Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Shut up and shoot that RED (NSFW)

Gunleik Groven said:
134284_10151305070000126_586087565_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Gunleik Groven said:
175584_10151305977680126_1252377272_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Those are amazing. And so different. Wow.

Thread title changed (PM me next time for quicker turn-around).
 
SoI got this question on how I work when shooting for stills.

And it is really a mystery.

Usually I set the cam to 8 or 12 fps @ RC 3:1

And shoot small "bursts" till I have it.

Depending a bit on the style I am after, it is either 1st frame or I just keep shooting till I have what I want (last frame.. .)

Or I just keep rolling...

Gee
No rules!

But I keep the shots short and separate takes/attempts..

' Cept from that, I keep it small and shoot like a dalr. No ND's. Shutter controlls the exposure and aperture controlls dof.
Simple shit.

So... I have a personal preference of 99,9% of the time shooting the cam "flat"

That is rg3/rc3 5600/800 iso.

From the preview I see at those settings, I know what the image can handle in post.

If i change anything, it is either to rlf or to a higher iso.

Post. Pretty simple, too...


Either rlf, mostly "flat'ish" out to a touchup in lightroom.
Or a rcx/preview combo.

I hardly retouch anythi.ng beyond what is available in Lightroom. Only thing I miss there is a better crop-tool....

I have shot a bit of canon glass lately, but really prefer the filmglass...

Was also a question about hdrx and 5k

Yup. Ikinda allways shoot 5k...

As to HDRx. Sometimes I turn iton, when I think I might need it.
But not very often

Sometimes I want two different exposures with different highlight and lowlight charracteristics, and use it for that...
 
The second shot in #207 is fantastic! I'd love to see a crop at 1:1 - maybe her eye and some of her hair. Even at 1013x1920 it looks very, very sharp. I have seen nicer 'grain' from other cameras but really the EPIC isn't too bad - a little like Portra 160 but larger. Once again I have proof that the EPIC has a film-like quality to it. So, why exactly are DPs choosing Alexa over EPIC? (Mind you, if I were shooting features I'd choose film* if the budget allowed...)

*I keep changing my mind about whether or not film should retire. Currently I'm chanting 'viva film'. I think that's my final position. Until I change my mind again!
 
Last edited:
Thanks Gunleik for your workflow.

Hope to get to your level of fun and creativity ;)
 
@ Karim...

Thanks again

That image is just shot with the light from the mirror she is in front of.
Diffusion/fill comes from the reflection in the mirror.

1600 RLF 5600k/-4 tint (!!!) :)

So, why did I do that?

I started off "flat" with just a tintadjustment to keep the channels clean. Both working with video and stills, I find that working with a "neutral" image with as little WB adjustments as possible (on the Epic in the range of 4000 - 6000 k) gives the best "technical" startingpoint. Above and bellow those values, I see noise which affects the grade down the line, and gradingtools like lightroom/photoshop/resolve/color have better ways to work with the individual channels, as long as they are "clean", compared to RCX/the raw part of the workflow.

Now...
I don't mind noise

But I also don't mind "clean" :)

In this case I just applied a quick grade and desaturated yellow/orange in lightroom.

Two things happens when you wb.
For tungsten the blue channel is gained (which I often find quite ok), what I do not like is that the Red channel gets clamped, as there is so much nice luma info in the red channel under tungsten. So I try to let it live until grade and treat it with other tools.

And I never felt RED was bad on skintones on the R1 M or the Epic. The R1 M is lucious!

That's it really.

For B&W if I want to reduse noise, I often sett the WB a lot higher, even for tungsten, to get the "good" luma info out.

OTOH, this is NOT according to REDs advice on colorworkflow, so I guess I have to publicky disencourage anyone who wants to try to replicate the ideas suggested here.
 
Closeup of eye

Of course there is noise at 1600 iso,

I just call it "texture" :)
 

Attachments

  • D008_C005_01013F.0000016.jpg
    D008_C005_01013F.0000016.jpg
    48.8 KB · Views: 1
Peter Strietmann said:
I find your work takes me back to pushed triX from the 70s. I am quite fond of this aesthetic. Back then we had no where else to go to shoot in low light situations. I am very curious to see how it would translate to motion.
Click to expand...



I shot my 1st stills in the late 70's and had access to the darkroom at a newspaper.

Yup

See what you mean...

Later I shot for another newspapee as a "freelance photographer". Small unit, but free access to b&w stock and the darkroom.

Ilford, I think. 400 that could be pushed quite a bit.

Kinda allmost miss the smell, though... :-)
 
Gunleik some thoughts, and feel free to ad me on skype (will send a pm) ... But ... I treat my rig as RAW only but after seeing you shots maybe I should reconsider. I would love to have a conversation about this with you when you get a chance. Lovely shots, as a Dane I was exposed to naked women from 8 on so I just find these images beautiful and artistic -- erotic as well. But offended, I believe that's something for other regions in the world.

Warm regards.

- Paul.
 
I am not trying to offend.

But it is a work in progress.
How/why I do this is a moving target.

It is kinda a "work in process" which might end up with me not doimg it at all.

I really do not comprehend what you mean by "RAW only", and I think that might be an issue that it could be meaningfull to do in public, as there (according to me) is so much confusion as to what a RAW workflow means.

But I really look foreward to having a skype conversation with you!

Cheers!
Skål!

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top