Best filters for beauty

[Mark Toia]

I used to own a huge kit of filters that cost me well over $10,000+ I sold them all except for the ND's once I realised that modern day filter plugins were better, more adjustable, hundred times more control, giving me thousands of options in seconds.

Once you put a glass soft FX filter on your lens, that was it... you were stuck with that look on that shot forever.

I know someone will pipe in with the word "organic" or "old School" or "natural" but the fact is you get any look your desire and hundreds more using quality plugins.
Best yet... saving you time & a lot of money.

Just sharing...

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

The mystical Holy Grail of net is created from a long discontinued Dior DN 10 stocking.


(DN or "denier" is the hosiery industry grading for the sheerness of the weave. The lower the denier number the sheerer the net)


We have searched the world for the "perfect" replacement and actually found it.

The company is "Secrets in Lace" and the model is 9960 Gennia 10DN Black.

Most folks won't share their special sauce, but hey it's new years, right?

Enjoy!

hey brandon thanks for the tip!!! really appreciate it
recently watched Anna Karenina lensed by Seamus McGarvey.read ASC 13' December said he used dior net

 

[Matt Ryan]

Im a big fan of the Hollywood black magic 1/8th

Glad to hear your enjoying it

I love Hollywood Black Magic's as well. Very subtle effect but works wonders.

 

[David W. Jones]

My favorite... Old Cooke series II/III lenses straight, then post filter work.

 

[Nick Morrison]

hey brandon thanks for the tip!!! really appreciate it
recently watched Anna Karenina lensed by Seamus McGarvey.read ASC 13' December said he used dior net

Read the same article. Very fucking cool.

 

[Dylan Macleod CSC]

My only argument against the "diffusion in post" approach is that DP's aren't always there later to judge what that should be. And as the the person who is responsible for that effect - I wouldn't want to relinquish that control. For the same reason I use grads and oval grads to create "power window" effects "in camera".

For in camera diffusion I like SFX (subtle - like a half or one) - yes - "to take the edge off" - punch me now. ;-)

For beauty I have used rear nets (Fogal were the best - but also discontinued).

I also have a glimmer glass in my kit and love it.

 

[Joseph Seuferling]

Hey thanks for all the tips everybody. Brandon I will definitely try that one out!
I highly value these classic techniques, how and what to use, and to know what they look like, even just for a particular effect.
Mark - I agree with your reasoning and it's good to hear it because my only experience is the digital ones and glass filters are costly. Digital allows room to experiment and the blessing of undo!
I'm curious about what digital softening/beauty filters you would consider to be quality, especially when used for feature film work with a 4k finish. Something proprietary? I have glimpsed the misuse of Cosmo (or some such) on a few tv programs where they have cranked it too high and the skin has a bad plastic blooming to it.

 

[Naim Sutherland]

I know someone will pipe in with the word "organic" or "old School" or "natural" but the fact is you get any look your desire and hundreds more using quality plugins.
Best yet... saving you time & a lot of money.

Just sharing...

Hi Mark,

I have never been that happy with post filtering... either in expensive colouring suites, or with resourceful indie colourists who have tons of plugins at their disposal.

What kinds of software are you using? What kinds of combinations are leading to blooming like you see in my examples, or say in a Kaminski movie?

Can you link me to some of your favourite examples... maybe for beauty, and then for something more 'classic'? Your stuff looks super awesome, and classic is a word I would use to describe some of the things you've posted, so I am very interested in learning more about your post work.

Also it's important to note that sometimes colouring can be expensive, like several hundred dollars per hour. Often a good look up table and some simple filtration can get you closer to where you want to go in a very cost effective manner when you know you are saving time later.

Just like everything we do there is definitely no right answer. There is only what is right on a project by project basis.

I have definitely filtered in post when it has been in the best interests of the show and the image to do so. For example, if there is green screen it's a no brainer. And I've filtered on the day subtly to have options in post, and I've gone crazy with insane things in front of and behind the lens. Don't limit yourself to just fabric or glass filters, try broken plastic containers, beads, tape or anything else that's around! It all depends on what you want it to look like, and what is in the best interest of the show.

I'd love to know more about post filtering and see some results from it!

Thanks!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see why doing diffusion in post instead of camera saves time & money, since it takes no time to use a filter on the camera -- and filters are cheap -- but it does take time and thus money to add a diffusion effect in post. There are many arguments for doing diffusion in post but time & money savings isn't one of them. One of the things I've learned by shooting TV lately is that time allotted to post color-correction is limited enough that the more you can create the look in camera, within reason, the better off you will be because there isn't much time allotted in post to address those things.

 

[Eric Haase]

I don't see why doing diffusion in post instead of camera saves time & money, since it takes no time to use a filter on the camera -- and filters are cheap -- but it does take time and thus money to add a diffusion effect in post. There are many arguments for doing diffusion in post but time & money savings isn't one of them. One of the things I've learned by shooting TV lately is that time allotted to post color-correction is limited enough that the more you can create the look in camera, within reason, the better off you will be because there isn't much time allotted in post to address those things.

Totally agree with you here. Sometimes we are just not involved in the grade as much or at all, unfortunately. Sometimes we're on to another project or the agency or client is posting in another city. It just happens. I'm a big fan of using diffusion in front of the lens versus in post. You can get close in post and do some things you can't do in camera and vice versa. It all depends on the look you're going for and how YOU like to work.

 

[Evin Grant]

I'm still a fan of the O'l Schneider Classic Softs, they are clean and add a nice "halo" in the stronger filters.
I'll' also sometimes mix a 1/8 digicon in with the 1/8th and 1/4 classic softs.

Just FYI the Holywood black magic is a combination of the black frost and the HD Classic Soft series
The HD Classic soft series was designed for 2/3" HD cameras and is a subtler version of the original 35mm Classic softs
The Classic Black Softs are the same idea but with the 35mm sensor optimized diffusion, this is important if you need a strong effect in the 1 and 2 strengths.

For the ABC show "The Gates" DP Arthur Albert and I decided to use the Fogal net permanently in the Red 1MXs using a ring that Keslow developed for us.
I need to come up with something similar for the Epic.

Here's an example...