Advice for making my wide shot more interesting?

D

dishan

Well-known member
The following video was recorded with two identical DSLRs.
The close up shots used a 50mm F/1.4 on a slider. These, IMO, look pretty good.
The wide angle, however, is mounted on a tripod with an 17-50mm F/2.8 zoom. While keeping the zoom on the lower side managed to establish a decent wide shot, these appear rather flat and boring in comparison.


The amount of space in this recording studio is tight, which means that I can't really move the subject far enough away from the background for much bokeh on wide shots. But I would still like him to stand out a bit more from the background.
Does anyone have any advice or tips to help the wide angle look better? Should I be adding more lights or something? Thanks!

By the way, Youtube totally messed with my saturation. The original video wasn't as crushed, and does not appear like that when uploaded to vimeo or other services. I'm already rendering flatter for the next one to compensate.

 
One thing I would do, would be to get different angles from the wide shot, so you don't get the repetitive shot of the guitarist from one direction...
Just my $0.02
 
you could definitely arrange the clutter to have something soft focus really close to the camera in the foreground. like maybe move that rack of guitars over so that they are in the foreground to the left of the screen.

or maybe move the wide camera over by the guitars so you really DO have two different angles...

maybe add a vignette in post?
 
I'd say: look for something more aggressive: put the camera on the floor, or much higher just on top of him, put stuff in the foreground (as wgzn said, guitars are an obvious option) and slide around it

what you want for the wide angle to shine is to give the location more depth (if it sounds impossible, you could look for another location)

edit: if you don't have a slider, you can use the fake-crane tripod trick, backwards/forward and also side to side (notice that in most examples ther's something in the foreground: it helps a lot):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqPX0gH2id0&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohpLsCq12Nw
 
Last edited:
Extreme angles as mentioned might work..depending on what the floor and ceiling look like. If you can't get away from the background, consider covering it with an interesting muslin or other material. If you can't do anything like that, clear away as much stuff as possible and try flagging light off the background as much as possible. You have a white wall catching too much light. Something like this could benefit from strategic pools of light for him to play in. Even with a couple crude lights, you could experiment with black wrap/foil on them and make various holes or slashes for light to pass through. I like the idea above about guitars in the foreground..even if just one on the edge of frame. That is if you can reduce some of the clutter already in the picture.
 
Some great advice in here, thanks folks!
I'm limited in my location because the guitarist wants the video to be an authentic recording of the track. So, it needs to be in the studio he's using, I don't get a say in that. I could try some more creative angles, but again, I'm kind of limited in space. Putting things in the foreground might be a great idea, though!
I'm also going to experiment with some lighting- I want him to stand out from the background more. At the very least, I don't think he should be wearing a black T shirt in this setting.

Fellipe said:
I'd say: Learn photography and basic composition
Click to expand...

Seriously? Real nice, dude. :P
 
if you can minimize or just kill the overheads, then put a couple of small (even consumer) spotlights on him. that would help tremendously
 
Along with having something in the foreground for depth, I'd say change your angle a bit so you're not shooting square on to the wall. If you move to the side a little, the squared-up wall/window in the background will start to get some convergence that will give a sense of depth to the room. It could also be fun to circle him as he plays. Clearly you don't have enough space to do a 360, but even a little camera motion would make things more dynamic. (The difference between motion pictures and still pictures is that motion pictures move -- right? You'll very rarely see a static camera position in professional video.)
 
wgzn said:
if you can minimize or just kill the overheads, then put a couple of small (even consumer) spotlights on him. that would help tremendously
Click to expand...

There aren't really overhead lights- the studio has these interesting little directional lights on the walls (you can see it at around 2:53, and I think they look kind of cool in the background like that). I brought along a spot light on a stand (which can be seen under the wall lights in that shot) to use as a backlight, and my key light is on a stand in between the two cameras, facing the guitarist directly.

I'm starting to wonder if having the light straight on like that is creating the flattened look on the wall that is bothering me. Maybe I need more light on the side/back and less in front.

ptaber said:
Along with having something in the foreground for depth, I'd say change your angle a bit so you're not shooting square on to the wall. If you move to the side a little, the squared-up wall/window in the background will start to get some convergence that will give a sense of depth to the room. It could also be fun to circle him as he plays. Clearly you don't have enough space to do a 360, but even a little camera motion would make things more dynamic. (The difference between motion pictures and still pictures is that motion pictures move -- right? You'll very rarely see a static camera position in professional video.)
Click to expand...

