Karim D. Ghantous
Well-known member
I couldn't find anything on American Cinematographer's online archives. So here's the thing. I watched Raimi's three Spider-Man films over the past few days (I haven't seen them before as I was not inclined to do so). My question is solely about the look of the image.
The first was 'neutral' to my eyes. The second had that beautiful, thick, rich 'analog' look. The third was much like the first. (But like the second film, the third one had nicer lighting: the first looked too much by-the-book, while the other two showed more natural lighting out of doors).
So how was that look achieved for SM2? I'm guessing that the DP, Bill Pope, who did the latter two films, had the finished negative go through one or two extra generations of internegative. The stock for SM was 5274. SM2 was 5279. SM3 was 5218. Surely it was not merely the look of 5279 that gave SM2 the texture I liked?
And I'm guessing that Pope did not really like the look of SM2, seeing as it wasn't used for SM3. Well, whatever he thinks of that rich texture, I love it.
The first was 'neutral' to my eyes. The second had that beautiful, thick, rich 'analog' look. The third was much like the first. (But like the second film, the third one had nicer lighting: the first looked too much by-the-book, while the other two showed more natural lighting out of doors).
So how was that look achieved for SM2? I'm guessing that the DP, Bill Pope, who did the latter two films, had the finished negative go through one or two extra generations of internegative. The stock for SM was 5274. SM2 was 5279. SM3 was 5218. Surely it was not merely the look of 5279 that gave SM2 the texture I liked?
And I'm guessing that Pope did not really like the look of SM2, seeing as it wasn't used for SM3. Well, whatever he thinks of that rich texture, I love it.