color cast is simply better for skin tones whereas Nikons render a little on the green side of things. At least with a simple comparison of my Nikon D3 and a few 5DMII's.
Now with MFDB that's where skin tones really shine. Regardless of Phamiya or Fujiblad. Bit depth and dynamic range are simply better on the MFDB and really allow skin tones to shine, for lack of a better expression :)
Hell, that partially answers the question of 2 different skin types. Use the widest dynamic range capture device you have. Because you'll need it in order to capture the range for both subjects. In post I almost suggest you process them independently... in which case I think you should just shoot them individually and composite in-post.
But beauty work is equal parts skin+makeup+lighting+retouching. It all has to work for the picture to really come together.
Below is a rare look at an unretouched image shot on the H3DII-31. Literally straight out-of-the-box. Just resized for web and put on flickr.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5052/5517067346_6919a3ea16_z.jpg)
I'm not sure what I'm going to do with it because the client hasn't selected the final images. It'll probably look like this when I'm done. (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5513329004_ef68a40075_z.jpg)
________________________________________
Charles Lucima
Las Vegas Fashion/Editorial Workshop 4/16-17! (http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=733533)
-
Thank you all.
The difficulty I have with understanding the MUA is that in my assitance experience at this level, the number of things to learn and get experience on is such that I missed crucial points. In fact I pretty much concentrated on the imagery from the photographer point of view and the relation with the talent, client etc...dedicated time on the motion aspect and it's been long hours on NLE etc...
At that time, I recognize myself unable to detect why a MUA is a great one or an average one. It's not yet clear in my mind what was the part of the lightning and what indeed a great MUA contribution part is and how to know it.
We never had twice the same MUA wich makes it even more difficult to establish an exchange with the person. Once the shooting ended they generaly live the plateau before us.
My boss several time pointed to me "this guy is a top MUA", mostly curiously from Germany. One works with Peter Lindberg, a french guy that name I forgot but could ask. But when I tried to ask details on why this is a top MUA, the answers where laconic and confused me even more.
Of course I've been trying to observe the make-up stage but it does not mean that I understand what they are doing and if they are doing it right or very good.
It's somewhere frustrating because I obviously feel the important role of the MUA but I can't "conceptualize it".
I have no idea wich MUA I would work with on my own and what are the criterious I should look at. Morality, I might start with a MUA simply because there is no "personality conflict", or good vibes if you wich. But that's not very profesional at all...
ps: I'm totally aware anyway that a top MUA would not work with me until I have "a name", they only work with big fishes and their caches reflect their reputations.
-
I have no idea wich MUA I would work with on my own and what are the criterious I should look at. Morality, I might start with a MUA simply because there is no "personality conflict", or good vibes if you wich. But that's not very profesional at all...
Um, actually I think that is quite professional, and a very important consideration. Of course, they also have to be good at what they do. I don't work with MUA's (I shoot still-life and architecture) but I have always found that working with people with whom I have a rapport makes things easier and much more enjoyable. They may see things as I do, or maybe see things differently, or are good positive company to have around, etc. But there has to be some "connection", or else why work with them?
It sounds like everyone on your shoots are too busy working on the shoot itself to chat, or maybe they just don't want to share, or maybe they can't articulate what you want to know, or maybe your timing is wrong ... who knows? Have you tried to ask these questions on an off day, or in a quiet moment? For a little while now I have been trying to build my own team of stylists/retouchers etc. It can be hit and miss, although referrals from my peers helps a lot. But by doing this I am slowly working out what works for me personally. I had to start working some of this stuff out for myself and develop my own opinions, or else I was always going to be at the mercy of the "more experienced" stylist/retoucher etc.
Even just looking at magazines helps a lot. My favourites for fashion are Vogue Italia and Purple.
I'm totally aware anyway that a top MUA would not work with me until I have "a name", they only work with big fishes and their caches reflect their reputations.
Someone once told me that we have to "rise" with our contemporaries (i.e. others who are at roughly the same stage in their careers), while at the same time aiming higher and trying to work with more established people. Of course, if everyone you know is starting out then this is a slightly circular argument. However, jobs and referrals tend to feedback between groups of people, plus you can also do test shoots, compare notes etc. with/for each other. I include all kinds of professions and trades in this: photographers, MUA's, stylists, retouchers, graphic designers, architects, set builders etc.
