Low contrast - lens vs. filter vs. grade

[Todd G. Peterson]

I have a project coming up where I want to have a low contrast look to it. Three options to come to mind

1. Shoot on low con lenses like Super Speeds
2. Add an ultracon filter and modern lenses
3. Shoot (as usual) in log and make it low contrast in the grade

I'm curious to know what people's experiences have been doing this. Is the grade good enough for a compelling low contrast look or will I get something more authentic and interesting if I paired ultra primes and a filter, or just went with Super Speeds knowing that there will be tradeoffs in focus/detail?

 

[PatrickWebb]

Maybe get some lo-con lenses. I have a set of Russian glass and they give a nice effect like this, if I get a job that asks for such an effect. That way the image gets the qualities from the lenses than just a grade lo-con'ing. I am a little bit of a shoot-it-in-camera-first man. However, the argument there is, and only if the client wants to do a backflip on the concept, then there is no going back with this option. I have only experienced a backflip on job on a concept and we just reshot it. However, that was with aid with the client being on set and with a monitor. It can happen. However, I have been able to bump up the contrast in post if the images have been too washed out. So there is some leeway in a pinch. Often I bump up the contrast with some shots when using the Russian glass I have just to get that pop they give, otherwise it is way washed out.

Also, if you are shooting on a high-res camera, as I would assume, then sometimes the softer option of older optics are often questioned after by some of my clients: "I want a softer look yet still modern" ... bingo: High-res Camera and an older piece of glass.

Actually, I have been using the DZOFilm Pictor Zoom 20-55mm recently and I have to say that that hits the sweet spot between modern, contrasty, yet a little vintage sprinkle in there with some nice stars and glows.

It works for me ... a Modern (Cinema) Camera + Clean Vintage Optics = <3
Good luck on your decision!

 

[Phil Holland]

Lowcon filters are nice to have on hand. Actually enjoy them on Sigmas, Tokinas, Zeiss Supremes.

A lot of the "low contrast" glass is somewhat unpredictable and the effect is minimized as you stop down.

Tender soft lighting works alarmingly well if you have that control over light and your ratios. I enjoy that look with modern optics "naked".

 

[Todd G. Peterson]

Maybe get some lo-con lenses. I have a set of Russian glass and they give a nice effect like this, if I get a job that asks for such an effect. That way the image gets the qualities from the lenses than just a grade lo-con'ing. I am a little bit of a shoot-it-in-camera-first man. However, the argument there is, and only if the client wants to do a backflip on the concept, then there is no going back with this option. I have only experienced a backflip on job on a concept and we just reshot it. However, that was with aid with the client being on set and with a monitor. It can happen. However, I have been able to bump up the contrast in post if the images have been too washed out. So there is some leeway in a pinch. Often I bump up the contrast with some shots when using the Russian glass I have just to get that pop they give, otherwise it is way washed out.

Also, if you are shooting on a high-res camera, as I would assume, then sometimes the softer option of older optics are often questioned after by some of my clients: "I want a softer look yet still modern" ... bingo: High-res Camera and an older piece of glass.

Actually, I have been using the DZOFilm Pictor Zoom 20-55mm recently and I have to say that that hits the sweet spot between modern, contrasty, yet a little vintage sprinkle in there with some nice stars and glows.

It works for me ... a Modern (Cinema) Camera + Clean Vintage Optics = <3
Good luck on your decision!

Thank you Patrick for your feedback. The first time I saw footage I shot on a Red with Master Primes, I realized that modern glass + digital sensors especially expressive on their own. Emulating a film grain and other tweaks in post can help, but it's not the same as getting that organic imperfection in camera. Thus, I too prefer to get as much in camera as possible, even knowing that it's now baked in. I haven't had a client change their minds once it was shot. Even if it didn't cost anything, there's never time for a reshoot, and it's usually more than good enough for their needs.

For low contrast vintage glass, I would generally go for the super speeds or the original speed panchros. I really should try Russian/Soviet-era lenses, as you suggest. The only one I really know is the Helios 44 because of the crazy bokeh. For many of my projects I'm often shooting between 21-35mm and usually T2.8. There are loads of lenses, but I'll have to research the options, their ergonomics, and their look. My biggest worry is that I like the various looks and then start collecting lenses. I could see how it could be addictive.

Also interesting to hear your thoughts on the DZO Pictor zoom. I'll have to rent it. I'd be curious to compare it to the new Tokina Cinema 25-75 T2.9. I've become a big fan of the Tokina Vista's. I'm hoping some of the same characteristics can be found on the new zoom, which I think will pair well with the Komodo.

