Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I carried a couple of Red Heads when I was shooting documentaries but to augment daylight might be a stretch. of course, it all depends on the level of daylight and the width of your shot. By the time you color correct the lamp and push it through diffusion you are not looking at a very powerful source.
They are quite uneven in their beam shape and a single unit is not as efficient as a 650 Red Head or a 2K Blonde. If you use multiple par bulbs in a 6 or 9 light you will struggle for control. Now, a Maxi into a 12′ x 12′ can work but that is when you are working at a larger scale. I have bounced a Dino and a Wendy light on a large set.
If you care and are trying to find something more than just a recording of what is in front of you, whether a film is large or small, there are always ‘obstacles’ and ‘frustrations’. Rarely, if ever, is the result as good as you hoped it would be when you imagined it.
While it may be an interesting idea to study the composition of those three great directors it could only be a very limited and personal ‘practical demonstration’ of what constitutes the greatest shots. I will not start a list of what I would consider the ‘greatest shots’ as it would take me far too much time but Sergio Leone? Tarkovsky? Zvyagintsev? …. And in 10 minutes! I wish it were that easy!
‘Eye candy’. Yes, I think color is often just ‘eye candy’ and both a distraction and an excuse for a lack of something else. On the other hand, there are great photographs as well as films shot in color.
As for the eye line. I can’t imagine there is a single shot in ‘Psycho’ that was not deliberate and also drawn out in advance. I’m sure there is a storyboard somewhere.
I don’t know that there is any right or wrong way to practice cinematography or anything else for that matter. Though, maybe, that is not true of yoga or marathon running etc.. I would say to watch as many films as you have time for, study the work of as many painters and photographers as you can, and just shoot! Edit what you shoot, see what you like and what you feel was a failure and then try again. And again! And again! There are no tricks or easy answers.
It was once suggested to me that if I could light a human face I could light anything. Perhaps that is true in the sense that a film is generally dependent on the characters depicted within it, so it’s not a bad idea to concentrate on the face. But cinematography, visual storytelling, is not only about portraiture.
I find Artemis pretty useful as a conversation starter but it never seems to exactly replicates what a lens will see. As for the idea of taking stills of a location and somehow building a storyboard to that degree of detail? Where does that end? Do you light those images to mimic what you will later shoot? A storyboard should only be the suggestion of an idea and that extra effort should go to shooting.
I don’t think you are overthinking it but only you can say for sure! The lamp you use is preferably one that has a even spread rather than a hot spot and an uneven surround . I would use a Fresnel when in close and required some control of the beam size and intensity but an open face light when I was after something more substantial from further away. Personally, I do not like using a par as a bounce light.
This particular scene was lit by the overhead florescent tubes as you suggest. The idea of this kind of lighting came from a location we scouted before we built the set. I did add an extra 2′ tube to soften the light from these fixtures depending on the camera angle but that was all. In fact, I did use some small squares of black cloth to reduce the natural bounce off the set walls.
The small conical shades, and the paper hanging off them, that are the main source of light when the projectors are in operation, were also a mirror of the way the lighting was rigged in another working location that we scouted.
I thin k you could simply shoot this with black velvet drape but I would be careful about what your character is wearing. If the black is not dense enough you should be able to crunch it with a window in timing. You could shoot this inside or at night outside. You only need black in the area directly interacting with the character.
I don’t understand the suggestion to look at the digital exposure and then add 1 or 2 stops to the film. That makes no sense. An exposure is an exposure. Of course, that will vary depending on the speed of the film verses that of the digital camera and you may prefer the look of a ‘thick negative’ but that you can only find out by personal experience.
We shot most of the film under cloud cover but you have it wrong regarding this sequence. This was shot at magic hour as I needed not only the feeling of first light but I was balancing to the firelight sources. To have tried that balance during the day would not have worked. The particular shot pictured was rehearsed extensively during the day and that is no doubt where the lower image comes from.
When Scofield is in the river we did shoot that during the day and I remember the day distinctly, constantly studying the Dark Skies App and our long wait for the cloud cover it promised to arrive.
I should add that this was a shot that required very little adjustment in the DI. In fact, there were very few shots in the film that needed much adjustment in the DI.