My two cents. I'm at the start of my journey too, so what do I know? Maybe one day I'll let you know how all this theory worked out for me in real-life ... ;)
-
snip
ps: I'm totally aware anyway that a top MUA would not work with me until I have "a name",
snip
Fred,
You probably know all of this, so excuse me if I sound presumptuous.
We build a name by the style/type of business we run.
Everyone thinks it's because you shoot for this client or that, this big magazine instead of a smaller one but in reality it's much more that just a logo.
All too often I hear photographers ask hair/makeup/styling artists to work at a reduced rate for testing, or editorial, then the first big gig they get, they either capitulate to the client or celebrity and hire whoever is requested, or a better price, forgetting the people that helped get them there.
The Make Up Artist I've worked with almost exclusively the last few years is based on the West Coast and since we work everywhere, this week on the East Coast, but I have her here on set. Since it is now a bottom line business I guess you could say it's my studio's money that pays the travel, but it's not a matter of the bottom line, because I wouldn't have that bottom line if I couldn't always surround myself with quality people.
Our crew for this week's shoot comes from everywhere. First assistant West Coast, 2nd assistant East Coast, Makeup and Hair West Coast, Stylist Miami, Associate producer Paris, Assistant Stylist East Coast, etc. etc.
Our next project is on the West Coast and it will be the same team, if all their schedules are clear.
Once again since we work off the bottom line and since today's world is very budget conscience it's not easy to bite the bullet and pay out of pocket to move that many people on your own dime, but in a way it's the most cost effective thing I do, because the clients feel the chemistry and every project I get a wonderful note from a client thanking the crew. It makes me proud and always leads to more work.
I know this is difficult to do starting out, but we have a saying in Texas you dance with who brung ya and if you want loyalty from a client, it's best to show the same loyalty to the crew.
Also when working on your portfolio or editorial I believe it's important to deliver to the on set artists the same way you do a client. If they need a certain image or multiple images for their portfolio retouch and deliver it to them on time in the format they need. They need samples, we all need samples and the golden rules apply that you treat others the way you want to be treated. It always pays off.
Even with equipment. I've only owned the RED a few months and it's payed for itself and over. Maybe not exactly in direct billing, but the last few projects clients have said whoa, we just needed some video not a RED and I've said don't worry I own the camera you'll only be billed for a regular video camera, but since I own it we might as well use the best camera we can for your project.
Last night we had the crew dinner and I was looking around the table at all the bright, talented, energetic people I work with. I listen to them talk and every now and then about the horror stories where they've been shorted on pay or taken advantage of and I always think we have such a strange industry.
If I was in the goggle business, the wall street business, the insurance business, I'd be clamoring to get such great people to move my business forward, but in contrast the arts, especially the image making arts is the only industry I know that looks at those eager people and uses it to sometimes to take advantage of them, rather than reward them.
It makes no sense, but anyway, my point is if you want to build a reputation and have great people, then treat them great and the word gets out fast.
Believe it or not, especially in today's world client's do notice investment, whether it be in equipment, studios and most importantly people. If they see they're surrounded by the best you can afford, they appreciate it.
But back to skin tones.
I love the look of the RED with the X sensor.
(http://ishotit.com/paris_red_one_face.jpg)
This is just a reduced screen shot from a daily, shot with a RED ONE and LED lights at 2,000 iso.
For stills I believe the original aptus 22 under the right conditions and processed in cs2 made a great file that was very film like and moveable
(http://ishotit.com/leaf_skin.jpg)
Obviously this image has been moved around a lot
(http://ishotit.com/leaf_skin2.jpg)
This one not as much.
The only drawback with the Leaf file was light white translucent skin, hard flash. Got a lot of pink/red casting in the transitional areas, but Leaf when they have everything working right, could make a great file.
I'd love to find the time to test the Hasselblad 40. I hear it also is great for skin and goes to higher iso well.
IMO
BC
-
BC, I rarely saw you as enthousiastic about one gear (the Red), it's like a kid with his best toy and it's nice to see from someone who's been in the business for awhile now because I'm from the ones who beleive that when the inner child shows up there is a direct conection with pure creativity. C.Barrett is also enthousiastic so those are strong indicators for us that the Red is really something special.
Mmmm....
I totally agree, your post and other posts here also confirm what I feel and saw.
