Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
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.
That’s right. Muslin is slightly more textured than Ultrabounce so the light bouncing off it is more even, as well as being warmer. The real softness of a bounce source depends on its size, and its size relative to the subject.
Dynalens. The system used lens elements suspended in a fluid. I think with the right spelling you can find a lot online.
I am sure you are aware how light behaves differently in the rain. You might find that your street lights, when used as a backlight, may be enough and you might find yourself turning off lights that are behind camera. Take a look at Road to Perdition. I know the film had very strong stylized backlighting for the rain sequences but the concept is the same. Wide shots in silhouette against the light and that same light acting as a side light for closer coverage of the characters.
