Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Yes, that would be tricky. Roger, in those cases of changing light, did you make an aperture pull, or just take what you got?
Thanks so much Roger! Very helpful.
Yes, this make sense, as the cone would be receiving light from the overcast sky(highlight side) and the illumination from the ground(shadow side) in the same proportion as the actor’s faces. cheers.I was actually more interested in how Roger would take meter readings for this scene. He’s mentioned how he takes a reading from both the highlight side and the shadow side of a scene, and then decides his T-stop from there. I’m just a little confused as the overcast sky acts as a huge bounce, and there really isn’t a shadow side – unless perhaps he takes a shadow side reading pointing the meter at the ground?
LucasM: Excellent point. Yes, having a clear intention, using minimalist or intricate set design serves the scene the best.
Just a tangent to the OP’s question – I find what separates amateurish looking scenes from professional ones is the set dressing.
Stip – the examples you included are a perfect example. So much texture and personal items fill up the intimate space in frame. It seems many lower budget films skip this and the intimate scenes have bare walls in the background. The set dressing really sells it I feel. I realize this is not the DP’s job, but certainly there’s a discussion to be had there.Bardan, I thought it was a lovely little film. You mention composition and lighting – I thought the compositions worked well. I think composition is another tool to tell the story you want to tell, so did those compositions tell the story how you wanted it to be felt by the audience? Only you would know that I think.
I thought the lighting did look natural. I’m wondering what you thought needed improvement? I also liked your sound design – waves, footfalls on the rocks etc. Very good in my opinion. Well done. I look forward to your next one.Yes, thank you James and Roger! This site and podcasts have been an absolute wealth of information and insight for so, so many of us since the first forum until this one. All thanks to your generosity and efforts. Personally, anything of value that I know about cinematography, I can trace back to you both and this site, so thank you, thank you, thank you.
James, I understand rebuilding this forum and retrieving the old postings is a daunting task, and not your chosen profession. The OP of this thread ‘Magneticat’ is offering their expertise and time to assist you. Is that a possibility? Like everyone, I just hope all those wonderful conversations aren’t lost.
Thanks again, and all the best to you both.
I’ve been thinking and feeling the same thing, and am so glad someone with the skillset has offered help. Thanks for stepping forward. The loss of the last ten years of discussions with Roger and others would be tragic. cheers.
How about using a small practical lamp on the tables for your main light source? Maybe augmented by a draped china ball. Also, you could rig up some black curtains/fabric opposite the windows and poke your camera through the gap.
Thanks for posting your set up. Clever use of the nearby building and black curtain for the rear shot. Would be interested to see more as you continue the film.
Very nice images Stu. Simple and effective. Did you use and bounce or solids to shape the light? Do tell!
Not Roger, and I have no experience with this kind of scene myself, but on the old forum Roger explained a fairly simple lighting setup for this scene in ‘True Grit’. I believe he used a couple of small lights to augment the fire, which were dimmed down, plus a flicker machine. Don’t know how wide you’re planning on shooting but here are a couple of stills from that scene.