The importance of the loyalty with people you work with.
I have to be carefull because of the Google life memory so you can read in between lines, but the troubles top photographer(s) experience in the industry here in Spain are due mainly to this. Not investing on people, not being faithful to the crew but practising the unstable crews politics and using people and in the end the price to pay is really high.
Not only that, all those people know each other, they talk and talk a lot. I've seen things from behind the scene, in the backstages of business and those things (sordid mostly) are probably the most valuable teachings I received undirectly.
We can't do that for a long time and even clients end to realise that something's wrong.
It's in fact a very small world. Very small.
I agree with all your lines without exception.
Rewarding is the key, whatever the level is. This is the way I see the things and the spirit I'd like to keep whatever I'm doing. Reward and you will be rewarded. Treating people exactly the way you'd like them to treat yourself.
For example, I never had delays in payement and beleive me, many experience that. I never do, actually I had to ask a few times to be paid before and immediatly it was accepted. I know that this comes because of my attitude. When tough times are coming, I see that people respond, and I see that the ones who where selfish end in their bloody s....
I'm freeing progresively myself from the Canon. I never felt those cameras properly. They are cheap and fantastic but in my hands it always felt somewhere "not right". (not the IQ, the feeling).
I know this is stupid maybe, but I can't help in the end thinking that those lead to a path I'm more and more convinced is not the best, at least for me.
Yes I've been barking (and still do) because of the tether dependance of other systems but in the end I come to a point that when I see a 5D movie file I feel immediatly a sort of indigestion.
I got my ideal gear configuration in mind right now. All light and portable: Red Epic for movies + Alpa TC kind of and Leaf or Hassy back. Don't want anything more. I rather rent a dslr than a MF back now and I don't even want to hear about those MF camera bodies that I find completly outdated, big and heavy.
At least a tech camera is somewhere "organic" or "noble" and if small, light. I want to avoid as much as possible the fast and honestly, I don't really know what more buttons I need than isos, shutter speed and aperture. Life could be really simple. When I enter a dslr menu I just feel that something's wrong there. Another indigestion.
I saw enough bad (really bad) retouching because of the sacro-saint budgets and rush deliveries for works that in the end are not rewarding neither rewarded. All that fast food culture is really pissing me of to a point that if I can be a craftman in the industry I would have acheived my goal, no matter if I'm known or not, just making images in a certain spirit because I think that the path matters as much if not more than the results.
I had a few experiences with the H40. The camera is "weired", I can't say I like the feeling neither I don't. The back is fantastic and what caught my attention is the incredible amount of room in post production.
It handles anything. The skin tones are "exactly where they should be" (should, being very personal). In terms of higher isos, I was not convinced in that sense that I find Leaf in that aspect having a Nice grain but the Blad in higher isos did not impressed me. Don't get me wrong, it's very good but I like more the Leaf style at 800.
To me the Leaf Aptus has something in higher iso that is maybe more grainy but the way the grain is distributed is nice, it looks natural. Phase and Hasselblad look to my eyes sort of "processed". (I konw many will disagree with this but if you look carefully those are not dots any more but short lines). The very latest backs, I don't know.
But I'm really looking to the Red. If I have a Red I can free myself from the 5D, (where is the little yellow face with the sunglasses?), ah, here it is 8) wich would be a great step in my gear cleaning
Ps: Cooter, Pic number 2 is a sexbomb and pic number 3 reminds me a lot of Lise Sarfati tones and atmosphere, I like very much this kind of refinement. Pic 3 is my fav.
-
Where to begin. This is turning into a very interesting and broad thread. I've just recently moved up by becoming part of a newly created team (individual stuff up till now) and its very comforting to hear that such loyalty and dedication from everyone does exist. So far so good.
I do not consider someone who uses people to be a true photographer/whatever their job is as a real artist because then there is motive beyond making the very best images possible. Its possible to be strict and loyal at the same time. I wonder how more experienced people in the industry see this.
Fred, I wouldnt consider your view towards Canon to be stupid. I get exactly the same thing. It got so bad that I sold all but one of my lenses, found a good deal on a used Aptus22, stuck it on a RZ67 and its been great ever since. No menus, no gimmicks, just manual mode, incredibly good lenses and no shortcuts. Do it properly and the angels sing, or start beating yourself. Use what works for you. Not listening to this feeling would be stupid, IMO.