 

[Todd G. Peterson]

Lowcon filters are nice to have on hand. Actually enjoy them on Sigmas, Tokinas, Zeiss Supremes.

A lot of the "low contrast" glass is somewhat unpredictable and the effect is minimized as you stop down.

Tender soft lighting works alarmingly well if you have that control over light and your ratios. I enjoy that look with modern optics "naked".

Thanks Phil for these suggestions. Generally I'm shooting quite wide open (T2.0 - T2.8), which can be a challenge for vintage glass. Stopping down to T4.0 or 5.6 makes for a sharper, more detailed image, but it feels like there's a bit of a color shift in addition to higher contrast. Other than the Super Speeds, the best luck I've had low contrast on modern glass is with the Leica Summicron-C's. They tend to be much flatter than the Thalia's, for instance.

I'm often shooting where I don't have much control over light. Even when I do, I still like to keep more dramatic ratios that retain nice occlusions and a bit of mystery in the shadows.

From your experience, do you find one brand/line of low con filters particularly good (or ones that are best to avoid)? Looks like the options are among the Schneider, Tiffen, and Formatt's

 

[Phil Holland]

I have Schneider and Tiffen here, got them before Formatt even offered them. Don't think there would be an issue on any of those. They are all reputable brands and alarmingly popular.

 

[Todd G. Peterson]

I have Schneider and Tiffen here, got them before Formatt even offered them. Don't think there would be an issue on any of those. They are all reputable brands and alarmingly popular.

Thanks!

 

[PatrickWebb]

No worries, Todd! I love to contribute what I can with my experience as well as learn from here too! I am happy to share!

It is a bit of a dilemma, sometimes, when deciding what to do for a shot and how to creatively go about it. I find doing some tests with a model helps me get a better impression of the characteristics of a lens and camera combo. However, that takes time and potentially money, if you don't have someone who is in the studio or just wants to be apart of something nerdy for a day. If I don't have time or massive effort, I just grab the scarlet-x and take it for a walk with me with a couple of lenses in the backpack and just go shoot something in the forest. That gives me a good impression of what a lens is doing to the image when pointed at different spaces and light and reflections. I dare say that it is quite meditative and one can get lost in fining fun things to take images of. I often roll it on stills mode and clip my v-mount to my bag or belt ... so I don't have to use my REDVOLTS that last only 15 minutes .

The Soviet lenses are great for the price. I have the 44-2 58mm, as you mentioned, and that is indeed a fun lens. However, there are some terrible copies out there. If you have the time, there is a guy on YT "Retro Foto House" and he gives you the rundown of what to look out for. I have myself the MIR-1B 37mm (love it), the Industar-50 50mm (such a fun lens and worth the $15), the Helios 44-2 and the Jupiter-9 85mm (a 16-bladed monster). Love them and they cost me in total $350 and adapted to EF and stepup rings to 77mm to put my vari nd on, an extra of $20 ish.

The Pictor Zoom is nice, here is an example from a festival I shot at in August:

I haven't had yet big enough clients to allow me to try out the bigger len names, hence why I am trying to maximise my efforts with the affordable badges. Mind you, I have been pretty satisfied with what I have tried so far and I have my own inventory of expensive enough glass. The DZO Pictor is my ownly cinema glass that I own, the rest are all photo lenses ... when not rack focusing look amazing in their own right.

I would like to get my hands on the Komodo one day, as the Global Shutter and Stills Photography is something I would love to explore with there (with flash too). That is part of the reason I invested into the DSMC in the first place!

Nonetheless, there is the big problem of ergonomics with photographic lenses when using them in a professional video world ... adapting rings, etc, etc. is just a pain. When you have the right tool for the job, you don't notice it. But when you have something that slips or doesn't sit tightly on the adapter, then there wiggles down inside the annoyances. Again, it is what you apply it to. When it is simple, easy stuff and the budget is 500 bux, then whatever. Have fun. But if you are on a $10k plus job for the day, then you don't want to be thinking about "I hope my lens doensn't screw off accidentally"!

 

[Aaron Lochert]

While you can certainly do a lot in the grade, I tend to prefer making commitments to a look in prep and locking as much of that optical funk in camera as I can. Low con filters are nice for on-the-day adjustments but I'd probably be picking lenses that inherently have what I'm looking for for the overall project and then only use filtration to dial it in to taste on the day if needed. The less filters I need to keep in the mattebox for a whole show, the better.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I recall one commercial DP who used a piece of cheap transparent plastic over the lens to achieve this kind of result. It was very simple and effective, apparently. And cheap. I don't know the specifics.