Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I really can’t remember if the shot was sped up though I doubt it. The shot was made when 1st unit was changing location from London to Yorkshire. The weather was incredibly bad for mid summer so, with only a brief window of time, we were lucky to get that shot.
I think it is interesting to study the care that was taken in the past to light an actor when in a close shot. We were recently talking with Billy Williams and had, in anticipation, revisited some of his work: ‘Women in Love’, ‘The Wind and the Lion’ and ‘Gandhi’. Often his close up lighting would vary quite considerably from the wider coverage but this is only apparent if you specifically analyze the lighting. Not so when simply following the story, which certainly benefited from his care. The actors too must have loved what Billy did for them as his close up shots were always beautiful.
Today there is a tendency to light a set and shoot in the same lighting for a close shot as for a wide. Sometimes a shoot will cover the wide and tight with multiple cameras so there is no chance to make a change if desired. Personally, I will often adjust my lighting as the camera (single camera) moves in to an actor for a close shot, regardless of that actor’s gender.
Yes, it all depends on what you define as ‘style’. I would not like to be known as a cinematographer who’s style is lighting soft and shooting with a 50mm lens. Whereas, I could light with a single hard source and shoot with an 18mm lens and the image would, I hope, still reflect my taste.
I don’t think I have a particular style at all. As David says, everyone has a personal taste and that informs the work. And, like every cinematographer I know, I have certain tools and techniques I have developed over the years. But technique is only a way to create what is in the mind’s eye and is not , or should not be, the impetus for it.
While it is true some directors have a defined style I would argue that may are chameleons who morph into each film they take on.
I am not a fan of anamorphic. I have shot tests in the past but not with the Master anamorphic lenses.
I usually use 150 or 250 watt bulbs to rig an oil lamp in this way but for ‘1917’ I used 500 watt bulbs of the same kind as are used in conventional Tungsten Fresnel lamps. These were all I could find in the UK, although I have a great range of quartz bulbs in my garage in the US.
Once or twice I have used a small strip of blackwrap between the twin bulbs, to hide the one that was away from camera and brighter, but I don’t remember it being necessary to do this on ‘1917’.
I can’t say I ever change the settings on the Alexa Mini or the LF. Personally, I don’t see why you would. Would it not be better to adjust the image in the DI if you feel the need. You could then adjust sharpness and also add grain.
I would be very surprised if the LUT I use is very different from any other. The only adjustment in it is to the contrast curve and the amount of color saturation. That is standard for any LUT that translates the RAW data.
There are two films, ‘In Cold Blood’ and ‘Fat City’, that are indisputably brilliant pieces of film making with cinematography that could not be more perfect. Of course, there are so many films one could mention but these two, so different in style and tone, reflect how ‘right’ cinematography can be. Again, only my opinion and ……
It is possible to learn something from every film. The more you use your eyes the more you can settle on what you like and how you want to translate an idea into an image. There are some films that I do not think are well shot and I know I am in the minority of opinion on that. But that is my taste. It is not universal and, obviously, not that of the film’s director and cinematographer.
As the saying goes – there is good cinematography and bad cinematography and there is the cinematography that is right for the film.
