Gels For a Thriller

[Frank Glencairn]

Beautiful rendering colors Frank,

what I meant is that I do only use 5600k Daylights, apart form what it is already there on the chosen seen which I never touch, never gel, as I want to reflect that apart of reality to that scene and how it looked to me and the reason I chose to shot it, so it is almost never just pure 5600k illumination, unless there is absolute darkness in that particular scene, as I too love the mixture of colors created by different lights, but not by gelling them, or trying desperately to match them all to your shooting Kelvin, might that be 5600 or 3200.

Ahh, now I got it.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

While there has been an array of gels I used in Photography, while experiencing things, I have now come to the firm conclusion that with Modern RAW camera shooting capacity and the incredible tools we today have in Post, I absolutely refrain form using any permanently modifying tools on my camera lenses, and other then the Circular Polarizer and ND's I would never use anything, no Gels, no filters.

At only other exception possibly of netting if I need a particular look in a shot for effect.

So I would advise to test what you can achieve in Post with a good Colorist, before you would permanently set your Raw data.


Oops... clicked out

So having said that, I have been doing the exact same thing with lighting, and now only shoot using Daylight pure 5600k, completely undermining what ever sources are there already, as I'll have my main and more predominant light as the one that will give the look I want, then again, here comes Post.

Of course this is my view as DP, and each has his own, but just sharing my tough here about Gels and all.

On the contrary, we use a lot of of things, on camera and on lights. In the end, it's way cheaper (post is not free) and looks better. Any post trick has the potential for artifacts big and small - and I am confident that the look we are shooting is right, so why leave tons of room for later debate in post? . I don't care what anybody else does - maybe some (but I can tell you not all) older guys in Hollywood are conservative in many ways, and maybe I can innovate and do something better/faster/cheaper than they can. Who knows? Decide for your self, don't be a [insert famous DP here} copy-cat. Because [insert famous DP here], I can assure you, is doing her or her own thing, not trying to copy you.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

I agree with the above. You will find very few high end cinematographers that paint all their color in for several reason. First off it is much less organic.
Another concern is if you as the DP are not fully involved with all the coloring someone may change the look to something you really didn't intend, painting in all kinds of crap. Before you get a chance to correct it the director loves it and they lock the picture on you. This will also make the sets more sterile, giving the environment a boring look for the actors to work in. You may have to avoid using smoke as well.
It's just laziness or lack of inspiration IMO.

The ultimate question is; what's the point of having a cinematographer if he or she doesn't have a visual style to add (not the colorist)?? This includes the "color" of the light.
I say go for broke, find a visual style and pallet that makes the set pop, one that, when everyone walks onto it they feel the correct emotion.

I 100% agree.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Roberto I too agree with some of Eric and your statements, again, I never had never will have such issues in Post as I do baby my project form start to end, and I am always both the DP and Director of my projects, and even those I take on form special clients here and there, so I will also be there at every single step of Post, most certainly and especially the color grading part, but I always will largely prefer to have a most natural Raw as possible to play with, and decide in post what looks better, and not be cut trapped with my first decision about gelling or coloring a certain shot on capture and have it baked in my Raw files, otherwise why in hell am I shooting RAW??


Again, to try and make clear what I meant from beginning, is that this is how I do it giving my circumstances and how I have always control over my imagery, and not to say to every one on every given job to do the same, but if they were to find themselves in the same circumstances as I am, then I do strongly suggest that they do the same for far superior control of what they can and can not do with the material at the end, and chose any given final look in Post.

I never said it was cheaper my way, I never have done things the cheaper way, just the best way I see fit.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If your goal is a naturalistic look, I can't see avoiding 3200K lighting in situations with 3200K (or lower) practical sources in the room. If it's a ballroom with big chandeliers with tungsten bulbs and all you want to do is add a little soft key light for the actors in the close-ups that matches the color and feeling of the chandeliers in the wide shot, then obviously you are going to have to come close to matching the color temperature of the chandeliers. It gets even more critical if you are trying to match candle or firelight in the scene, 5600K lighting is far too different in color temperature to not feel like a whole different source of light in the room.

What's a bit odd is the original post since "Dark Water" is not a particularly "color-gelled" movie other than the typical ones used for matching practical sources in the scene, the coloring is pretty subtle and somber.

If you want to match real world sources on location, or fake them from off-camera, gels are sort of unavoidable unless you can use the exact same types of bulbs that the practical sources have. You can't save it for post because then you'll create a mixed color temperature image, which is fine if intentional, but hard to correct in post if unintentional and the corrected shot won't look as good compared to the one where you got it right in camera.

What post is good for, besides fixing problems that couldn't be fixed on the day, is enhancing or augmenting an intent -- for example, you may decide you want a blue moonlit look. You can use some blue lighting on the set but in post you can fine-tune the degree of blue or add a hint of cyan, you can adjust saturation to make it more of a steel blue-grey moonlight, you can isolate the face if you want to keep a hint of red in the skin, etc. So it's important to know what is better saved for post versus what is better handled on the set. Leaving it all for post isn't necessarily a good idea on many levels, especially if you have a limited post budget and/or tight schedule for color-correction.

There's a difference between giving yourself some wiggle room in post to make adjustments to the wholesale abandonment of the need to create any look in front of the camera, or in the camera, and saving it all for post. One size does not fit all and every situation and budget is different, so there is never going to be one single best way of working, you have to make decisions every day on the set when shooting -- that's part of the job! You're paid to make the hard choices, so make them.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If you have a scene which is supposed to have an orange sunset light coming into the room with dim blue shadows for a two-toned Maxfield Parrish look, I don't see how you can light both the sun and the shadows in white light and then somehow create that two-toned difference between key and fill in post working with RAW files, and even if you could manage something using elaborate traveling masks, it's not going to look as natural compared to simply lighting to get that effect. And that's just a simple two-color situation -- what about a nightclub musical number where the stage lights swing from one deep color to another, or mix several intense color spots in the same shot, how are you going to light that all in white light and create those color cues in post? And why would you?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Absolutely agree David!

That is why I said when one finds in a same situation as I am always in were since I am both the DP and the Direcotr I know form the start what I want, and the reasons I shoot and light the way I do, and control the camera the way I do, leaving all other to Post, at only exception of the Polarizer and ND's, because what I like and don't like to see I already know, and even so I do not to Color grading professionally or do I edit, I know exactly what I can achieve and or not achieve in Post, that is what I am trying to say, but I guess as I approach the shooting of my first feature Film with tone of BTS videos to show for, it will be seen what I mean, and what my likes and dislikes are, and what is that I am actually suggesting...

 

[Manfred Lopez]

What's a bit odd is the original post since "Dark Water" is not a particularly "color-gelled" movie other than the typical ones used for matching practical sources in the scene, the coloring is pretty subtle and somber.

Maybe using that film wasn't the best example. But I also wasn't referring to over-gelled movies where it's fairly straight-forward to see what they did. I'm more interested in what gels (if any) might help to achieve that very subtle and somber look that you mention. For example in the still bellow where the arrow is pointing , I wonder if they added some green (like White Flame Green) to the background lighting, or is it more an effect of depth perception and the overall greenish-brown tint resulting from the reflections from the textures of walls? Or even if such gel wasn't used, would it help in similar situations to achieve that decrepit look? The original question was to see if anyone had specific recommendations that have worked for them. By the way, David, am I big big big fan of your posts and your work (I loved the Northfork thread!!)

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know if gels were used or not in this movie, you can also get a green cast from using fluorescent practical fixtures for example, or add some green in the color timing. I seem to recall an article on the film in either American Cinematographer or ICG Magazine.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I just found the article on "Dark Water", it was the August 2005 issue of American Cinematographer. They talked about designing the sets and the locations to use mixed practical sources like mercury vapor, fluorescents, sodium vapors, for an industrial color scheme. The sets were also color coordinated for blue and green tones. Some yellow/green was added in the print timing, combined with some enhancement from using a silver retention process in the intermediate dupe step in the release printing (which would tend to increase contrast and darken colors, somewhat desaturate them). No D.I. was used.

 

[Manfred Lopez]

I just found the article on "Dark Water", it was the August 2005 issue of American Cinematographer. They talked about designing the sets and the locations to use mixed practical sources like mercury vapor, fluorescents, sodium vapors, for an industrial color scheme. The sets were also color coordinated for blue and green tones. Some yellow/green was added in the print timing, combined with some enhancement from using a silver retention process in the intermediate dupe step in the release printing (which would tend to increase contrast and darken colors, somewhat desaturate them). No D.I. was used.

Thanks for that info! I'll definitely will locate and read the article. Mercury vapor and sodium vapors... of course! Lights with built-in "coloring". What I find fascinating is that they didn't use a DI. Maybe sometimes having too much flexibility in post can lead to a lack of discipline on set. I am really interested in how set design, wardrobe and lighting all interact to achieve a look. For example in the still bellow, the shirt and the wallpaper are perfectly integrated and contribute to the mood of the scene, even if the lighting is straight forward (it's from a non-threating scene).

And then this one, from a very threatening scene... lighting, or more importantly, "color scheme", takes on a huge role. Now thinking about it, I guess my original question should't have been limited to just gels.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think the industrial sources were used for these apartment interiors though, they look like regular tungsten soft boxes over the set, or maybe Kinos, for a top-light effect. The industrial fixtures were more for the hallways, stairwells, outside of windows, etc.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

David, when did Kinos come out? It would be great to be able to trace their first appearance in film history Did people abuse them at first (as happens with many new technologies)? Throwing them everywhere, even where they didn't belong? Did producers suddenly say "all we need is Kinos" to try and save money?

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I think Titanic was a huge set of Kino. I dont think IT was the first but probably what made Kino popular.

Pat

 

[Manfred Lopez]

I don't think the industrial sources were used for these apartment interiors though, they look like regular tungsten soft boxes over the set, or maybe Kinos, for a top-light effect. The industrial fixtures were more for the hallways, stairwells, outside of windows, etc.

You are right of course. This scene probably had them.

 

[Frank Glencairn]

I think Titanic was a huge set of Kino. I dont think IT was the first but probably what made Kino popular.

Pat

I'm 95% sure, I shot at least one commercial (I think it was Lucky Strike) with Kinos before Titanic.
As far as I know, it was invented "on the fly" at the set of "Barfly" in 1987, by Robby Mueller and his gaffer, cause they needed to fit some light in a tight location. After that they founded the company.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I would also suggest considering a chocolate 1 in the camera - it will "desaturate" and even out the palette to a more "chocolate" tone. I find it to deliver a nice tone also in "digital". The rest is the lighting and art direction as David has described already.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I would also suggest considering a chocolate 1 in the camera - it will "desaturate" and even out the palette to a more "chocolate" tone. I find it to deliver a nice tone also in "digital". The rest is the lighting and art direction as David has described already.

Yes chocolate on camera could become popular with 2000 asa Dragon as this filter eats a lot of light.

Pat

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Yes chocolate on camera could become popular with 2000 asa Dragon as this filter eats a lot of light.

Pat

I've never used a chocolate in IR danger situations. Does it acerbate IR problems?