Flashing

[purplehaze]

One of the consequences of my exploring photography and lighting has been that I am much more sensitive these days to what I see on the film screen. Last night I watched a favorite of mine, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, on TCM and was intrigued to learn from the host that the film's unique look was a result of the film stock being "flashed", i.e. pre-exposed to provide more detail in the darks, and thereby give the film an aged look. Apparently, the producers did not like the initial rushes, and ordered Altman to re-shoot those scenes. Altman responded by blaming the Canadian lab that was doing the processing and somehow managed to continue blame-shifting until the entire film had been shot and it was too late for a do-over. (Heh-heh.) While reading about the process just now, I learned that Ansel Adams himself used this technique and explained it in detail in some of his books.

Just thought I would share that bit of trivia with you in case it was new and interesting to anyone else.

[wilgk]

Janis, I can most certainly relate! I too wen watching movies now, find myself appreciating how they have framed the shot, why it lingers for a split second in a movie when it does...all sorts of things I just find really interesting that I truly never appreciated before.

[FootLoose]

I'll second that. In particular, I find contemporary English productions amazing for their photography now. Their framing, and lighting, camera angles - I forget about the story sometimes.

[Donald]

I'm glad there are others doing this as well. As a B & W enthusiast, I now watch 'The Third Man' (Orsen Welles) in a totally different way. The cinematography in that is awesome.

I admit to not having heard about that technique of 'flashing' the film. And I thought I knew about Adams' work and his approaches to photography.

[Shadowman]

Hi Janis, I too look to film making to see how the lighting is handled, I once made the comment on this forum that the director of the movie Skyfall must have been a photographer.

SkyFall

[purplehaze]

I see your point, John; thanks for reminding me of that one. It was gorgeous to look at. Breathtaking for more than just the action.

I remember The Third Man, Donald, for its dramatic use of shadow. Been a long time since I've seen it; will have to look for it.
I would also like to see Lincoln again.

Speaking of movies and lighting, am off to see Mr. Turner tonight. Probably one every landscape photographer will appreciate, and possibly learn from.

[Manfred M]

the film's unique look was a result of the film stock being "flashed".

The word "flashing" sounds a lot nicer than what is really being done. Film fogging, is really what is happening here, the film is partially exposed to light, so some of the most sensitive silver halides are exposed, slightly fogging the film. The unexposed (less sensitive) halides are then exposed during a normal shoot. The overall impact of the process results in a distinctive look, that is not one I particularly care for.

All that being said, at one time there was a very distinct line between cinematographers and photographers, but I would agree that a lot of the better Directors of Photography now seem to have a pretty solid schooling in photography, and this has moved over to cinema and video work. One area in particular, shallow depth of field shots are definitely much more mainstream in feature films than they used to be. Documentaries are a slightly different kettle of fish, though.

In general, I would say that lighting the two genres is still quite different (I've had formal training in both). With the possible exception of a bit of a crossover in environmental portraiture type work, the lighting used in photography is quite different than in cinematography. In photography, we light for the subject, in cinematography, the scene is lit.

The other key difference between the two genres is that with a photograph it's all about composition. In cinematography, it's all about the editing. The only time that composition plays a major role tends to be in the establishing shot, other than that, most of the work is how the characters are shot, the length of time between the cuts and the camera angles used to portray the characters, especially in blending in the dialogue between more than one character.

[Mike Buckley]

I would be interested in reviewing anything anyone can find about Ansel Adams using this technique. I have never heard of him doing it and couldn't find anything on the Internet about it.

[purplehaze]

Hi Mike,

Adams apparently called it "pre-exposure". See for instance chapter 5 of The Negative, entitled "Filters and Pre-exposure".

[Mike Buckley]

I don't have that, Janis. Does it explain any images that he made using that technique? Does it seem like it was more of an experimental stage, a particular technique that he used in particular situations or something he used for all of his photos for a particular time?

[purplehaze]

I don't have the book either, Mike. I found the T of C in a 288-page pdf which may well represent the entire book, but I did not link to it, because of copyright concerns.

[IzzieK]

Most times when watching a movie on telly, I sometimes forget about what the film is all about because I was looking at angles and sceneries and lighting so much. So you are certainly not alone there...

[Mike Buckley]

I ordered the book. It cost me a whopping $3.48 including shipping. Considering the small amount of money, I wonder if I'll ever receive it.

[purplehaze]

wonder if I'll ever receive it.

Well, if not, I think Donald has it, so maybe he can fill us in.

[Donald]

Well, if not, I think Donald has it, so maybe he can fill us in.

'fraid not, folks.

It's one that I've never owned.

[Mike Buckley]

I just now reviewed his book, Examples -- The Making of 40 Photographs. He provides information about the film he used for all but two of the images. He doesn't mention this technique in the book. I suspect that's because he probably used this technique only during his Pictorialism period, which was relatively short-lived, and there is only one image in the book from that period.

[rpcrowe]

Pre-exposure or "flashing" was used when I was a young lad beginning in photography (show's you how old I am). Although, I never used it personally. It was used in order to tone down a high contrast scene into a ratio that the film could record...

http://www.northnet.org/jimbullard/PRE_EXPO.htm

[Mike Buckley]

The piece Richard provided mentions the Zone System. During the early period of using the flashing process, the Zone System had not yet been developed.

[Mike Buckley]

I just realized that each of the explanations of how Adams made the 40 photographs in Examples refers to pages of his three-book series of which the second one is The Negative that Janis mentioned. Some of the explanations of how those photos were made refer to The Negative. So, once my copy arrives, I'll probably be able to determine which if any of the photos in Examples was made using pre-exposed film. Many of the 40 photos are some of his most famous photos, so this might be interesting.

[jcuknz]

I read about flashing in the Kodak Newletter that I got and when I did a few test shots using my H16RX mounting frames in slide holders for examination, the senior technician who viewed them was very taken at the way it reduced the usual Kodak colour film we used contrast ratio or gamma down to something suitable for TV. Thirty plus years ago and I forget the details but memory reminds me something like 3.3 reduced to 2.8 ?

Time passed and the late Ray Englefield who had been our maintenance tech but then in charge of processing modified the processing machine to 'control fog' the exposed film as it was processed.
This was so successful that the 'powers that be' granted him a $500 bonus for his efforts and producers in the know used to send film to our station for processing rather than in the standard way on their own stations.
This was DNTV-2 in Dunedin in the years prior to electronics taking over productions. [pre-1984]
A bit of trivia that I am happy to be connected with