Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Well, I wish I could give you a number. It seems to me that you loose saturation immediately you overexpose a surface, whether it be skin or not. The effect of color loss might only become noticeable once you get above a certain level, perhaps a stop or two, but anything above key appears less saturated than at key. Just look at your hand being lit by the light from a window. Take your hand closer to the window and the highlights appear less and less saturated. I’m certain someone will have a more scientific answer. Maybe the magic number!
The original florescent fixtures in this location were very old and stained and I decided I liked the effect. The walls were a warm off white. We added a fixture in the interrogation room and found a stained diffuser to match the two existing ones. We also made sure that all the florescent fixtures in the hallway matched those that were slightly yellow and added a light gel to some that we couldn’t find the equivalent diffuser for. We changed the tubes so that they were all warm white and that was basically it. There was no correction made in the DI or an adjustment to the white balance on the camera. That would have been set at 3200.
The priest was the subject of the ‘doubt’ so there was some reason to compose more formal shots with the nuns but less so with him. I wouldn’t think about it too deeply though. Such visual distinctions between characters can become too self conscious and distracting if rigidly enforced.
No one has made a comment so I will say that it is the collaboration between people on a film set that I miss most of all. That is what I have learnt while not shooting.
I think you can only use your intuition. Do you feel the director is a collaborator? Have they the same view of the material as you? It is amazing how two people can have an entirely different take on a script. I have certain questions I ask as I always operate the camera myself and, as has been the case, the director operates the camera as well. So that won’t work. I don’t like using multiple cameras other than for specific circumstances, so that is always a topic for discussion. One director I worked with usually shoots with multiple cameras and I asked specifically about that way of working. The director had decided that on this one film he would shoot with a single camera and that is why I was being asked to work on the film.
Good comments. Yes, you pick your battles. Never, and I mean never, be critical of a director’s choice without offering an alternative you might prefer. If you don’t see eye to eye with a director then you make your decision to either be there for them regardless or find a tree to sit under instead.
Tri-X and Ilford FP4 were my go to. It was more a case of what was available in the local photo shop and I’ve never been too fussy about a particular stock. These days I shoot digital. Why not?
I don’t really interact with anyone that happens to be in a photo I take. Sometimes I stand for long enough that a person within my view can make a choice whether to be photographed or not but I only rarely specifically ask their permission. That being the case, most of my pictures these days have few people in them or just figures in the distance.
Come and See refers to actual events that happened in Belarus during the Second World War. That brutal history has a legacy its hard for us to understand but that makes the film all that more relevant.
I think that was the shot as it does seems the overheads are reflect on the characters heads. Denis and the editor were trying to construct the best version of the scene. The fact is that we shot the POV, if that really is the one that was moved, for later in the scene but they felt it would be stronger earlier makes total sense. I once shot a dance sequence with Sam Mendes that involved multiple color changes. In that case he used a red shot to match into part of the scene which we had shot under blue light. Luckily, we were finishing the film with a DI and I could adjust the shot so that no one has noticed the imbalance. Other than me! I hated having to do it but the scene was stronger for it being edited in that way.
Watch the driving sequences in Scorsese’s Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore. (His best film IMO) In one section the background to the boy is almost dusk while the reverse is in blinding sunlight. And its a long scene. No one, least of all Marty, would intend it that way but there are always compromises to be made.
I may sound like a broken record but regardless of that you should always trust your eye. That means you need to train your eye, whether it be for exposure or for contrast. Looking at a monitor also takes time and, judging by the films I have worked on, time is always in short supply.
I would be interesting in knowing the technique myself – not that I might ever use it as the expense alone would put me off.
The practical lamps are important as they set the tone of the lighting, but I would usually add a small bounce source to augment what comes naturally. The two images you post, for instance, were lit using a lamp rigged to the ceiling bounced off some muslin stretched against the wall on the side of the frame.
You ask if that lighting constrains the talent but we would have done a blocking rehearsal and the actors were comfortable with their positions. Of course, Prisoners was shot in a very deliberate way and that is not always the case. A Beautiful Mind was much more ‘free flowing’ and the lighting had to allow for that kind of flexibility, as did my operating.
