Please critique my cinemtography reel

I liked the shots.
Not detecting any film, you p[rolly otta call your videographer's reel.
You can lose a lot of credability even on a video shoot by calling yourself a cinematographer.
 
looks good, I would lose the shots of the kid playing baseball, you also got some shots that are really underexposed, good work overall
 
grinner said:
I liked the shots.
Not detecting any film, you p[rolly otta call your videographer's reel.
You can lose a lot of credability even on a video shoot by calling yourself a cinematographer.
Click to expand...


I'll be damned, never knew that. thanks!
 
Videographer, cinematographer, astronaut, whatever. Your stuff looks excellent. Adapters? Who needs adapters. The stock lens gives you an excellent look, better than the soft image of most adapters. If you frame and light the scene well, have a good story and good flow the dof becomes incosequential. In the last few months I've seen so much bad stuff shot with an adapter it is scary. On the other hand I've seen stuff shot with the stock lens that looked terrific. Even winning cinematography awards at many comptetions and festivals.
Good work. Keep it up.
 
Mickey Munday said:
most of the adapter shots looked underexposed and soft to me
Click to expand...

soft, eh... but dark I'll agree with because the short I used the Brevis on, is purposly dark, as you can see in the trailer on my vimeo page.

but thanks so far for the knowledge everyone!
 
grinner said:
I liked the shots.
Not detecting any film, you p[rolly otta call your videographer's reel.
You can lose a lot of credability even on a video shoot by calling yourself a cinematographer.
Click to expand...

Calling it a "demo reel" is probably the safest bet so that you don't offend pedantics who claim that being a cinematographer is limited to JUST film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top