Its funny, the close up camera is actually on a slider for exactly that reason. I originally did a lot of sliding with that camera to try and emphasize dramatic parts of the song, but I was more focused on the movement than making sure the guitarist's fingers were in the shot.
Both the producer and guitarist wanted to make sure his fingers were visible during those exact spots, so they made me cut out most of the sliding footage in favor of the boring static wide. Its not as compelling, but its sort of the point of the video I guess. To be honest, the static wide wasn't supposed to be used as often as it did- I just wanted it as something I can cut to from time to time, knowing full well the tight shot will look far more interesting. You can sometimes see the beginning or end of a sliding motion on the close up, when I was able to still fit it in.


I'm supposed to do a few more of these with them. I'm going to try and be more careful about getting fingers in view while sliding on the next one, and I'll see about positioning the "boring" camera somewhere less, um, boring. ;)

Thanks for your help, guys!
 
1. Put more light on your subject relative to the background (and lower exposure to compensate).
2. Follow the rule of thirds (give him some 'looking space' and head room)
3. Shoot diagonally to the wall to create depth
4. Place objects in foreground and background to re-iterate depth
5. Shoot at the subjects eye level, unless you want a specific look (eg low angle/high angle)
6. Dress the talent in a colour that will seperate him from the background.
7. Introduce movement to your shot using sliders, monopods, handheld, stabilisers - whatever you have available. The more foreground/background objects and diagonals there are, the more apparent movement will be.
 
Nice concise list deltoidjohn! I would agree that getting at least one cam in motion is key to creating that 3D look to the scene.

I'd also look into switching lenses. Use the wide angle on a slide or a stabilizer for the full body shots and the 50mm locked in at an angle down the neck close in on the picking with a fast aperture.

Switch positions twice with each during the song. While one is capturing it's main part move the other to another position and simply rack focus. Then move the other. You could easily end up with 6 differnt views during the song with just a little preplanning and one guy on the cams.

Just my $0.02 :)

Cheers,
Pete
 
Fellipe said:
My advice about photography was serious. Actually this is what others are trying to say.
Click to expand...
Right, except that you're the only one who was being condescending about it.

I asked what I could do to dress up the wide shot, not "what skills does the cameraman appear to lack".

For the record, I didn't operate this camera. I'd like to think my shots looked a bit better- I was operating the close up, which is on a slider, but the slides didn't make it into this video as much. In some of the later videos (which haven't been posted yet), the motion came out pretty nice IMO.

Meanwhile, the person operating the wide camera is not a pro (as was pointed out by Fellipe's perceptive remark), but rather just someone in the studio who offered to help. I've already had a talk with him about the framing (specifically, the person's head being out of the frame), and the rest of the videos shot after this look better (aside from one in which he neglected to fix the focus- oh well, the budget didn't pay for a second operator so this is what they get I suppose).
What I WAS asking for, however, was pointers to set up this shot so that it is more interesting. Lighting, angle, that sort of thing. Placing objects in the frame and shooting diagonal, as well as making the background darker compared to the subject, are all excellent pieces of advice that I'm going to use next time.

But telling me that I need to learn basic photography not only fails to answer my question, but it makes inaccurate assumptions about me, as well as being an example of a condescending remark that really helps no one in the end. Aside from, perhaps, your own ego?

Meanwhile, thanks to everyone else for the tips! You have been most helpful.
 
Last edited:
c3hammer said:
Nice concise list deltoidjohn! I would agree that getting at least one cam in motion is key to creating that 3D look to the scene.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The close up did a lot of slides at certain points in the song initially, but as I said, they got edited out because I wasn't "focusing on his fingers". In later sessions since this one, I made sure to aim the camera at his fingers during any kind of movement so that my motions don't get vetoed out. They stayed in and got some nice depth to the scene.

I'd also look into switching lenses. Use the wide angle on a slide or a stabilizer for the full body shots and the 50mm locked in at an angle down the neck close in on the picking with a fast aperture.

Switch positions twice with each during the song. While one is capturing it's main part move the other to another position and simply rack focus. Then move the other. You could easily end up with 6 differnt views during the song with just a little preplanning and one guy on the cams.

Just my $0.02 :)

Cheers,
Pete
Click to expand...

That's a cool idea. But wouldn't that go back to the "lack of movement" problem if I keep switching back and forth between moving cameras into new positions?
 
dishan said:
But telling me that I need to learn basic photography not only fails to answer my question, but it makes inaccurate assumptions about me, as well as being an example of a condescending remark that really helps no one in the end. Aside from, perhaps, your own ego?
Click to expand...

Sorry if I sounded harsh. But actually if you knew basic photo composition you would solve your problem by yourself. You need to understand what makes a good photograph. Depth, light, and so on. Once you understand that you'll be able not only to improve your framing in this particular situation but in any.

Of course it's much easier to just ask for advice then pick up a book and learn the right way.

