anyone have any experience in bleach bypassing? any exposure compensations? what's the approximate latitude? i know it's much smaller, but i'm looking for an exact (approximate) number in stops. thank you for any help.
your lattitude will depend on your film stock asa I can help you out more if I knew which asa you are shooting with, if you have never done this before mind i remind its a very expansive process plus you will be altering with the negative once done you will not be able to alter and make changes.
Sorry I was not much of help, but if there are any further questions I will be glad to help.
Are you talking about a bleach bypass to the negative or print?
To the negative you get highlights that go white faster, desaturation, an increase in grain, and higher contrast.
With the print you get more "crushed" blacks, desaturation, more contrast, and a little more grain.
There are also processes that will let you do parshall bleach bypass.
Generally when doing b.b. to the negative you want to underexpose about one stop, and possibly fill a little more to protect your highlights (some).
A good example of this approach is Minority Report.
A good example of b.b. to the print is Northfork, shot by David Mullen, ASC (congrats David!)
He did a partial b.b. to the print, and flashed the negative to counteract the crushed blacks.
When you are doing any lab work like this, it is absolutely critical that you test. Test your ratios, your wardrobe, your makeup, etc.
A b.b. to the negative can in fact be undone. Also, the cost of doing b.b. to the negative is less than to the print (because each print needs the additional expense). I suppose you could b.b. the interpositive, but have not tested this approach.
hey kevin, did david really use bleachbypass in this one?
I thought that beside the choice of stock he mainly achieved this look with flashing the film prior to exposure (some kind of arriflash inside the camera that flashes the film before it passes the gate), therefore smashing his contrast and getting this ghost like feel to the overall tint of the celluloid. If he combined flashing with blechbypass then I think we can call him a really brave man. i wouldn't dare to...
Yes, he used the Panaflasher. Followed by a bleach bypass to the print. On top of all that he shot his tungsten stock with daylight sources with no 85 correction. Then in timing he timed it out, mostly. What happens is because the red layer of the film was underexposed (because the image was nearly all blue) when you add the red back, you get this almost white skin tones. It takes most of the red out of the skin (and the scene).
Pretty much the flashing was to lower the contrast, and then the bleach bypass was to add it back in.
Yes, I did a full bleach bypass to the print but I used the lowest contrast print stock I could find, short of using telecine low-con print stock. I used the old Fuji (3519?) which was the equivalent of the obsolete Kodak print stock that preceded Vision 2383 (5386 I believe). Now Fuji 3519 is obsolete...
Basically I wanted the loss of color saturation that the bleach bypass causes to the print but close to a normal contrast, so I counteracted the increase in contrast by using every technique there was except pull-processing the negative. I flashed the negative, used smoke and diffusion, etc.
If you bleach bypass the negative, you increase the density quite a bit, as if you had overexposed the negative. Most people compensate by underexposing a full stop (unless they want more burned-out highlights.)
There is no exposure compensation needed if you do the bleach bypass to the print.
Welcome the SF forums...
Northfork is a beautiful film.
Have you been involved in any other films, past, present, or current that allowed you to achieve the same measure of visual depth you created in Northfork?
I'd say that "Northfork" is the best-looking thing I've shot and one with the fewest compromises showing because of the budget. "Twin Falls Idaho", which had a third of that budget, would come second.
A lot of the movies I've shot have either been too compromised by budget, time, and/or a lack of commitment to good cinematography by higher ups -- or they simply have not been visual scripts nor required the eye-catching visuals of "Northfork." Some have been well-photographed but the script is lacking enough that some people can't see beyond that (nor perhaps should they...) I've also taken on projects that I knew I would have little control visually over, partially as an experiment to see if I could shoot "from the hip" with almost no crew nor lighting equipment. The results have varied.
What I liked about shooting "Northfork" is that I could incorporate some of the classical, stately approach of older movies -- like a John Ford western, let's say. I'm a big fan of that approach and don't get to do it enough. Everyone wants "hip" cinematography these days and at heart, I'm a classicist.
Too often one is asked to give a visual style to unvisual material, and the results are usually less than impressive because the look doesn't arise organically from the material but is imposed from the outside.
I just finished shooting an indie crime-drama called "Shadowboxer" in Philadelphia, using the same anamorphic lenses I used on "Northfork", and there are some nice shots in there that I am proud of, so I'm looking forward to seeing how it all cuts together.
No, I'm more than happy to use digital tools if appropriate. By "classicist" I mean my favorite movies are by Lean, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Ford, Michael Powell, etc. I like the concept of the well-designed frame where composition, lighting, and art direction work together to tell a story. I'm less enamored of the "shoot everything with multiple cameras in available light" style, although that can be effective (like the battle in "Seven Samurai.") I guess what I'm saying is that strict realism is less interesting to me. To me, realism is just another form of artifice in moviemaking.