Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Even the great James Wong Howe found himself guilty of creating images for their own sake, or simply to show off his technique, rather that follow what the story required.
There were windows on the location so I probably added some muslin on a wall and bounced a Joker off that. I would have also used a solid to control the daylight from outside the window, but all quite simple.
I agree. There is a balance between restoration and “invention”. I try to get as close to the original intent of a film as possible. That does not include manipulating the color or the grain, other than when a sub standard optical can be refined to be less of a distraction. I don’t see that removing scratches, hairs in the gate, etc. is altering the original look of a film although it actually is!
I visualize the lighting of a scene and am usually disappointed by the way I can transfer what is in my head to the screen. The composition of a shot and the movement of the camera within a scene comes less fully formed and is usually found in collaboration with the director and the actors. That is true even when you make storyboards with the director. The shot fully-forms only when the camera starts rolling. Even then, take two can be better!
Instinct! I think this topic has been discussed many times before. Usually, there is little time to consider the ‘mathematic’ proportions of a composition – even if you are that way inclined. I am not. I do not like rules.
We watched Hud again the other day. The film’s compositions are worth taking a look at – though its hard not to become immersed in the story. Asphalt Jungle is another film I might recommend for its compositions – amongst many other thangs. Ida is more adventurous without being distracting. In Cold Blood is perfection.
Yes, NCFOM was more restrained in its camera style. Almost always observing the action rather than enhancing or making a comment on it. 1917 was a very particular style of film. I’m not sure I would agree that the camera had a ‘consciousness of its own’, that might be said of Barton Fink but not of 1917. That said, I would say that the camera expresses more than what is on the page in all three films.
The 120D is a small lamp and, I’m sure, has its limitations when trying to create a beam of sunlight. So, I don’t think you need my advice! Looks pretty good. Personally, I am not a fan of using atmosphere unless it is for a very specific purpose. I used none at all on Skyfall.
Nightmare Alley is a good example. Whether you like it or not the peacock blue was consistent with the overall style of the film. In the very early days of color, especially those using the Technicolor process, night scenes were often a very saturated blue.
In the case of Skyfall I added a light Hampshire frost to the opening that I was using as the cut. I felt a very sharp shadow was unnatural so I softened it a little. I could have brought the lamp closer to the cut but then teh light beam would have been less parallel.
I would agree with David’s thoughts on exposure. For NCFOM in particular I exposed a front lit subject by more than a 1/2-stop, probably double that (although the posted frames don’t seem to reflect that). And I would allow a backlit subject to be some 2-stops under. But this can only be a generalization. Is a subject lit by an intense side light or are they far from a source? And how do you want the overall feeling of the imagery? For NCFOM we were trying to depict a harsh, almost bleached looking, landscape. On another film, The Assassination of Jesse James is one example, I might set exposures closer to the actual reading on my meter. Exposure, like any other part of the process, is a personal choice.
Yes, the convention is for moonlight to be blue in films and that seems natural to the way my eye reads moonlight. I, and many others, have been guilty of making the color too intense, but that is only my own judgement and I am only referencing naturalistic films. But on the right project? Maybe a peacock blue would be perfect.
