That Photography Look...

Brian Parker

Brian Parker

Well-known member
*sigh* I hate to sound like a complete newbie but here goes...

I wasn't sure whether this should go in this section or the Lighting section but I was browsing some of the photography work on deviantart.com and found myself consistently blown away by the sheer beauty and artistry of some of those pictures. Looking at them makes me want to study photography as a way to try and enhance my cinematography.

Now of course, being able to capture those images take an artistic talent and an eye for it but my question is can we, as filmmakers capture that same level of image artistry on a technical level? (colors, lighting, depth of field, exposure, etc.) I guess what I'm asking is, do our DV cams have the potential to capture those nuances such as beams and flecks of light, the richness of a shadow, the texture of skin or are we limited by the motion-based nature of our medium? Is it some aspect of still cameras or is it just a matter of good lighting and camera settings? Of course I have seen some breathtaking cinematography in my life and I feel personally that we, as filmmakers can reach those nuances of beautiful photography and surpass them in some ways. I just want to know what you guys think and maybe bask in feedback and knowledge of how I can grow and obatain that kind of quality, if that makes any sense.

Thanks for all opinions, feeback, and suggestions.
 
Hiya:

I would say that true HD camcorders (not so much HDV) have more of this capability than DV based camcorders, simply because of the codec differences. But keep in mind a lot of what you are seeing, besides the photographer's obvious skill, is the difference in resolution and dynamic range. Still cameras shoot at MUCH higher resolution than DV camcorders so that is part of the difference. And the processing engines in still cameras can perform processing not possible on most camcorders.

Basically, if you move to a higher resolution motion camera like an HPX3700 or a RED One or of course, a film motion picture camera, you can emulate the looks you are seeking in motion, with of course, a lot of talent, lighting, crew, resources, etc.

As a still photographer as well as a lighting cameraman, I will say that it is logistically much easier to create more subtle imagery with still equipment than with a video camera. A $500.00 DSLR with a $300.00 flash can create much more intricate and detailed images than an $800.00 DV camcorder.

But I create really beautiful images all of the time with my old, outdated, antique DVX100. But the lighting, rigging and effort that goes into creating the images that really pop on video take way more effort than with a still camera. And that DV image, overall, will never show the nuances that the still image can.

Make sense?

Dan
 
do you think a photograph taken with a d90 would be less artistic than the same image taken with a more expensive dslr?, do you think more resolution would produce a better picture, would make something better?, do you think an idot with the best dslr ever made can produce something better than an artist with a much less expensive camera?, do you think the technical differences between a dslr and a pro consumer camera will limit talented artist from producing whatever he wants?
 
do you think a photograph taken with a d90 would be less artistic than the same image taken with a more expensive dslr?
-Absolutely Not. It all comes down to the photographer.

Do you think more resolution would produce a better picture, would make something better?
-Not necesarily, again, it's all situation based.

Do you think an idot with the best dslr ever made can produce something better than an artist with a much less expensive camera?
-Hell no

Do you think the technical differences between a dslr and a pro consumer camera will limit talented artist from producing whatever he wants?
-Once again, it's about the person behind the camera and the situation. If the photographer is good, they will find a way to get around the limitations to produce great work.
 
Yeah puredrifting...I figured that the resolution limitations of even-high end camcorders would be the limiting factor and everything you said does make sense, thanks. So of course there are obvious elements that make great cinematography (cinematographer, lighting, etc.) but what are the settings on an HD camera that best enhance the image>

Of course I don't feel like it all comes down to equipment and settings. I think the major factor in getting beautfiul shots is indeed the person shooting them I'm thinking more in terms of how said person can use specs and technical aspects to enhance their already good composition.

Thanks for the info and insight guys.
 
Last edited:
amrrahmy said:
do you think a photograph taken with a d90 would be less artistic than the same image taken with a more expensive dslr?, do you think more resolution would produce a better picture, would make something better?, do you think an idot with the best dslr ever made can produce something better than an artist with a much less expensive camera?, do you think the technical differences between a dslr and a pro consumer camera will limit talented artist from producing whatever he wants?
Click to expand...

Amrrahmy, read his questions carefully...

"can we, as filmmakers capture that same level of image artistry on a technical level?"

The OP wasn't asking about the artistery needed to create beautiful images, he was talking about the "technical level" needed to create imagery in motion that has all of the characteristics of still photographs. Of course any artist can create art with any camera, but no matter how great of an artist you are, you cannot add texture, resolution and dynamic range to an imaging device that is not capable of registering it.

OP also asked about, "capturing nuances such as beams and flecks of light, the richness of a shadow, the texture of skin or are we limited by the motion-based nature of our medium?"

1. "capturing nuances such as beams and flecks of light" sounds like you need an imaging system capable of great dynamic range and high resolution to do that. Can DV capture "beams and flecks of light"? Of course, but not as easily or effectively as a still camera of the same level.

2. "the richness of a shadow" this is the exact definition of latitude and dynamic range. DV has very limited dynamic range and latitude in comparison to a still camera of commensurate value.

3. "the texture of skin" In my experience, DV camcorders cannot capture the texture of skin as clearly as any still camera, whether film or digital, other than perhaps a cell phone camera.

What is needed (skill, background, vision, intelligence, soul and inspiration) to create great images as an artist is a different question and discussion than what the OP asked about.

And yes, I agree, too many people in our business confuse technology with artistry. It is a one way street, technology without artistry (in our business) is pointless, but artistry without (the newest, latest and greatest) technology can be amazing if the artist can exploit his/her medium to fulfill their vision, whether it is using a Panavision motion picture camcorder or a piece of paper and a crayon.

Best,

Dan
 
technically a pro consumer camcorder pushed to it's limits can do anything a dslr can, reduced quality will be offset by motion, nothing is off limits, there is nothing that can be done with a dslr that can't be done with motion.
 
amrrahmy said:
technically a pro consumer camcorder pushed to it's limits can do anything a dslr can, reduced quality will be offset by motion, nothing is off limits, there is nothing that can be done with a dslr that can't be done with motion.
Click to expand...



Technically correct. I think shooting VDO is much harder than still pic. equipment wise, image quality may look nearly the same but that is the end of similarity. with still you will just capture the moment in a single frame while you gave to compose and predict your shot carefully.
 
amrrahmy said:
technically a pro consumer camcorder pushed to it's limits can do anything a dslr can, reduced quality will be offset by motion, nothing is off limits, there is nothing that can be done with a dslr that can't be done with motion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I take motion shots with my still camera all the time. People think it's ****, but I think of it as avaaant gaaard... that and After Effects is pretty much the bee's knees of artistic expression...
 
The biggest difference I notice from different kinds of video cameras (up to the HPX500) and my Eos 40d still camera is that with the still camera and Adobe Lightroom I can get a perfectly white white balance. It's so perfect in comparison with everything video I've ever done, I don't know where the technical difference is, but it's just "whiter" without any color casts at all, and therefore the colors pop just perfectly.

This is especially true when you're using a good external flash. The day-white light of the flash seems to perfectly match the dslr-chip. The color reproduction is just awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top