As for the aptus and skin tones, this might be slightly off topic, but I still find it interesting. Here is a sample of a shot where the strobes didnt fire. It was lit only by the modeling lamp and ended up being something like 7 stops underexposed. But I decided to play around with the file in C1 and ended up with something, given the content and mood, which I find pleasing.
Marko
-
I like nice cameras, but I wouldn't slag the 5d2 too much because there is nothing and I really mean this . . . nothing, in my body of work, motion or still I could not have shot 99.999% as well with the 5d2.
In fact I firmly believe it's an equal step in image quality between the 1ds3 and my p30+.
Not just price, it's an amazing camera and for motion you can put it in places and do things with it you just could never do before.
It has some issues, alaising, (which can be fixed), some color issues, but overall I understand why Hollywood is embracing it and the 7d. Both are amazing cameras.
It's not perfect but . . .
I own and shoot other cameras because I want to . . . it's an elective . . . but not because I have to.
(http://ishotit.com/PARIS_FACE.jpg)
(http://ishotit.com/PARIS_HALLWAY2.jpg)
5d2
IMO
BC
-
Yes, the 5d2 is a fantastic tool. I'm still surprised how Canon managed to deliver such a complete camera for 2000euros. Despite my Canon's indigestion, I can only recognize that fact. But those menus features...come on! 90% of the electronic gadgetery is useless but then, the video menu itself is a mess and too basic IMO. The 7D is probably more advanced in video but really the stills are "dirty" (over prosseded) compared to the 5D. I really don't like the 7D stills. When a camera maker will build a menu with the most relevant option directly accessible without having to play with wheels? Oh, and a user manual that does not look like Boeing 747 cockpit check, with just 10 pages?
What also surprises me is Hollywood, because why would they make the 5D2 or the 7D their battleships if there are some more powerfull 4K Raw options like Red, Arri, Thomson etc... that for this industry are cheap cameras, not as cheap as the Canon but still cheap for big structures. I really don't get the point because we know today that the standart HD are going to evolved to more res. And the raw option is not a gadget. If some indies are currently using the Red, why Hollywood is so interested in the 5D? :o
-
When it comes to stills and the 5d2, I agree. Canon has a decent system with many uses. You can shoot pretty much anything with great results. And plenty of people do just that. Despite preferring the RZ system I still keep a basic Canon set for those situations where the RZ is inappropriate. I have also spent a lot of time wondering exactly WHY I dislike the Canon for my type of work. Even the rational explanations all degenerate down to the conclusion that its just a personality thing. The bottom line is that I feel more comfortable shooting the RZ. And I think this shows in the photos.
This as well as what I've heard from others leads me to think that the simple answer to why anyone with a choice uses system A instead of B, is simply because they can.
'can' here covers A LOT of territory. technical, personal, etc.
About motion I cannot comment.
-
What also surprises me is Hollywood, because why would they make the 5D2 or the 7D their battleships if there are some more powerfull 4K Raw options like Red, Arri, Thomson etc...
Sorry for the long response.
The thing about all professional production, still or moving everything is now time and budget compressed.
Time eats money either on set or in post production.
Regardless of what you read in the PR pages, everyone in every genre of image creation is coming in at less money, offering more content.
Small production is the goal and the one thing the 5d2's type of cameras offer is excellent low light capabilities. In fact in motion it is somewhat amazing how little light it takes to craft a scene with a 5d2.
The files aren't deep like the RED but the cameras work in almost any space, require small heads and supports, lenses, even dedicated lenses are cheap.
Hollywood likes the idea of smaller crews and faster production. They pay the talent less and for episodic cable TV they can attract bigger names as long as they don't tie up their schedule for 7 months.
Stills of motion, it's all the same right now. Everybody that writes the check wants faster turnaround, less production costs and more content because they believe the attention span of the viewer is fragmented and short.
(they're probably right).
Remember that few productions are ever projected at 4k, fewer systems even accept 4k files for coloring and editing, so right now we're talking about knocking everything down anyway.
It's the same with stills and when your talking camera costs, shooting a "low" budget film like the Kings Speech at 15 million makes the costs of a RED look cheap, multiply that by multiple cameras and your talking about rentals of $10,000 a week instead of 3 and with higher powered lights,
the costs is just goes up exponentially. Slow the production down by weeks or a month using traditional lighting and that 15 million can easily go to 18. 3 million is a lot of money.