If you're still interested in my advice here two books that it's really straight foward:
http://www.amazon.com/Photographers...9343/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1316712188&sr=8-6
http://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Mind-Creative-Thinking-Digital/dp/0240815173/ref=pd_sim_b1

Also I like this website. David Duchemin is one of my favorite photographers. He sells great ebooks with practical advice:
http://craftandvision.com/

Good luck.
 
Where is lighting, nonexistant, it looks just like i dont know, random shot in random light, absolutely no mood, very flat.
You need keylight and rim light.Wide shot ? I didnt saw any in there.
Maybe watch some music video and exactly clone your favourite shots, lighting and framing.EXACTLY, everything.Good way to learn is to imitate what you like.
What look youre aiming for ? I think you dont have really any clue about final look of it, thats the problem.
 
bwwd said:
Where is lighting, nonexistant, it looks just like i dont know, random shot in random light, absolutely no mood, very flat.
You need keylight and rim light.Wide shot ? I didnt saw any in there.
Maybe watch some music video and exactly clone your favourite shots, lighting and framing.EXACTLY, everything.Good way to learn is to imitate what you like.
What look youre aiming for ? I think you dont have really any clue about final look of it, thats the problem.
Click to expand...

Whoa, hold on a minute. Aside from your butchering of the English language (I had to read your post a couple of times to understand it), you appear to be assuming that this is supposed to be some kind of stylized music video. I apologize if I gave that impression- note that I never even refer to it as a music video.
If it were, I would be shooting it somewhere other than a dark recording studio- I prefer music videos that tell a story, personally.

No, this looks like a random guy in a random studio playing guitar because it is exactly that.
I'll give you a quick background behind this video; this guy created a fan following by recording songs in his bedroom with a webcam. He recently decided to try and get his renditions professionally recorded at a music studio, and wanted his sessions recorded on camera for his fans to see. That's all this is- I'm not going for any particular look, there isn't a lot of room for creativity on this gig.

To be honest, he was expecting me to show up with just one camera. But I told him that was too boring, and brought along two cameras and a couple of lights. But, I'm not happy with how it looks so I've been trying to change it around and started this thread to see if anyone had any advice that hadn't occurred to me in order to make it look more interesting.
 
I, of course, haven't seen the close-up slider shots that got nixed, but in the situation you were shooting it, I'd say make the slide very subtle. You don't need a lot of motion, go very slowly - maybe six inches over 10 or 12 seconds. Pan the head as you slide so his fingers are always in the center of the shot, but the background changes perspective almost imperceptibly. It's fair to ask him to work with you so you both look good and have him swivel his body to keep a constant angle to the lens. That may be what you did, I dunno.

Also someone mentioned shooting at eye-level, which is good if the film is about the guitarist, but it seems to be more about the performance. Lining the lens axis up around his solar plexus will give more focus to the performance and less to the performer which seems to be what you're going for.

But overall, you have a nice film there. I come away from it feeling like I know something about the guitarist and the style allows the music, not the camera work, to be the center of attention.
 
ptaber said:
I, of course, haven't seen the close-up slider shots that got nixed, but in the situation you were shooting it, I'd say make the slide very subtle. You don't need a lot of motion, go very slowly - maybe six inches over 10 or 12 seconds. Pan the head as you slide so his fingers are always in the center of the shot, but the background changes perspective almost imperceptibly. It's fair to ask him to work with you so you both look good and have him swivel his body to keep a constant angle to the lens. That may be what you did, I dunno.

Also someone mentioned shooting at eye-level, which is good if the film is about the guitarist, but it seems to be more about the performance. Lining the lens axis up around his solar plexus will give more focus to the performance and less to the performer which seems to be what you're going for.

But overall, you have a nice film there. I come away from it feeling like I know something about the guitarist and the style allows the music, not the camera work, to be the center of attention.
Click to expand...

Thank you, someone who gets it! :cheesy:

The idea was to focus on the performance, but yes, there's no reason I can't continue to do that while at the same time making the shot more pleasing to look at.

For the sessions that followed the first one, I made him stand in a different position (or at least, one without a white wall right behind him) and adjusted the lights to outline him from the background. Making the background darker was a challenge- I set up some stands with reflectors to cast giant shadows behind him, and aimed the lights on the wall to be aimed at the camera instead of the reflecting off the drum kit. Keeps the background dark and made some nice lens flares.

Thanks for all your help, tips, and suggestions, guys. Especially those with a positive attitude.
And Fellipe, thanks for the links and suggestions for photography books. Not really the answer I was seeking, but I'll never turn down suggested reading to improve a craft. There's always more to learn!
For the record, I understand that you might not have meant it to sound condescending and dismissive, but you really did come across that way.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0004.jpg
    IMG_0004.jpg
    56.2 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top