Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I would not say exposure plays so much of a role as you think.
Welp, shows how much I know! I didn’t consider you weren’t clipping the windows.
Thats an interesting question. You could get very scientific but I don’t think it will effect your work. I don’t know enough about film chemistry to know which wave lengths of light are reactive to film, but modern LEDs have pretty decent photometrics so I doubt there would be any meaningful difference when comparing to older technologies.
In terms of brightness, some manufacture’s comparisons between their LEDs and traditional HMI’s can be a little misleading. Beam angle and fall off are usually very different. But again, probably not enough of a difference for it to effect your work.
Also interested to read a response. If I was to guess, I’d image shooting the silhouettes in front of the small windows meant they struggled to keep the interior visible without it looking like there are light sources inside the room since there were supposed to be no interior practical sources.
There are a lot of factors that contribute to it,
As you suspected, exposure plays a huge role. Also light quality, shape, intensity and many more. There are often lights or modifiers in the room accentuating the light. You’re also correct that set design plays a certain role in it (Light bouncing off of white walls vs black walls, size of the space)
So far I like the look of the Alexa 35. I’m very sensitive to noise and it seems to be far cleaner than the ALEV3 sensors in the older Super35 Alexa cameras. You can reintroduce some of that grain with the texture library to return some life to the image, but I’m unsure how often that function will get used vs applying a film scan in post.
That said, it’s increasingly apparent that many manufacturers are following a similar path, resulting in a rather homogenous landscape. If you told me Equalizer 3 was shot on the Sony Venice or Panavision DXL, I’d have no problem believing you.
“So to me the hard edges of the shadow means that the characters have just one path available: either in the light or in the shadow, but a defined choice must be made.”
Well depending on how you look at it, you may have just answered you own question. Reception theory dictates that regardless of what the filmmakers intentions were, the effect those choices have on you and how you enjoy the art is arguable more important than the filmmakers intentions.
It’s very possible that Tom Stern and Clint Eastwood just “felt” that high contrast, hard lighting was just “right” for the film. Relying entirely on their artistic intuition without really deconstructing why they felt that way.
In my opinion, I find lighting is usually more about the feeling than the logic. It’s less of a clearly defined microcosm of the films complete themes and typically more of an individual component that works in harmony with the rest of the film.
But I like your theory a lot. Very clever.
The ASC Mentorship Program requires a sizzle reel and a narrated breakdown of your past work. Your acceptance into the program relies almost entirely on this material. Maybe if you share a link to the material you submitted we would be able to give you some constructive feedback. You can also search “ASC Mentorship Program” on Vimeo or YouTube to get a sense of what other people have submitted.
Also, remember that your rejection from the program isn’t a reflection on you or your work. Everyone I know or admire has experienced rejection at some point or another.
Truthfully, your journey to improve your craft for next year’s application will likely yield more learning than the Mentorship program itself.If it’s something you really want to do, be proactive in learning and getting better and you’ll make the cut on another round.
Since you’re asking here, you’re probably aware that Roger Deakins himself initially went the route of documentary filmmaking. I believe he speaks about some of his documentary experiences in the first few episodes of the Team Deakin’s Podcast but I do not recall which particular episodes.
My two cents: I’d recommend trying both if there is no barrier preventing it. School is a place for discovery after all. If for some reason you’re forced to make a decision between the two, focus on whichever one interests you more. Whichever makes you more excited. The sense of composition and lighting will come naturally with experience doing either, just as long as you don’t fall out of love with what you’re doing.
Obviously there is a difference between finding a frame with available light in documentary vs crafting a frame and shaping light in narrative. However, in my opinion, once you understand one, the knowledge transfers easily to the other.
There are other things that in my opinion will make a much bigger impact on which you prefer. Maybe you’ll prefer the pace and team work of narrative or maybe you’ll prefer the workflow and independence of documentary. Either way, you’ll learn the craft as long as you enjoy what you’re doing.
Hope this helps!