Now I'm not against using the best possible tools available, but we're living in a changed world and margins are tight, probably will get tighter before they go higher.
When it comes to skin tones, either in stills or motion, the ability to work with low powered leds and a few small hmi's up the production speed 4 fold, especially those leds that allow on boards kelvin changes.
What does this have to do with skin tones. Well, the closer you are out of camera, the less time you spend in post and though I love the RED raw file, even using a RED Rocket for processing, it's still another long step in the chain.
At least the RED shoots 4 QT movies with the raw, though the downside is they lose their color settings and noise reduction.
Wanna scare a client? Show them a out of camera RED QT movies with yellow/green faces.
Regardless, at the write the check level it's all about money, more today than any other time.
We just finished a project where each scene was shot on white, shot on white with props, shot in room sets, in three different orientations and all shot on video.
I wanted to use my Contax for the stills, but going from flash on white to HMI and LED's on the room sets just made switching cameras something that really wasn't in the time parameters.
I did use the RED for all the motion, because I own it and it is the 600lb gorilla in the room. Clients notice the RED and as silly as that seems, I think it's appreciated that we brought in a sledge hammer to swat a fly, but I could have shot the motion with the 5d2 also.
The RED does have 4 audio channels and that makes a big difference when compared to the dslrs. Anyway. . .
The good thing about the RED file is in some instances I can use a few of the motion frames for stills. In some instances that is just another added bonus and today you have to give much, much more than expected.
But to answer your main question, Hollywood does not spend money just to spend money, because there are a lot of fingers in the pie. Production companies, actors, actor's production companies, studios, distributors, insurance, promotion, managers the list is huge and once you split it all up, even saving $10,000 a week adds up.
But who here would not like a camera that shot the perfect color out of camera, with the perfect look, the specific style? Time is money and saying we'll fix it in post, still or motion makes everyone shiver a little.
Since this is the medium format section, the thing that has always somewhat marginalized medium format is the focus speed, iso, lcd, computer dependency and costs.
LCD has been addressed by one company, iso is still somewhat marginal, especially when with motion we're going to small wattage continuous lights and post production usually is ramped up with larger files and specific processors.
As I always buy as much equipment as possible, I weigh what I will spend on each project, or each year and now the only thing I'm looking at is more hmi's more led lights. It's becoming a continuous light world and whether we like it or not we're all asked to do more.
As far as cameras, I'd probably buy an Epic today, or another RED for the second camera and backup just because I think it's worth it, though my Canons will still be used until the paint wears off. The only still camera that gets my attention is the chrome hasselblad and just because it's noticeable in the room. I know that sounds silly, but it is different, expensive looking and carries a traditional high end name.
IMO
BC
-
As I always buy as much equipment as possible, I weigh what I will spend on each project, or each year and now the only thing I'm looking at is more hmi's more led lights. It's becoming a continuous light world and whether we like it or not we're all asked to do more.
As far as cameras, I'd probably buy an Epic today, or another RED for the second camera and backup just because I think it's worth it, though my Canons will still be used until the paint wears off. The only still camera that gets my attention is the chrome hasselblad and just because it's noticeable in the room. I know that sounds silly, but it is different, expensive looking and carries a traditional high end name.
IMO
BC
Okay, if you’ll excuse the butting-in of an older generation.
Continuous light world: most of my life it was either available daylight outdoors or studio flash inside. Recent, repeated experience of using the D700 at auto ISO in available darkness inside a bar has transformed what would once have been attempted by bouncing a couple of units off walls and ceiling. It’s made photography a pleasant experience in what would once have been nightmare scenarios. And that’s just using what’s there.
On the chrome Hasselblad: if you refer to the 500 models, I’m with you on both the implied, intrinsic beauty of the things and also the respect that such stuff creates. I’ve mentioned here before that even if I was doing totally Nikon work, I’d still have a couple of ‘blads and lenses ‘casually’ on display on a table or shelf in the studio... did no harm whatsoever. Perhaps that’s a reason why I should have bought an M too: studio jewellery.
Or, accepting we’re probably all whores anyway, would that have made me the overpainted tart?
Rob C
-
There are all these arguments over what camera is best (not just on this forum but others), though in reality we all know that Cameras are like cars. A Ford will get you there just as well as a Ferarri and like a 5d2 the Ford will do more, but that doesn't mean if you can afford it and want it you shouldn't enjoy a Ferarri.
