art copy with lights cross polarized

[BobSmith]

Use filters as large as possible and keep them several inches from the lights. My experience is that the hot quartz modeling lights do far more damage to the filters than the flash pops. Try turning your modeling lights down some when you can. I don't recall the brand but I use 16" square mounted filters that I got from B&H. Those have been the longest lasting of any polarizing filters that I've used... mostly because the size lets me keep them further from the light/reflector without affecting coverage. My current filters are over two years old... used several times per week... and still look almost new. In addition to showing orientation, the label on these filter's frames show which side is coated and should be protected. I keep that side away from the light.

I also shoot a Kodak color strip in every film shot, so if it's ever reproduced by a printer they can get the color precise(maybe)!

I always did that with film. I never supply such a chart with my digital copies. I sometimes use one to help calibrate my system but I never include those bars in anything that leaves my studio. I work with a well calibrated camera/light/monitor system that gets the color very close. I then print a test print of each image on a well profiled printer (Epson 9800) and tweak each file if needed to accurately match the original art. I find that doing final adjustments on an actual print far more accurate than depending on even a very well calibrated/profiled display.

In the absence of any other info, the color strip is helpful to get color reasonably close as a scanner operator would have to do with film where he/she likely doesn't have the original art for comparison. With digital, once and image is properly edited, the embedded profile tag tells every production person down line all that they need to know to insure very good color. If someone down line edits based on color bars in the frame they're apt to screw up an already well balanced image. I've seen numerous examples where a Macbeth chart in the frame looked perfect and certain colors in the painting were significantly off. There's a host of reasons why this can occur but the point is once someone (presumably the photographer) has nailed the color while comparing to the original art... someone down the line shouldn't be "tweaking" it. Including the color bars encourages tweaking.

Bob Smith

[Mark Swindler]

Michael- When they get lighter in the center, they are worn out, and no longer polarize the light. I've been using really thick polarizing material fron Visual Graphics, that I buy at my local camera store, but it's expensive. I did try some rosco polarizing material from Calumet, but it was really thin, and would actually burn out on the first pop of the strobe. It was pretty much worthless.

Mark S.

[michaelnotar]

thanks, i just bought some VG polarizers in a roll, it was more expensive but not insanely more. probably worth it.

Bob sounds like you have the VG mounted pol's thats what Mark reccomended. I also got matthews 18x24 flag frames to tape them to, the larger mounted pols are expensive like $50 extra then the gel and frame combined.

[BobSmith]

The mounted versions are considerably more expensive but after one round of trying to deal with unmounted versions (because I too wanted to save the cash) I find the expense well worth it. Maybe it was just the brand I had but the unmounted filters were insanely hard to handle. They have a VERY pronounced tendency to curl... much more so than any other type of gel I've used before. The heat of the lights only makes it worse. After being used a few times they'd have a tendency to curl themselves into a tube shape not much bigger than a pencil. Trying to get something that severely curled to lie flat for use was a daunting task. Using the pre-mounted versions saves loads of time and headaches. If you get some unmounted filters that prove easy to handle, let me know what brand you're using.

Bob Smith