Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
These two cinematographers did projects on which they used quite extreme backlight. It was a style to some extent but also their interpretation of the story.
I don’t remember using backlight on Revolutionary Road in other than a naturalistic way. Sometimes I might enhance an effect if it suits a particular scene but it was not the aesthetic of an overall approach. It was hardly Out of the Past (1947) or The Spiral Staircase (1946), both of which Musuraca photographed. Neither did those films look anything like The Jack Benny Program, which Musuraca shot in the 1960s.
I once projected a Wendy light through a dense, leaded window. It worked well but we were lucky the lead didn’t melt! But you shouldn’t have a similar problem with HMIs.
The rig of lights you propose would seem to have to occupy a large space, rather than form a point source like the sun. A single ArriMax 18K would give a more defined beam and the lamp could be rigged further from the window. If you wanted even more light, given an LF can be rated at 1600 without noticeable loss, you could overlap two of these lamps and still have a sharp beam. I would have one above the other so the beam is sharpest in the horizontal axis where it would be more apparent.
There are so many versions of a film out there today I could no longer say which is ‘correct’. I know what I prefer but, even when we have made a new ‘master’, as we did recently with Fargo, it can still skew in many different directions by the time it gets to your eye.
Very much depends on context. All kinds of lighting were in use by the time the German expressionists were at work and their influence led to the look of American film noir. Cinematographers like Nicholas Musuraca and Gabriel Figueroa were masters of backlighting.
We watched Solaris again the other night. The film just gets better and better. Contemporary films seem to get worse and worse but, even with that in mind, Solaris is a masterpiece. But you could say that for almost all of Tarkovsky’s films.
That is a very good question! Why do it? I love images. It’s as simple as that. Movies have been my life and my career path but taking a still photograph gives me great pleasure. Perhaps more so. Why? I’ve no idea. Life is a mystery.
An AI expert suggested creating an algorithm that would light and shoot as I do. It would save me the stress of being on set. Perhaps that might be so, in a world of virtual sets and computer generated characters, but my still photos will always be me.
I’m unsure what you are asking in regard to the use of wide lenses. Lighting for a wide shot with a soft bounce source can be more problematic than a close shot but that has little to do with the lens choice. Sure, you might need to control the bounce source if it is further from your subject but that kind of challenge happens regardless of the width of a shot.
It is true that a director, when watching my monitor, will not like to see anything outside the frame but, yes, I always like to see what is surrounding the frame. I usually have the area ND’d but never blacked out. It’s like keeping your other eye open when shooting a documentary. You need to know what is coming.
There is a difference between projecting light through diffusion and bouncing. However dense your diffusion the light will never be emitted in as wide an angle as a bounce. Also, multiple layers of diffusion will add a little warmth to the light, which might be a problem. A bounce source can easily be controlled by the material used. I might use a bleached cloth or a silver stipple, a cloth painted blue or one painted orange.
Perhaps the most significant factor in the choice between a bounce and a diffused source is space. If you are on location and want a soft light coming from a corner of a room or from beside a table lamp there is a distinct practical reason for choosing a bounce over a diffused light.
Yes, I have usually found the 800 ASA an advantage. But, regardless, I have always preferred to shoot with the full range of information and control my contrast with lighting. If you want to create an extreme image of the kind you suggest, and have no way to do that on set, I see no reason it can’t be done in the DI.
I did use bleach bypass when shooting film even with a digital finish. Perhaps adjusting the camera’s rating is similar to a bleach bypass, but I don’t see it making sense when you can so easily create the effect in post these days. Am I missing something?
Yes, I have usually found the 800 ASA an advantage. But, regardless, I have always preferred to shoot with the full range of information and control my contrast with lighting. If you want to create an extreme image of the kind you suggest, and have no way to do that on set, I see no reason it can’t be done in the DI.
I did use bleach bypass when shooting film even with a digital finish. Perhaps adjusting the camera’s rating is similar to a bleach bypass, but I don’t see it making sense when you can so easily create the effect in post these days. Am I missing something?
I know that underexposing is generally suggested but I have not ever followed that rule. I suspect that is because, when I use bleach bypass, I usually want that stretched highlight and/or deeper shadow. Otherwise, why use it?
Are you overthinking this. Plenty of times I have shot on location and made a scene out of two different locations. There is one in Hail Caesar! And I’m not telling you which one. An interior, with no problem with sunlight, should be quite straightforward. Same lens, same camera height, same soft side light and you are set.