Same with skin tones. Any camera can be made to look like any camera if your proficient in post production, whether it be in the camera settings, digital processor, or photoshop.
Actually the great film look equalizer is Raw Developer by irident.
http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper.html
Fred,
What goes around comes around.
Right now everyone is looking at ways of cutting costs, but usually inexpensive production shot on the cheap doesn't motivate or hold anyone's attention regardless if it's entertainment or advertising.
Also the carrier is irrelevant, whether it's paper or electronic, or the screen is 4" or 40.
It takes a lot of resource to produce good content and things are turning around. It's not 2007 and I'm told by the people that are suppose to know that 2013 is the year it comes roaring back.
The good ones that have kept their powder dry will be around in 2013, the ones that weren't prepared or undercut every job might not.
It's more than just money, or talent it's how you run your business, do you cover yourself with insurance, do you continue with a good reputation. Those are the elements that allow you to sustain in the long term.
It all runs in cycles.
IMO
BC
-
There are all these arguments over what camera is best (not just on this forum but others), though in reality we all know that Cameras are like cars. A Ford will get you there just as well as a Ferarri and like a 5d2 the Ford will do more, but that doesn't mean if you can afford it and want it you shouldn't enjoy a Ferarri.
Same with skin tones. Any camera can be made to look like any camera if your proficient in post production, whether it be in the camera settings, digital processor, or photoshop.
Actually the great film look equalizer is Raw Developer by irident.
http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper.html
Fred,
What goes around comes around.
Right now everyone is looking at ways of cutting costs, but usually inexpensive production shot on the cheap doesn't motivate or hold anyone's attention regardless if it's entertainment or advertising.
Also the carrier is irrelevant, whether it's paper or electronic, or the screen is 4" or 40.
It takes a lot of resource to produce good content and things are turning around. It's not 2007 and I'm told by the people that are suppose to know that 2013 is the year it comes roaring back.
The good ones that have kept their powder dry will be around in 2013, the ones that weren't prepared or undercut every job might not.
It's more than just money, or talent it's how you run your business, do you cover yourself with insurance, do you continue with a good reputation. Those are the elements that allow you to sustain in the long term.
It all runs in cycles.
IMO
BC
I think you're right.
Thanks for the link of rawdevelopper
I also had the same data from some very well informed people that 2013-2014 should be a come back to "reason" or the beginning of a good cycle.
Cheers.
Edit: more I think about it, more I indeed think that you are right about the 5D-7D strengh: it is the low light capabilities that has direct impact on the lightning and so budgets.
-
Survival.
It isn't really a new development; for as long as I can remember there have been those who started out with nothing or with a lot of 'friendly' investment or even with independent wealth.
None of these categories has held a secured future. Survival depended as much on personality as it did on technique or money, and some of those that I knew personally had little eye but lots of chutzpah and were muy enchufados in the immediate business community around them. To me that's the killer quality: connection.
Rob C
-
There are all these arguments over what camera is best (not just on this forum but others), though in reality we all know that Cameras are like cars. A Ford will get you there just as well as a Ferarri and like a 5d2 the Ford will do more, but that doesn't mean if you can afford it and want it you shouldn't enjoy a Ferarri.
Same with skin tones. Any camera can be made to look like any camera if your proficient in post production, whether it be in the camera settings, digital processor, or photoshop.
Actually the great film look equalizer is Raw Developer by irident.
http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper.html
Fred,
What goes around comes around.
Right now everyone is looking at ways of cutting costs, but usually inexpensive production shot on the cheap doesn't motivate or hold anyone's attention regardless if it's entertainment or advertising.
Also the carrier is irrelevant, whether it's paper or electronic, or the screen is 4" or 40.
It takes a lot of resource to produce good content and things are turning around. It's not 2007 and I'm told by the people that are suppose to know that 2013 is the year it comes roaring back.
The good ones that have kept their powder dry will be around in 2013, the ones that weren't prepared or undercut every job might not.
It's more than just money, or talent it's how you run your business, do you cover yourself with insurance, do you continue with a good reputation. Those are the elements that allow you to sustain in the long term.
It all runs in cycles.
IMO
BC
This pontificating is making me ill... where did I put the mouth bleach