Brad Pitt's Photos of his wife

35mmdelux said:
Bradley is actually an outstanding actor doing crappy films for the money (Ocean's) -- the kids need more shoes I guess.
Click to expand...

while that may be the case, oceans certainly isnt the example, those films were essentially subsidized by the principles pay cut, most of those guys were doing those film for 1/20th or less than their normal rate...
 
RF-Addict said:
Who knows how he exposed them - they might have been under exposed which would explain the grain.
Click to expand...

You've got it all wrong. Over-exposure and/or over-development would explain the grain if scanning/sharpening/downsizing are not responsible for what we see.
 
Kevin said:
You've got it all wrong. Over-exposure and/or over-development would explain the grain if scanning/sharpening/downsizing are not responsible for what we see.
Click to expand...

Underexposed photos pushed to achieve correct exposure would show more grain, correct?

Brad Pitt has really surprised me these last ten years...he's done some good movies and has proved himself to be a pretty good dramatic actor and, in my view, an excellent comic actor. His whole association with Steven Soderbergh and the Coens has brought out his best side. I've actually turned into a fan.
 
I like Pitt the older he gets. He's a great actor. I do wish he could focus, though, lol!

I'm not sure about calling them "masterpieces" though. That maaay be a little drastic. 🙄
 
WoolenMammoth said:
while that may be the case, oceans certainly isnt the example, those films were essentially subsidized by the principles pay cut, most of those guys were doing those film for 1/20th or less than their normal rate...
Click to expand...

i dont know what he got paid but i seriously doubt he will end up with 1/20th of his normal take. Often, actors take less money upfront and get paid later, taking a percentage of the proceeds.

This isn't the Passion of the Christ where actors took pay cuts to make a great movie.
 
Burlap Jacket said:
We know that Pitt is an avid Leica photog (I remember him posing on the cover of Interview with a late model M body). I have no idea if this recent series for W magazine was shot with a Leica, but there's a note in the following article that the photos were shot on Kodak Tech-Pan.
Click to expand...

TechPan, and an Ilford film (Delta 3200?) with a grainy look, after his original specification for a "WWII emulsion" couldn't be met.
 
35mmdelux said:
i dont know what he got paid but i seriously doubt he will end up with 1/20th of his normal take. Often, actors take less money upfront and get paid later, taking a percentage of the proceeds.

This isn't the Passion of the Christ where actors took pay cuts to make a great movie.
Click to expand...

Actually, thats exactly what the Ocean's franchise is. I suggest you do some research. All three movies were made for under $100m each. You can not make a movie with a budget that size and then cast Al Pacino, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Matt Damon and 15 second tier guys unless *everyone* agrees to work for a fraction of their rate. Whatever profit sharing may or may not exist is an independent discussion as that is a virtually standard line item in anyone's contract. Were this not the case, you would have spent virtually all of your working principle on just the first four people I mentioned there...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom